Hearings are underway now for Gina Haspel, who will probably be confirmed as CIA director. All the Democrats are asking her some version of this question and receiving some version of this answer:
Under repeated questioning, Gina Haspel says, "My moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal."
"I believe that CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values." pic.twitter.com/LanNTkBF1s
— ABC News (@ABC) May 9, 2018
Oh well. At least she says she believes in Russian interference in US elections, even though her future boss thinks it’s a HOAKS WHICHUNT:
CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel says she agrees with findings of intelligence community report finding Russian interference in 2016 U.S. election. https://t.co/LhX5DFg1FJ pic.twitter.com/piYM59DIUM
— ABC News (@ABC) May 9, 2018
C-SPAN is streaming the hearing.
ETA: Well, my timing is impeccable — they just adjourned the public portion of the hearing. Open thread away!
Elizabelle
We can haz a bird instead?
rikyrah
Haspel is bad news. Never should have been nominated. She’s loathesome and totally wrong for the job…so, of course,she’s perfect for this Administration.
Another Scott
I just saw a BBC News report on this. In the clips they showed, she repeated[ly] answered Sen. Warner that (roughly) she would not “allow CIA officers” to undertake these nefarious actions that her strong “moral compass” permitted on her watch in the past.
My understanding is that much of the worst abuses and (clearly) illegal torture (it’s a war crime, after all) and the like under Bush’s reign were committed and advocated by contractors, not by “CIA officers” directly.
I think the way she qualified her answer is important, and I hope she is pressed on it.
However, since the GOP controls the committee and the Senate, I agree that it’s likely that she’ll be confirmed. Unfortunately.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Roger Moore
Given her history, this is hardly reassuring. She seems to have a very different idea of what is immoral from anyone I know who has what I would consider to be a strong moral compass.
germy
Redshift
I don’t suppose anyone asked the follow-up “Does that mean you think torture isn’t immoral, or that you did allow immoral activity then, and you’re just promising you won’t do that any more?”
Corner Stone
Just more fruits of the poisonous tree. We should have ripped them all out, root and branch, when we had the chance.
Cermet
And what would she do if ordered by the orange fart cloud to start up their so-called enhanced interrogation shit again? What would the dumb, lying bitch do then? Of course, do it and destroy the evidence. She proves that females too can be low-life, lying pieces of utter shit when put into power. She should have been executed for her crimes like we did to Japanese convicted of torture after WW II.
germy
Immanentize
This is my question: “You participated in the harsh interrogation practices under President Bush, which were legally sanctioned by his Department of Justice. Do you support other countries applying the same techniques to American citizens if their government approves them as legal?”
Immanentize
@Roger Moore: This is a dodge — we just let the Egyptians, Saudis, etc. do it. But never the CIA!
germy
Senator Harris asks questions of the CIA director nominee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBR95rbQR7c
“I answered your question.”
“No, you did not.”
Barbara
@Cermet: Her excuse is that she was following laws, which made the waterboarding okay, but since terrorists don’t follow laws their waterboarding would be lawless. So much for universal human rights. I have watched as much as I can stomach. She continually seized the opportunity given to her by the Rs on the committee to talk about the death and murder of U.S. officials and journalists by terrorists and their great patriotic sacrifice but apparently forgot or doesn’t care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraquis who were killed while we were trying to guarantee their “freedom” from tyranny. Bush’s completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq to settle a private grudge he bore on his father’s behalf will be a stain on the soul and reputation of the U.S. forever.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: i see you got there first. You are correct, this is a dodge.
Corner Stone
Huge news, if true:
Frankensteinbeck
Linking a tweet is not normally my thing, but the more people who make fun of Piers Morgan for this, the better.
LongHairedWeirdo
Help me out here: this strong moral compass caused her to do things that were technically legal and abhorrent, but surely, if we give her more power, we can see that it now points straight and true?
“Power corrupts, until you get enough, and then BAM, strong moral compass?”
Barbara
@Immanentize: Jack Reed asked her that question and that is what my comment above was in reference to. She basically said that other people aren’t following laws and that makes what they do wrong. Apparently, we can do wrong so long as we permit ourselves to do so.
Cacti
The only hearing Haspel should be having is before The Hague.
germy
@Frankensteinbeck: He’s simply trying to explain Catholicism to the Pope.
He is not an arrogant person.
germy
@Barbara:
My cat says that all the time.
BC in Illinois
@Immanentize:
From a Republican Debate, April, 2016
Ms. Haspel, the President who appointed you says that if he gives you the order to torture, you will torture. What in your past gives any indication that you will refuse that illegal order?
Another Scott
@Immanentize: Excellent. +1.
Let’s see:
“As you know, Senator, the United States legal system is the envy of the world, so, of course we expect them to follow our lead here, and um, er, …”
Well, let’s try this…
“As you know, Senator, we were and are in an undeclared war but Congressionally authorized, open-ended, never-ending, war against any enemy of our choosing, and as part of that process a legally dubious – no, legally indefensible – policy was created. Those circumstances were unique to the United States because no other government has been challenged by an attack by 19 people that caused tremendous property damage and the loss of around 3000 lives. It was the greatest tragedy in the history of the modern world, so no other country could possibly justify treating Americans or anyone else to torture or other war crimes or other actions contrary to international law and norms. The United States is so special that it can and must exist outside all legal norms and rules that every other country is expected to follow, and countries that argue otherwise are obviously a threat to us….”
Something like that (though the 2nd is far too wordy)…
It’s an uncomfortable question, and that’s why she (and everyone else in the Defense and IC) nominated to political positions under Trump should be forced to answer it.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
Barbara
@germy: In The Big Sleep the father of the two girls who are what the story is actually about tells Marlowe that they have no more moral sense than a cat.
Immanentize
@germy:
Harris is a good lawyer.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Frankensteinbeck:
Amidst all the hilarity in that feed is this oh-so-on-target comment:
“That will entail a level of self-awareness Piers Morgan will go to his grave…never possessing.”
Replace that wanker’s name with “Villager, media stooge” and it sums up the problem with various corporate press outlets or virtually the entire White House Press Corpse.
Also too, “Popesplaining”.
Just One More Canuck
@Frankensteinbeck: I loved this response:
theologians and cardinals are convening in the libraries of St Peter’s Basilica, hard at work on the next papal encyclical entitled “SUCK A FART, PIERS MORGAN”
Immanentize
@Barbara:
In my international criminal law course, I stress that there are two divergent foundations of criminal legal structures post-WWII. One is the Human Rights model which is best represented in the post-apartheid South African constitution which is premised on inalienable human rights (to borrow a catchy phrase from our forgotten legal application history). The other is our “Due Process” model which can be summed up as, the “do-process” model meaning the Government can “do” whatever it wants as long as you get a little “process.”
MattF
@BC in Illinois: We know by now that Trump saying ‘Believe me’ is a tell.
Steve in the ATL
@LongHairedWeirdo: much like the right wing axiom that giving more money to rich people makes them work harder and create more jobs, but giving more money to poor people makes them lazy.
Omnes Omnibus
A memo by John Yoo does not supersede the Geneva Convention. And “strong moral compass,” my ass. It was fucking torture ffs!
Amir Khalid
Repost with corrected Parliamentary tally:
Pakatan 83 Barisan 57. It looks like Malaysian Official One won’t be a Malaysian official — or maybe even a free man — much longer. The likely returning PM, Dr Mahathir, is no longer friendly with Najib, and will likely revive the investigation into those billions that mysteriously showed up in Najib’s bank account some time ago.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: Yes, the American exceptionalism has been strained out of recognizable shape, out of observable existence. It is a quark of an idea at this point.
BC in Illinois
@MattF:
Believe me, I know.
Immanentize
Also, someone should ask her whether she believes that following orders — even ones called legal — is a valid defense to war crimes. (This is called the response to superior authority argument — which is not a valid defense unless it is accompanied by deadly coercion — then, it is just plain duress.)
Immanentize
@BC in Illinois: I believe you!
Cacti
I was just following orders.
-Hermann Goering and Gina Haspel
What a proud day for our country.
Mandalay
@BC in Illinois:
An excellent question.
Another Scott
@Immanentize: This reminds me (as I’m sure was your intention) of a very, very unfortunate episode with Eric Holder:
Now, if one reads the whole speech carefully, it’s clear that he recognizes and understand the nuance and constraints that make the circumstances in “war time” different from otherwise. But it’s a hard argument to make, and Congress should make the constraints and processes explicit, transparent, and supportable by making appropriate laws after extensive and open debate and argument. These decisions should not be unreviewable simply because the President and his Administration says so. Especially in a “war” that has never been explictly declared (recognizing the difficulty in declaring “war” against an organization that is not a national government).
Cheers,
Scott.
germy
@Barbara:
I remember that! And the old man’s line in the greenhouse: “I seem to exist largely on heat, like a newborn spider.”
trollhattan
@germy:
CIA chief nominee to self: “Fucking lawyers.”
CIA chief nominee outside voice: “Gosh senator, I don’t know what more I can say that would be considered unclassified.”
trollhattan
@BC in Illinois:
Just can’t wait to add “double-Guantanamo” Mittens Romney to the senate.
MomSense
Which Harry Potter character does she remind you of? In that flowered dress she gave off an air of Dolores Umbridge but today she seems more like Narcissa Malfoy although she really doesn’t have her charisma.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: Yes to all you wrote
TenguPhule
For the record, none of this rules out her believing that torture is something the CIA should be doing.
Fuck her.
TenguPhule
@MomSense:
That’s an insult to Narcissa, who to her credit had a moral center under all her prejudice.
Elizabelle
@germy:
Really an excellent line. Remember that one too. Feeble, but — spider. Webs, mystery, danger, predation.
germy
@MomSense:
She actually reminds me of a neighbor or society lady who sees Samantha Stevens do some bewitched magic, but can’t get anyone to believe her.
Immanentize
@TenguPhule: But you need to add that she refused to say that she thought that waterboarding and other techniques were immoral.
These Senators need to learn the Q, Q, reverse technique. Harris could have employed it well:
Harris: Do you, in hindsight, think that the interrogation techniques were immoral? (Q)
Haspel: Senator, blerggg sputter yelp, whazzat? hmmm.
Harris: It is a yes or no question: Do you now believe that the interrogation techniques used were immoral? (Q)
Haspel: Saving Private Ryan! Spartacus! Audie Murphy!
Harris: So, you believe the interrogation techniques used are moral? (Reverse)
ETA — Gets ’em every time.
Planetpundit
How’s Badger doing?…….messing with the chickens yet?
Immanentize
I think I have had enough of this useless shit, I am going to the nursery to buy some useful manure. Happy gardening!
(I should be grading but it is a beautiful day. As my friend always says: We teach because we love it; they pay us to grade.)
Villago Delenda Est
You mean like selling your children into slavery to make a mortgage payment?
TenguPhule
@Immanentize: Unfortunately the answer is always never to the question asked. Part of the problem that Congressional grilling has lost so much of its edge is that three quarters of Congress would lose against a HS debate team.
Mary G
I missed it because I was waiting for Microsoft’s automatic updating to take an hour, while telling me not to turn off the computer. I hope they grilled her about advocating the destruction of the tapes. That was absolutely disqualifying to me.
TenguPhule
@Villago Delenda Est:
Leasing the children. They’re not barbarians, Think of the tax write off for depreciation!
Ella in New Mexico
Fully expected to be unimpressed and even pissed off by this lady, given the rumors that she ran black sites and destroyed tapes of torture victims.
Apparently those may have been inaccurate, incomplete or uncorrected reports, and she offered decent explanations of why they were inaccurate. I’ll wait to see reports that counter her explanations.
But, as many of you know, I’ve got quite a lot of folks in my family who were/are strong, loyal, proud career civil service DOD/NatSec agency R&D and intelligence professionals, so I’ve got a somewhat different take on how these people operate.
The vast majority of these folks working in these agencies are serious, hard working and patriotic people, regardless of which party they vote for. They don’t love every single President they serve under, but they keep doing their jobs anyway, at the highest level of quality they can, over decades (my Dad served a combined 50-years of career active duty/civil service) with the faith that they serve a higher commitment to the people, the nation, not a President. It’s not unlike when as a nurse, I’m assigned a patient who is an inmate of our local state pen who committed cold blooded murder of a member of my community:I follow my ethical and professional commitment to caring for patients. They get the best nursing care I can provide, period, and I leave their “punishment” to the rest of the system. I’m not supporting their decision to kill those people by doing so. I’m supporting something bigger than I am that guides my actions.
As a “bystander”, I also know from hearing the stories of my family members how complex these bureaucracies are, and how hard it is to effect the big political appointees at the top until you get to that level of service yourself. As powerful and effective as GS 15’s are in civil service, they don’t really get to create and implement major policy: appointees do. So much of the horrible shit that went down a decade and a half ago and the years after 9-11 under BushCo was clouded by the ugliness and fear and continuing disinformation swirling out of the scumbags at the TOP of the Bush administration. THEY drove the agenda, not career front-line employees. Those where were in those “middle zones” of quasi-political positions (e.g. “SES’s”) who supported the policies, are gone now, not being able to survive the reforms imposed in response, particularly under Obama. 18 years later, the CIA is one of the agencies that appears to be helping us fight AGAINST Trump’s Russian overthrow and his treasonous and corrupt regime. At this point, Haspel’s looking more like a white hat here, in the model of folks at FBI and the NSA who are also fighting to continue to do their jobs without being forced to kiss the Orange King’s ring.
At the very least, I heard Haspel consistently say she does not personally or professionally believe torture is moral or legal, and that face with the pressure to reinstitute those ‘interrogation” programs she would refuse. I did not get the feeling she’s a crafty liar who would not follow through on those promises. I sensed her commitment to a career of protecting and serving in intelligence is more important to her than making Donald Trump fell like she’s a loyal handmaiden to his insanity.
Maybe I’m missing evidence confirming otherwise. But I’m not sure there’s any reasonable reason she should not be confirmed. She’s certainly more qualified and more appropriate than almost every other one of Trump’s appointees.
Villago Delenda Est
Under Reich law, the Holocaust was legal.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
That’s not what she’s actually saying. We’re paying very close attention to what words she’s really using.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
This should have been your first warning that something was obviously very wrong with her.
Trump managed to find a way to fuck up his FEMA appointee, the one Congress mandated to have to be an experienced professional. Look at Puerto Rico.
TenguPhule
@Villago Delenda Est: Under my enlightened dictatorship, it will legally be a crime to be a Republican. Current party registration will be accepted as a convicting proof of guilt.
BC in Illinois
@Ella in New Mexico:
Is there anything in her history to indicate that she would refuse to obey an order to use torture?
Torture was immoral and illegal when she did it in the past.
And Trump, who appointed her, is of the conviction that if he orders torture, it will be done.
Is there anything to back up the hope that she would, in the future, refuse an unlawful order?
Another Scott
@Ella in New Mexico: You make some good points – especially that policy is created at the top and not by those civil servants who are tasked with implementing it.
However, I hope she will be pressed to address my question at #3. There’s often the dodge that “government employees cannot and do not supervise contractors” (as I’ve heard it expressed) – that contract management and supervision has a different chain of command than regular GS-type government employees. That’s not an acceptable answer to the question.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: Did she run a black site where people were tortured? Everything I have seen says yes. That being the case, I say she is unqualified for any position in national security or public life.
If you have some links to evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to check them out.
Mnemosyne
@Barbara:
Oddly, that’s what the rescue org we got one of our cats from had in the actual agreement — we had to indicate that we understood that cats have no moral sense of right or wrong. ?
I’m also pretty sure that Mark Twain said something along those lines, but I don’t feel like googling for it. Like all right-thinking people, Twain loved cats.
Mandalay
Haspel:
Word salad that can be used retrospectively to justify anything.
And obviously complete bullshit. The moment she refused to comply with legal directives from above because she thought they were immoral she’d be escorted out of the building, and she surely knows that.
Immanentize
@Ella in New Mexico:
I do hear what you are getting at, and I agree about so many people in the CIA/FBI/NSA etc. being patriotic and hard working. But in her case, I have to disagree a bit. First, she was an undercover CIA operative in a number of countries for a bunch of years — decades it seems. Earnest, crafty liar is a job description. And as for patriotism, I go with Sam Johnson: “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Yes people are honestly patriotic, but it is also a mighty shield for dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: Also, “Do you agree that a CIA agent delivering a person in custody to someone who is likely to torture is ‘being involved’ in torture?”
VincentN
@Ella in New Mexico:
Can you provide some links showing that she didn’t run a black site or destroy torture tapes? Because everything else you said is irrelevant if this is true.
TenguPhule
Via the FTFNYT.
Fuck Haspel.
The Moar You Know
@Another Scott: Completely untrue. Every contract I’ve ever worked on in the last two decades – my entire career – has ended in a government employees office. That is, when I’m not working directly side by side with them, which is more often the case.
Completely true. A side of the business I want nothing to do with.
Ella in New Mexico
@TenguPhule: @BC in Illinois: @Another Scott: @Omnes Omnibus:
I’m relying on her testimony at this point. I heard her say that reports describing her as an active supporter of torture were inaccurate, and that she had no role in destroying tapes showing one torture victims interrogation be destroyed, it was her superior who unilaterally made those decisions. I don’t remember if she outright denied running a “black site”-I probably need to go back and review her testimony. The problem with the repetition of the same question “do you personally believe torture is immoral yes or no” by every single Democratic Senator is that they ran out of time for even more important questions that might have better fleshed out her true beliefs in the past, and if or why they changed. (And I’m sorry to disappoint but Kamala blew it today with the theatrical badgering. She wasted precious time trying to look tough instead of actually asking tough questions. )
Again, I’m curious to see if he Senators indicate that what she says in the closed hearing is consistent with her public testimony, and that she is able to produce sufficient proof of a classified nature supporting that.
But I can really understand how a person who worked their way up through the ranks from civil service to more political levels of the CIA might have had to stick around and do her best even when her agency was fucking up in order to get to a place where she could help right it’s course.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
So are we. We’re parsing her words because many of us know exactly how to weasel language in order to say one thing while implying something else.
She is weaseling hard.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Gonna need to get her more badgers. And bigger ones.
Ella in New Mexico
WP wouldn’t let me edit: she discussed that in 2005 there were legitimate inter-agency debates about/concerns regarding whether to destroy a set of tapes of the interrogation of a single detainee by several CIA employees. Specifically, the concerns were about the possible “accidental” leak of the taps and the real fear Al Qaida/ISIS would use it to justify more executions or to harm the employees and their families. She said an extensive written transcript was done and reviewed by legal experts in the agency who stated they were a true and accurate reflection of the video, and are a part of the record. However, while they were still debating if that was sufficient, her superior unilaterally decided to destroy the tapes, and also that for the reasons above, she stated she would have supported the action had it been made by the bigger group debating it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: There is sticking around and trying to keep your nose clean and then there is running a torture site. I am normally a gray-area, nuance sort of guy, but running a torture site isn’t a gray-area thing.
Villago Delenda Est
@TenguPhule: The-German-Leader-Who-Cannot-Be-Named was very big on making sure everything he did was legal. Thus you have things like the Enabling Act, the Night and Fog Decree, and the Nürnberg Race Laws, and the laws concerning the disabled or mentally retarded. His atrocities all fell within the laws he created to make things legal.
Thus we have Darth Sidious telling the Trade Federation that he will make the invasion of Naboo legal.
TenguPhule
@Villago Delenda Est: They’re packing the federal courts for that exact reason.
Ella in New Mexico
@TenguPhule: Nah. Trying to trip people up with mid-answer interruptions “then is that a yes” when they’re trying to give more complete answers is less than helpful. She had just stated that torturing people is not productive or useful, but that yes, “intensive debriefing” of suspected terrorists was very helpful. Kamala ignored that, and actually lost the opportunity to ask Haspel to define specifically what she believes are all the appropriate ways to get information from these people.
Again, maybe we need more than one hearing to really get to the meat of this nominees true beliefs. The only had one shot to flesh it out for us.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Which could have been neatly avoided by NOT TORTURING PEOPLE.
Fuck their concerns. They destroyed evidence of their crimes.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Reread that sentence again and tell us what’s wrong with it.
Mandalay
Haspel’s response to this easy question tells me all I need to know about her:
The response of a traitor-in-waiting.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
This is the only one we’ll get. I would rather error on the side of caution and prudence and not fucking support her nomination. Make the GOP own this shit.
JEC
@Roger Moore:
Well, yes: she’s a spy. Manipulating, deceiving, and coercing people into betraying their countries is what spies do. Remember, she’s not a career administrator or even an intelligence analyst; for the majority of her career, she’s been a for-real recruits-and-runs-agents-in-the-field spy.
Now, contrary to popular fiction, spies aren’t usually psychopaths — they do indeed have a moral compass. And senior spies, with long careers to reflect on, sometimes think very deeply about the lines they should and shouldn’t (and did and didn’t) cross. But their moral compass is, by definition, quite different from that of “normal people.” For most of us, to set out to befriend someone in order to betray their trust and trap them in a criminal conspiracy would be an act of extraordinary cruelty; for a spy, it’s Wednesday. (If anyone is interested in how actual spies talk about these issues, the book “Fair Play: The Moral Dilemmas of Spying” by James Olson seems like a decent starting point.)
What’s troubling about the CIA’s torture program is not that it grew naturally out of the Agency’s culture of “spy morality,” but that it clearly didn’t. From day one, it was obvious that the program served no intelligence purpose whatsoever, and, in fact, it seriously damaged US counter-terrorism intelligence capabilities for at least twelve to eighteen months. Instead, it served exactly two purposes. First, somebody — probably Vice President Cheney — really, really wanted to kidnap some Muslims and kick the crap out of them. Second, CIA Director George Tennet really, really didn’t want to get fired. And both of those goals were accomplished.
TenguPhule
@Mandalay:
Trump has an unerring ability to attract the shittiest people.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Stupid, Ignorant or Lying? Pick one.
Cckids
@Mary G:
YES! If her justification for waterboarding is “following orders”, why was it ok to ignore orders to not destroy evidence?
It’s as if she’s just full of shit.
Mandalay
@Ella in New Mexico:
I agree with that in this specific case, and in general.
Those in Congress (and in the media) love “gotcha” grandstanding by demanding “YES OR NO???!!!” as an answer to their loaded question. They just show themselves up to be poor at their job. Ask better questions, where those being interviewed are allowed to speak, and hang themselves:
Honestly, would you learn about a person that was useful if they were only permitted a one word response to that?
Ella in New Mexico
@VincentN: @Omnes Omnibus:
I believe she inferred that she was assigned to the “black site” after torture was utilized there, and it was a CIA detainee and training camp. But not totally sure if that question was asked or how she answered.
Again, I’m being the devil’s advocate here, I must admit, because if I find confirmation of something other than my opinion of her today I will gladly be on board with the Tar and Feathering Brigade.
But these are weird times, and in the end, the country surviving Trump and being able to see our institutions legally force and his cabal of rogue Republicans out of power is of utmost urgency. If Haspel (short of being a real-time torturer as opposed to a member of an organization that went down an aberrant rabbit hole) given her job as a CIA operative, may be imperfect by my personal standards but is part of that grey area “we don’t really want to know exactly what these people do everyday to keep us safe” proves to be someone who is able to facilitate that by holding the CIA to the rule of current law, then maybe that’s what we need to do right now, until things go back to normal.
Nobody in that line of work is a saint– if they’re good at it at least.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Sorry, I expect even evil to have standards.
Steve in the ATL
LOL!
Ella in New Mexico
@TenguPhule:
If that were her only response to essentially the same question, then I can see being concerned. If you get a chance, go watch the entire hearing. You’ll see that same basic question was asked and answered with a consistent “no”.
I believe a better quote would be “First of all, CIA follows the law. We followed the law then. We follow the law today. I support the law. I wouldn’t support a change in the law, but I’ll tell you this, I would not put CIA officers at risk by asking them to undertake risky, controversial activity again…I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, on my watch, CIA will not restart a detention and interrogation program”
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Not what she actually said.
Notice the wiggle room she left to start a DIFFERENT torture style program.
Pay very close attention to her exact words, this was the kind of weasel shit she did in the field, allegedly.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
No, she’s not saying a consistent no. She’s consistently ducking the question and dancing on angel heads on pins to avoid a clear position against torture.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: No one is calling for a saint. I would fine with a sinner who hasn’t been involved with torture.
Ella in New Mexico
@TenguPhule: That’s an interesting take on her wording, but not sure I would choose to interpret it that way.
i think that in the 1-2 years post 9-11, even if some in the CIA thought for a brief time it was awesome “24 Hours” cool to try the whole “torture thing” to save the world, they realized relatively quickly (and it’s now a consensus) that it was a stupid fucking idea that blew up in our faces and became an even bigger recruitment tool for Al Qaida/ISIS on the front lines. Unless TrumpCo pulls a Putin soft coup I don’t see us going back, regardless of what was “the law then” allowing it, and certainly not hiding it under a “new program”.
Again, it’s bullshit we don’t get more than one three hour hearing to did deeper into this, given the extreme importance of the DCIA to our national security. In any case, I’m feeling like given the current state of things, Haspel is the best we’re going to be able to get in that role.
Cacti
@Ella in New Mexico:
Straw man argument.
Much lower bar here. Opponents are asking for someone who wasn’t an accessory to torture.
I'll be Frank
I had mixed emotions, reformed sinners and all that, but the non-answer to the question about a “Loyalty pledge” ended it for me. She is a no-go.
TenguPhule
@Ella in New Mexico:
Let me reemphasize this. The nominee refused to deny that she had called for torture TO BE CONTINUED LONG AFTER IT WAS CLEAR IT DIDN’T WORK.
MomSense
@Ella in New Mexico:
Propublica issued a correction on their story about Haspel. Here is the link. Correction: Trump’s Pick To Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah
Ella in New Mexico
@MomSense: thanks for the link