ABC report on interrogation hearing left out testimony on non-harsh methods' success
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Reporting on the testimony of a former FBI agent who "told Congress today that he witnessed CIA interrogation methods on terror suspects that were, in his words, 'borderline torture' " and "called the methods 'ineffective,' 'unreliable,' and 'harmful,' " ABC's Charles Gibson did not mention that the agent also testified about the success of non-harsh interrogation methods.
On the May 13 edition of ABC's World News, reporting on a Senate subcommittee's hearing on the harsh interrogation methods approved by the Bush Justice Department, anchor Charles Gibson stated that former FBI agent Ali Soufan, "told Congress today that he witnessed CIA interrogation methods on terror suspects that were, in his words, 'borderline torture' " and "called the methods 'ineffective,' 'unreliable,' and 'harmful.' " Gibson added that Soufan, however, "conceded he was unable to say categorically that no useful information came from using those techniques." But Gibson did not mention that Soufan also testified about the success of non-harsh interrogation methods, which he contrasted with the "ineffective" harsh techniques. In his May 13 written testimony, Soufan stated that "the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again." He continued: "It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook."
From Soufan's written testimony:
In summary, the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again.
It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that was working and naively replace it with an untested method. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that is based on the cumulative wisdom and successful tradition of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community, in favor of techniques advocated by contractors with no relevant experience.
The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.
Moreover, Soufan pointed to "[t]he case of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah" as "a good example of where the success of the Informed Interrogation Approach can be contrasted with the failure of the harsh technique approach." Soufan then presented a "timeline" of the Zubaydah interrogation, which he said showed that "many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate." He added: "For example, it is untrue to claim Abu Zubaydah wasn't cooperating before August 1, 2002. The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him."
Soufan also testified about other uses and successes of the informed interrogation approach. He stated that his interrogation of Osama bin Laden's former chief bodyguard, Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, also known as Abu Jandal, was "done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights)," and that, from it, "we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence."
In contrast with ABC, the CBS Evening News and NBC's Nightly News both reported on May 13 that Soufan testified to the success of the informed interrogation approach.
From May 13 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: The harsh interrogation of terror suspects was the focus of a congressional hearing today. A former FBI agent who interrogated the first major Al Qaeda prisoner said those methods simply don't work. Here's Bob Orr.
[begin video clip]
ORR: The debate over the treatment of detainees began just six months after 9-11, with the capture of Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. With Americans fearing another attack, then-FBI interrogator Ali Soufan pressed Zubaydah for answers.
SOUFAN: We obtained the treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence that proved instrumental in the war efforts against Al Qaeda.
ORR: Testifying today behind a screen to protect his identity, Soufan told Congress he did not use harsh interrogation methods, but rather worked to gain Zubaydah's trust and quickly learned the identity of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
SOUFAN: If done correctly, this approach works quickly and effectively because it outsmarts the detainee using a method that he is not trained nor able to resist.
ORR: But the Bush administration, believing Zubaydah was holding back, ordered CIA interrogators to turn up the pressure. Over the next 18 months, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, and Mohammed 183 times, at secret overseas prisons.
Scores of other terror suspects, including many at Guantánamo Bay, were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, blessed by a series of Justice Department opinions, now rejected as torture memos. The rough interrogations were scaled back in 2006. The former vice president, Dick Cheney, insists they stopped attacks.
CHENEY: I'm convinced -- absolutely convinced -- that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.
[end video clip]
ORR: But some Democrats believe the interrogation policies were illegal, and now they want someone to be held accountable.
From the May 13 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
[begin video clip]
PETE WILLIAMS (NBC News chief justice correspondent): Meantime, more fallout in Congress today over the CIA's harsh interrogation methods, with dramatic testimony about the questioning of Abu Zubaydah, a top Al Qaeda figure captured in Pakistan in 2002. He revealed critical information, telling his captors that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the 9-11 mastermind.
Testifying behind a screen to protect his identity, a former FBI agent said it was his questioning, intended to outwit detainees, that got those answers, not the CIA's simulated drowning technique called waterboarding.
SOUFAN: A major problem is it is ineffective. Al Qaeda are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, their training prepares them for much worse.
WILLIAMS: Some Democrats are pushing for an investigation of officials who approved the techniques, but Republicans warn that could ensnare Democratic leaders who were briefed on the methods.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): These interrogation techniques were shared with members of Congress who somehow can't remember what they're told.
[end video clip]
WILLIAMS: As for the abuse pictures, the administration will probably take this to the Supreme Court, which could delay any decision for up to a year.
Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.
From the May 13 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: An FBI supervisory agent, by the way, told Congress today that he witnessed CIA interrogation methods on terror suspects that were, in his words, "borderline torture." Testifying behind a screen to protect his identity, he called the methods "ineffective," "unreliable," and "harmful." But the agent conceded he was unable to say categorically that no useful information came from using those techniques.
Later on when Disk the college physics professor recounts his successful interrogation technique to his family, they marvel at his brilliance... but he then admits that it was all nonsense, and he only bluffed the guy, and in truth he just merely demonstrated what the guy's weight on the planet Mars would be: to which Dick the college physics professor opines "You know, as long as the American educational system remains woefully inadequate, people like me will rule!"
Which I relate here because it's true, you can intimidate the heck out of people by pretending you're smarter than they are, which is what college physics professors routinely do... I don't know if you can really get anyone to confess to a crime that way, but hey it can't hurt the detainee too much to try, can it.
The very simple fact about torture is that if someone doesn't have info to reveal then no amount of pain is gonna get them to cough up what they don't know, so what you'll likely get is bogus info just to stop their suffering.
I would imagine you can draw info out of someone by pretending you already have some info, or are smarter than they are. Of course another way is if you have two suspects, you convince each that their partner in crime is gonna strike a deal for lesser charge.
Bottom line, while torture can probably produce info, there's no guarantee. And these harsh techniques are not something civilized people should engage in. Especially a nation like ours that believes in justice & human rights.
At some point Charlie Gibson must start asking himself whether he still believes in his heart that he is a "journalist" or just a news reader.
I guess when you get paid enough money to prostitute yourself on television it makes the self-doubt go away.
The professor from St. Mary's University in Texas testified that waterboarding is not torture and that there was no torture to anyone at Gitmo! Did I hear people with common sense being insulted by these comments? Strangely, the professor's university was named after the virgin mother of Jesus Christ, who my disagree with this "scholar!"