Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the Left

Bush has the lefties all worked up over the transfer of KSM and Zubaydah to Gitmo. They're so worked up they are writing posts such as this:

However, look deeper and not only is the White House not giving an inch in the debate, the KSM Shift of 2006 actually takes a mile. That's because, to be blunt, we have tortured the dickens (to use a Rumsfeldian locution) out of KSM. All Guantánamo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the U.S. legal system. KSM, therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree"--that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain's Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says "of course not!" but Bush indicated in his infamous "signing statement" that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases. Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is!

Oooohhhh, he used italics and an exclamation point to really make his feelings known. Calm down Spence and take you Ritalin, KSM and the others will not walk away from Gitmo.

Ackerman assumes that we used torture on KSM without any direct knowledge. In his world, if we kept him in secret for all these years, we must've tortured him. This may not be the case--or at least the case as Ackerman sees it. The "fruit of the poison tree" angle he cites will not apply if the torture he rants about was not considered torture under international law.

Either way, the government still can argue that until we granted rights under the Geneva Convention, KSM had no rights under the Geneva Convention. That may be a winnable argument.

Bush is putting congress in a position they don't like going into an election cycle that is starting to really heat up. They either must approve his plans for legal action or offer a plan themselves that will accomplish the goal of punishing terrorists. Being that congress--especially on the minority side--is loathe to make any tough decisions or offer new ideas, they will carp and scream about the rights of terrorists and thus look even more like people who can't be trusted with power.

Mohammed and Zubaydah will be granted a trial and will be convicted. Period.

I further predict that Kerry, Kennedy and Dean will make fools of themselves and come out looking like terrorist defenders--as if they already don't. Hillary will toe the line as will Biden and Ned Lamont will join with the three stooges mentioned above.

Other lefty reaction here and here.

The misguided Larry Johnson says that we extracted no meaningful information from KSM. He formed this opinion based on books written over the last two years:

According to Bush, secret prisons and torture have kept America safe. Not entirely true. While fessing up to the secret prisons, one of the critical things Bush failed to tell the American people was that CIA interrogators learned the hard way that torture was not an effective interrogation method. Books written by Jim Risen and Ron Suskind during the past two years provide compelling accounts that torture against people, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohamad (KSM), was ineffective. Suskind recounts that KSM, one of the masterminds behind the 9-11 attack, was waterboarded--a technique designed to make you feel like you are drowning. Interrogators also threatened to rape and murder his family. KSM reportedly replied, "Do what you will, my family will be with God".

So that I get this straight, Johnson is basing his info on books by Risen and Suskind who probably got their info after a serious amount of whisper down the lane. KSM was kept in a secret prison with no access but selected intelligence types. How could they have any information that could be confirmed? That right there makes Johnson's analysis inane and not worthy of further comment.

Johnson continues that CIA officers also revealed info but that too must be taken with a grain of salt. Prior to Bush be elected, the CIA had free reign and did not have to work with FBI all that often. Bush forced the CIA to share information and it pissed them off. Just because a disgruntled CIA type says something doesn't make it true.