Mudd Out Over Alleged TortureTies

It wasn't taxes, though they do qualify as a form of torture.

Philip Mudd, currently a top official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said he was bowing out because he knew "this position will require the full cooperation with Congress and I believe that if I continue to move forward I will become a distraction to the President and his vital agenda."

Democrats on Capitol Hill had signaled their intention to probe Mudd's knowledge of and role in approving brutal interrogation techniques -- some of which qualify under international law as torture -- used by CIA officials against detainees.

From 2003 through 2005, Mudd was Deputy Director of the Director of Central Intelligence National Counterterrorism Center. He joined the agency in 1985.

Mudd is the second potential Obama administration official to opt out of what was looking to be a grueling confirmatiom process because of ties to Bush-era interrogation policies. President Obama was considering the nomination of intelligence official John Brennan as CIA director when, in November, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration after liberal commentators assailed him as a defender of the Bush administration's counterterrorism programs. Brennan serves as the White House homeland security czar, a position not needing Senate confirmation.

Comments

[Bob]

Cheney, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Addington and the other architects of the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies not only perpetrated some of the most disgraceful human rights abuses committed in the name of our country. But just to add to the tragedy, it looks like they also destroyed the careers of a lot of the people they pressured to go along with them.

Granted, most of these people, like Mudd, should have known better and refused to go along. But otherwise decent people can use poor judgment, and they can be duped. I'm sure they were under immense pressure at the time, and may have believed then that they were acting in good faith (they certainly received the reassurances of the administration's legal "geniuses" like Yoo). But as we all know, "I was just following orders" is not an excuse that holds any legal water.

Mudd is just the latest victim to pay for having cooperated with the Bushies. As a society, we'll have to live with the stench of their misdeeds for years to come.

[StevefromMKE]

And what would you have done on 9/12 Bob?

[anon]

Nobody was tortured on 9/12 so that's a bit of an irrelevant question, there still haven't been any facts released that support the idea that torture yielded anything useful that couldn't have been obtained by other means, the best that anyone other than Dick Cheney will now say is that the torture helped them understand the organizational workings of Al Quada. I mean, geeze, is our intelligence so bad that we have to torture people to understand how their network operates? Pathetic.

[StevefromMKE]

So in your warped brains:

Pulling out finger nails, hacking off limbs, caning athletes because they lost and using an iron maiden on people (two of Uday Hussein's favorite toture techniques) is equatable to sleep deprivation, waterboarding and playing Metallica really loud.

You're insane...especially Bob.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Of course, what the screaming Bob is doing is trying to put a spin on why Barack Obama is apparently keeping on these evil, evil Bush administration officials.

Who is "destroying their careers", Bob? Liars like Nancy Pelosi who are trying to appeal to Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers like yourself by holding public excoriations for "crimes" that Pelosi and her ilk not only knew about, but endorsed. But all that you continue to do is demonstrate, as Steve aptly pointed out, is that you don't really care about torture; it's just a convenient excuse for political bashing.

[anon]

So, a little light torture is okay? Is that the point? Our torture is less gruesome than what the enemy does? If the United States wants to repudiate the general consensus that was reached among the First World about torture/treatment of civilians, etc. then so be it, but you can't codify torture as part of your standard arsenal and still claim to be a white hat and a force of good.

We didn't torture the Nazis and we didn't torture the Russians and we didn't torture the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese, in none of the conflicts of the 20th century did the U.S. attempt to legalize torture.

So, you're telling me that this bunch of semi literate goat herders from the ME is more of a threat than any of these previous enemies? Please.

It was a mistake, admit it, move on, stop defending the indefensible.

[StevefromMKE]

It's NOT torture you moron...if Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is still ALIVE and isn't missing an appendage...how is that torture?

Are you seriously equating torture with playing loud music and sleep deprivation in regards to terrorists? If so, you're insane.

And sorry anon, not admitting to anything that isn't torture. You guys can whine and cry that it is...but I'm sure since you're in charge of everything, you'll never use the tactics ever again...correct?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"If the United States wants to repudiate the general consensus that was reached among the First World about torture/treatment of civilians"

Sorry. Terrorists who shoot at US troops and try to kill US citizens don't get to qualify as "civilians".

Meanwhile, you need to move your calendar forward; it seems to be stuck on 9/10/01.

The next day, those "semi-literate goat herders" demonstrated quite nicely that they can kill thousands of Americans and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage -- all at the cost of just 19 of their own.

Al-Qaeda and others are not following the rules. They, in fact, are using the rules to hamstring and cripple our ability to deal with them.

[PA]

"would you have done on 9/12 Bob?"

Probably putting in job applications with AQ

[azlibertarian]

"...It's NOT torture you moron...."

You're damned right, its not torture. [And by "it", I'll assume we're talking about waterboarding.]

Torture has a legal definition in our law. For an act to be considered to be "torture", a "specific intent" is required. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

Q. What is the specific intent of the waterboarding of our military in SERE training?
A. The intent is to train, therefore the act is not torture.

Q. What was the specific intent of the waterboarding of the al Qaeda detainees?
A. The intent was to get the details on the credible belief that they had information on a "ticking time bomb" scenario. The intent was not to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering"...therefore this waterboarding is not torture either.

Until you can show a case of waterboarding used purely as punishment...like a public stoning, or other punishment, then that EIT is not torture.

Holder knows that this "specific intent" concept is what is hanging up the whole debate on whether waterboarding is torture. He twisted himself in a knot trying to avoid answering this question. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhMDU=

Zero knows that waterboarding isn't torture. To this day, he retains the right to do exactly what he so vocally claims to be against. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267082704308361.html

[Bob]

"would you have done on 9/12 Bob?"

Probably putting in job applications with AQ

> Damn, you're clever, PA. I may never be able to show myself around here after that devastating put-down. : )

azlibertarian, here's article 1 from the UN Conventions Against Torture, which came into effect in 1987:

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession . . .

It says specifically that it is "torture" to inflict pain or suffering for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession. Could it be any clearer? First, you dismiss acts of torture committed in the name of our country, and then you slap up a lame excuse for it based on shoddy and incomplete research. Do your damn homework, man. Don't be a partisan hack first, and a real American second.

[southdakotaboy]

This will be a perfect example of "the chickens coming home to roost". Obama is nominating these people because he feels that they are the best qualified to help protect the United States from further terrorist attacks. The last two nominees believed that EIT were legal now because the Dems are making such a stink over it they will not be put in the positions the Obama wants.

This is where it now becomes a serious problem for Obama and the Dems. When the next attack hits the United States they will be the one resonsible for it getting through. They own this now and I hope they choke on it.

We on the Conservative side need to start placing the blame for the next attack on them right now. Every time and I mean every time we talk about this subject we need to place the fact firmly in people's heads that the Dems have set us up for the next attack. Many people realize this deep down inside. Even when I talk to my lefty brother in law. He calls it Obama breaking the paradime or something, the point is even hard core Obama supporters realize this is very dangerous.

After the next attack we must crucify the left with this, hopefully if we can drive a stake through their evil hearts we can still save this country.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, Bob, it seems that those who would put the safety and lives of thousands of their fellow citizens ahead of an al-Qaeda murderer qualify much better as "real Americans".

And please note that the same leftist UN whose treaties you quote insisted that what Saddam Hussein was doing, as Steve pointed out above, was not torture -- and were pocketing billions of dollars in the process.

Now watch how we casually unravel your lies and demonstrate how you fully support and endorse your leftist Obama Party, regardless of what it does.

From the UN treaty you quoted:

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

From azlibertarian's linked quote:

"The "special task force" may well grant the CIA more legal freedom to squeeze information out of terrorists when it could keep the country safe. An anecdote former Clinton counterterror czar Richard Clarke recounts in his memoir "Against All Enemies" is instructive. In 1993, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler was horrified by Mr. Clarke's proposal for "extraordinary rendition," where our spooks turn over prisoners to foreign countries like Egypt so they can do the interrogating.

While Mr. Clinton was still chewing his fingernails and seemed to side with Mr. Cutler, Al Gore arrived late to the meeting. "Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides," Mr. Clarke writes. "Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

Now, partisan boy Bob, that constitutes acquiescence in torture for both Clinton and Al Gore. Since you're not a partisan hack, you will demand that they both immediately be arrested, prosecuted, and charged under the treaty you invoke.

Go to it, liar boy. You and your party like to quote treaties. Practice what you preach.

I can see already Bob's spin: "Wwaaaaahhhhh, you didn't object when so-and-so did it!"

And the answer is clear: But you did when one person did and not another, which makes you a pathetic partisan hypocrite, liar Bob.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Mudd is just the latest victim to pay for having cooperated with the Bushies. As a society, we'll have to live with the stench of their misdeeds for years to come."

Just as we have to live with your comments?? You and your fellow travelers are getting tiresome.

[anon]

The ticking time bomb scenario had nothing to do with the waterboarding and other torture that was done to detainees. That's a straw man like the urban myth of a suitcase sized atomic bomb that the terrorists are somehow going to manifacture.

The Geneva Convention prohibits torture. End of discussion.

If the GOP goes back to the 'Dems are soft on terror' then you can consider yourselves finished as a party for the next decade or until there is another terrrorist attack on U.S. soil. It would be the stupidest tactic I can imagine at this point in time.

The "rules" are not crippled our ability to deal with Al Quada, that is more propaganda nonsense. Criminals don't play by the rules, that's why they are criminals but we don't torture them either. Torture is not necessary or useful in fighting Al Quada as has been stated by numerous intelligence officers. Again, NO ONE but Dick Cheney is still claiming that any lives were saved by torture, all they now claim is that torture gave them a 'better understanding' of Al Quada. That's a pretty poor bargain as far as I am concerned.

[Bob]

"Just as we have to live with your comments?? You and your fellow travelers are getting tiresome."

What, you make excuses for torture but you yourself are too sensitive to handle a frank discussion conducted while sitting comfortably in front of your computer? Sometimes I wonder if you guys think for a moment what violations of decency you're willing to have inflicted on people you don't even know for the sake of your pants-wetting fears of the big scary terrorists. Grow a pair and try being a real American.

[eaglewingz08]

Bob conflates SEVERE pain and suffering with transitory ordinary pain and discomfort. His failure to understand the difference is why he and libtards can't understand the difference between EITs and torture despite the clear wording of statutory law. Moreover Congress has had a couple of occasions to outlaw waterboarding or define it as torture, but to date, despite huge majorities in Congress they have failed to do so. Why is that Bob? Are democraps in Congress the architects of torture who should be frog marched to GITMO?

[anon]

Oy god I can't believe people are still defending this nonsense, don't we have enough problems with the Democrats poised to put half the country on some kind of government subsidy, tax the successful into oblivian without further compounding the problem by continuing to argue that 'its not torture if we call it something else'?????

[North Dallas Thirty]

The reason this topic keeps coming up, anon, is because Obama Party hacks like Bob need a distraction from exactly what you pointed out.

[StevefromMKE]

"If the GOP goes back to the 'Dems are soft on terror' then you can consider yourselves finished as a party for the next decade or until there is another terrrorist attack on U.S. soil. It would be the stupidest tactic I can imagine at this point in time."

I bet if there is one, you won't go blaming Bush for it now will you...

[Philip McDaniel]

"What, you make excuses for torture but you yourself are too sensitive to handle a frank discussion..."

Son, you don't even have a clue as to what torture is. Grow a pair yourself. Join the Marines.

[Bob]

Hey Philip, I'm happy with the pair I've had all along. I don't need to have hapless prisoners abused in the name of my country to feel like a man. But if you're having trouble sleeping at night now that we're no longer torturing detainees, maybe we could have my Aunt Dolly tuck you in at night. Would that make you feel better?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I don't need to have hapless prisoners abused in the name of my country to feel like a man."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is hardly what one could call "hapless".

But Bob's defense and support of him shows one simple truth: liberals and Obama Party members like Bob have to abuse their country and its name to show off their "manhood".

The disgusting thing is that I daresay every single one of KSM's victims -- you remember, the thousands who died from horrible burns, or from suffocation from smoke inhalation, or from having a building collapse on him -- would gladly trade their discomfort for his.

But Bob doesn't care about that, because that's not anti-American.

[Bob]

eaglewingz, just because wing nuts refuse to call something torture doesn't mean it's not torture. With the U.S. being a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, there are clear-cut statutory definitions that say that what we did to detainees was torture. I already posted parts of the UN statute above, where it says that it specifically applies when it's done to elicit information or a convention. If you need further proof, consider what UN officials who are responsible for these matters say.

For example, Louise Arbor, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, "I would have no problems with describing this practice [of waterboarding] as falling under the prohibition of torture."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN0852061620080208

Bent Sorensen, a former member of the UN Committee Against Torture said,

"It's a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT's definition of torture. In addition the CIA's waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US."

http://www.irct.org/Default.aspx?ID=3558&M=News&NewsID=1236

How about John McCain, who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam. In an interview on Fox News just this April, he said,

"It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable. One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us. And I've seen concrete examples of that talking to former high-ranking al-Qaeda individuals in Iraq.

So what would you say to McCain, eaglewingz? Please explain it for us. Is McCain wrong too?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Yes, McCain is wrong, and, as usual, is pandering to backstabbing leftists like Bob. It's really sad to see someone like McCain, who should know better than to support and protect terrorists, so desperately trying to bring back his political career by supporting people who hate the United States.

Second, quoting UN officials, who denied that what Saddam Hussein did constituted torture, only demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left and the degree to which Bob and the Obama Party will let our country's safety be dictated by corrupt bureaucrats who accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein and supported his racist purges.

And finally, notice how the hypocrite Bob has refused to confront the proof of his own Obama Party endorsing and supporting what he screams is "torture" as I outlined above.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/mudd-out-over-alleged-tortureties.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e2011570cd4ccf970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e2011570cd4ccf970b

In short, Bob has quoted his fellow anti-American leftists and an addled old political fool who was rightly rejected by a large number of people within his own party for being too willing to pander to the anti-American left and support the Obama Party's own contempt for the United States and its military. Meanwhile, he's ignored linked proof that his own Obama Party engaged in what he and his fellow Obama Party members are screaming is "torture".

Right.

[Philip McDaniel]

“…maybe we could have my Aunt Dolly tuck you in at night. Would that make you feel better?”

Aw…what’s the matter Bob, Uncle Sam not doing it for your aunt and you want me to take over? Send me her résumé. I’ll look it over and if she looks good enough I may be interested…

[Bob]

"I’ll look it over and if she looks good enough I may be interested…"

Hey, no hanky-panky Philip, this would just be a mission of mercy. The first thing she'll probably insist on is: no watching "24" before bedtime. That ticking time bomb you keep having nightmares about is just your own alarm clock.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Hey, no hanky-panky Philip"
LOL!
Have a good day, Bob.