The Interrogator

Soufan thought that he and his partner were making progress, but he says everything abruptly changed after 10 days when he was told to stop talking to Abu Zubaydah.

Soufan told Logan that the CTC, the CIA's Counterterrorism Center team, had arrived. Soufan told them that Zubaydah had been cooperating and that they had learned that KSM had masterminded 9/11.

"They said, 'Well, yeah, but there's a belief that there's a lot more information and he's not giving it up yet.'" Soufan said.

He then learned about a plan that was approved in Washington that would use harsh new techniques to "strategically diminish [Zubaydah's] ability to resist," Soufan said.

"We knew that we're going down a path that's a dangerous path," Soufan said. "We had to pull out from the interrogation, and we had to start witnessing something that was really surprising --some technique we never thought that we will see us doing."

The use of waterboarding and other tough new methods known as "enhanced interrogation techniques" - including nudity, sleep deprivation and loud music - led to a very public debate about whether the U.S. was torturing terrorism suspects.

The videotapes of those interrogations have reportedly been destroyed, and hardly anyone who participated in them has spoken publicly. Nor has enough information been made public to determine if the techniques were successful. But in April of 2002, FBI agent Ali Soufan witnessed the beginning of the use of these techniques on the U.S.'s first high-value terrorist detainee, Abu Zubaydah.

Soufan says he was making good progress with Zubaydah through traditional methods of questioning, but he was told that a CIA contractor, hired for his interrogation expertise, would be taking control. Soufan then watched on a closed circuit monitor as a very different approach was used.

"The plan at the time was to go in and tell Abu Zubaydah one question. Tell him, 'Tell me what I want to know.' And if Abu Zubaydah said, 'What do you want to know?' or ask any questions about that, the person is to walk out. And say, 'You know,' and walk out," Soufan said.

After the person who asked the question walked out, one of the harsh new techniques would be used, Soufan said.

Soufan said that it started with nudity and then escalated, "Then you have noise and you have sleep deprivation. And it goes from one stage to another, until he decided to cooperate," he said.

Logan asked Soufan why the individual who was now directing the interrogation was put in charge.

"I don't know," Soufan replied. "Supposedly, he's an expert in the field. So I ask him, 'Do you know anything about Islamic fundamentalism?' He said, 'No.' 'Have you ever interrogated anybody?' 'No.' He basically said, 'No, he knows human nature.'"

When asked how Zubaydah's reacted to the new approach, Soufan said that he stopped cooperating and the information dried up.

According to Soufan, after several days with nothing from Abu Zubaydah, he and his partner and a CIA interrogator were allowed to start talking to him once again, and they obtained information that led the CIA and the FBI to capture Jose Padilla, the American citizen accused of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

• « Previous Page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next Page »

[DaveBlat]

Here is my response to 60 Minutes trotting out Mr. Soufan and his story on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11:
On the evening of September 10th, 2001, the CIA interrogator, desperate to get the critical and perhaps life saving information out of his prisoner, sat with him drinking wine and telling stories in an attempt to develop a relationship and get him to divulge the information he was seeking. The following morning.......................

[DaveBlat]

test

[ArmyVet75]

Discussions about interrogation techniques; what worked and what did not to sell books is improper and aids our enemies. The fact that CBS would air this reinforces the cast that CBS has been placed in which identifies the network as a liberal organization. For all of you that believe that all is required to get Al Queda folks to talk is to call them by the name their Mother called them, smile and give them a book about George Washington, I would say you must be a kindergarten teacher.

[chatmandu7451]

It all came down to the CIA withheld information, which they were statutorily not allowed to share with the FBI, about some meetings in Southeast Asia of Al-Qaeda operatives and the decision to do some enhanced interrogations. Oh and sell a book and bash Bush.

[bg1936]

Let's face it - there wre mistakes and we need to face up to them. We did not "Get it right." In this case we tossed aside an interroration method that was working for one that did not get us credable information - and wrecked our national image. Our "cowboys" cost us men and materiale - and refused to pay for it in taxes. Perhaps we could even learn something from this mess.

[paul_234]

It's a well known fact that much can be learned from observing body language. Here is what I personally saw when I watched your program piece "The Interrogator".

The interviewer (Ms. Logan) and Mr. Soufan seemed to have a chemistry together, that surpassed a helpful rapport, that a viewer might expect. If you think that I might be a prude or a religious zealot, I assure you I am not.

If you think my viewpoints are ridiculous, please re-play the clip, without the audio.

This interviewer, Ms. Logan was the wrong choice for this somber and intense subject matter.

Yes, sex appeal sells everything from toothpaste to TV interviews, but must the public also deal with this on CBS -- especially on September 11?

It was disturbing to see Soufan and Logan both smiling (with a teasing innuendo) and even giggling at certain moments when he recalls his interviews with terrorists.

Is this the best representation that 60 Minutes can offer on the tenth anniversary? Does "The Interrogator" serve to pay reverence to those who lost their lives? This interview was obviously timed carefully with Soufan's book release, and this tactic resembles a late-night talk show promo piece. But why did this have to be televised on September 11?

I can only hope that the producers of this show will re-think their priorities, and re-strategize their programing approach for interviews of a highly sensitive nature.

[mpmaier24]

I agree with you in that "Is this the best representation that 60 minutes can offer on the tenth anniversary?" I was extremely disappointed with this two segment piece. During the entire piece, I was wondering why today of all days. Shortly thereafter, we go to the real point - more Bush bashing. It would not be 60 Minutes if they did not take the opportunity to Bush bash. Very disappointing CBS.

[yahyaaj]

This was a very important and powerful story in my view. This segment on many levels reminds us of our common humanity, and that we should not only look at this anniversary to revisit the pain of those horrific events, but also to work toward healing and understanding. I applaud 60 minutes for helping to take us there.

[marilyn4886]

The idea that 9/11 could have been prevented is the saddest thing I could imagine. Maybe Bush and Cheney let it happen so they can go to war in Iraq. I wonder how much money each of them made from this. They are both disgusting and greedy cowards.

[imnho]

In terms of public policy the GWB adminastration were rank amateurs. They were armchair generals that whached to much of the program "24 Hours."

They wound up starting one unecessary war and mishandling the other conflict. So many of the people who made policy were clueless.

[noel90210]

all 9-11 is about is selling a book. we need to stop commemorating this event.