Philip Mudd, Obama Nominee, Linked To CIA Torture

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Philip Mudd, Obama Nominee, Linked To CIA Torture stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

PAMELA HESS and EILEEN SULLIVAN | June 4, 2009 05:24 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's pick for a top intelligence post at the Homeland Security Department is expected to face questions from senators about his ties to the CIA's harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

At issue is the extent of Philip Mudd's involvement in the CIA's interrogation program while he was a senior official at the agency during the Bush administration. Mudd was nominated to be under secretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security. His confirmation hearing is expected next week.

Mudd, who was deputy director of the Office of Terrorism Analysis at the CIA, had direct knowledge of the agency's interrogations, which included a method of simulated drowning called "waterboarding," according to a congressional aide, who was not authorized to disclose the information and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Neither Mudd nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

The interrogation methods have come under harsh criticism by Democratic lawmakers and President Barack Obama, who has said waterboarding is torture.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Thursday Mudd's ties to the program will be probed.

"Even though members of this committee did not object to the program until it became politically risky, I expect the nominee will be questioned on his involvement," Bond told The Associated Press.

Another Republican senator wants more information about Obama's top pick for the post as well. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said her staff is looking into the extent of Mudd's involvement in these interrogation programs.

Story continues below
advertisement

Charlie Allen, the former top intelligence official at the Homeland Security Department and longtime senior official at the CIA, said Mudd is the right person for the job.

"He is a highly respected professional intelligence officer who is honest and is an individual of high integrity. Period," Allen said.

Part of Mudd's job as the chief intelligence officer at the department would be continuing to build the intelligence operations and working with the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community, collecting and sharing information about potential threats to the country. The position was created in 2003.

The Democratically controlled Senate will have to decide whether indirect involvement or knowledge of the CIA's interrogation program is enough to disqualify a candidate who has been praised by Allen and other current and former intelligence officials.

Mudd's analysts used information obtained through harsh interrogations, and the congressional aide said that Mudd is likely to be questioned on whether the analysis branch pressured interrogators in the field to use harsher methods because they believed detainees were not telling the truth.

In November, Obama's selection of John Brennan to become CIA director was derailed after a firestorm of criticism from liberal bloggers that associated him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition programs.

Faced with the prospects of contentious confirmation hearings, Brennan withdrew from consideration. He currently serves as the president's White House-based homeland security adviser, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

Phil LaVelle, spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Mudd's confirmation hearing will be next week. Lavelle declined further comment on the issue.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's pick for a top intelligence post at the Homeland Security Department is expected to face questions from senators about his ties to the CIA's harsh interro...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's pick for a top intelligence post at the Homeland Security Department is expected to face questions from senators about his ties to the CIA's harsh interro...
Filed by Rachel Weiner
 
Comments
28
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

I'm sorry, when the definition of "individual of high integrity" is expanded to include anybody who had anything to do with the Bush/Cheney Torture Program, it ceases to have any meaning for me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 06/04/2009
- smchp I'm a Fan of smchp 75 fans permalink
photo

That's a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 06/04/2009
- swanie I'm a Fan of swanie 31 fans permalink
photo

Mudd's name should be MUD - a pun ! ! !

Those who said nothing are just as guilty as those who did it. Remember Nuremberg ? ?

He should not be confirmed. End of conversation. .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 06/04/2009
photo

There is no such thing as "harsh interogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" --THE WORD FOR THIS IS TORTURE.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 06/04/2009

Although we don't have a way to confirm whether Obama's pick for a top intelligence post has ties to the CIA's harsh interrogation program, this information has some credibility because Obama is protecting Cheney et al from prosecution. More than that, he is even using his Administrative powers to block the release of photos which might cause some embarrassment to Cheney and others.

Until Obama is willing to have an open and transparent government like a democracy, some thinking people will suspect that the information released by the congressional aide is true. As additional information is leaked out in the future re more issues, some thinking people will also suspect that information is true.

For others, let me save you some typing:
* "He's brilliant.­"
* "I trust him."
* "What do you expect him to accomplish in only five months?"
* "Would you have preferred McCain?" "Or worse yet, Nader?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 06/04/2009
photo

Sounds like he'll get all up votes from the GOP

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 06/04/2009
- tel8034 I'm a Fan of tel8034 89 fans permalink

When the Bush administration wanted hide their "dirt", they ALWAYS came up with the line that they were not able to disclose any information because of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Persons who were privy to what was happening also could not speak out because of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Valarie Plame is a good example of what happpend to persons who "squealed" on what the Bush administration were doing.....­......... She was treated as if she was a TRAITOR because a Bush administration LIE was publically debunked.

So to say that persons knew about the CIA torture but didn't speak out has to be seen in the context of what the atmosphere in the Bush White House was like at the time ..........­...... THEY MAY HAVE KNOWN BUT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUT.

Persons in congress may have been briefed, and then again from what we are finding out maybe they were not briefed, or were they briefed LONG AFTER THE FACT, and AFTER THE DAMAGE HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE but because of "NATIONAL SECURITY" concerns they were not allowed to go public with what they knew.

So I don't know why persons are taking the heat for having to adhere to a well known Bush/Cheney policy of SAYING NOTHING IN ORDER TO PRESERVE NATIONAL SECURITY, and knowing that if they disclose any information, they would face criminal charges and end up like Valerie Plame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 06/04/2009
photo

some anonymous "aide" said something and it's a headline on HP? pulling the trigger a little early?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 06/04/2009

Get the facts first. Many rumors are being made to undermine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 06/04/2009
- gbrooks I'm a Fan of gbrooks 69 fans permalink
photo

While I agree that we need more facts, I think that an early protest of any potential connection to torture is healthy in making this more publicly known so he will actually be looked into.

If we say nothing and he slides in the position, nobody will look into the potential connection, nobody will know and they will not know that we vehemently object to anyone with connections to the torture program being employed in our gov't.

Know what I'm saying?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 06/04/2009
- bigsioux I'm a Fan of bigsioux 35 fans permalink

Before stringing this guy up, maybe we should wait for the facts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 06/04/2009
- Ramirez I'm a Fan of Ramirez 263 fans permalink
photo

This is unfair to the nominee. He is being hit with a cheapshot by some anonymous staffer who claims the nominee "had direct knowledge of the agency's harsh interrogation program." Good grief. Half the Democrats in Congress had "direct knowledge of the agency's harsh interrogation program." Are they unfit for their jobs as well?

He is a man with an unfortunate name but he deserves a fair hearing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 06/04/2009
- rwext I'm a Fan of rwext 8 fans permalink

Way to go libs,,, Your rancid putrid fearmongering has diminished actual torture and made fools of Obama and Holder

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 06/04/2009
- OMG1109 I'm a Fan of OMG1109 18 fans permalink

Fearmongering is the republican speciality­...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 06/04/2009
photo

How many times does this have to be said, it was not torture. The Attorney General at the time, deemed it not toruture, that became the basis of allowing water boarding. They determined if the intent was not to kill or seriously injure, it was not considered torture. When Eric Holder (new ag) was being quesitoned before Congress a couple of weeks ago, he bumbled and stumbled all over this, and could not explain it. When Congress informed holder that we Water Board Navy Seals during training, Holder was asked if we tortured our own citizens. Holder answered no, and was asked why not, and Holder said because the intent was not to hurt them! Bingo, same with the Terrorists­...it is not torture, and was only done to 3 people...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 06/04/2009
- rinpochet I'm a Fan of rinpochet 40 fans permalink

The Navy Seals were being trained and knew that they were not in danger.

Waterboarding is torture and is illegal by the Geneva Convention. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding our troops. One was executed.

A sheriff in the USA was hauled away for waterboarding a prisoner. It is torture and is considered a WAR CRIME!!

BTW, Holder said loudly and clearly that waterboarding is torture. Do your research.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 06/04/2009
photo

Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists or those not wearing the uniform.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 06/04/2009
- CigarGod I'm a Fan of CigarGod 107 fans permalink
photo

A bit early to be hitting the bottle, isn't it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 PM on 06/04/2009
- Appleton I'm a Fan of Appleton 64 fans permalink

Dark Sphere, how many times does it have to be said, it was torture. Laws are enacted by the legislature, not by the Attorney General. I recognize that the Bush administration attempted to merge all three branches of government into the executive, but that's not how we operate in this country. If you took the time to review the legislative and case law history on waterboarding, you would not be repeating this nonsense. I might also suggest that neither you nor I know how many people were subjected to waterboarding. However, history, common sense and our understanding of human nature make it more likely than not that the number was greater than three. Whether Mr. Mudd was aware of the program will presumably be determined during the hearings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 06/04/2009
- OMG1109 I'm a Fan of OMG1109 18 fans permalink

I fail to see how the Republicans or for that matter, the Democrats can use it against him. If it's just fine for Dick Cheney and BUSH and no prosecution, I see this guy having no issues getting through the hearings!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 06/04/2009
- TJCole I'm a Fan of TJCole 159 fans permalink
photo

Could be an issue..?

LOL...

Well it was fun while it lasted...h­aving a Constitution and all...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 06/04/2009
- dave1111 I'm a Fan of dave1111 40 fans permalink

Welcome to new America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 06/04/2009
- gbrooks I'm a Fan of gbrooks 69 fans permalink
photo

Hey Obama--what the hell?

Not only are you refusing to support an investigation of torturers, now you're employing them?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 06/04/2009
- Yermammy I'm a Fan of Yermammy 137 fans permalink
photo

Boy, you got that right! This is NOT change, Hello!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 06/04/2009
- Maezeppa I'm a Fan of Maezeppa 24 fans permalink

You don't know that yet. Before we play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with this, let's commit to closely watching the hearings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 06/04/2009
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect