John McCain counters the torture apologists by describing the statements of former attorney general Mukasey as simply "false":
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true.
I watched Hannity's show last night to observe Gingrich. But it was striking that the lie that torture had anything to do with the killing of Osama bin Laden is accepted as a premise on the propaganda network. Marcy Wheeler, meanwhile, analyzes the new facts McCain brings to light. This strikes me as important:
I have noted that a detainee who appears to be Ghul was held for six months–from January to August 2004–before the CIA started getting approval for his CIA-led interrogation. If the detainee who provided the key information on Abu Ahmed was Ghul and did so through noncoercive means, it means that Ghul’s interrogation before CIA got him–presumably, Ghul’s interrogation by military interrogators not using torture–yielded the key piece of information that would eventually lead to OBL. And (such a scenario would further imply) CIA insisted on taking custody and torturing him, even after he yielded information that would lead to OBL. Which might explain the legal sensitivities around Ghul’s torture, because if they got key info without torture the claims they based torture on would all be demonstrably false.
It’s all wildarsed speculation at this point, but such a scenario might explain why the torture apologists have been so vehement.
You think? A prisoner gives a key piece of information under US rules of interrogation, and subsequently is subjected to Gestapo rules of interrogation.
This suggests that two models were competing within the US government – the traditional model of interrogation for the extraction of actionable intelligence; and the Cheney model of brutalizing the psyches and bodies of suspects to create "compliance" and then probing a stream of broken consciousness for further clues. The Cheney model, reverse engineered from the techniques of Communist dictatorships was new to the US. Which is why I suspect they experimented with various torture techniques at Gitmo and elsewhere.
It's perfectly possible that under such experimentation, some prisoners died. But we cannot know this for sure until the Obama administration conducts a thorough and independent study of the alleged Gitmo suicides.
The Dish 