UPDATED: Sen. Graham Admits That Sheikh Mohammed was Tortured?!? (Possible Confirmation)

The Sheikh and the Torture Senator (truthout) By Ann Wright:

(Article also available at scoop.co.nz)

  I was in the audience February 12, 2007 during the Washington, DC, screening of the new HBO documentary, "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib." After watching the documentary, panelists Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) discussed prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

  To the amazement of the audience, Graham said with a twinkle in his eye that "Americans don't mind torture; they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

So we know that Senator Levin (D-Michigan) thinks it's likely that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was abused, and that he and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), after viewing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's Combatant Status Review Tribunal at Guantanamo through closed circuit television, released a joint statement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's allegations of torture must be investigated.

Source Levin: Terrorist abused? (Michigan senator said the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was probably mistreated while in custody.) by Gordon Trowbridge and Mark Hornbeck / The Detroit News:

"I think he was abused; I think it's likely," Levin, D-Detroit, [sic] said in an appearance here. Past incidents of mistreatment of detainees "give credence" to the allegation, he said.

....

From their Washington offices Friday, Levin and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., released a joint statement on the hearing, which they viewed by closed-circuit television from a nearby room.

We know that it's "widely reported" that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was waterboarded. (And also that the Bush administration assuring congress that some of these methods have been dropped is a tacit administration that torture has been used.)

Source: Editorial (Wapo) Top-Secret Torture (What's stopping the Democrats in Congress from investigating? Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A18:

The government claims that this looking-glass policy is necessary to prevent al-Qaeda members still at large from learning of the CIA's methods so that they can train against them. Yet some of the harshest action taken against Mr. Mohammed has already been widely reported: He was treated to "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, an ancient torture method that every U.S. administration prior to this one has considered illegal. CIA detainees are also known to have been subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation. The administration has assured Congress that it has dropped some of these methods, including waterboarding. If that's true, Mr. Mohammed's statement will not alert future detainees, but it will open a debate about whether the CIA's past practices were legal or morally justifiable.

But this, surely this must be the highest level out-right admission...

  I was in the audience February 12, 2007 during the Washington, DC, screening of the new HBO documentary, "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib." After watching the documentary, panelists Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) discussed prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

  To the amazement of the audience, Graham said with a twinkle in his eye that "Americans don't mind torture; they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

According to truthout:

Ann Wright is a 29-year retired US Army Reserve colonel and also a 16-year US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq.

In their concluding line they state:

P.S. HBO filmed the senator's remarks. Please watch the HBO video and see his comments for yourself.

There is footage of Graham's statement admitting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured!?...

Anyone have the footage of this!?...

Transcripts?...

(Crossposted from the NION frontpage)

Update [2007-3-23 19:55:26 by kraant]:: Possible Confirmation...

Some conflicts...

Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (Huffington Post) by Janis Karpinski:

I stand by my remarks about him being a coward. A coward condemns people in public ONLY when he believes there will be no opposition. What a pitiful example of a Senator. At one point, he was acknowledging the need for torture and told us we did not even want us to know what all of what they did to Khalid Shiek Mohammed because it was just so awful, but he assured us Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided "really great" information. Then, unbelievably, he tried desperately to assure us "most Americans think this is an unfortunate necessity in the global war on terrorism." Where is he taking the survey??

I could really do with an actual transcript, or footage of the event...

•  Tipjar!

  Can anyone confirm this?

  What was Senator Graham's full statement?

  by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:38:43 PM PDT

  •  Have you found confirmation of this?

    Wondering.  If Graham actually said this, it completely flies in the face of everything he's said before regarding torture.

    by chumley on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:21:39 PM PDT

    •  Possible Confirm...

      Some conflicts...

      Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (Huffington Post) by Janis Karpinski:

      I stand by my remarks about him being a coward. A coward condemns people in public ONLY when he believes there will be no opposition. What a pitiful example of a Senator. At one point, he was acknowledging the need for torture and told us we did not even want us to know what all of what they did to Khalid Shiek Mohammed because it was just so awful, but he assured us Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided "really great" information. Then, unbelievably, he tried desperately to assure us "most Americans think this is an unfortunate necessity in the global war on terrorism." Where is he taking the survey??

      I could really do with an actual transcript, or footage of the event...

      by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:45:18 PM PDT

•  Glad you posted this -- Recommended

  I saw this over on Stephen Soldz's site the other day. It's absolutely outrageous.

  If this were a decent country, Graham would be forced to resign. Jokes would be made about him on late-night talk shows. He would be a pariah.

  Instead, nothing will happen.

  "With a twinkle in his eye..." -- Monster!!!

  by Valtin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:39:28 PM PDT

  •  Found it independently...

    He should have cross-posted it to NION at least dammit!

    Oh well, great minds think alike, or so they say... :P

    Heh...

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:42:43 PM PDT

•  OMG

  Every time I read about the US torturing prisioners my stomach turns. Even the most rotten killer on earth does not deserve to be tortured.

  by Sassy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:40:13 PM PDT

  •  And the fact that

    when politicians talk about it they are so casual, no big deal, makes my heart ache. The good old USA, let freedom ring, land of the free, home of the brave, standing up for human rights around the world. Yes, I am now officially a bitter cynic.

    by Sassy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:45:57 PM PDT

  •  No-one does...

    No-one ever should be...

    But, just to drive the point home...

    According to the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

    Article 7

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

    Is one of the rights that is not derogated by a state of emergency, even an existential threat.

    Article 4:

    1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

    2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

    3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:54:24 PM PDT

•  Graham is without doubt

  one of the most odious creeps in the Senate. It doesn't suprise me in the least that he said this. The folksy hokey act does nothing to obscure his depravity.

  by bumblebums on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:41:33 PM PDT

  •  Graham also called Janis Karpinski a coward

    Graham needs to go in 2008 -- if only i could change more minds in my neck of the woods!

    Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
    "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" - Doc Traces Path to Torture of Prisoners at Infamous Iraqi Prison
    http://www.democracynow.org/...

    A Lesson in Washington Etiquette
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/...

    by sc kitty on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:56:21 PM PDT

    •  Or change the right mind...

      All you need to do is change the mind of one lone nut... ;)

      by slave138 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:43:50 PM PDT

      •  trust me, i'm trying! ;-)

        by sc kitty on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Yes, sad to say that he's gay too

    the closet case Republicans are always the worst assholes.

    by BoringDem on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:11:49 PM PDT

    •  Source? [NT]

      by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:13:12 PM PDT

      •  There's no definitive source

        But, well...

        by bumblebums on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:16:35 PM PDT

      •  Your lying eyes are your source!!

        by BoringDem on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:44:26 PM PDT

  •  Graham is the most dishonest senator ever.

    Graham then:

    But Graham, one of two senators who witnessed the closed hearing, said Mohammed told the three-person tribunal that the abuse hadn't affected his testimony.

    "These allegations by Shaikh Mohammed have to be taken seriously and looked at because he was so candid in what he admitted to," Graham said.

    Now

    To the amazement of the audience, Graham said with a twinkle in his eye that "Americans don't mind torture; they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

    This guy cannot be trusted. I think he has a mental problem. Seriously. These Republicans have destroyed the good image of this country. It will take generation to restore if ever. He is such a hypocrite.

    by ameri on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:12:38 PM PDT

  •  graham IS an odious creep but

    it does surprise me-very much.

    Back when mc cain was trying to get that torture ban it was graham who was the most eloquent and passionate spokesman against torture. He went further than mc cain. I was amazed to repect the words of such a creep but he was an awesome spokesman against torture.

    I should say it would surprise me very much if he hadn't insisted on an amendment that denied prisoners any legal redress if they were tortured.

    He is horrible on so much but on the reasons there should be no allowance for torture or inhumane treatment, no exceptions, he was great.

    For example some words from graham on Meet the Press 12/11/05

    This detainee issue is a defining moment for this country in the war on terror.  Senator McCain says it will be the policy of this country, not just for the Department of Defense, but for every agency in the federal government, to treat detainees without cruelty, and cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment will be off the table.  That's what we've been for for 60 years.
    (snip)

    What we cannot do, what Senator McCain cannot allow to happen, or our country cannot allow to happen, is to create immunity or exceptions in the law that has protected us for 60 years.  Because if we start allowing American political figures to waive the law, grant immunity or create exemptions from existing law that the international community has signed up to, what stops the next country from doing the same thing to our own people?  This is a very important decision we're about to make.

    I have to include this next part just for the "vice president of torture" quote

    MR. RUSSERT:  Is the administration asking for immunity for events that may have occurred?

    SEN. GRAHAM: There is a breakdown along how to best protect the troops. There's a philosophical difference here.  I don't want to divulge.  It's honestly held differences.  The vice president is not the vice president of torture.  He is trying to create exemptions, in my opinion, to protect our people that go too far because the way you protect your people is to adhere to the rule of law.  The way you win this war is to embrace a value system different than your enemy.  The Israelis are under siege.  They don't engage in torture.  The British at the House of Lords passed a resolution or a court case said that the U.K. will not engage in torture.  If we're going to teach the Iraqis ethics and values and close down these secret prisons, we've got to practice what we preach.  And if we exempt our own troops from the application of international or domestic law, then we will set in motion forces that will hurt our troops in future conflicts.

    That he smiled gleefully with twinkling eyes in speaking of torture doesn't fit the man speaking out so earnestly at that time. He must be one hell of an actor.

    by joynow on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:24:40 PM PDT

    •  Check the Diary update...

      That he smiled gleefully with twinkling eyes in speaking of torture doesn't fit the man speaking out so earnestly at that time. He must be one hell of an actor.

      There's conflicts on the exact nature of the statement, but the gist is the same in both eyewitness reports.

      by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:43:03 PM PDT

      •  I'm not saying it didn't happen

        It might well have, why would they lie about it?

        I'm saying it is a surprise to me. He spoke so well the words I wanted someone to say that I saw it as genuine. That doesn't mean he was sincere or that my impressions were right.

        Something so honorable definitely seemed out of place for him, but I am sad to hear the truth may be very different.

        by joynow on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:13:34 PM PDT

        •  The second report

          Gives me the impression of it more of a confused hangdog confession, than an expression of glee...

          Developing story I guess...

          by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 07:00:55 PM PDT

•  "you can't handle the truth"

  unless you're drinking whatever is in lindsey graham's mug, that is. i think it is righteousness & sour mash.

  by rasbobbo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:41:48 PM PDT

  •  self righteousness and malice n/t

    by TexasTwister on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:56:02 PM PDT

•  I guess everyone wants a part

  of Bush's war crimes and violations of U.S. law.

  by duha on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:43:00 PM PDT

•  Great Diary

  One question/quibble though -- why in the world is the Detroit News identifying Senator Carl Levin as "D-Detroit"?  As somebody who grew up in the suburbs of that city, I know that Detroiters often think that they are the state, but this is really taking things too far!  

  by SVDem on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:43:05 PM PDT

  •  Sorry!

    I honestly have no idea...

    Anyway,

    Fixed in my text, and added a "[sic]" to The Detroit News blockquote.

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Because it's from a Michigan paper?

    If you are traveling out of state, and someone asks where you're from, you might answer with the name of your state. If you're talking to someone within your state, and asked the same question, you are more likely to answer with the name of your city.

    I think it's about that simple.

    That said, it is much more common to use the "D-Detroit" convention for state legislators than for US Senators.

    by VictorLaszlo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

    •  Maybe You're Right

      But I have to say, I have never seen this done anywhere else.  I live in San Francisco now, and I have never seen Feinstein referenced in our local papers as "D-San Francisco" simply because she's from here...

      by SVDem on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:44:10 PM PDT

•  That's freaky land right there

  And isn't kinda close to revealing classifed info? Not that people don't know it, but he's speaking as a Senator who knows details. And what the hell did Kennedy say?

  I find this odd, to the point of barely believing it.

  by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:58:25 PM PDT

  •  That's why I used question marks...

    Still...

    I find it credible...

    Anyway, what's that acronym?

    IOKIYAR?

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:04:41 PM PDT

    •  It unfortunately, in my mind

      carries the Truthout taint from the Leopold debacle.

      by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:39:31 PM PDT

      •  Heh...

        Is the NYTimes permanently tainted by the Judith Miller debacle?

        by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:49:26 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          I don't want to write them off...

          by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:52:36 PM PDT

          •  If you haven't already...

            Check the update to the Diary...

            Hopefully it'll restore a little of your confidence in truthout....

            by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:28:40 PM PDT

            •  I hadn't. Thanks. nt

              by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:39:20 PM PDT

•  I don't get this

  Please watch the HBO video and see his comments for yourself.

  What HBO video? I thought it was a panel discussion that followed a viewing of the documentary. Was HBO there, filming for another documentary? How would we see this footage?

  by bumblebums on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:03:11 PM PDT

  •  I dunno...

    I'm just reporting this...

    Footage recorded for the special features section on the DVD release?

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:06:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm guessing Col. Wright meant

      that HBO filmed the Q&A and she assumes the Grahm bit will be part of the finished tape. She didn't say she's seen it yet.

      by LithiumCola on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:26:18 PM PDT

  •  Exactly what I'm asking myself... and

    I think the diarist hints at this as well? I am so con-fuuz-eddd.

    by Malachite on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

•  Sheikh has been dead awhile...according to family

  I'm confused too.  The Sheikh has been dead for several months, according to his family who identified his body after a battle. Don't you think it's possible for Booshco to say he admitted to practically everything having to do with 9/11 so they could quit justifying why they are not looking for Osama bin Laden? What if he's been dead for months?  Have any of these Senators seen him? I'm just asking.

  by DollyLlama on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:26:49 PM PDT

•  Isn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the murderer who

  decapitated Daniel Pearl? and planned and committed many other killings of innocents.  He must have had lot of info the US and our allies can use in locating his associates and plans.  While I'm not crazy about torture, we have an abligation to obtain info from him to prevent other attacks.

  by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:27:04 PM PDT

  •  Twist my arm hard enough...

    ...and I'll confess to being the gunman on the grassy knoll who shot JFK.

    by bobinson on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:33:21 PM PDT

    •  Your not seriously saying that this killer didn't

      commit and plan some of the acts he confessed to?  

      by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:53:16 PM PDT

      •  Probably,

        But we can't prove guilt now, the evidence is utterly tainted, and the confession lacks credibility.

        by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

      •  He's saying that the premise of your comment

        is dirt dumb, to be frank. Torture. Doesn't. Work.

        And you have to be one of the people, like the many on the right, that can not grasp that having a policy  of not using torture is more about US than any them. Can you get that?

        by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:55:51 PM PDT

      •  Which ones?

        Good odds that some of them are true. But how do you know which ones? How can you know, except by methods that independently verify them, making his statements at best corroborating, but essentially irrelevant.

        by RandomSequence on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:57:26 PM PDT

        •  Right, the logical thing to do is to

          independently corroborate statements obtained under torture (if that can be done.).  I am not for torture, but given the kind of enemies we are up against--the radical islamists--there may be occassions where it may have to be used.  Perhaps the idea of torture warrants, going to some kind of court, to present the case.

          by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:15:29 PM PDT

          •  That's just crazy.

            If there is an absolutely impending need, well then the officers should go ahead, commit the crime, and take responsibility. A jury of their peers may nullify. But to create a bureaucratic mechanism to pre-approve torture so that the torturer is absolved of any mistakes, and responsibility is diffused throughout a bureaucracy is inviting abuse. Additionally, if you have time to corroborate to a strong enough degree, the cases where the torture was necessary quickly approach zero. The only case where torture would be justified is when you don't have the time or capability to corroborate, and must immediately take action on specific facts. So, once again, you're faced with taking the consequences and acting on your personal moral need. If you come up for trial, explain it to your countrymen.

            by RandomSequence on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:22:51 PM PDT

            •  What you said

              If there is an absolutely impending need, well then the officers should go ahead, commit the crime, and take responsibility

              looks like you are now defending torture in some circumstances.

              by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:26:48 PM PDT

              •  You are a game player and obtuse

                The "enemies we're up against." AHHHHHHHHHH!

                "Radical islamists!" AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

                "50,000 people killed in cars every year!" AHHHHHHHHH!

                We must torture the cars.

                by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

              •  What I am against

                is the state condoning torture. We've been down this road before - it ends well for none. Everything is possible. Who knows what may possibly happen? I can come up with unique hypotheticals to justify almost anything. What is essential is that they are unique. Yes, I might run into Osama walking down the street - if I'm carrying my gun, I should shoot him. If I'm wrong, I should fry; if I'm right, I should plead my case in court. Neither means the government should give me a get out of jail card preemptively, in case I should happen to run into Osama. Specific instances I may condone as an individual, regarding the actions of another individual, have fairly little to do with what should be legislated or regulated by the state. I have the capability of moral judgment; some of my countrymen have that capability also. But the state utterly lacks such judgment - it only has power and survival in mind.

                by RandomSequence on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:34:50 PM PDT

      •  Let's go through this in baby steps....

        Given a hypothetical situation with two actors, a Torturer and a Victim.

        The role of the Victim is to have pain inflicted upon them by the Torturer, and to attempt to avoid said pain being inflicted upon them, or if pain is currently being inflicted upon them to cause it to cease.

        The role of the Torturer (being generous here and assuming it isn't to extract a confession, or break the Victim's psyche) is to inflict pain upon the Victim in an attempt to extract accurate information they do not already know from the Victim.

        In this situation, the Victim will say firstly, whatever will make the pain stop, and secondly, whatever will avoid them further pain in the future.

        Given this situation, how does the Torturer choose to cease inflicting pain, and how do they choose not to inflict further pain?

        by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:27:34 PM PDT

  •  *ahem*

    Torture extracts confessions, not information...

    It's great for show-trials, useless for actual, y'know, Intel.

    Along with everything else under the sun. He confessed to planning to attack a bank that didn't even exist when he was captured.

    Anyway, I'm sure he's done some pretty ugly things, but what happened to actually getting a fair trial?

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:40:54 PM PDT

    •  A Fair Trial?

      They're all fair as long as Bush and Friends say they are!  We all know the only kangaroo courts are those damn liberals out west that keep overturning perfectly (un)reasonable laws... /sarcasm

      by slave138 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:49:01 PM PDT

    •  Thanks. Ay yai yai.

      by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:53:24 PM PDT

    •  It is illogical to say that torture never

      produces accurate information.  How do you know that?  

      by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:55:33 PM PDT

      •  I never said that.

        Obviously, for example if you're torturing someone into confessing something you already have proof they did, then that's accurate information.

        But, it is not useful intel.

        by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:58:13 PM PDT

      •  You don't know what you're speaking about here

        I think you should read more about it.

        by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:59:43 PM PDT

        •  I will make it my assigment to dilligently

          read more about torture--its history, its methods, and future prospects--and then I may have enough knowledge, with your permission, to again express an opinion on the topic.

          by sandbox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:18:41 PM PDT

          •  You just did without my permission

            Why say such a dumbass thing? Don't whine simply because somebody points out the dumbosscitude of your opinions.

            by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:33:52 PM PDT

          •  Not to mention the moral bankruptcy

            of your position. And its lack of courage. It takes courage to go through life as a human and a nation and not be a fearful and violent asshole while doing it. It takes courage because it might not always work to your benefit. Some fucked up violent shit might kill you. it's still the more courageous and admirable way to go.

            Why didn't you answer the question about how no-torture is about us, not them?

            by Little on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:37:41 PM PDT

          •  this kind of accuracy is one of the problems

            Australian op piece on KSM Some of KSMs confessions:

            After 2 1/2 minutes on the waterboard, CIA officials said he was "begging to confess". He admitted to 31 different plots - nearly every act of terrorism against the US since the early 1990s.

            Such as:

            While his hand in 9/11 has been independently confirmed, his other claims are less believable. Former CIA field officer Robert Baer told Time: "(KSM) is making things up. I’m told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl’s execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimises KSM’s role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated." Pearl’s father told ABC News in the US the facts "don’t match (KSM’s) story". Asra Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who knew Pearl well, said: "Anyone who saw the tape of Danny’s murder could confess to those details." She added: "From everyone I’ve talked to in Danny’s family there isn’t closure ... there’s not convincing evidence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the killer."

            Then there's the effect of the theory of relativity on the stories related:

            KSM has also confessed to attempting to bomb the US’s Plaza Bank headquarters prior to his arrest in March 2003. ... Plaza Bank was founded in early 2006.

            KSM is by all reports a very bad guy and there is independent evidence he had a direct role in the thwarted Bojinka (sp?) and definitely the 9/11 plot. However, there is no way now to untangle real facts and the years of abusive detention also end up having mental degredation aspects to where you can't get good information if you want to and if they want to cooperate. The bigger issue, though, is that torture is wrong. Period.  Just like breaking and entering into someone's home.   Now and then someone might try to make a case that there were such highly unusual facts and circumstances, so demanding an immediate response, that they feel they should be excused from punishment for torture - just like, for example, someone passing a home who hears an invalid screaming might break in to rescue them and claim those exigent circumstances and good samaritan status as a defense.  But the fact that now and then someone might have a defense for doing something illegal doesn't mean that we make the illegal legal, then not bother with the justifications and defense.   Particularly when, as now, we have chosen to infect not just Bush's Kangaroo Military Courts with the process and product of torture, but our civilian courts as well (Padilla's warrant, based on tortured statements, has been specifically affirmed as AOK in America's Federal courts - now opening the door to any American being able to be arrested based on what someone, anywhere, can torture out of an "interviewee."  The Salah case in Chicago was another effort to open the torture door and while the case itself didn't result in significant convictions, the fact that a Federal Judge was again willing to let in what was pretty much inevitably torture based testimony, was another loss for this country. Bad guys need to be punished and I even support the death penalty in certain instances.  But we don't corrupt our country with torture and its effect, both of incorrect information and cultural sadism, without horrific consequences. When we draft the Department of Justice into service soliciting torture, it's pretty much heartbreaking.

            by Mary2002 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:50:24 PM PDT

      •  It's not that it's inaccurate -

        it's that it's unreliable, and you have little way to distinguish the two. It's the equivalent of playing the mole-hunting game, where you're as likely to be helping your opponent as hurting him.

        If you put someone on LSD, you'll get all sort of statements out of them - some will be true, some will be fantastic, some will sound true but be fantastic, some will sound fantastic but sound true; there's very little basis to distinguish them without separate in depth investigation. You're better off simply avoiding the LSD and just using the more traditional methods to get information in the first place. That choice also has the added advantage that you also avoid the slippery slope of giving someone the authority to dispense LSD.

        by RandomSequence on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:02:58 PM PDT

  •  So, you know who decapitated Daniel Pearl?

    I think you mean, the man or admitted murderer -- such admission made under torture -- who claims to have decapitated Daniel Pearl... don't you? Or do you have some kind of evidence of your own? Please come forward if you do. The Pearl case has haunted me since it happened, and I read Bernard Levy's fascinating book on it. I deeply grieve for his family. Don't play around with such serious accusations.

    by Valtin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:52:58 PM PDT

  •  How do you know?

    Really, here we get to the theory of knowledge. How do you know? Are statements obtained under torture reliable?

    If he is who he is claimed to be, how can we consider any statement he makes reliable, whether under torture or not? His goal would then be to mislead us in any way possible. He might tell tales taking responsibility for everything including the JFK assassination, just to throw us off the scent. He might make up future planned operations to get us to waste resources.

    It's simply madness to go down this road of playing mind games with the mad and the bad.

    by RandomSequence on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:55:45 PM PDT

  •  What really stinks

    is that the guys in Pakistan who were convicted of really killing Pearl are now making a bid for clemency, due to KSM's so-called "confession". The trouble with torture is that people will confess to anything you tell them to (even witchcraft), just to make the pain stop.

    by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:57:04 PM PDT

•  Pardon me, Senator Graham,

  US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

  I absolutely insist on knowing about the techniques.  A free and open democracy requires, as an absolute minimum, that the people "know about" the actions taken in their name. Your cute, jokey-jokey dismissal of the underpinnings of Western Civilization and the very concept of government by the people is worthy of note.  As is your enjoyment, your glee, at having the inside scoop . . . as though you had the inside story on the next Indiana Jones movie. If the United States is engaging in practices that would offend the sensibilities of the average Christian, Muslim, Jew, or for that matter make a billygoat barf in revulsion, then the citizens, your fucking employers, Sen. Graham, do very much want to, as you say, "know about" it.

  by LithiumCola on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:34:13 PM PDT

  •  Hear Hear! I also *insist* on knowing.

    If it's done in our name, it should be televised so that everyone can see.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:17:42 PM PDT

  •  If Graham actually said this...

    (And I think that's still an IF, unless I'm missing some solid proof here...)

    ...But IF Graham said this, he is in direct, 100%, absolute contradiction of his previous position on the matter.

    This is from a Sept. 2006 Newsweek interview with Graham, conducted by Michael Isikoff:

    NEWSWEEK: Another big issue is the use of aggressive interrogation techniques like water-boarding [a simulated drowning experience], sleep deprivation and other techniques that might be considered abusive. Have we gotten useful intelligence using these techniques?

    GRAHAM:  I don’t know. I’m not on [the Senate intelligence] committee. And I wouldn’t believe them if they told me .... I know the prosecutor at Gitmo believes that water-boarding inherently renders a statement involuntary. Water-boarding is a near drowning experience. It’s pretty hard to say that a person voluntarily gave you something there. It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary. So they don’t need to go down that road. They don’t need all that stuff ...

    NEWSWEEK:  Are there no circumstances in which we should use them?

    GRAHAM:  Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it [then] we’re not a rule-of-law nation ... John [McCain] and I argue. We love "24."

    NEWSWEEK:  You mean the TV show?

    GRAHAM:  He memorizes it. That’s his favorite TV show. These guys going all around, shooting people in the kneecaps. And he won’t miss an episode. But he’ll come back the next day and say, we still have got to treat people right. ..What if the president of the United States were told there’s a terrorist somewhere and we believe he knows where lethal weapons are.  If the president of the United States authorizes people—‘do whatever you have to do’—here’s what we’d be giving up:  If we let our chief of state decide the law is getting in the way, what’s to prevent some other [foreign] chief of state from saying, ‘that American pilot we’ve captured, he knows where the next bomb wave is coming, do what you got to do.’ That’s what’s hard about being a democracy ... The enemy has no moral dilemma. They don’t sit around wondering, what do we do here? People tell me—hah! They’ll cut our heads off. I say, ‘I know that. So what do we do? Cut their heads off?  What does that make us? It might make us feel better. But you’ll wake up one day and the next thing you know, you’ve lost your way.’

    Link to entire interview

    Quite aside from anything else, it's sad to see that our supposed grown-ups in government are such drooling fanboys of "24."

    by chumley on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:18:23 PM PDT

    •  Heh...

      GRAHAM:  Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it [then] we’re not a rule-of-law nation ... John [McCain] and I argue. We love "24."

      That's a statement that cuts both ways...

      Anyway, check the update to the Diary...

      by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:09:39 PM PDT

  •  Hear! Hear! I insist, too. "Don't tell ...

    ...me what you're doing, just do it" makes us sound like mafia dons hoping for plausible deniability should they ever get hauled before the grand jury.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

•  This

  He was treated to "waterboarding," or simulated drowning

  is a bizarre choice of words.

  Lindsey Graham already had my vote for worst Republican, and he just keeps on proving why he deserves it.

  by marina on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:37:18 PM PDT

  •  That's not Graham:

    That's from the WaPo...

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:43:16 PM PDT

    •  Yes I know

      It was two thoughts, sorry! :>p

      by marina on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:52:37 PM PDT

      •  To be fair, there's this:

        Graham opened his questioning of Gonzales with this:

           I think we've dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on the slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law, because it's come back to bite us. Abu Ghraib has hurt us in many ways. I travel throughout the world like the rest of the members of the Senate, and I can tell you it is a club that our enemies use, and we need to take that club out of their hand. Guantanamo Bay, the way it's been run has hurt the war effort. So if we're going to win this war, Judge Gonzales, we need friends and we need to recapture the moral high ground.

        http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/...

        But, like Specter, he claims the high ground and then runs a bulldozer through it.

        by marina on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:16:40 PM PDT

•  Americans don't mind torture; they really don't.

  Say what?  When Senator Graham publicly states that torture is acceptable in America, we have a real problem.  By all means, Senator, tell us about these techiques used to get good results from KSM.  It will be most useful in prosecuting members of the Bush administration for war crimes.  If Americans really don't mind torture, then they will ignore Graham.  If they do mind, they will hold he and the Bush administration accountable.  

  Torture, wink wink nudge nudge.  I never thought I would hear a US Senator say those words.  Sad.

  by DWG on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:41:27 PM PDT

•  Convict, THEN torture

  I imagine many Americans see torture as the just punishment terrorists deserver, but it's been used by the Bush Administration for coercing confessions that may in fact be false confessions.

  Perhaps the point can be driven home with by borrowing Lindsey's Gramm eye twinkle as we suggest a "better" policy might be "convict, THEN torture."

  Might be a conversation starter anyway.

  by overlander on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:46:41 PM PDT

  •  As much as it sickens me...

    It would be an improvement over the current state of affairs...

    by kraant on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:48:26 PM PDT

    •  Imagine how we look to the rest of the world

      War of aggression, concentration camps in three countries, Abu Ghraib, torture as official policy, kidnapping people on foreign soil to torture them in another country, human rights violations... Every time I think we have sunk to a new low, we sink lower.   Nice diary.   Did Kennedy have a response?  This story needs much wider circulation.  This is another one of those "I am ashamed to be an American" moments for me.  

      by DWG on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:08:04 PM PDT

•  For crying out loud!

  the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

  Oh really? And how do we even know if anything he confessed to is true? The practically confessed to killing JR, as well as any other crime, really or imagined, in the last 30 years.
  Gimme a break.

  by MA Liberal on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:14:44 PM PDT

  •  Think of the Salem witch trials

    Grab some people off the street, accuse them of having made a pact with the Devil, then torture them mercilessly until some "confess". Then loudly crow about how you've protected the community from witches. Just. Fucking. Insanely. Stupid. The real tragedy here is that KSM probably is guilty of some seriously bad stuff, but now I doubt that we'll ever sort the truth from the nonsense.

    by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:06:31 PM PDT

•  FYI

  Graham received his JD in 1981, and began his military career in 1982. He's now a Reserve JAG.
  http://capwiz.com/...

  by marina on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:21:13 PM PDT

•  this is sickening

  we knew it - we knew it all along - but still, how is it that this country has elected leaders who are really no different from Ted Bundy? how has that happened? how have we fallen that low?

  by cookiebear on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:18:44 PM PDT