Ali Soufan's Tortued Decision

In The New York Times Opinion section, Op-Ed contributor Ali Soufan comments on the recent issue involving the C.I.A. and the controversial aspect of waterboarding. Soufan, a former F.B.I. Supervisory Special Agent provides his readers with his point of view, that being a former investigator whom earned the title as a "Top Expert on Al Qaeda." Having been "silent" for some time, Soufan finally opens up about the C.I.A.'s interregational methods, and voices his opinion regarding the issue of waterboarding. Coming from a position of non-violence, Soufan publicly states that there is a way to talk to terrorists without using interrogational methods such waterboarding or flat out torture. In light of the recently released memos regarding the C.I.A.'S interrogational methods, Soufan states that there are "lessons to be learned."

Soufan opens his argument by directly quoting or referencing to the recently released memos. He argues that these memos are "falsely based" and goes on the assumption that ruthless interrogation methods like waterboarding are imperative to use due to the fact that terrorists like Abu Zubaydah were "uncooperative." Having once dealt with Zubaydah himself, Soufan feels that it is incorrect to say that Zubaydah was uncooperative. Having used "traditional interrogation methods" (those that do not involve torture), Soufan states that he was effective in gaining crucial information from Zubadyah.

Soufan supports his claim by providing substantial information which works to his advantage. For example, Soufan affirms that he was able to learn that Khalid Shaikn Mohammed was organizer of the September 11 Attacks and Jose Padilla's involvement as the "dirty bomber." Soufan thus feels that traditional interrogation techniques are the most effective in seeking crucial information and efficient in saving lives as well. Soufan continues on to state that the information provided by the C.I.A. is false and does not add up. He states that the "defenders or justifiers of torture" argue that they were able to extract crucial information from Zubaydah thus leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh. Soufan's rebutal is that these claims are false and Ramzi bin al-Shibh's capture should be credited to the terrorist operative group who used traditional interrogational methods as opposed to those which involve torture.

Overall, Soufan believes that it was the right for the C.I.A. memos to be released. He feels that the issues surrounding the memos should not be a "partisan matter." The contributor states that it is crucial for the United States to move on and learn from these recent mistakes. Soufan argues that the C.I.A. is a necessary agency which strives to insure the safety of the American public. Soufan concludes his argument in hopes that the United States will regain it's title as the"World's Foremost Defenders of Human Rights." Soufan affirms that "We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites).

In response, I feel that Soufan's arguement is legitimate and very effective. Like Soufan, I would agree that traditional interrogational methods are most effective as opposed to methods which involve torture. It is crucial for this country to move forward from a dark period of history. I would agree with Soufan in the fact our country should learn from this mistake and work towards using interrogational methods which do not involve torture. Overall, I enjoyed reading Ali Soufan's Tortured Decision.

May The Force Be With You!
Lauren