Thomas Joscelyn Sets the Record Straight on Abu Zubaydah

Be sure to catch Thomas Joscelyn’s total evisceration of Jason Linkins’s Huffington Post piece attacking Marc Thiessen and the Washington Post.

Linkins just goes off on Thiessen and the Washington Post in what comes off as a petty grievance that Thiessen has been given column space in the Post.  Thiessen is, of course, the author of Courting Disaster which examines in some detail the CIA interrogation program suspended by Barack Obama.  Thiessen’s thesis is that Obama’s policies are putting the United States in grave danger of another attack.

Linkins, writing for HuffPo, attacks Thiessen’s theory in Courting Disaster that Abu Zubaydah was affiliated with al Qaeda by quoting a defense attorney for Zubaydah, Brent Mickum of Hollingsworth, LLP.

Joscelyn totally takes apart the claim by Mickum that Zubaydah is not and never was al Qaeda.  According to Linkins:

Mickum contends that everything you’ve likely learned about Abu Zubaydah in the press — for example, that he was a high-ranking al Qaeda operative with extensive knowledge of terrorist activities — is incorrect, and that the government, in their case against Zubaydah, no longer disputes this.

“Abu Zubaydah, categorically, was not affiliated with al Qaeda,” Mickum said. “He was never a top leader of al Qaeda because he was never a member and he openly disagreed with the militaristic policies of al Qaeda. The camp he is alleged to have been involved with was closed in 2000 — two years before his capture — because the emir who oversaw it refused to allow it to fall under the control of al Qaeda. Thus, he is not, and never was, the man that the Bush administration made him out to be — someone who orchestrated terrorist attacks.”

Well what ELSE would a defense attorney say?

After giving fourteen points of correction on Mickum’s argument, Joscelyn concludes:

There is more – much more. But we’ll stop here because by now it should be obvious that al Qaeda lawyer Brent Mickum’s claims are total rubbish.

But in deciding whether to run with (a) the overwhelming evidence against Zubaydah or (b) the word of a shill for a top al Qaeda terrorist, the Huffington Post chose the shill.

It would be difficult to find anybody that knows more about this subject than Joscelyn or Thiessen.  I’d stand with him before The Huffington Post or a defense attorney for a terrorist any day.