McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
As Andy McCarthy puts it, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey fires back:
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.
Surely it should not be that difficult to get to the truth here. Either waterboarding helped or it didn't. Sen. McCain thinks it's absolutely clear it did not. Mr. Mukasey says it did.
Might help if Republicans in Congress woke up a little. For example, wouldn't it help clarify our debate if Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intel Committee, called Mr. Panetta in to testify, and asked him point blank whether Senator McCain was accurate when he cited the CIA chief as his authority for the statement that enhanced interrogation played no real role in getting Bin Laden.
Also waiting for former CIA chief Michael Hayden to weigh in on this one.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
you may be waiting a long time...since when do we expect the "spooks" to tell all in public so often?
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
This is all so interesting. Thanks for posting about this, Bill. I am ill-informed about some background here, so please humor my questions.
What would be McCain's motive for lying/changing the truth? Or talking without knowing the whole story? Any ideas?
I realize he's against torture. I realize he's not really a fan of GWB. But he could certainly keep quiet. Why come out about it so strongly if he's just trying to push the torture-is-bad meme?
Also, as I read this, I wonder if Mukasey is sharing too much here. How does he know so much about the direct links of info? Why is he sharing the details of the chain? Doesn't one need some sort of permisison from current administration to talk about this?
Jan '11
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
All of us, (human nature) tend to justify one's own beliefs to fit thier own view of the world. I'm doing so in this post. I think McCain (and Mukasey) actually believes this and will 'get that square peg to fit in the round hole' no matter what.To the people that think these techniques don't work-nothing will convince them. Look, under enhanced interigation I'd confess to shooting President Kennedy and I'd also give up the PIN number to my debit card. Checking out one story will give some agent a nice weekend in Dallas, checking out the other will give the agent access to dozens of dollars.
Jun '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
The cheerful stubbornness that let McCain alter reality while he was a prisoner of war, is the same cheerful stubbornness that lets McCain alter reality today. Anything that offends his personal sense of right and wrong "is evil." Nobody, in good faith, can come to a different conclusion. To think, in 2008, our two choices were Obama or McCain. Frightening. We have to do better.
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
There is a perfectly respectable position that waterboarding is immoral and should not be permitted. Most of the people who made that argument, however, mixed it -- deliberately methinks -- with a very separate assertion: that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation did not work. (In many ways it parallels the debate over the death penalty: Many opponents go beyond claiming that it is immoral to claiming that the ones being executed are innocent or that it has no deterrence. I actually think that dilutes the moral argument.)
No one claims that waterboarding led in a straight line to OBL. No intelligence works that way. They give you pieces to a puzzle. Right now we have a straightforward question: Did these techniques yield operable intel or not? Mr. McCain claims no -- and claims that Mr. Panetta backs him. Mr. Mukasey says yes. I would like to hear what Mr. Panetta, the CIA chief, would say in testimony, under oath, to the people's representatives.
Answering that question would do much to clarify the debate, and do nothing in the way of giving our enemies damaging information on means and methods. Far more damaging to me is the confused signals we are now sending.
May '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
McCain is fighting the reported effectiveness of enhanced interrogation [EI] with more zeal than he did Obama during the 2008 presidential contest. Why? To me that answer is easy to see - he is a stubborn political hack.
This EI questions have definitive answers. They can be determined by an honest examination of the records of those who experienced EI. Then, if possible, publish the conclusions! End of contest.
Edited on May 13, 2011 at 4:11pmMay '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
I found this fact interesting: It is not necessary that the prisoner tell the truth under aggressive questioning. If he lies and the questioners can establish that it is a lie, you then know that someone or something is being protected. That alone may be valuable information.
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
Bill McGurn: There is a perfectly respectable position that waterboarding is immoral and should not be permitted. Most of the people who made that argument, however, mixed it -- deliberately methinks -- with a very separate assertion: that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation did not work.
· May 13 at 6:55am
Exactly. I'm someone who opposes many of the extraordinary interrogation techniques we used. But the argument that they didn't work to get information was never a winner. I mean, if you made that argument and it turned out that -- oh, I don't know -- the information gleaned from waterboarding helped get Osama bin Laden, you'd have nothing.
For a nice, non-political discussion of the moral concerns, I recommend this Chris Tollefson piece from a few years ago.
Dec '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
Ursula Hennessey: This is all so interesting. Thanks for posting about this, Bill. I am ill-informed about some background here, so please humor my questions.
What would be McCain's motive for lying/changing the truth? Or talking without knowing the whole story? Any ideas?
I realize he's against torture. I realize he's not really a fan of GWB. But he could certainly keep quiet. Why come out about it so strongly if he's just trying to push the torture-is-bad meme? · May 13 at 6:09am
McCain likes to be the go-to guy when it comes to "torture". He likes the idea that he has the final word on the subject.
Personally, I think his notion that waterboarding, et al., is torture just undermines the true suffering he went through.
I think that, very simply, McCain has no idea what he's talking about. He's picked up a lot of bad habits from libs and one is to state something without evidence just because he wishes it to be true.
Jun '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
It becomes torture when the motive is torture. When the motive is to get a terrorist to stop hiding details of a future operation, then it's just another tool in the CIA toolkit. Properly used, enhanced interrogation is primarily for attitude adjustment. Once the subject decides that killing a thousand Americans is not funny anymore, then it can stop, and the real work can start.
Jan '11
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
AmishDude
McCain likes to be the go-to guy when it comes to "torture". He likes the idea that he has the final word on the subject.
Personally, I think his notion that waterboarding, et al., is torture just undermines the true suffering he went through.
I think that, very simply, McCain has no idea what he's talking about. He's picked up a lot of bad habits from libs and one is to state something without evidence just because he wishes it to be true. · May 13 at 7:23am
If (I hope not but if) he runs for yet another term and has a serious challenger and his poll numbers are soft, he'll probably change his tune and 'just waterboard the dang terrorist'.
Dec '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
Ursula Hennessey: What would be McCain's motive for lying/changing the truth? Or talking without knowing the whole story? Any ideas?
I realize he's against torture. I realize he's not really a fan of GWB. But he could certainly keep quiet. Why come out about it so strongly if he's just trying to push the torture-is-bad meme?
McCain claims special privilege as a former POW who was tortured. His experiences color his judgment but don't justify his position.
He explicitly claims that waterboarding is "exquisite" torture because it simulates an execution. This is false. You can only simulate an execution as a method of torture if the person truly believes there is a chance he will die -- otherwise, he knows and you know that it's just theater. Waterboarding is a stimulus of the deeply ingrained drowning reflexes: human beings have innate survival instincts, nearly impossible to ignore. Causing distress through unpleasant stimuli isn't torture, unless you define solitary confinement as torture too.
It's interesting too that he notes the reciprocity argument, gives the reason why it is invalid with respect to Al-Qaeda, and yet still clings to it.
Dec '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
By the way, Sam Spade was wrong:
Sam Spade: If you kill me, how are you going get the bird? And if I know you can't afford to kill me, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?
Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that's... That's true. But, there're none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Kasper Gutman: That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.
Sam Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
Kasper Gutman: By gad, sir, you are a character.
Sep '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
If I was waterboarded, I'd probably spill my guts. But then I've never made any pretense of being a warrior. I believe McCain is a warrior and so probably can't conceive of any other way. (And then of course, there is the matter of having an admiral father.) But that schlub KSM is no warrior so he probably gave them many leads to follow.
And any president who wouldn't waterboard if he were worrying about more attacks is a fool. BO"s probably pretty close to such a person.
May '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
McCain seems to be performing some absolution to get back in the good graces of the left, just like his "friend" Colin Powell did after he left the Bush Admin.
Oct '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
I believe Attorney General Mukasey, not Senator McCain. McCain is undeniably a war hero. He underwent unbelievable torture after being captured by the North Vietnamese. That said, I disagree with his position on water boarding. It is not “torture” as torture is defined and generally understood. Because of the positions he held in the Bush administration, Mukasey, whose personal integrity is unquestioned, is a more impartial source for whether harsh interrogation techniques assisted in identifying the location of bin Laden
I don’t know what McCain’s motive is in disagreeing with Mukasey, but the techniques documented and approved for “harsh” interrogation are a far cry from the real torture that McCain experienced in Vietnam. President Obama’s decision to abandon their use has deprived America of a great deal of useful intelligence.
May '10
Re: McCain v. Mukasey, Round II
I think "impartial" is the key word here. The traumatic experiences McCain underwent clouds his vision on this issue. I don't fault him for having scruples, but he should know himself well enough and recuse himself from the fray.