Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey has issued a succinct response to Sen. John McCain’s allegation, in a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday, that Mukasey (in an earlier WSJ op-ed) had provided a “false” account of how the information train leading to Osama bin Laden’s demise traced back to the harsh interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Judge Mukasey states:
Senator McCain described as “false” my statement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.
KSM disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress. He did so after refusing to answer questions and, when asked if further plots were afoot, said that his interrogators would eventually find out. Another detainee, captured in Iraq, disclosed that al Kuwaiti was a trusted operative of KSM’s successor, abu Faraj al-Libbi. When al-Libbi went so far as to deny even knowing the man, his importance became obvious.
Both former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell have acknowledged repeatedly that up to 2006, many of the valuable leads pursued by the intelligence community came from the three prisoners who were subjected to harsh techniques that included waterboarding in order to secure their cooperation.
So far as the waterboarding technique used by CIA operators, as outlined in the memoranda released by the Department of Justice, it was entirely legal at the time, which is to say before the passage of later statutes in 2005 and 2006, by which time it was no longer in use and under which it has not been evaluated.
In other words, the harsh interrogation techniques were both effective and lawful.
McCain has a serious issue with the truth. Not that I don't understand where it comes from on this particular subject, but I don't consider his "opinion" to be of much use. I still can't fathom how he became the Republican nominee, with his wrong-headed notions about so many issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if we treat our enemies in a way that our enemies consider proper, then we'll *really* be justified in being upset when our people are tortured and murdered. Yeah, that's worth giving up the information we'd get from captured terrorists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy should I care if Mukasey continues to make the same assertions that have already been debunked?
It's immaterial to me, in any event, whether torture is "effective," or "legal." It's wrong, and un-American.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again, one wonders how this dim, preening "Maverick" ever got to be the nominee. As bad as Obama has been, I think McCain would have been almost as great a disaster, though of a different kind. And people wonder why huge numbers of GOP voters yearn for a third party. They are fed up with the choices regularly offered up by the Stupid Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes, today's opportunity for the left to demonstrate its boundless capacity for righteous indignation. Aside from astro turfing it is their best thing.
Yes, let's compare the way the enemy treats its prisoners to the way we treat the few we've captured alive. We provided gitmo, they made snuff films. The liberals can crow endlessly about reciprocity but the simple fact is that the islamists give the barbarians a bad name.
Water boarding also presents a problem to the righteously indignant left. It dwells in a gray area and it works. The argument about the technique will rage, but basically few minds will be changed. Many in America believe it is not only effective but also morally, ethically and legally sound.
I often wonder if the left would be as exorcized about the technique if one of their own decided to use it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCain, always an irascible narcissist, is the republican party's answer to John Kerry, therefore reliably wrong on every issue. He has now become an even greater embarrassment. Thanks, Az geniuses, for choosing this embarrassment over JD Hayworth in the primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Say what you want about water-boarding, but using the cheap, empty logic of contrived "laws" doesn't cut it as an argument."
@Steve,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas it moral for the SEALS to fire 2 rounds into an unarmed terrorist in front of his wive in children? Just wondering.
Same old pattern with this guy. Campaign as a conservative stalwart, then behave like a clueless liberal in office, except in regard to Libya, where his braying for a much stronger unilateral military presence is nonpartisan in its stupidity. Thanks again, Arizona.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Steve
You would prefer we treat KSM under the Geneva conventions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLadies and gentlemen, your 2008 nominee!
Oy vey ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome of us have been trying since 2008 to tell you that McCain would have been even worse than Obama. Maybe you're starting to understand why?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SteveM,
Barely an hour before Godwin's Law is again demonstrated, and that includes moderation time.
The left's incapacity for differentiation is almost boundless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm all for water-boarding. This is such a loser of an issue for the Democrats. This is another area where McCain just blew it last time around. I realize his history makes this a tough call for him, but for most people it's not a tough call. If we have a mass murdering, evil terrorist in our hands that KNOWS things that will save hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of lives, you water board him. It's that simple. It doesn't do any permanent harm, and it is effective and works.
Notice Democrats are no longer saying water boarding is not effective. It is. We now know it's VERY effective. So not doing it is a dereliction of duty. If nuke goes off in New York City and kills a couple million people, I guarantee you that people will be screaming that we didn't do what we could, and our phony bologna moralists out there on this issue will be ignored for the crack pots they are.
We are in a serious war. This is not a spitting contest. Real lives, thousands, if not millions, are at stake. Taking the worst of the worst, and the highest value targets like KSM, al Libbi, and Bin Laden, and subjecting them to 1/1000th of the pain they have inflicted on hundreds of thousands is completely justified when they KNOW information that could save thousands of lives.
Most people see this as common sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehitchu: The claim has not been debunked. KSM did give up the name of the courier. He claimed the courier was a nobody, but once the agents had the name, they were then able to ask other prisoners about that person. The information they gave up was enough to prove that he was someone of value. Until somebody gave up the name in the first place, there was no lead to follow.
No KSM waterboarding, no dead Osama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecomplete curmudgeon: "Water boarding also presents a problem to the righteously indignant left. . . I often wonder if the left would be as exorcized about the technique if one of their own decided to use it."
Senator McCain is now a member of the left? Why attack the "left" when it was the war hero, tortured POW, GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain that Mukasey was responding to? I guess it is just more convenient huh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDrakes Fortune is right on the money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDrakes Fortune: "I'm all for water-boarding. This is such a loser of an issue for the Democrats'\"
Really? Not according to latest polls:
_____________________
"Americans are divided on the morality and efficacy of torture. Nearly half (49%) of Americans agree that the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information is never justified, compared to 43% who disagree.
Less than less than 3-in-10 (27%) Americans say harsh interrogation methods gave the United States critical information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden"
Sourece: PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, May 5-8
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: notropis, "Godwin's Law"
I'd refer back to my complete comment, but NRO's Stalinist censoring agent decided to remove it.
I'm was not comparing American CIA agents to Nazis. I was making the point that referring to laws that are arbitrary does not sustain a moral argument.
Now as for being a leftist, I consider polarized America mostly inchoate on both extremes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is amazing that the GOP picked McCain as the nominee in 2008. McCain is reliably wrong but especially on interrogation issues because he was tortured (and broke, like everybody does) while being interrogated during the Viet Nam war.
Fighting terrorism is all about extracting information efficiently and rapidly when a source becomes available. Speed is critical because you want to act on the information extracted from the terrorist before other terrorists compromised by that confession have a chance to react and save themselves.
Since Islamic terrorists don't seem to have any bounds regarding the havoc they will inflict on a civilian population and since modern technology inexorably increases the amount of damage that a terrorist can inflict, rapidly extracting information from terrorists is continually becoming more urgent.
Punishing terrorists by torture is morally wrong but using the most efficient methods to save potentially thousands (or more) lives is morally defensible. We must do the expected value computation that compares the damage done to the terrorist during interrogation versus the damage done to innocent civilians if the information is not extracted as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMukasey claims that KSM "loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden."
McCain replies that KSM only gave the courier's nickname, lied otherwise about the courier, and provided nothing else of value regarding KSM.
Mukasey responds that KSM "disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress." Note the sleight of hand - Mukasey admits that KSM only disclosed the nickname. The "other information" supposedly was regarding other terror plots.
I've said this before: Mukasey is smart. If this is the best he can do, his case is astonishingly weak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse