Former FBI agent Ali Soufan speaks with the Toronto Star’s National Security Reporter Michelle Shephard about terrorism, waterboarding and why the CIA censored his newly-released book, The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al Qaeda. Below is an edited transcript of their discussion.MS: Let’s start with the most recent news. Wednesday night, Wired Magazine published FBI training documents that stated that “main stream” (sic) Muslims are likely “terrorist sympathizers” and the Prophet Mohammed is akin to a “cult leaders.” Did you experience such perceptions at the bureau?
AS: First of all, I would like to know if these documents are genuine or not. My experience with the training of the FBI, when I was there at least and what I saw until I left, is this kind of behaviour wasn’t part of the institutional culture at all so that for me was surprising . . . I’m not shocked (however that) in the government that we might find some people who equate Islam with terrorism. It’s leaking into the government from a popular culture where Islamophobia is unfortunately being marketed by some.
MS: One of criticisms you did have of the FBI was that there were few Arabic speakers. You said on 9/11 you were only one of eight. Has the situation improved today?
AS: I don’t believe so. I think we have more people who speak Arabic but I don’t think we have more people who are aware of the culture, who speak native Arabic. . . I don’t know the numbers now but I don’t think we are where we have to be.
MS: The issue of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is often discussed . . . Last November I interviewed former CIA directors General (Michael) Hayden and Porter Goss. Hayden said that you may find the practice of waterboarding morally reprehensible but you cannot say it didn’t work. Goss called it “effective.”
AS: This is a political answer. It’s not reality . . . The CIA’s own inspector general could not determine the effectiveness of the techniques nor confirm that (the techniques) disrupted a single “imminent threat.” Everything we’ve been told since about successes from enhanced interrogation techniques – plots that were disrupted because of waterboarding – we actually knew about (the intelligence) way before waterboarding even existed.
MS: After Osama bin Laden was killed in May, some former Bush administration officials said a vital nugget of intelligence from
KSM about a trusted Kuwaiti courier was what ultimately led to bin Laden?
AS: They are absolutely wrong about this . . . After 183 sessions of waterboarding, KSM minimized the significance of the Kuwaiti, claiming he’s not important, a low-level player.
MS: So rather than simply not being effective, you’re saying that the waterboarding actually damaged the case and put you off bin Laden’s trail.
AS: We lost the track after we caught KSM because he says he is insignificant. If you lie after 183 sessions of waterboarding, that does not mean the technique is working.
MS: You interviewed (accused high-profile terrorism suspect) Abu Zubaydah as well. You were conducting what you have called “traditional” interrogations with him and playing “mental poker games” that you say was working, when the case was taken over and waterboarding employed.. He is one of the high-value Guantanamo detainees, transferred from a CIA black site and now awaiting trial. Do you think his treatment will impact his prosecution?
AS: I think there is a possibility but there is a prosecution team working on this and I don’t want to answer for them. Also, Abu Zubaydah has defence lawyers and it will be good to watch and see how it plays out.
MS: You write extensively of Abu Jandal, bin Laden’s former Yemeni bodyguard .. and as you have testified before the Senate, you believe his case is a textbook interrogation.
AS: We got information we didn’t know. It was extremely helpful for us, to guide us. It identified seven or eight of the hijackers after 9/11. We did not know who they were. He gave us their aliases, their nationalities, what training camps they went to and so forth . . . This is textbook because we even read him his Miranda Rights every time we spoke to him. Everything was done by the book to the point that he used to laugh every day when I read him the Miranda Rights.
MS: In terms of the CIA’s redactions, your Senate testimony, which you can find if you Google your name, was part of what was censored?
AS: The redactions are unfortunate. We are still working with the government to resolve this. After three months of a very detailed process the FBI approved the book without one single redaction.
MS: Why is there no index in your book of 600 pages?
AS: We have an index and we have pictures. At the 11th hour, the CIA informed the FBI that if you want to publish an index or photos they need to approve it in advance and they gave themselves a deadline of 30 days. We felt that was just another ploy to delay the publication of the book so we published without it . . . It’s so silly. And even the pictures. A picture of me and the director of the FBI? Why the heck does it need approval from the CIA?
MS: Your publisher has printed a huge run of this book, more than 150,000 copies in the hopes that people don’t have 9/11 fatigue. Do you think the public is interested in reading this now 10 years later?
AS: I hope so. I wanted the book to come out the day I knew what happened on 9/11. On September 12th of 2001, when I was handed that file. I wanted the public 10 years later to have the same feeling.
MS: Because you have said it should have been prevented? I read you were physically sick to your stomach when 9/11 happened because you knew the information had been there to stop it. That’s a lot to live with. How do you deal with that 10 years later?
AS: One day at a time I guess.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment