Gina Haspel Confirmation Hearings

[bigmac76]

All throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump expressed his love of using enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding.."and even worse" being used in the past.

Watching the hearings and the question arose that "if President Trump gave the order to use again these same techniques...would you implement the order?

Haven't heard a NO answer yet...just a "not on my watch would these techniques be used".

I am having a hard time believing she would defy the POTUS order.

Also the destruction of the waterboarding tapes being "legal" is troubling...

I am guessing she still gets confirmed.

 

[76-1]

All throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump expressed his love of using enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding.."and even worse" being used in the past.

Watching the hearings and the question arose that "if President Trump gave the order to use again these same techniques...would you implement the order?

Haven't heard a NO answer yet...just a "not on my watch would these techniques be used".

I am having a hard time believing she would defy the POTUS order.

Also the destruction of the waterboarding tapes being "legal" is troubling...

I am guessing she still gets confirmed.

I sure would hope so.

I've watched much of it. Appears to me that she's answered as clearly as possible within the open setting.

The women is clearly the most qualified CIA Director candidate that we have had sitting in that confirmation hearing seat in many years.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

All throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump expressed his love of using enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding.."and even worse" being used in the past.

Watching the hearings and the question arose that "if President Trump gave the order to use again these same techniques...would you implement the order?

Haven't heard a NO answer yet...just a "not on my watch would these techniques be used".

I am having a hard time believing she would defy the POTUS order.

Also the destruction of the waterboarding tapes being "legal" is troubling...

I am guessing she still gets confirmed.

She should be confirmed. She has wide support within the CIA and is extremely well qualified.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

She should be confirmed. She has wide support within the CIA and is extremely well qualified.

She does have support, and frankly I don't know where I stand. The cover-up should be a concern to anyone. If it is enough to cause someone to say no, I don't know. But rewarding someone for destroying evidence should at least make one pause. If everyone thought the enhanced techniques were perfectly legal, why did they work so hard to hide them?

 

[bigmac76]

She does have support, and frankly I don't know where I stand. The cover-up should be a concern to anyone. If it is enough to cause someone to say no, I don't know. But rewarding someone for destroying evidence should at least make one pause. If everyone thought the enhanced techniques were perfectly legal, why did they work so hard to hide them?

Fox News was reporting this morning that she personally witnessed a waterboarding of a "high value target" at a Thailand black ops site. She also dodged the question about "pledging loyalty" if asked by the POTUS.

 

[MonroeCity]

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed wants to testify at the hearing. (Was waterboarded 183 times?)
Tom Cotton had a great response. (If you haven't seen it, you should look it up)
The best suggestion I think is to cut his interrogation videos into one-hour increments, 183 waterboardings should make up at least three or four 22-hour episodes, and run it on PPV. We could create a "directors cut" and sell it separately. And let Americans make up their own mind while paying down the national debt in substantial way.

 

[iu_a_att]

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed wants to testify at the hearing. (Was waterboarded 183 times?)
Tom Cotton had a great response. (If you haven't seen it, you should look it up)
The best suggestion I think is to cut his interrogation videos into one-hour increments, 183 waterboardings should make up at least three or four 22-hour episodes, and run it on PPV. We could create a "directors cut" and sell it separately. And let Americans make up their own mind while paying down the national debt in substantial way.

I think everyone who is pro-torture ought to have it embossed on their driver's license that they waive their rights and agree to be tortured in case the authorities deem it necessary. They should also agree that in the event they are tortured their torture sessions can be made into videos and sold online to reduce the national debt. Perhaps, to go really old school, the torture sessions should be done in a public arena so that those who wish to attend may pay a fee and view the sessions live and even have their pictures taken for posterity. To top it off, if the public torture sessions result in confessions of capital crimes, the public might be encouraged to pay a fee to dispense justice on the spot. MAGA.

 

[76-1]

I think everyone who is pro-torture ought to have it embossed on their driver's license that they waive their rights and agree to be tortured in case the authorities deem it necessary. They should also agree that in the event they are tortured their torture sessions can be made into videos and sold online to reduce the national debt. Perhaps, to go really old school, the torture sessions should be done in a public arena so that those who wish to attend may pay a fee and view the sessions live and even have their pictures taken for posterity. To top it off, if the public torture sessions result in confessions of capital crimes, the public might be encouraged to pay a fee to dispense justice on the spot. MAGA.

I'm completely with you, as long as the only people who have to add that to their license have already been accused of being actively involved in having burned, suffocated, and/or crushed to death 2753 people... (just the Twin Towers totals, its 2977 if you throw in DC & PA [thats ignoring all those exposed to toxic dust]...

They could waterboard those b...ards for eternity and they'd be getting off easy in my book...

Depending on where you live it very well could have been "your" friends or family that were spared a follow on attack that didn't happen thanks to some of her efforts...

 

[iu_a_att]

She should be confirmed. She has wide support within the CIA and is extremely well qualified.

We would do better to hold those accountable who sanctioned and implemented the program of torture as an abomination of our values and law.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

We would do better to hold those accountable who sanctioned and implemented the program of torture as an abomination of our values and law.

You are entitled to your opinion. I’ll stand behind those keeping us safe everytime. What they did were my values as an American and were within our laws.... in my opinion.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We would do better to hold those accountable who sanctioned and implemented the program of torture as an abomination of our values and law.

She will be CIA Director and the CIA is in good hands.

 

[iu_a_att]

She will be CIA Director and the CIA is in good hands.

She was deeply implicated in our torture program and so the decision to promote her is intended to and does legitimize and excuse that program and torture. That is a bad thing for the country and a bad thing for the world. Rather than legitimizing and excusing torture by promoting the architects of that program it would be better to disqualify and discredit all such individuals up to and including President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

What we have here at a deep level is a failure of leadership that begins with Republican elites, extends into our civilian and military leadership and finally infects the entire country. There is a direct path from that failure of leadership among Republican elites to the travesty that is Trump. The utter failure on the Republican side presents Democrats with a problem too. Any attempt by Democrats to hold the civilian and military leadership accountable without cooperation of the Republicans would be intensely polarizing. Nevertheless, all of us would be better off if at least the Democrats would stand on principle and reject the nominee.

 

[iu_a_att]

John McCain says Haspel should be rejected.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

John McCain says Haspel should be rejected.

With all do respect McCain has brain cancer

 

[Marvin the Martian]

With all do respect McCain has brain cancer

A lot of military leadership opposes it.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

A lot of military leadership opposes it.

In an era where your commander and chief was taking scalps....

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In an era where your commander and chief was taking scalps....

Uhm, what?

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Uhm, what?

Regardless, you can disagree with it but the law wasn’t broken.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Regardless, you can disagree with it but the law wasn’t broken.

Uh, yes it was.

 

[UncleMark]

She does have support, and frankly I don't know where I stand. The cover-up should be a concern to anyone. If it is enough to cause someone to say no, I don't know. But rewarding someone for destroying evidence should at least make one pause.

I'd be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her participation -- it was an ugly time when many honorable people did dishonorable things -- but the destroying of the tapes is troubling, yes. That reeks of coverup.

She was deeply implicated in our torture program and so the decision to promote her is intended to and does legitimize and excuse that program and torture.

A point I hadn't considered, and one that is quite weighty upon reflection. You've changed my mind, and I now would not favor her confirmation. Fairly or not to her, any perception that this type of behavior can be excused should be stamped out.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'd be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her participation -- it was an ugly time when many honorable people did dishonorable things -- but the destroying of the tapes is troubling, yes. That reeks of coverup.

Yep, a lot of experts speak highly of her. I am opposed to waterboarding, but that part I can rationalize as you did. It is always the cover up that gets people.

I could not listen today, so I still cannot fairly say what I believe should happen. But it would be very difficult for me to support her based on the event and the cover.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We would do better to hold those accountable who sanctioned and implemented the program of torture as an abomination of our values and law.

Do you accept as moral Hellfire missiles fired at a terrorist-inhabited village from a Predator drone by an officer sitting in an easy chair in Nevada when there is a likelihood that innocents will be killed or disabled for the rest of their lives? What if the drone strike, like waterboarding, is intended to stop other terrorists? Waterboarding was specifically carried out in a manner not to permanently harm the subjects. Drone strikes are intended to be silent and sudden death or serious bodily injury by remote control of people—hopefully bad people.

I’m okay with not doing waterboarding. I was okay with doing it. I’m also okay with remote control drone strikes. I trust those who make those difficult calls. I think we are responsible about it. I don’t want to be in their shoes. I think Haspel would be an excellent choice and is one of Trump’s best decisions. She was on the front lines during one of our most difficult times.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

A point I hadn't considered, and one that is quite weighty upon reflection. You've changed my mind, and I now would not favor her confirmation. Fairly or not to her, any perception that this type of behavior can be excused should be stamped out.

I have no opinion whatsoever on Haspel, but the attempt by some, including at least a few in this thread, to not only look past, but actually justify the use of torture, is despicable.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have no opinion whatsoever on Haspel, but the attempt by some, including at least a few in this thread, to not only look past, but actually justify the use of torture, is despicable.

I know that waterboarding is considered torture. But Frankly I don’t get my undies in a bundle over it because an hour after the “torture” the subject is unharmed and normal. Contrast that with what McCain endured or the beatings and other sadistic practices administered by many to obtain information or confessions or whatever. THAT is despicable.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

She was deeply implicated in our torture program and so the decision to promote her is intended to and does legitimize and excuse that program and torture. That is a bad thing for the country and a bad thing for the world. Rather than legitimizing and excusing torture by promoting the architects of that program it would be better to disqualify and discredit all such individuals up to and including President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

What we have here at a deep level is a failure of leadership that begins with Republican elites, extends into our civilian and military leadership and finally infects the entire country. There is a direct path from that failure of leadership among Republican elites to the travesty that is Trump. The utter failure on the Republican side presents Democrats with a problem too. Any attempt by Democrats to hold the civilian and military leadership accountable without cooperation of the Republicans would be intensely polarizing. Nevertheless, all of us would be better off if at least the Democrats would stand on principle and reject the nominee.

Direct path from the failure of Republican elites to the travesty that is Trump in my view falls at the feet of the Democrat's who lost this election. I don't believe Trump wanted to win.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

A lot of military leadership opposes it.

They don’t oppose her confirmation.

 

[Rockfish1]

I know that waterboarding is considered torture. But Frankly I don’t get my undies in a bundle over it because an hour after the “torture” the subject is unharmed and normal.

Obviously you haven't just pulled this "fact" out of your ass. Surely you've found authoritative sources that tell you those we tortured are all happy as clams now. I mean, at a minimum I know you can knock all this down.

 

[Rockfish1]

They don’t oppose her confirmation.

Wave that flag all you want, Aloha. It doesn't conceal war crimes. There isn't anything patriotic about that.

 

[twenty02]

With all do respect McCain has brain cancer

With all DUE respect...you are an ass. And your posts have signaled a lot more brain damage than anything that has come from McCain.

 

[twenty02]

I have no issue with Haspel. She promises to not bring back these techniques.

I much prefer experienced pros vs the political hacks and retreads that have filled most of the admin posts to date.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Wave that flag all you want, Aloha. It doesn't conceal war crimes. There isn't anything patriotic about that.

It’s waving the flag to point out that her confirmation is supported by all living CIA Directors and that she has the widespread support of CIA personnel? Not confirming her would be demoralizing within the CIA. She will be confirmed, as she should be, and we should be happy she isn’t a doofus like far too many of our President’s nominees have been.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Wave that flag all you want, Aloha. It doesn't conceal war crimes. There isn't anything patriotic about that.

I kind of agree with Sherman. War is all cruelty, the cruller it is the sooner it will be over.

 

[iu_a_att]

It’s waving the flag to point out that her confirmation is supported by all living CIA Directors and that she has the widespread support of CIA personnel? Not confirming her would be demoralizing within the CIA. She will be confirmed, as she should be, and we should be happy she isn’t a doofus like far too many of our President’s nominees have been.

She should never have been appointed let alone confirmed. There are plenty of people who could be CIA director who don't come with the stain of being associated with the torture program. You don't address the endorsement of torture that our President intends with the appointment nor what that means for our country. We already see the impact of Bush and now Trump's endorsement of torture on the way the debate on torture unfolds. In point of fact, most people have no values beyond the values of those who lead them. People who 25 years ago would have denounced torture as something beneath us now rationalize and support it. Our principally Republican leadership sacrificed our common values and heritage in exchange for what? Not for any military or strategic advantage...we only lost advantage on that front. Then what did they gain? Some political advantage in looking tough to the base and they got not much return on that either.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

With all DUE respect...you are an ass. And your posts have signaled a lot more brain damage than anything that has come from McCain.

Ahhhh.....the typical name calling....

“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, *saves lives*. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a *damn* what you think you are entitled to!”

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

She should never have been appointed let alone confirmed. There are plenty of people who could be CIA director who don't come with the stain of being associated with the torture program. You don't address the endorsement of torture that our President intends with the appointment nor what that means for our country. We already see the impact of Bush and now Trump's endorsement of torture on the way the debate on torture unfolds. In point of fact, most people have no values beyond the values of those who lead them. People who 25 years ago would have denounced torture as something beneath us now rationalize and support it. Our principally Republican leadership sacrificed our common values and heritage in exchange for what? Not for any military or strategic advantage...we only lost advantage on that front. Then what did they gain? Some political advantage in looking tough to the base and they got not much return on that either.

I’m happy that Trump actually made an excellent appointment and you’re unhappy because you want to continue the debate over some of our interrogations after 9/11. That debate is over. Our laws have been changed. It’s time to accept a very good nominee for an important department and move on to the next debate. She’s going to be confirmed.

 

[Rockfish1]

She should never have been appointed let alone confirmed. There are plenty of people who could be CIA director who don't come with the stain of being associated with the torture program. You don't address the endorsement of torture that our President intends with the appointment nor what that means for our country. We already see the impact of Bush and now Trump's endorsement of torture on the way the debate on torture unfolds. In point of fact, most people have no values beyond the values of those who lead them. People who 25 years ago would have denounced torture as something beneath us now rationalize and support it. Our principally Republican leadership sacrificed our common values and heritage in exchange for what? Not for any military or strategic advantage...we only lost advantage on that front. Then what did they gain? Some political advantage in looking tough to the base and they got not much return on that either.

When news of Abu Ghraib broke, the Bush administration's partisan defenders insisted that those involved were just a few bad apples engaged in aberrant behavior that no right-thinking American would conceivably condone. They flatly rejected the idea that this stain on our history could possibly have anything to do with the Bush administration. As Steven Colbert joked, it was something we did do, but it wasn't something we would do.

Then the truth emerged that, as a matter of Bush administration policy, we were systematically doing far worse at US detention centers around the world.

Without hesitation the apologists for torture turned on a dime. Of course that's what we're doing, they said, and it's a damn good thing we are. I quoted George Orwwell ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"), and called George Bush a war criminal. I was told I was a traitor, a coward, and objectively pro-terrorist. The apologists denied that even an iconic form of torture like waterboarding (invented during the Spanish Inquisition to extract confessions to heresy) was really "torture". Unlike the Spanish Inquisitors, the apologists argued, we had doctors and lawyers running our torture program. Abuse that we had no problem calling torture when it was done by our enemies euphemistically became Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

The rationalizations continue today.

Apart for her participation in war crimes, Gina Haspel is undoubtedly qualified to run the CIA. Back before we became torturers, though, participation in war crimes would obviously have been disqualifying.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Obviously you haven't just pulled this "fact" out of your ass. Surely you've found authoritative sources that tell you those we tortured are all happy as clams now. I mean, at a minimum I know you can knock all this down.

We subjected our own to waterboarding as part of training to show it can be resisted and survived without harm.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When news of Abu Ghraib broke, the Bush administration's partisan defenders insisted that those involved were just a few bad apples engaged in aberrant behavior that no right-thinking American would conceivably condone. They flatly rejected the idea that this stain on our history could possibly have anything to do with the Bush administration. As Steven Colbert joked, it was something we did do, but it wasn't something we would do.

Then the truth emerged that, as a matter of Bush administration policy, we were systematically doing far worse at US detention centers around the world.

Without hesitation the apologists for torture turned on a dime. Of course that's what we're doing, they said, and it's a damn good thing we are. I quoted George Orwwell ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"), and called George Bush a war criminal. I was told I was a traitor, a coward, and objectively pro-terrorist. The apologists denied that even an iconic form of torture like waterboarding (invented during the Spanish Inquisition to extract confessions to heresy) was really "torture". Unlike the Spanish Inquisitors, the apologists argued, we had doctors and lawyers running our torture program. Abuse that we had no problem calling torture when it was done by our enemies euphemistically became Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

The rationalizations continue today.

Apart for her participation in war crimes, Gina Haspel is undoubtedly qualified to run the CIA. Back before we became torturers, though, participation in war crimes would obviously have been disqualifying.

Do you favor rejecting this “obviously qualified” nominee?

 

[Rockfish1]

We subjected our own to waterboarding as part of training to show it can be resisted and survived without harm.

As I said, the rationalizations continue today.

 

[Rockfish1]

Do you favor rejecting this “obviously qualified” nominee?

Of course I oppose her confirmation.