Another Obama Security Nominee Quits Over Torture Questions

By Steve Hynd

Remember that Obama's original pick to head the CIA, John Brennan, withdrew his nomination when it became obvious that the Senate would ask him about what he knew about Bush's torturing ways, and when he knew it? Obama gave him a sinecure anyway - making him the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

Now another Obama nominee has gone the same route.

Philip Mudd, a former deputy director at both the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis and the National Counterterrorism Center, was scheduled to appear next week before the Senate as the nominee for undersecretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security.

...Mudd, currently a senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, faced an increasingly charged political atmosphere on Capitol Hill about the CIA's interrogation program. Mudd's nomination was to be taken up by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which by law has jurisdiction over his confirmation, and by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has authorization responsibility for his department.

Over the Memorial Day recess, Mudd met with senior staff members of the Homeland Security panel whose interest was primarily how he would handle issues of intelligence sharing with state and local police units. When, near the end of a two-hour session, they went over Mudd's CIA positions from 2001 to 2005, it became apparent that questions about harsh interrogations, renditions and allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda would have to be explored, according to a person at the session who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

"Since he was deputy director of the counterterrorism center, he was going to be asked whether interrogation produced useful intelligence, and if it didn't, why didn't he stop it?" the source said.

Supporters are still pulling the "but he was just following orders" defense as if Nuremberg never happened and Obama said he accepted Mudd's withdrawal "with sadness and regret."

Obama's insistence on sheltering the toxic fallout survivors of Bush's criminal policies has already poisoned his presidency for me. Without the rule of law there is only privilege and as Russ pointed out this morning Obama is gung-ho for more of that too.

Comments

[Bill Lumbergh]

Naive.
The reality is we would sacrifice too much in doing this 'right thing'.
Seems some have forgotten that the 'Pubs derailed Clinton over a series of nothings. Imagine what they and their corporate media counterparts could accomplish with a hot potato like this.
The GOP doesn't care about doing the right thing or playing fair, they care about winning. And unfortunately, we might have to play by those rules in order to beat them back.
"We did the right thing" won't be much comfort if the corporate GOP scum take back the government.

[Steve Hynd]

Bill, you really think this is just about politics and whether the GOP win an election or two? It's about far bigger matters than that.

"we might have to play by those rules in order to beat them back"

That's what the right said about Al Qaida to justify torturing, white phosphorus, airstrikes on civilians...

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

[James B]

Wrong questions, should have been "when did you find out about the enhanced technique and why didn't you stop it?"
All else is a cover-up. I dont see why the world hasn't stepped into the fray. And charged some people here.
After all it's a world crime, against humanity.