Yesterday, military prosecutors announced that they have filed death penalty charges against six detainees for their roles in the 9/11 attacks. One of these men, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, has been confirmed to have been waterboarded.

Attorney General Mike Mukasey has also refused to rule out using this evidence in court, saying, “What evidence gets presented at this trial is up to the prosecutors.”

But today on BBC Radio, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband broke with the country’s American ally, citing “some concerns” over the use of torture evidence:

Speaking on a BBC programme in response to a question from a listener, Miliband confirmed that the UK defined water-boarding as torture, adding: “We don’t … we would never use water-boarding.” [...]

“And I think it’s very, very important that we always assert that our system of values is different from those who attacked the US and killed British citizens on September 11, and that’s something we’d always want to stand up for.”

Asked whether the trial of Mohammed would respect his legal rights, Miliband replied: “We have some concerns about that.”

With the departure of former prime minister Tony Blair, Britain has become increasingly willing to speak out against U.S. policies. British newspapers have appeared “eager” and enthusiastic for the end of Bush’s presidency. Prince Andrew, who is fourth in line to the British throne, recently “launched a sharp attack” against Bush for “failing to listen to Britain during the conflict in Iraq.” Britain has also pushed for the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

On CNN last night, Charles Swift, who represented Salim Hamdan in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, said that the last time waterboarding evidence was used in trial was during the Spanish Inquisition.

Speaking to reporters in Richmond, VA last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked “anyone” who points out that he is “fine” with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 or more years. “Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war,” said McCain.

He then added that it is “really almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question “how long we’re in Iraq” because he believes the current “strategy” is “succeeding.” Watch it:

By dismissing as na¯ve those concerned with how long the U.S. military is mired in Iraq, McCain is claiming that top officials in the Pentagon don’t understand “the military” or “war” as well as he does. In a recent GOP presidential debate, McCain argued, “I’m the expert” on Iraq.

Top military brass, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, have worried in the past year that “a protracted deployment of U.S. troops”in Iraq would not be a wise move for the military:

- In October 2007, Casey said that “it’s going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put” the Army “back in balance” and that time frame depends on when “the conflict end[s].”

- In July 2007, Mullen testified that without political and economic progress in Iraq, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” and that “a protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq…risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions.”

By McCain’s logic, both the Army Chief of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t “understand the military” as well as he does.

Military prosecutors announced yesterday that they have filed death penalty charges “against a former senior leader of Al Qaeda and five other Guant¡namo detainees on Monday for their roles” in the 9/11 attacks.

One of these detainees, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the so-called 9/11 “mastermind,” has been confirmed to have been waterboarded. Yesterday evening, Attorney General Mike Mukasey refused to rule out using this evidence in court, saying, “What evidence gets presented at this trial is up to the prosecutors.”

On CNN last night, Charles Swift, the “hero of Guantanamo” who represented Salim Hamdan in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, slammed the government’s refusal to rule out waterboarding-based evidence in the military commission:

SWIFT: And if we use — we move beyond the torture discussion to the question of using this in a trial where life and death is at stake. If we use waterboarded testimony in that trial, to my knowledge…the last precedent for using that kind of testimony was the Spanish Inquisition.

Watch it:

Swift added the government’s “incredibly unenviable position” of using torture evidence “is further compromised by the fact that we destroyed the tapes of the interrogations themselves,” referring to the CIA’s interrogation tape destruction.

And according to Swift, the trial could be unfair, as the government’s Office of Military Commissions has no attorneys who are “death-penalty-qualified currently assigned” to the case. They “don’t have the resources,” he said. “The government seems to almost intentionally insure that there is not sufficient assets to put on a credible defense.”

Swift concluded, “I have absolute faith in our system of justice that we can convict an admitted mastermind without using torture to do it. It’s the fact that we keep trying to do it that’s destroying us.”