Abu Zubaydah

Abu Zubaydah
Detained at	Guantanamo
Other name(s)	Abu Zubaydah زين العابدين محمد حسين
ISN	10016
Charge(s)	no charge, held in extrajudicial detention

Abu Zubaydah (Arabic: ابو زبيدة; born 12 March 1971 as Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn) is currently in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a detainee in the war on Terror. Zubaydah's name is often transliterated as Abu Zubaidah, Abu Zubeida, or Abu Zoubeida. Born Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein (Arabic: زين العابدين محمد حسين), he is also known by over thirty-five aliases.

Biography and his early years in Afghanistan

Born in Saudi Arabia, Abu Zubaydah moved to the West Bank as a teenager where he joined in Palestinian demonstrations against the Israelis.

Abu Zubaydah moved to Afghanistan in 1991 to assist the mujahideen in their fight against the Afghan and Soviet Communists. In 1992, while fighting for the mujahideen Abu Zubaydah was injured from a mortar shell blast which left shrapnel in his head and caused severe memory loss, as well as the loss of his ability to speak for over one year. Abu Zubaydah eventually became involved in the jihad training camp known as the Khalden Camp.

The Khalden Camp has been described by the U.S. Government as an al-Qaeda training facility -- an assertion that has been utilized as evidence of Abu Zubaydah's, and over 50 other Guatanamo detainees' alleged connection to al-Qaeda. This allegation has been contested, however, by multiple detainees, the 9/11 Commission Report, and Brynjar Lia, head of the international terrorism and global jihadism at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Abu Zubaydah testified in his Combatant Status Review Tribunal that the Khalden Camp was at such odds with al-Qaeda and Bin Laden that is was closed by the Taliban in 2001, at the request of al-Qaeda. This account was corroborated by two other detainees, Noor Uthman Muhammed, who was alleged by the U.S. Government to have been the emir, or leader, of the Khalden Camp, and a close friend of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi. Brynjar Lia also states in his book that there was an ideological conflict between the leaders of the Khalden Camp on one side, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the other. Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi, and Noor Uthman Muhammed confirmed this divide in their CSRT testimony. Of the 57 detainees the U.S. Government has associated with the Khalden Camp, 27 have been released, including Abu Zubaydah's good friend Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi.

Early activities

By 1999, the U.S. Government was attempting to run surveillance on Abu Zubaydah. By March 2000, United States officials were reporting that Abu Zubaydah was a "senior bin Laden official", the "former head of Egypt-based Islamic Jihad", a "trusted aide" to bin Laden with "growing power", who had "played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks."

Internationally Abu Zubaydah was convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court for his alleged role in plots to bomb U.S. and Israeli targets in Jordan. A senior Middle East security official stated Abu Zubaydah had directed the Jordanian cell and was part of “bin Laden’s inner circle."

In August, 2001 a classified FBI report entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”, which would not become public until much later, stated that the foiled millennium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, had confessed that Abu Zubaydah had not only encouraged him to blow up the Los Angeles airport, but had facilitated his mission. The report also claims Abu Zubaydah was planning his own attack on the U.S. An unclassified FBI report also stated that Ahmed Ressam attempted to buy a laptop for Abu Zubaydah. Despite all of these supposed connections, when Ahmed Ressam went to trial in December 2001 federal prosecutors did not attempt to link him to Abu Zubaydah.

Capture

It is unclear how the Government found Abu Zubaydah. U.S. officials claimed he was tracked down after making a phone call to al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen. However, this has been questioned by a C.I.A. official who stated that the U.S. paid $10 million to the Pakistani government, who had in turn bribed the information on his whereabouts from a local driver who knew of a caravan of tall men wearing burqas traveling towards Faisalbad. Also, Saudi Arabian officials claimed Abu Zubaydah was captured after intelligence gleaned during an interrogation by their GSS. However, it would be reported in 2008 that Deuce Martinez, a C.I.A. analyst had played an integral role in narrowing down Abu Zubaydah’s supposed hideouts to the 14 targeted by the joint raids.

On March 28, 2002, CIA and FBI agents, in conjunction with Pakistani intelligence services, raided several safe houses in Pakistan looking for terrorists and members of al-Qaeda. Abu Zubaydah was apprehended from one of the targeted safe houses in Faisalabad, Pakistan. During his apprehension he was shot in the thigh, the testicle, and the stomach with rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle. He was not recognised at first, and simply thrown into a pick-up truck along with other prisoners by the Pakistani forces; but a senior FBI agent recognised his face, and the agency flew in a doctor from Johns Hopkins University to ensure he would not succumb to his wounds during transit out of Pakistan. He was taken by the FBI to a Pakistani hospital nearby and treated for his wounds where the doctor who attended him admitted to John Kiriakou, the co-leader of the CIA group that apprehended Abu Zubaydah, that he had never before seen a patient survive such severe wounds.

His pocket litter contained two bank cards which showed he had access to Saudi and Kuwaiti bank accounts, which was considered rare since most al-Qaeda members used the preferred untraceable hawala banking. According to James Risen

"It is not clear whether an investigation of the cards simply fell through the cracks, or whether they were ignored because no one wanted to know the answers about connections between al Qaeda and important figures in the Middle East -- particularly in Saudi Arabia." One of Risen's sources chalks up the failure to investigate the cards to incompetence rather than foul play: "The cards were sent back to Washington and were never fully exploited. I think nobody ever looked at them because of incompetence." When American investigators finally did get around to looking into the cards, they worked with "a Muslim financier with a questionable past, and with connections to the Afghan Taliban, al Qaeda, and Saudi intelligence." He reported back that "Saudi intelligence officials had seized all of the records related to the card from the Saudi financial institution in question; the records then disappeared. There was no longer any way to trace the money that had gone into the account."

A search of the safehouse turned up his personal 10,000 page diary, in which he recorded his thoughts in seemingly split personalities of a young boy, old man and himself.

Abu Zubaydah was turned over to the CIA, and was transferred to CIA operated prisons in Pakistan, Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland, and Northern Africa. In September 2006, President George W. Bush gave a speech in which he stated that Abu Zubaydah and eleven other high value detainees had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and would be tried by military commissions.

Zubaydah's cooperation with the FBI

Following Abu Zubaydah’s capture he was interrogated by FBI agents Ali Soufan and Steve Gaudin. The interrogation followed standard FBI protocol and involved cleaning and dressing Abu Zubaydah’s wounds. Ali Soufan stated in a Newsweek article in April, 2009 "We kept him alive... It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips." The agents attempted to convince Abu Zubaydah that they knew of his activities in languages he understood; English and Arabic. Both agents believed they were making good progress in gathering intelligence from Abu Zubayda: He disclosed Khalid Sheihkh Muhamed’s alias, “Mukhtar,” as well as other details of the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. Abu Zubaydah also revealed the identity of Jose Padilla to the FBI agents.

FBI and CIA clash over interrogation tactics

Within a matter of days a CIA interrogation team began participating in Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. The CIA team included CIA contractor and former Air Force psychologist James Mitchell. Within days James Mitchell took over the interrogations from Soufan and Gaudin. Mitchell ignored Soufan's previously successful strategy and ordered that Abu Zubaydah answer questions or face a gradual increase in aggressive techniques. Soufan asked Mitchell whether he had ever interrogated anyone, to which Mitchell replied that he hadn't, but "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue" and suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one at the facility.

Mitchell strongly believed in his interrogation methods and applied them to Abu Zubaydah. Mitchell believed that Abu Zubaydah must be treated “like a dog in a cage.” He stated the interrogation “was like an experiment, when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while, he’s so diminished, he can’t resist.” Soufan was so engraged at the tactics being contemplated by the CIA that he challenged a CIA agent's authority to go through with them, shouting "We're the United States of America, and we don't do that kind of thing." The CIA agent told him in April 2002 that the tactics were approved by the "highest levels" in Washington, and even stated that the approvals "are coming from [Alberto] Gonzales." FBI agents Ali Soufan and Steve Gaudin were replaced, but were allowed to stay on and observe the CIA’s interrogation. Ali Soufan was alarmed by the CIA’s interrogation tactics. He reported to his FBI superiors that the CIA’s interrogation constituted “borderline torture.” He was particularly concerned about a coffin-like box he discovered that had been built by the CIA interrogation team. He was so angry he called the FBI Assistant Director for counterterrorism, Pasquale D'Amaro and shouted "I swear to God, I'm going to arrest these guys!" After Soufan’s complaints to the FBI Counterterrorism Assistant Director Pasquale D’Amuro were communicated to the CIA, both FBI agents were ordered to leave the facility immediately by FBI Director Robert Mueller. Ali Soufan left, but Steve Gaudin stayed an additional few weeks and continued to participate in the interrogation.

Shortly thereafter Pasquale D'Amaro met with officials from the Department of Justice as well as the Attorney General Office’s Criminal Division concerning the FBI’s participation in CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects. During this meeting D’Amuro learned that the CIA had requested an opinion from the Department of Justice regarding the proposed use of certain types of interrogation techniques. D’Amuro met with FBI director Robert Mueller III and told him the FBI should not participate in interrogations using harsh techniques because FBI protocol prohibited agents from being involved. Robert Mueller III agreed with D’Amuro and ordered all FBI agents to stop participating in any interrogations where the CIA used harsh interrogation techniques. In 2008, a report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General alleged the FBI complained repeatedly beginning in 2002 about harsh CIA tactics. Top FBI officials apparently debated for six months after Abu Zubaydah’s capture as to what to do, before formally severing ties with any CIA interrogations where harsh tactics were used.

CIA interrogation of Abu Zubaydah

The CIA interrogation strategies were based on work done by James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen in the Air Force's Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) program. The CIA contracted with the two psychologists to develop alternative, harsh interrogation techniques. However, neither of the two psychologists had any experience in conducting interrogations. Air Force Reserve Colonel Steve Kleinman stated that the CIA "chose two clinical psychologists who had no intelligence background whatsoever, who had never conducted an interrogation... to do something that had never been proven in the real world." Associates of Mitchell and Jessen were skeptical of their methods and believed they did not possess any data about the impact of SERE training on the human psyche. The CIA came to learn that Mitchell and Jessen's expertise in waterboarding was probably "misrepresented" and thus, there was no reason to believe it was medically safe or effective. Despite these shortcomings of experience and know-how, the two psychologists boasted of being paid $1000 a day plus expenses, tax-free by the CIA for their work.

The SERE program, which Mitchell and Jessen would reverse engineer, was originally designed to be defensive in nature and was used to train pilots and other soldiers on how to resist harsh interrogation techniques and torture were they to fall into enemy hands. The program subjected trainees to torture techniques such as “waterboarding . . . sleep deprivation, isolation, exposure to extreme temperatures, enclosure in tiny spaces, bombardment with agonizing sounds at extremely damaging decibel levels, and religious and sexual humiliation.” Under CIA supervision, Miller and Jessen adapted SERE into an offensive program designed to train CIA agents on how to use the harsh interrogation techniques to gather information from terrorist detainees. In fact, all of the tactics listed above would later be reported in the International Committee of the Red Cross Report on Fourteen High Value Detainees in CIA Custody as having been used on Abu Zubaydah.

The psychologists relied heavily on experiments done by American psychologist Martin Seligman in the 1970s known as “learned helplessness.” In these experiments caged dogs were electrocuted in a random way in order to completely break their will to resist. Mitchell and Jessen applied this idea to Abu Zubaydah during his interrogation. Many of the interrogation techniques used in the SERE program, including waterboarding, cold cell, long-time standing, and sleep deprivation were previously considered illegal under U.S. and international law and treaties at the time of Abu Zubaydah’s capture. In fact, the United States had prosecuted Japanese military officials after World War II and American soldiers after the Vietnam War for waterboarding and as recently as 1983. Since 1930, the United States had defined sleep deprivation as an illegal form of torture. Many other techniques developed by the CIA constitute inhuman and degrading treatment and torture under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Top U.S. officials approve enhanced interrogation techniques

In the Spring of 2002, immediately following Abu Zubaydah’s capture, top US Government officials including Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft discussed at length whether or not the CIA could legally use harsh techniques against Abu Zubaydah. Condoleeza Rice specifically mentioned the SERE program during the meeting stating “I recall being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected to training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques…” In addition, in 2002 and 2003, several Democratic congressional leaders were briefed on the proposed “enhanced interrogation techniques.” These congressional leaders included Nancy Pelosi, the future Speaker of the House, and Representative Jane Harman. Congressional officials have stated that the attitude in the briefings ranged from “quiet acquiescence, if not downright support.” Senator Bob Graham, who CIA records claim was present at the briefings, has stated that he was not briefed on waterboarding in 2002 and that CIA attendance records clash with his personal journal. Harman was the only congressional leader to object to the tactics being proposed. It is of note that in a 2007 report by investigator Dick Marty on secret CIA prisons, the phrase “enhanced interrogations” was stated to be a euphemism for “torture.” The documents show that top U.S. Officials were intimately involved in the discussion and approval of the harsher interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaydah. Condoleeza Rice ultimately told the CIA the harsher interrogation tactics were acceptable, and Dick Cheney stated "I signed off on it; so did others." During the discussions John Ashcroft is reported as saying “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

At least one advisor to Condoleeza Rice, Philip Zelikow, opposed the new, harsher interrogation techniques. Upon reading the August 1, 2002 memo which justified the torture, Zelikow authored his own memo contesting the Justice Department's conclusions, since he believed they were legally incorrect. The Bush Administration attempted to collect all of the copies of Zelikow's memo and destroy them, although it is still unclear why.

The torture memos

In 2009, President Obama released four Justice Department memos which outlined the procedures CIA operatives wished to use on Abu Zubaydah.

August 1, 2002 memo

In August 2002, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee and John Yoo drafted the first Torture Memo. The purpose of the memo was to gain approval for harsh interrogation tactics to be used on Abu Zubaydah. Although some believe the harsh tactics were already in effect before the memo granting authority to use them was written. Alberto Gonzales would later testify before Congress that the opinion was sought after the detention of Abu Zubaydah. Questions by C.I.A. officers over which tactics could be used on Abu Zubaydah had spurred the torture memo’s existence, which is reflected in the language of the memo; "You have asked for this advice in the course of conducting interrogations of Abu Zubaydah." The memo's author, John Yoo, acknowledged the memo was the basis for Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. Yoo even told an interviewer “there was an urgency to decide so that valuable intelligence could be acquired from Abu Zubaydah, before further attacks could occur.”

The memo contemplated ten techniques the interrogators wanted to use: "(1) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.” Many of the techniques were, until then, generally considered illegal. Many other techniques developed by the CIA constituted inhumane and degrading treatment and torture under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The memo was drafted weeks after prohibited techniques had already been used on Abu Zubaydah and was used to provide after-the-fact legal support for harsh interrogation techniques. Regardless, the techniques were only to be used on an "as-needed basis and that not all of these techniques will necessarily be used.” The techniques were to be used in an escalating fashion, but the "repetition will not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions" and that substantial repetition was assured not to occur. However, Abu Zubaydah would eventually be waterboarded 83 times in the same month the memo was drafted.

According to a psychological evaluation conducted of Abu Zubaydah upon his capture, the memo alleges that Abu Zubaydah:

• Quickly rose from very low level mujahedin to third or fourth man in al Qaeda
• Served as Usama Bin Laden’s senior lieutenant
• Managed a network of training camps
• Was instrumental in the training of operatives for al Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist elements inside Pakistan and Afghanistan
• Acted as the Deputy Camp Commander for al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, personally approving entry and graduation of all trainees during 1999-2000
• Approved all individuals going in and out of Afghanistan to the training camps from 1996-1999
• No one went in and out of Peshawar, Pakistan without his knowledge and approval
• Acted as al Qaeda’s coordinator of external contacts and foreign communications
• Acted as al Qaeda’s counter-intelligence officer and had been trusted to find spies within the organization
• Was involved in every major terrorist operation carried out by al Qaeda
• Was a planner for the Millennium plot to attack U.S. and Israeli targets during the Millennium celebrations in Jordan
• Served as a planner for the Paris Embassy plot in 2001
• Was one of the planners of 9/11
• Engaged in planning future terrorist attacks against U.S. interests
• Wrote al Qaeda’s manual on resistance techniques

Due in part to these allegations, the Bush administration approved the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against Abu Zubaydah, and subsequently other high-value detainees. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel drafted a subsequent memo less than a year later authorizing military interrogators to use much of the same techniques the CIA was authorized to use. However, both memoranda were eventually rescinded by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

May 10, 2005 memo

Another subsequent memo addressed the legality of additional interrogation techniques such as nudity, dietary manipulation, abdominal slap, water dousing, and water flicking. It also expanded on the techniques of walling, stress positions, and sleep deprivation, allowing for an additional stress position and extended sleep deprivation up to 180 consecutive hours. The memo also outlined the amount of waterboarding applications a detainee could be subjected to.

The waterboard can only be used with a given detainee during one 30-day period. During that 30-day period the waterboard can be used no more than 5 days. In any given day that waterboarding occurs interrogators may use no more than two “sessions”, with a “session” defined as the time that the detainee is strapped to the board, and that a session can last no more than 2 hours. During any session no more than six applications of water of 10 seconds or more can be used. The total cumulative time of all water applications in a 24 hour period may not exceed 12 minutes.

This meant the detainee could only be subjected to 60 waterboarding sessions of 10 seconds or longer per 30 day period. The memo also reported that the Department of Justice, Inspector General report noted that

[T]he waterboard technique… was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passage; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator… applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is ‘more poignant and convincing.’” The Inspector General further reported that “OMS contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologist/interrogator on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant. Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.

The Inspector General also noted that the use of waterboarding was discontinued in every armed services branch except the Navy SERE training "because of its dramatic effect on the students who were subjects." The CIA Office of Medical Services contradicted this conclusion, however, stating that “[w]hile SERE trainers believe that trainees are unable to maintain psychological resistance to the waterboard our experience was otherwise. Some subjects unquestionably can withstand a large number of applications, with no immediately discernible cumulative impact beyond their strong aversion to the experience.” The memo also noted that at a Senate Judiciary Committee hear, Douglas Johnson, Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture, testified that some U.S. military personnel who have undergone waterboard training have apparently stated “that it’s taken them 15 years of therapy to get over it", although his claim has not substantiated. Despite the conflicting information the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel approved all of the tactics listed above.

May 10, 2005 memo (combined interrogation techniques)

Another memo penned on May 10, 2005 authorized the use of the above outlined individual techniques in conjunction with one another, but stressed the importance of constant vigilance on the part of medical observers to ensure the techniques did not cause "severe physical or mental pain."

May 30, 2005 memo

The final memo mentioned Abu Zubaydah several times and claimed that due to the increased interrogation techniques Zubaydah also "provided significant information on two operatives, [including] Jose Padilla[,] who planned to build and detonate a 'dirty bomb' in the Washington DC area." This claim is heavily disputed, however, by Ali Soufan the FBI interrogator who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah following his capture, and other intelligence officials. In fact, the memo noted that not all of the waterboarding sessions were necessary for Abu Zubaydah, since the on-scene interrogation team determined he had stopped producing actionable intelligence. The memo reads:

This is not to say that the interrogation program has worked perfectly. According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have the information. See IG Report at 83-85. On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques. On that occasion, although the on-scene interrogation team judged Abu Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within CIA Headquarters still believed he was withholding information. See id at 84. At the direction of CIA Headquarters interrogators therefore used the waterboard one more time on Zubaydah.

The torture of Abu Zubaydah

Abu Zubaydah's treatment at the hands of the CIA has been called torture by Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who witnessed part of Abu Zubaydah's CIA interrogation, various U.S. officials including President Obama, and by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The techniques designed by James Mitchell, Bruce Jessen, and the CIA were designed to exploit the idea of learned helplessness and make Abu Zubaydah completely psychologically and physically dependent on his captors. In order to achieve this end, the CIA subjected Abu Zubaydah to various forms of increasingly harsh interrogation techniques including temperature extremes, music played at debilitating volumes, and sexual humiliation. Abu Zubaydah was also subjected to beatings, isolation, waterboarding, long-time standing, continuous cramped confinement, and sleep deprivation. During Abu Zubaydah's interrogation President Bush learned he was on painkillers for the wounds he suffered during his capture and was therefore difficult to get information from. President Bush exclaimed to then C.I.A. director George Tenet “[w]ho authorized putting him on pain medication?” It would later be reported that Abu Zubaydah was denied painkillers during his interrogation.

At least one detainee claims to have seen pictures of the injuries caused to Abu Zubaydah during his torture. During his own Combatant Status Review Tribunal, in 2004, Ibrahim Mahdy Achmed Zeidan told his Tribunal that, during their interrogation, some captives had been shown pictures they were told were the scars left on Abu Zubaydah by his interrogation.

Q: You told us about a man named Abu Zubaydah and how he said false things about you. You mentioned he was tortured to say those things. Can you tell us more about that and how you know that happened?

A: In his statement he never said he was tortured, that's impossible. We know from the American interrogators, not only me, but also a lot of other detainees on this island know that he was subject to a lot of torture. There was a picture of him, I didn't see it, and someone else did showing the signs of torture on his body. Another detainee saw an article in a magazine, I don't remember which one, he read that American interrogators said he was under psychological pressure and was in a special holding place.

International Committee of the Red Cross report

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded a report on the treatment of 14 high-value detainees in February 2007. The report would be made public April 7, 2009. The report is composed of interviews with the detainees, although the ICRC stated "[t]he ICRC wishes to underscore that the consistency of the detailed allegations provided separately by each of the fourteen [detainees] adds particular weight to the information provided". The ICRC outlined twelve interrogation techniques suffocation by water (waterboarding), prolonged stress standing position, beatings by use of a collar, beating and kicking, confinement in a box, prolonged nudity, sleep deprivation, exposure to cold temperature, prolonged shackling, threats of ill-treatment, forced shaving, and deprivation/restricted provision of solid food. Of the 12 interrogation techniques, only Abu Zubaydah was subjected to all of them. Not even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subject to as many.

Abu Zubaydah was the only one of the fourteen detainees to be put into close confinement. This would be corroborated, in part, by one of the Torture Memos written by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which noted "[i]n OMS's view, however, cramped confinement "ha[s] not proved particularly effective" because it provides "a safehaven offering respite from interrogation."" In Abu Zubaydah's case, however, this is debatable since the smaller of the close confinement boxes caused his wound to reopen and begin to bleed again. He was placed in two boxes, a 'large' one in which he could stand upright, and a much smaller one, in which he had to crouch down.

Waterboarding

Abu Zubaydah was one of three high value detainees to be waterboarded. Originally the Government's position was that Abu Zubaydah had only been waterboarded once. Even before the May 30, 2005 Torture Memo surfaced, Government officials familiar with Abu Zubaydah's detention questioned this account of events. In fact, intelligence sources claimed as early as 2008 that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded no less than ten times in the span of one week. In reality, Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times within the month of August, 2002, which happens to be the same month waterboarding was approved for use on him.

Many believe the 83 sessions violated the May 10, 2005 Torture Memo which stated no more than 60 applications of water could be conducted in a 30 day period. However, the May 10th Memo only restricts waterboarding to 60 applications of "ten seconds or more." A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program reported to Fox News that many of the applications "lasted 'a matter of seconds'" and it was these less than ten second applications "that created the huge numbers." He further stated that "[a]ll of those individual pours were scrupulously counted by the CIA, according to the memos, to abide by the procedures set up for the waterboardings."

Several people who have subjected themselves to controlled waterboarding have stated that it is torture. Malcolm Wrightson Nance, an instructor at the Navy’s SERE school in California testified before congress that waterboarding “is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.” Nance further testified that waterboarding is “[N]ot simulated anything. It’s slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration.” Richard E. Mezo, who was waterboarded during training to become a Navy flight crewmember described waterboarding as an act that is “indeed torture” which is “real drowning that simulates death.” The experience was so horrific, Mezo stated that “Pulling out my fingernails or even cutting off a finger would have been preferable.” Henri Alleg, who was waterboarded by the French during the Algerian War, wrote that “a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me.”

Abu Zubaydah said of his experience:

I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die.

During his waterboarding Abu Zubaydah lost control of his bladder and would later admit to the ICRC that "[s]ince then I still lose control of my urine when under stress."

Some politicians and administration officials, including Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State, Mike McConnell, the former National Intelligence Directorate, Tom Ridge, the former Homeland Security Secretary, and former Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, have also declared it unequivocal torture. Senator John McCain stated “It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

U.S. government accounts of Abu Zubaydah's importance

After Abu Zubaydah's capture, officials from the U.S. Government spoke out publicly about Abu Zubaydah's value as a source of intelligence and his supposed role in al-Qaeda. However, as would later be reported in 2009, the U.S. Government's depiction of Abu Zubaydah was overly inflated and he was, as Justice Department Officials stated, "[t]he above ground support... To make him the mastermind of anything is ridiculous", a "personnel clerk", a "logistics chief", and a travel agent."

In 2002, following his capture, a former State Department director of counter-terrorism, Michael Sheehan, said he saw Abu Zubzaydah as being “sinister” and that “[t]here is evidence that he is a planner and a manager as well. I think he’s a major player.” John B. Bellinger III declared Abu Zubaydah “extremely dangerous” and a planner of 9/11 in a June 2007 briefing on Guantanamo Bay. A former station chief for the CIA, Bob Grenier, claimed he “spent two and a half years of [his] life casing Abu Zubaydah” and claims Abu Zubaydah was a trainer, a recruiter, understood bomb-making, was a forger, a logistician, and someone who made things happen, and made “al-Qaeda function.”

On April 2, 2002 then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, stated in a Department of Defense press briefing “I don’t think there’s any doubt but a man named Abu Zubaydah is a close associate of UBL’s, and if not the number two, very close to the number two person in the organization. I think that’s well established.” Mr. Rumsfeld also stated Abu Zubadaydah was “a very senior al Qaeda official who has been intimately involved in a range of activities for the al Qaeda.” On April 3, 2002 in another press conference, Mr. Rumsfeld stated the United States was responsible for Abu Zubaydah’s detention. Mr. Rumsfeld declared Abu Zubaydah was a “very senior al Qaeda operative.” During this same two week period in April 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer described Abu Zubaydah as a “key terrorist recruiter and operational planner and member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle.” He further claimed the capture of AZ was a “very serious blow” to al-Qaeda and that one of al-Qaeda's “many tentacles" was "cut off.” Finally, on April 9, 2002 President George W. Bush declared in a speech at the Connecticut Republican Committee Luncheon that Abu Zubaydah was “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.” He also stated in a speech at the Virginia Military Institute, on April 17, 2002 that Abu Zubaydah was “one of al-Qaeda’s top leaders” who was “spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al Qaeda, plotting and planning murder.” In June 6, 2002 during his address to the nation, President Bush stated Abu Zubaydah was “al Qaeda’s chief of operations.” Come October 2002 George W. Bush stated in a speech at a dinner for Thaddeus McCotter that “Abu Zubaydah was one of the top three leaders” in al-Qaeda.

Numerous anonymous U.S. officials have also made allegations against Abu Zubaydah in the press, including:

• He was a “senior bin Laden official” and the “former head of Egypt-based Islamic Jihad.”
• He “played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks.”
• He was listed as a “trusted aide” to bin Laden with “growing power.”
• Western officials believed al-Qaeda may have been under the control of Abu Zubaydah.
• Abu Zubaydah was an aide of bin Laden who ran training camps in Afghanistan and “coordinated terror cells in Europe and North America.”
• Abu Zubaydah was a “key terrorist recruiter, operational planner, and member of Osama Bin Laden’s inner cicrcle.”
• Abu Zubaydah was “bin Laden’s CEO”, “a central figure in Al Qaeda”, and a “bin Laden lieutenant.”
• Abu Zubaydah is Bin Laden’s “travel planner.”
• Abu Zubaydah is one of bin Laden’s “confidants.”
• Abu Zubaydah is “one of a handful of men entrusted with running the terrorism network in the event of Osama bin Laden’s death or capture.”
• Abu Zubaydah was a senior bin Laden lieutenant who was believed “to be organizing al Qaida resources to carry out attacks on American targets.”
• Abu Zubaydah was the fourth ranking member of al Qaida behind Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Muhamed Atef.
• Abu Zubaydah was the “successor as chief of operations for al Qaida” after Muhamed Atef’s death.
• Abu Zubaydah knows the identities of “thousands” of terrorists that passed through al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.
• Abu Zubaydah briefed Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber.
• Abu Zubaydah was one of bin Laden’s top planners of terrorist operations who knew of al Qaida plots and cells.
• Abu Zubaydah was captured after he made a cell phone call to al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen.
• Abu Zubaydah stated al-Qaeda knew how to smuggle a dirty-bomb into the United States. Abu Zubaydah’s information was further proof al-Qaeda was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
• Abu Zubaydah is the “connection between bin Laden and many of al-Qaida’s operational cells.”
• Abu Zubaydah is linked to plots to detonate apartment buildings.
• Abu Zubaydah confirmed the fourth September 11 flight, UA 93, was intended to hit the White House. (His claim is contradicted by Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and Ramzi Bin al Shibh though, who stated UA 93 was on its way to the capitol, not the White House.)
• Osama bin Laden wrote a handwritten note to Abu Zubaydah in December, 2001. The letter allegedly tells Abu Zubaydah to continue fighting the United States if bin Laden passes away.
• Abu Zubaydah told U.S. officials that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked in the training of people on chemical weapons. (The officials noted there was no independent verification of this claim.)

Despite all of these allegations the U.S. Government has not officially charged Abu Zubaydah with any crimes.

Abu Zubaydah's value as a source of intelligence

When Abu Zubaydah was captured, the Bush Administration believed he was an unparalleled source of intelligence on al-Qaeda and terrorism plots. Abu Zubaydah was touted as the biggest catch of the War on Terror until the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Immediately after Abu Zubaydah’s capture the director of the FBI stated Abu Zubzaydah’s capture would help deter future attacks. Also, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated Abu Zubaydah could provide a treasure-trove of information about al-Qaeda. Donald Rumsfeld echoed these sentiments claiming Abu Zubaydah was “a man who knows of additional attacks”, who has “trained people to do this”, and was a big fish who had a fountain of knowledge.

An anonymous U.S. official claimed Abu Zubaydah was an incredible source of information claiming “One Abu Zubaydah is worth a ton of guys at Gitmo.” In February 2008, C.I.A. director Michael Hayden admitted that he believed information gleaned from Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation “led to reliable information”, that Abu Zubaydah was a “prolific producer” of information, and that roughly 25 percent of the information on al Qaeda that came from human sources originated from Abu Zubaydah. Hayden stated Abu Zubaydah was one of three individuals “best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities.”

In April, 2002 after being briefed on Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations, Porter J. Goss, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said “[t]he Abu Zubaydah story is a good one, with more to come.” Richard C. Shelby described Abu Zubaydah as someone who was “carefully trained in techniques of disinformation.” Nancy Pelosi, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee would describe Abu Zubaydah as being “very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation.”

While Abu Zubaydah would provide important intelligence on the War on Terror, his value as an intel source was greatly inflated, much like his role in the global terror network, as noted below.

Exploitation of Abu Zubaydah's value

President Bush personally used Abu Zubaydah’s perceived “value” as a detainee to justify the use of the CIA's harsher interrogation techniques as well as Abu Zubaydah’s detention in secret C.I.A. prisons around the world, such as Thailand, Poland, and Diego Garcia. In Thailand, the CIA created an environment resembling Saudi Arabia, and convinced Abu Zubaydah that he had been transferred to Saudi authorities, hoping that the fear of torture would cause him to be more cooperative. However, he instead seemed "pleased" to be in Saudi custody, and gave his jailers the phone numbers of Saudi officials who would vouch for him and have him released.

In a speech in 2006, President Bush claimed that Abu Zubaydah initially revealed useful intelligence, including information that allegedly helped foil a terrorist attack on American soil, but that Abu Zubaydah became uncooperative. It was only then, he reported, that an “alternative set of procedures” was used on Abu Zubaydah in order to gain valuable intelligence and were “safe and lawful.” He also stated that Abu Zubaydah had received training in how to resist interrogation, and thus more aggressive techniques were mandated. These claims directly conflict with the reports of the original F.B.I. agents tasked with interrogating Abu Zubaydah who had been receiving crucial pieces of information from him without the use of harsher techniques, as well as other government officials. The President further asserted in his speech that after the harsher interrogation techniques were applied, Abu Zubaydah renewed his cooperation and provided information that helped capture an alleged planner of the September 11th attacks, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. It has been revealed that the information Abu Zubaydah gave on these two terrorists had already been gleaned by U.S. intelligence months before Abu Zubaydah’s capture.

Despite the contentions that Abu Zubaydah’s confessions may not have been accurate, President Bush reiterated the value of Abu Zubaydah’s information when he signed an executive order in July 2007 allowing harsh interrogation tactics “limited in public only by a vaguely worded ban on cruel and inhuman treatment.” President Bush would also later veto an intelligence funding bill which included a provision to restrict harsher interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

The Iraq War

The U.S. Government used questionable intel from Abu Zubaydah in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials stated that the allegations that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked in the training of people on chemical weapons came from Abu Zubaydah. The officials noted there was no independent verification of his claims. The U.S. Government included statements made by Abu Zubaydah in regards to al Qaeda’s ability to obtain a dirty bomb in its attempts to show a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to a Senate Intelligence Committee report Abu Zubaydah also “indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.” However, in June, 2003 Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were reported as stating there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

The Military Commissions Act

President Bush also asked Congress in a speech in September 2006 to formulate special rules in order to try Abu Zubaydah via military commission in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, in late April 2002 less than one month after Abu Zubaydah’s capture, Justice Department officials stated Abu Zubaydah “is a near-ideal candidate for a tribunal trial.” However, only several months later US Officials acknowledged there was “no rush” to try Abu Zubaydah via military commission. In September 2006, President Bush stated in an interview that if Congress could pass a “good bill” out of the Senate in regards to setting up a military commission system, then Abu Zubaydah “is going to go on trial.” The U.S. Government has yet to try Abu Zubaydah by military commission, article 3 court, or in any other capacity.

The Bush Administration's domestic spying program

In addition to justifying the use of presently illegal torture techniques, the Bush administration used Abu Zubaydah’s capture as justification to accelerate its domestic spying program to allow quick action on the phone numbers and addresses seized during Abu Zubaydah’s capture. Inexplicably the NSA expanded its surveillance beyond the numbers seized during Abu Zubaydah’s capture. The spying program would later be revamped in order to make it theoretically legal.

U.S. government worries about Abu Zubaydah

In 2004 media coverage of Abu Zubaydah began listing him as a “disappeared” prisoner claiming he had no access to the International Red Cross.

In February 2005, U.S. officials claim the CIA was growing uncomfortable keeping Abu Zubaydah in indefinite custody. Less than 18 months later Abu Zubaydah and the other high value detainees who had been in secret C.I.A. custody were transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

After his transfer the CIA denied access to Abu Zubaydah even to the Department of Justice's Inspector General who was investigating the United States' treatment of its detainee.

According to U.S. officials quoted in Ron Suskind’s book, President Bush allegedly told C.I.A. director George Tenet “I said [Abu Zubaydah] was important. You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?” Tenet replied “No sir, Mr. President.”

Abu Zubaydah's intel

The purpose for justifying the harsh interrogation techniques was to gather crucial, actionable intelligence from the person the government believed to be a high ranking al-Qaeda operative. The value of Abu Zubaydah's intelligence has been hotly contested, however.

Reliable intel

Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the United States government the nickname of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Muhktar, during his interrogation, as well as the identity of Jose Padilla, the man alleged to have been planning to explode a 'dirty bomb' in the Washington D.C. area. The U.S. government alleges this occurred only after the enhanced interrogation techniques were applied to him. Notably, however, it has been reported that Paul Wolfowitz, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense admitted there was no actual plot to detonate a dirty bomb. In fact, Jose Padilla was never charged with a plot to detonate a 'dirty bomb.' This claim is deeply contested, however, by Ali Soufan, Abu Zubaydah's original interrogator, as well as other intelligence officials. Daniel Coleman a retired FBI official involved in his interrogation, commented that, after the CIA's use of coercive methods "I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted. He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."

According to the 9/11 Commission Report the CIA had identified Mohammed's nickname in August 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "The final piece of the puzzle arrived at the CIA's Bin Ladin unit on August 28 in a cable reporting that KSM's nickname was Mukhtar. No one made the connection to the reports about Mukhtar that had been circulated in the spring. This connection might also have underscored concern about the June reporting that KSM was recruiting terrorists to travel, including to the United States." The commission found that the agency failed to connect the information with previous intelligence identifying Mukhtar as an al-Qaeda associate plotting terrorist attacks, and identified that failure as one of the crucial missed opportunities before Sept. 11. Furthermore, Ron Suskind wrote in his book, The One Percent Doctrine, that a tipster led the CIA directly to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and subsequently collected a $25 million reward. Intelligence sources told the Washington Post that Suskind's description of Mohammed's capture was correct, but that Abu Zubaydah also provided information that was helpful to the arrest.

Ali Soufan states that the assertion that traditional, rapport building interrogation methods were not working, and therefore harsher interrogation tactics were necessary to obtain actionable intelligence, was incorrect. He further alleged that the claim Abu Zubaydah only revealed actionable intelligence after the harsher interrogation techniques were applied is also incorrect. Ali Soufan said

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence. We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

He also wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

Soufan is also quoted as saying "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."

Questionable intel

During his interrogation under harsher techniques Abu Zubaydah confessed to a universe of alleged plots and plans, many of which would turn out to be dead ends.

9/11 Commission Report

File:CommissionReportOnTravel.jpg

A sample page of footnotes from the 9/11 Commission shows the degree to which it relied on Zubaydah's statements

Zubaydah's interrogations are cited frequently in the 9/11 Commission Report, although he is the sole person to make many of the claims. Human Rights Watch noted that "The 9/11 Commission report refers to the intelligence reports of seven interrogation sessions with Zubayda, dating from February 2002 to April 2004." Based on Abu Zubaydah's confessions during these seven interrogation sessions the 9/11 Commission Report alleged that:

• Abu Zubaydah wrote in his diary in late 1992 that he was getting ready to go to an al Qaeda military camp. “Perhaps later I will tell you about the Qa’ida and Bin Ladin group.”
• Abu Zubaydah was a “sympathetic peer” of Osama bin Laden.
• Abu Zubaydah was reportedly complimentary of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed’s leadership abilities giving praise for his ability to incorporate the improvements suggest by others.
• Abu Zubaydah allegedly played a key role in facilitating the travel of al Qaeda operatives, along with Khalid Sheikh Muhammed.
• Abu Zubaydah was planning to attack Israel in 2001.

The Algerian Six

The U.S. Government alleged that six Algerian men living in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzagovina were associated with Abu Zubaydah and a plan to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo. The United States chargé d'affaires reportedly told the prime minister of Bosnia that the U.S. would withdraw its personnel and cut diplomatic relations if Bosnia did not arrest and investigate the Algerian Six. The Algerian Six were arrested by Bosnian authorities within the week, were investigated fully, and tried for the alleged plot to bomb the U.S. and British Embassies in Sarajevo. All six men were released by the Supreme Court of Bosnia for lack of evidence against them. The Human Rights Chamber of the Bosnian Judiciary explicitly ruled that the government must take all steps to prevent their forcible deportation, as well. However, upon leaving the courthouse they were apprehended by U.S. officials and taken to Guantanamo Bay. Wolfgang Petritsch, the international community’s top official in Bosnia at the time remembers being told by Bosnian leaders that the U.S. applied a lot of pressure on Bosnia to be allowed to take the Algerian Six to Guantanamo. In fact, Wolfgang states that the U.S. conveyed to him they would remove their support for an international mission he was leading if Bosnia didn’t comply.

The United States Government’s case rested on their assertion that one of the six men, Bensayah Belkacem had Abu Zubaydah’s cell phone number and had spoken with him over 70 times. However, the Bosnian government could not corroborate the story.

Since the capture of the six men by the United States, the Bosnian government has argued for their release from Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government eventually removed the charge against the men that they were planning on blowing up the British embassy as well as the United States’ and in November 2008, Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court in Washington DC ruled all of the men except Bensayah Belkacem were being held illegally at Guantanamo, and should be released “forthwith.” Three of the men have been released, although three of them are still being held in Guantanamo Bay despite Judge Leon's order.

Plot to bomb the Radisson Hotel

In November 1999, Abu Zubaydah supposedly told Khadr Abu Hoshar over the telephone that “The time for training is over.” Khadr Abu Hoshar was staying in Jordan at the time and was arrested along with 15 others for an alleged plot to bomb the Radisson Hotel and other sites in Jordan. Abu Hoshar supposedly helped ferry recruits from Turkey, Syria, and Jordan to Afghanistan for training with Abu Zubaydah’s assistance. Another of the 16 men arrested supposedly trained at “Abu Zubaydah’s Khaldan camp.” During the plot the men supposedly sent reports back to Abu Zubaydah, who approved their plan. Abu Zubaydah supposedly helped Abu Hoshar send four of the men back to Afghanistan for further training. One of the men, Raed Hijazi allegedly swore the bayat to Bin Laden in front of Abu Zubaydah.

The Millenium Plot

In April 2001, Ahmed Ressam was convicted of plotting to detonate a bomb at the Los Angeles International Airport. He had been captured with a car full of explosives while crossing into the United States through Washington State. Ahmed Ressam had previously trained at the Khalden camp before coming to the United States to undertake his mission. Abu Zubaydah admits in his CSRT testimony that he recommended to the leader of Khalden Camp that Ahmed Ressam be allowed to train there. Abu Zubaydah further testified that he facilitated Ahmed Ressam’s travel to the camp as well as to Algeria once Ressam’s training was complete. The U.S. Government alleges, in Abu Zubaydah’s summary of evidence, that Ahmed Ressam identified Abu Zubaydah as the leader of the Khalden camp and an associate of Usama Bin Laden “equal to and not subordinate to UBL.” The U.S. Government further alleges that Ahmed Ressam stated that Abu Zubaydah had “known of Ahmed Ressam’s operation, although not specifically the date and exact target” and that Abu Zubaydah wanted Ressam to acquire “fraudulently-obtained Canadian passports” for himself and five others, in order to facilitate their travel into the United States to “possibly bomb several cities.”

Abu Zubaydah admits he attempted to procure Canadian passports for Ahmed Ressam and other trainees, but not for "terrorist-related activities.”. Abu Zubaydah denies ever having participated in the planning of the Millennium Plot or encouraging Ahmed Ressam to attack American targets or civilians. The U.S. Government has not produced any further evidence of Abu Zubaydah’s alleged role in the Millennium Plot, nor was this connection even mentioned in Ahmed Ressam's criminal trial. In fact, Ressam's confessions were only brought up during his sentencing in an attempt to mitigate the sentence he would receive.

Various allegations

Abu Zubaydah's confessions led to various allegations against him, and more notably direct and swift government response in several instances. The value of his confessions has been challenged, however. A former intelligence official stated "[w]e spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," and "sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. Ron Suskind, the author of The One Percent Doctrine, told Wolf Blitzer during an interview, "I show in the book exactly the useful information he provided, and at the same time I show that essentially what happened is we tortured an insane man and jumped screaming at every word he uttered, most of them which were nonsense." In fact, as early as May, 2002, officials stated they doubted the veracity of AZ’s warnings., and by August 2002, on-scene CIA interrogators were already reporting to CIA Headquarters that Abu Zubaydah had no more actionable intelligence. Indeed, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations, despite all of Abu Zubaydah's confessions, not a single plot was foiled.

Among his confessions, Abu Zubaydah confessed al Qaeda planned on blowing up “soft targets” such as apartment buildings, supermarkets, and shopping malls. He also confessed to plots against banks in the Northeastern United States, and New York monuments such as the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. However, AZ’s warnings about the Statute of Liberty and the Brooklynn Bridge were “the statute in the water” and the “bridge in that movie” (referring to Godzilla). Abu Zubaydah also supposedly warned of a nerve gas attack on a major U.S. subway system sometime around July 4.

In addition, an unnamed U.S. official claimed Abu Zubaydah stated al-Qaeda knew how to smuggle a dirty-bomb into the United States. The official said Zubaydah’s information was further proof al-Qaeda was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. However, a memo by Michael H. Mobbs filed in Ahmed Ressam’s terrorism case stated Abu Zubaydah recanted his confession that al-Qaeda was planning on building a dirty bomb to be detonated in the United States.

Abu Zubaydah supposedly revealed that Omar al-Faruq was planning attacks on U.S. embassies and other facilities to coincide with the anniversary of September 11 in Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam and Cambodia.

Abu Zubaydah supposedly divulged an al Qaeda plot to detonate a jacket full of explosives on a civilian air-liner. He went so far as to say that the planners had used their own metal and explosive detectors to figure out how to successfully accomplish the mission.

It is alleged that Abu Zubaydah used a website to “plan the Sept. 11 attacks”, communicate with the hijackers, and download 2,300 encrypted messages between May 2000 and September 9, 2001.

Government officials allege Abu Zubaydah confirmed the fourth September 11 flight, UA 93, was intended to hit the White House. His information is contradicted by Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and Ramzi Binalshibh though, who apparently stated UA 93 was on its way to the capitol, not the White House.

A tape alleged to be bin Laden’s voice was supposedly played for Abu Zubaydah in the hopes he will identify Osama bin Laden. AZ allegedly identified USL and said it was a clear signal for impending attack.

Abu Zubaydah's mental health

Some people contest Abu Zubaydah's mental health. Ron Suskind noted in his book, The One Percent Doctrine, that Zubaydah turned out to be mentally ill, keeping a diary "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. Abu Zubaydah's diaries spanned ten years and recorded in numbing detail "what he ate, or wore, or trifling things [people] said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." According to Suskind, this judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President." Dan Coleman, the FBI's senior expert on al Qaeda, echoed many of Suskind's sentiments in an interview with the Washington Post. Coleman stated Zubaydah was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems, who "claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did." Abu Zubaydah's co-counsel, Joseph Margulies, wrote in an OpEd in the LA Times that:

Partly as a result of injuries he suffered while he was fighting the communists in Afghanistan, partly as a result of how those injuries were exacerbated by the CIA and partly as a result of his extended isolation, Abu Zubaydah's mental grasp is slipping away. Today, he suffers blinding headaches and has permanent brain damage. He has an excruciating sensitivity to sounds, hearing what others do not. The slightest noise drives him nearly insane. In the last two years alone, he has experienced about 200 seizures. Already, he cannot picture his mother's face or recall his father's name. Gradually, his past, like his future, eludes him.

U.S. officials defend interrogation techniques

Dennis C. Blair, President Obama's new director of national intelligence wrote in a memo to his staff in April 2009 that "high value information came from interrogations in which [enhanced interrogation] methods were used." Former Vice-President, Dick Cheney claims there are memos in existence which show the success of the enhanced interrogation techniques. Cheney stated

I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.

Additionally, four successive CIA directors echoed these sentiments, with the most recent Michael V. Hayden stating that he believed the methods "got the maximum amount of information" from prisoners, specifically Abu Zubaydah. As noted, however, the belief that enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary to get actionable intel from Abu Zubaydah has been heavily contested. John McLaughlin, former acting CIA director, stated in 2006 "I totally disagree with the view that the capture of Abu Zubaydah was unimportant. Abu Zubaydah was woven through all of the intelligence prior to 9/11 that signaled a major attack was coming, and his capture yielded a great deal of important information." In his memoir, former CIA Director George Tenet writes:

A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney. Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to - and did - share critical information with his interrogators. Apparently, the source of the rumor that Abu Zubaydah was unbalanced was his personal diary, in which he adopted various personas. From that shaky perch, some junior Freudians leapt to the conclusion that Zubaydah had multiple personalities. In fact, Agency psychiatrists eventually determined that in his diary he was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself. And, boy, did he express himself.

The U.S. government retreats on Abu Zubaydah

Top officials in the U.S. government refused to believe Abu Zubaydah was not the operative they believed him to be. The May 30, 2005 Department of Justice memo noted that while on-scene interrogators believed Abu Zubaydah no longer had any information to disclose, CIA Headquarters ordered additional waterboarding. The interrogators believed the waterboarding was "unnecessary." Additionally, the Bush White House and CIA officials couldn't believe Abu Zubaydah didn't have additional information. One official stated the pressure from upper levels of government was "tremendous," and that "[t]hey couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new." The official said, "[t]hey'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution - a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.'" While it is unclear why the U.S. Government did it, in 2008 Abu Zubaydah's name was expunged from the charge sheets of multiple detainees being tried by Military Commission. Additionally, the CIA destroyed 90 video tapes of Abu Zubaydah's interrogations despite numerous court orders, and official requests for their production.

Charge sheet discrepancies

In 2005, the U.S. Government charged several detainees at Guantanamo Bay and ordered them to stand trial in Military Commission Tribunals. Of the ten detainees charged, four of them, Binyam Mohamed, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, Sufyian Barhoumi, and Jabrad Said bin Al-Qahtani referenced Abu Zubaydah in their charge sheets. Three of the four detainees, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, Sufyian Barhoumi, and Jabran Said bin Al-Qahtani, had identical 2005 charge sheets and referenced Abu Zubaydah in six different paragraphs. The fourth detainee, Binyam Mohamed, referenced Abu Zubaydah five times. In 2006, before the U.S. Government could hold a trial of the four detainees in a Military Commission Tribunal, the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunals as unconstitutional in Hamdan v. Bush. The U.S. Government responded by amending the tribunals, although they were forced to recharge Binyam Mohamed, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, Sufyian Barhoumi, and Jabran Said bin Al-Qahtani in 2008. The new 2008 charge sheets contained almost identical charges against each of the four detainees, as were found in their 2005 charge sheets. However, Abu Zubaydah’s name was entirely removed from each detainee’s charge sheet. On October 21, 2008, all charges were dropped against the four men.

In addition, the alleged emir of Khalden Camp, Noor Uthman Muhammed, was charged in 2008 with conspiring with Abu Zubaydah against the United States. However, the charges against Noor Uthman Muhammed were also completely dropped on October 21, 2008. Noor Uthman Muhammed's Military Commissions Page is no longer working.

Abu Zubaydah’s name is also not mentioned in any other detainee’s charge sheets, not even Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. Government has also failed to charge Abu Zubadyah, even though they have charged other high ranking al-Qaeda members, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, who has been in custody less time than Abu Zubaydah.

In 2009, however, the U.S. Government recharged two of the men, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi and Jabran Said bin Al-Qahtani. Sufyian Barhoumi has not been recharged. The 2009 charge sheet of al Sharbi reincorporates Abu Zubaydah in three paragraphs, while the 2009 charge sheet of Al-Qahtani reincorporated Abu Zubaydah in four paragraphs. Unlike the 2005 charge sheets, which are archived on the Department of Defense website, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi's 2008 Charge Sheet has been removed from his page.

Binyam Mohamed was released from Guantanamo Bay on February 20, 2009 despite his alleged connections to Abu Zubaydah, and thus has been removed from the Department of Defense Military Commissions Page.

CIA destroys Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tapes

Starting in 2002 and around the time of Abu Zubaydah's capture the CIA began videotaping hundreds of hours of detainees’ interrogations, including Abu Zubaydah’s. Video cameras recorded Abu Zubaydah twenty-four hours a day during his detention in 2002. The vast majority of the footage contained in the tapes was of Abu Zubaydah. The CIA stopped taping Abu Zubaydah after he had been waterboarded.

Several motives were given for recording the tapes. Originally the CIA claim it taped the interrogations to prevent agents from a wrongful death suit if Abu Zubaydah happened to succumb to the injuries he suffered in his apprehension, However, during his testimony, Michael Hayden the director of the CIA asserted that the continued existence of the tapes represented a threat -- to the CIA personnel involved. He asserted that if the tapes were leaked they might cause the CIA personnel to be identified and targeted for retaliation. However, the tapes were only destroyed once CIA officials determined that written summaries of detainees answers would suffice for intelligence gathering purpose, leading some to hypothesize the videos were made to preserve the confessions of the interrogated detainees.

Several requests for the videotapes were made by judges, government organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The ACLU requested copies of the tapes under a Freedom of Information Act, but was rebuffed by the CIA. The ACLU would later file legal action against the CIA wherein New York District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stated he was “disappointed” the agency destroyed the tapes and believes the court was “gulled.” The 9/11 Commission Report was denied the tapes existed by the CIA. In November 2005, during a pending Guantanamo case, U.S. District Court Judges Gladys Kessler, Richard W. Roberts, and Henry H. Kennedy ordered the preservation of the CIA’s interrogation tapes as evidence for the cases before it. In addition,the Judge presiding our Zacarias Moussaoui’s criminal case, Leonie M. Brinkema, had also requested the tapes only to be told they did not exist. The CIA was advised by top lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department not to destroy the interrogation tapes. Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, sent a letter to CIA staff, briefing them on the tape's destruction. Hayden asserted that key members of Congress had been briefed on the existence of the tapes, and the plans for their destruction. United States Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, disputed Hayden's assertion, saying that he only learned of the tapes in 2006, a year after their destruction. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was one of just four senior members of Congress who was briefed on the existence of the tapes, acknowledged being briefed. Harman responded to Hayden's assertions by stating she had objected, in writing, to the tapes' destruction, and that it would "put the CIA under a cloud of suspicion." However, the CIA did not comply with any of the advice or the 17 orders from various judges and courts and destroyed the tapes. The Department of Justice is now investigating the CIA’s destruction of the tapes and has appointed John Durham as the special prosecutor for the case.

International cases involving Abu Zubaydah

Several individuals being held or tried internationally, who have been connected by the U.S. Government to Abu Zubaydah, have had their charges dropped, been released, or received other relief from their handlers. Abousofian Abdelrazik was alleged by the State Department to be closely associated with Abu Zubaydah. In 2008, Canada asked the United Nations to remove Abousfian Abdelrazik from its terrorism watch-list.

Another Canadian case, that of Mohamed Harkat was supposedly more closely related to Abu Zubaydah. Abu Zubaydah supposedly knew Mohamed Harkat “since the early 90’s” and claimed Harkat ran a guest house in Pakistan. Mohamed Harkat’s attorney sought access to Abu Zubaydah for testimony relating to Harkat’s trial, but the US refused to respond to his requests.

In Harkat’s Canadian trial, however, Abu Zubaydah’s claims were not part of the charges brought against Harkat. After CIA director Michael Hayden’s public admittance of Zubaydah’s waterboarding, Canadian officials deleted all references to Zubaydah’s statements in its public dossier. A spokesman for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service stated “The CSIS director has stated publicly that torture is morally repugnant and not particularly reliable. CSIS does not knowingly use information which has been obtained through torture.” Mohamed Harkat was released on bail by Canadian authorities.

Torture

Through Freedom of Information Act requests the American Civil Liberties Union was able to acquire less redacted versions of the transcripts from Abu Zubaydah's Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and those of three other captives.

External links

• The Final 9/11 Commission Report
• Committee on Armed Services United States Senate: Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody
• Jay Bybee and John Yoo Memorandum for John Rizzo Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency: Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, August 1, 2002
• Steven Bradbury Memorandum for John A. Rizzo Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Legal Counsel Re: Application of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2340-2340A to Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of a High Value al Qaeda Detainee Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 10, 2005
• Steven Bradbury Memorandum For John A. Rizzo Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency Re: Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A to the Combined Use of Certain Techniques in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 10, 2005
• Steven Bradbury Memoradnum for John A. Rizzo Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency Re: Application of United States Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 30, 2005
• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General: A Review of the FBI's Involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, May 2008