By BOBBY GHOSH / WASHINGTON Bobby Ghosh / Washington – Fri May 29, 4:00 am ET
The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.


Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda's structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)


Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."


It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda - including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers - but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."


Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush - era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases brought by detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary - traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President **** Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began - administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience - Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating. (Read "**** Cheney: Why So Chatty All of a Sudden?")


The debate over the CIA's interrogation techniques and their effectiveness has intensified since President Barack Obama's decision to release Bush Administration memos authorizing the use of waterboarding and other harsh methods. Defenders of the Bush program, most notably Cheney, say the use of waterboarding produced actionable intelligence that helped the U.S. disrupt terrorist plots. But the experiences of officials like Soufan suggest that the utility of torture is limited at best and counterproductive at worst. Put simply, there's no definitive evidence that torture works.


The crucial question going forward is, What does? How does an interrogator break down a hardened terrorist without using violence? TIME spoke with several interrogators who have worked for the U.S. military as well as others who have recently retired from the intelligence services (the CIA and FBI turned down requests for interviews with current staffers). All agreed with Soufan: the best way to get intelligence from even the most recalcitrant subject is to apply the subtle arts of interrogation rather than the blunt instruments of torture. "There is nothing intelligent about torture," says Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant whose book Mission: Black List #1 chronicles his interrogations in Iraq that ultimately led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. "If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/us_time/09171190149100

guess thats how the cookie crumbles


major terrorist groups

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Well, boxing is a legal sport.........I say put em in a boxing ring, get there ass thrashed around for 15 minutes, they'll talk.................

read is a four letter word

just an observation

"There is nothing intelligent about torture,"

"If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."

That says it all! That's good advice for some parents as well, in fact my own parents could have used that advice.

Amazing discovery by the government: People who wear turbans and speak arabic are also humans.

I wonder how many people here continues to have a bias, certainly the current government does have, since I can't think of one single representative or part of any sort of government position who is an Islamic believer.

I know, they are "evil doers" and they have no place in USA! Don't forget to buy your gasoline though..coming from Saudi Arabia and the gas station owners most likely Pakistani immigrants, you better avoid them, like Newt Gingritch says "we want no middle eastern terrorists" .

And you thought racism supposed to be between a black and a white person.

I learned, at an early age, to give the expected answer and it wasn't always the truth.
I was given three choices for the punishments. Switches, I cut myself. They had to be of acceptable length and girth. By belt, or broom handle that was prepared for the task. It started at age three and lasted til age 14, when I was finally sent to a Boy's Home. Even the cops threatened beatings for running away from home.
The neighbors all knew, the church and even the Juvinile Court Syestem knew. The only things that ever happened was, I spent time in the Juv. holding, went before Judges and was sent back with the offenders.

I can't even begin to comment on the best way to get information for people. I have never served in a war and I don't know where to begin to even suggest what to do. I saw this article and thought it was interesting

In Nam we used to enter the villages greatly mistrusted. Other "troops" or the VC had usually been there before and often were not pleasant in their tactics or treatment of the villagers.

We came with cigarettes, sometimes food or candy to share, but always a corpsman who tended to the sick and injured. We were led to weapons caches, tunnel systems, even embedded VC and other such finds, and we didn't torture anyone. We did take prisoners on ocassion, but they were always turned over on our return. You will always catch more flies with sugar! As stated in the OP, sometimes NO sugar

(((soul)))

I understand that is a great way for the villagers...but what about the POWs etc? are they of the same mind set?

Which POWs? The ones we took? They were usually VC left to keep the villagers in line and watch our LZ and base. The villagers would give them up to us after we gained their trust.

I guess I need you to rephrase the question a bit if that didn't answer it.

Almost every village had VC or sympathizers in it. They would even work in our base during the day, and we would pull them from the wire after the next attack. They would work inside our wire during the day, pace distances between bunkers and such, and at night use the info against us. That's the kind of war Viet Nam was. You couldn't tell the good from the bad, unless you were told or they were caught.

ok...in the case of the OP. the detainees (maybe mis-spoke about POWs)

do you not ummmm...interrogate them differently than a village to get information?

I apologize. I'm not sure of the correct terms to use

To the villagers, you had to gain their trust or you were the enemy.

Many soldiers from both sides mistreated the villagers. The VC would torture or kill them for helping us, many of our troops (before we set up a permanent LZ there) were not much better to them.

Much the same as with trying to get info from a "detainee".... we had to win them over, and if we had treated them like everyone else had, they wouldn't have given us any info on those working against us.

Better?

normally I defer these things to anyone that has been personally involved...current soldiers and vets. But for the life of me...I don't understand the division on the issue of this. why are some for and some against (as far as those that have personal knowledge on this)?

If we were all of the same mindset we would either all be soldiers, or the world would be at peace.

The military trains you to win, by aggression or whatever means possible. Many, like myself, lost good friends there. We all deal with it differently. It is hard to "move on" when you have seen combat, easy to be angry, hate, want revenge. The scars are deep. Others don't have a clue. They are told the enemy is bad, wrong, deserves killing, accepts it. Myself, I was 18-20 in Nam. I had one job, stay alive and do my part to protect my brothers. I didn't care why I was there, only that I was, and wanted to come home again. Nothing so grand as God and country, just survival. That is the sad honest truth.

i couldn't even begin to imagine what soldiers go through...especially during war

Being there you could say is like living in a dream, a nightmare, that you have no real control over. You do your best, hope it is enough, and pray you awaken sometime soon.... and never have to dream it again. As I said before tho, the scars are deep, and it can change you.

I need to add here.... this is for me, as it is all I can speak for.

Let's call a spade a shovel. It makes some of us feel good to torture and abuse those we believe transgressed upon us. It isn't justice or deterrence or a method for extracting actionable intelligence. It's cathardic. We like kicking the crap out of others and if we feel that the kicking is due them, all the better, but not entirely necessary to the *ss-whooping.

I would have less trouble with it if we admitted that we want to, instead of claiming we need to.