By Dan Froomkin, The Washington Post, December 7, 2007

Note: Information sourced to Zubaydah is being used against Adil Charkaoui.

Defending the destruction of videotapes showing the interrogations of two supsected al-Qaeda operatives, CIA Director Michael Hayden cited President Bush's approving comments about the handling of one of the detainees in question, Abu Zubaydah.

In an e-mail distributed to CIA employees yesterday in advance of a New York Times report, Hayden wrote: "When President Bush officially acknowledged in September 2006 the existence of CIA's counter-terror initiative, he talked about Zubaydah, noting that this terrorist survived solely because of medical treatment arranged by CIA. Under normal questioning, Zubaydah became defiant and evasive. It was clear, in the President's words, that 'Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking.'

"That made imperative the use of other means to obtain the information - means that were lawful, safe, and effective. To meet that need, CIA designed specific, appropriate interrogation procedures." (Here is a link to Hayden's entire email, annotated by legal blogger Marty Lederman.)

Indeed, in his September 2006 speech on treating and trying terrorist suspects, Bush proudly described how Zubaydah -- "a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden" -- was questioned using the CIA's new "alternative set of procedures" and then "began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th."

But soon after that speech Bush's statements about Zubaydah were almost entirely contradicted by authoritative accounts from two investigative reporters: author Ron Suskind and Times reporter David Johnston.

Zubaydah, it turns out, was a mentally ill minor functionary, nursed back to health by the FBI, who under torture sent investigators chasing after false leads about al-Qaeda plots on American nuclear plants, water systems, shopping malls, banks and supermarkets. ad_icon

So as the White House tries to explain Bush's obviously misleading account Tuesday about when he learned that the Iranian nuclear program had been shelved (see below for the latest developments on that story), the destruction of the interrogation videos raise yet more questions about not just the CIA's behavior, but the president's candor.

Yesterday's Bombshell

Mark Mazzetti writes in the New York Times: "The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

"The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects -- including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody -- to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said. . . .

"The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program. . . .

"General Hayden has said publicly that information obtained through the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program has been the best source of intelligence for operations against Al Qaeda. In a speech last year, President Bush said that information from Mr. Zubaydah had helped lead to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks."

Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick write in The Washington Post: "Whether the agency faces potential legal jeopardy depends on timing -- specifically, whether investigations into the interrogation practices had been launched when the tapes were destroyed, said A. John Radsan, a former federal prosecutor and CIA assistant general counsel.

'Once an investigation has begun -- whether it's an attorney general or an inspector general investigation -- it's much more problematic to have destroyed any kinds of documents or tapes that fall within the scope of the investigation,' Radsan said

Zubaydah was captured in March 2002, becoming the first of the 'high-value' detainees in CIA custody and the first to be subjected to harsh interrogation methods, which included sleep deprivation as well as waterboarding. Zubaydah, who was shot and gravely wounded during his capture, later became 'defiant and evasive,' according to Hayden, leading to the decision to apply more aggressive measures. . . .

"Hayden said the methods shown on the videotapes were legal under guidelines approved by the Justice Department and the Bush administration, and he said the interrogation provided 'crucial information.'"

Reality Check

A few days after Bush's speech, David Johnston wrote in the New York Times that "rather than the smooth process depicted by Mr. Bush, interviews with nearly a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials briefed on the process show, the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah was fraught with sharp disputes, debates about the legality and utility of harsh interrogation methods, and a rupture between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the C.I.A. that has yet to heal."

Zubaydah "was bloodied and feverish when a C.I.A. security team delivered him to a secret safe house in Thailand for interrogation in the early spring of 2002. Bullet fragments had ripped through his abdomen and groin during a firefight in Pakistan several days earlier when he had been captured. . . .

"According to accounts from five former and current government officials who were briefed on the case, F.B.I. agents -- accompanied by intelligence officers -- initially questioned him using standard interview techniques. They bathed Mr. Zubaydah, changed his bandages, gave him water, urged improved medical care, and spoke with him in Arabic and English, languages in which he is fluent."

But then a new C.I.A. team came in, and "concluded that under standard questioning Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.

"At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. . . .

"F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House."

Also soon after Bush's speech, author Ron Suskind wrote in Time: "What the President wouldn't say, especially in a political season, is that he and the rest of the government have learned quite a bit from their early errors. What is widely known inside the Administration is that once we caught our first decent-size fish -- Abu Zubaydah, in March 2002 -- we used him as an experiment in righteous brutality that in the end produced very little. . . .

"Complicating matters is that Zubaydah was more a facilitator--a glorified al-Qaeda travel agent--than the operational master the Administration trumpeted him as. Also, he suffers from multiple personalities. His diary, which the government refuses to release, is written in three voices over 10 years and is filled with page after page of quotidian nonsense about housekeeping, food and types of tea."

Suskind writes that in his speech, Bush "put special emphasis on Zubaydah--the insane travel agent--saying that, under duress, he gave interrogators information that identified Binalshibh and 'helped lead' to the capture of both Binalshibh and the prized K.S.M. This is the sort of thing that has steadily eroded Bush's relationship with the intelligence community: presidential sins of omission, or emphasis, that would be clear only if you happened to know lots of classified information. In fact, according to senior intelligence officials past and present, Zubaydah helpfully confirmed that 'Mukhtar' was K.S.M.'s code name--something key intelligence officials already suspected--and had nothing to do with identifying Binalshibh, who had come to the attention of investigators a few weeks after 9/11 because he had sent wire transfers to Zacarias Moussaoui."

Bush and the Torture Tapes

In his June 2006 book, The One Percent Doctrine, Suskind had described Zubaydah's interrogation: "According to CIA sources, he was water-boarded, a technique in which a captive's face is covered with a towel as water is poured atop, creating the sensation of drowning. He was beaten, though not in a way to worsen his injuries. He was repeatedly threatened, and made certain of his impending death. His medication was withheld. He was bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh lights.

. . .

"Under duress, Zubaydah told them that shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda. That information traveled the globe in an instant. Agents from the FBI, Secret Service, Customs, and various related agencies joined local police to surround malls. Zubaydah said banks -- yes banks -- were a priority. FBI agents led officers in a race to surround and secure banks. And also supermarkets -- al Qaeda was planning to blow up crowded supermarkets, several at one time. People would stop shopping. The nation's economy would be crippled. And the water systems -- a target, too. Nuclear plants, naturally. And apartment buildings.

"'Thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each flavor of target,' Suskind wrote, and so, 'the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.'"

Pattern and Practice

Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon that the destruction of the videos is "part of a long-standing pattern of such obstruction.

"In April, I compiled a long list of the numerous court proceedings and other investigations which were impeded by extremely dubious claims from the Bush administration that key evidence was mysteriously 'missing.' Much of the 'missing' evidence involved precisely the type of evidence that the CIA has now been forced here to admit it deliberately destroyed: namely, evidence showing the conduct of its agents during interrogation of detainees."

And last month over on NiemanWatchdog.org, where I am deputy editor, I wrote about all the reasons why journalists should be skeptical when Bush makes undocumented assertions about terrorist attacks he says his administration prevented thanks to CIA interrogations. ad_icon

Congress and Waterboarding

Eggen and Warrick write in The Washington Post that the startling disclosure about the CIA videos "came on the same day that House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement on legislation that would prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA and bring intelligence agencies in line with rules followed by the U.S. military.

"The measure, which needs approval from the full House and Senate, would effectively set a government-wide standard for legal interrogations by explicitly outlawing the use of simulated drowning, forced nudity, hooding, military dogs and other harsh tactics against prisoners by any U.S. intelligence agency.

"The proposed ban sets the stage for a potential election-season standoff between congressional Democrats and the Bush administration, which has fought vigorously on Capitol Hill and in the courts to preserve intelligence agencies' ability to use aggressive interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects."

New York Times reporter Scott Shane describes the congressional action as "a sharp rebuke to White House counterterrorism policy. . . .

"A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, denounced the measure and said it would face a presidential veto if it passes.

"'The C.I.A. interrogation program has yielded extremely valuable information that has led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives and the prevention of terrorist attacks,' Mr. Fratto said. 'Congress should not be looking for ways to weaken this effective program.'"

'Could Have Been More Precise'

It's about as close as the White House ever gets to admitting that President Bush really blew it. But it isn't really an answer.

Yesterday, with White House reporters clamoring for an explanation of Bush's misleading statement on Tuesday about when he learned that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, Press Secretary Dana Perino said that the president "could have been more precise" in his language. (In fact, she said it precisely three different times.)

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press: "The White House sought Thursday to clarify remarks on the new intelligence report on Iran by President Bush that have been called into question.

"At a news conference on Tuesday, Bush said he was told in August by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that 'we have some new information' that would delay a new assessment of Iran's nuclear activities by the U.S. intelligence community.

"'He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze,' Bush said then. The president added that 'nobody ever told me' that he should back down on heated rhetoric about Iran as a result of the potential new findings.

"However, White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement Wednesday night and in more detail at her daily briefing with reporters on Thursday that McConnell did tell Bush in August that Iran may have halted its nuclear weapons program and that, if confirmed, it could result in a new Iran view from the intelligence community.

"The only thing Bush didn't get then, she explained, were 'the raw detail in terms of the sources and methods' and what sort of checking was going to be done.

"'I can see where you could see that the president could have been more precise in that language,' she said. 'But the president was being truthful.'

"At the same time, she offered no apologies for the provocative remarks on Iran from Bush, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, that continued even after that August notification from McConnell."

Loven also points out that Perino actually had to correct herself about something after the briefing: "During her daily briefing with reporters, Perino initially said that 'what we know right now, for sure, is that Iran is enriching uranium, which is fissile material, to get a bomb.'

"Later, she said that what she meant was that Iran is enriching uranium 'which can lead to fissile material to get a bomb.'"

Here is an excerpt from the transcript of yesterday's appropriately contentious press briefing:

BEGIN EXCERPT

Q: "[T]he President said, 'He didn't tell me what the information was.' But you're now saying he was told that Iran may have halted its nuclear weapons program and also that there may be a new assessment, right?"

Perinio: "Right, but he doesn't -- he didn't get any of the details of what the information, in terms of what the actual raw intelligence was.

Q: "He didn't say, he didn't tell me what the information --"

Perino: "Okay, look, I can see where you could see that the President could have been more precise in that language, but the President was being truthful. . . ."

Q: "Can I just clarify, is the President briefed every day by Director McConnell, when he gets his daily intelligence briefing?"

Perino: "I don't know if it's him every day, but he does get a briefing, sure."

Q: "But on a regular basis, Director McConnell is in the Oval Office?"

Perino: "Sure. . . ."

Q: ". . . . So from August until last week, the President never asked Director McConnell, hey, how's that going, are we getting any more on Iran? He never asked --"

Perino: "I'm not saying that. But if I --"

Q: "Well, so he did ask for --"

Perino: "I don't know exactly what the President asked in the presidential daily brief. . . ."

Q: "How about just being curious and asking, hey, is there a new assessment; I'm out there talking about World War III."

END EXCERPT