Gina Haspel has spent her life defending our country. She’s an excellent choice for CIA
President Trump’s nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel, is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. As a strong supporter of her nomination, I expect she will do very well.
Despite her opponents’ attempts to paint her as an ideological zealot, Haspel is a consummate professional whose record of accomplishment, bipartisan support, and clear love of country make her an excellent choice to lead our nation’s top intelligence agency.
Unlike many nominees in recent years, Haspel isn’t the representative of a political faction. She’s a career intelligence officer with over 30 years of experience.
Haspel joined the CIA in 1985, working as a case officer for several years in both Africa and Europe. Over time, she rose up the ranks, serving as deputy director of the National Clandestine Service and chief of staff for the director of operations.
In addition, Haspel served as chief of station – that is, the agent responsible for overseeing all of the CIA’s work in a foreign country – four times. If confirmed, she would be the first CIA director in decades who has spent her entire career at the agency – as well as the first woman to lead the agency.
Having served under six different presidents from both parties, Haspel is far from an ideologue. She’s an institutionalist who has put in so many years of work that she commands respect throughout the rank and file at the CIA.
Haspel’s opponents have tried to use a small sliver of her career against her by arguing, essentially, that she was just too tough on Al Qaeda for this country to bear. But I’d argue that her willingness to serve in what was a highly stressful post only enhances the case for her confirmation.
In the early 2000s, as the fight against Islamist terrorism heated up, Haspel asked to be reassigned to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, where her first day on the job was Sept. 11, 2001.
It’s easy to forget that we lost 3,000 Americans that day in the worst attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor – and that this was an especially trying time for all those working on national security.
As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said: “If you were not in a position of authority on 9/11, you have no idea the pressures we faced to make sure that this country wasn’t attacked again.”
And yet Haspel volunteered for the mission, later earning the George H.W. Bush Award, granted for excellence in counterterrorism; the Intelligence Medal of Merit; and the Presidential Rank Award, the most prestigious distinction in all of federal civil service.
It’s true, as her critics charge, that Haspel was involved in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, but once again, their potshots miss the mark. The president approved this program, Congress was fully briefed on it, and it included multiple layers of legal review.
Haspel did draft a cable authorizing the destruction of video recordings of a small number of these interrogations. But it was her direct supervisor who sent the cable – and did so without her knowledge.
In fact, Mike Morell, former acting director of the CIA, later conducted an investigation and cleared Haspel of any wrongdoing, and the special counsel who reviewed the matter closed the case without filing any charges. So instead of demonstrating a troubling tendency to go rogue, Haspel’s tenure shows a fierce dedication to the CIA’s mission and to keeping this country safe.
Haspel’s skill and expertise are widely known and respected on both sides of the aisle. President Obama’s former CIA Director Leon Panetta said he was “glad” the president nominated Haspel because she “knows the CIA inside-out.”
Another former CIA director under President Obama, John Brennan, said Haspel “has the experience – the breadth and depth – on intelligence issues.”
And former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who served under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has called Haspel a “great choice” and “highly regarded.”
These are just three of the over 50 former national security officials who signed a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee supporting Haspel’s nomination.
Haspel’s critics maintain that confirming her nomination would send a message to the world that the U.S. endorses torture. But in fact, rejection would send a message of another kind to the men and women of our intelligence community.
By rejecting Haspel’s nomination, the Senate would, in effect, warn people working in our intelligence community that if they ever participate in a program that the president has approved and Congress has been briefed on – and that program later becomes unpopular – they will be barred for promotion and open to character assassination.
Haspel’s critics often claim to care for the morale of our intelligence community, but what would hurt morale more than such a move?
Gina Haspel has spent her life defending our country. Her experience makes her a prime choice to lead the CIA at this dangerous time.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I’ve worked with her during her time as deputy CIA chief and can attest to her professionalism, her work ethic, and – most important of all – her character.
It’s perhaps not as well known that the reason Haspel joined the CIA was that her first choice for a college, West Point, wasn’t accepting female candidates at the time. It would be a real loss for America if her country rejected her services yet again. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/08/sen-tom-cotton-gina-haspel-has-spent-her-life-defending-our-country-s-excellent-choice-for-cia.html
Tags
If you and Trump both like her she'd likely be a disaster.
My take exactly! If HA taking his talking points from the usual sources is in anyone's camp I already know I would be against them, research not needed.
How come nobody cared about all this stuff before the day before yesterday?
You're kidding, right?
I'm pretty sure I cared about renditioning and torture long before yesterday
I'm pretty sure I cared about renditioning and torture long before yesterday
But not enough to call your senator and demand that this Haspel lady be fired, right?
There was a sound byte just now on my local news. She refused to answer simple yes or no questions regarding her endorsement of wbt.
Torture is a violation of the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution and it is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Sure, but what does that mean? How do you define it? Clearly some people felt like waterboarding didn't qualify. Does being forced to sleep on a metal platform qualify? How about sleep deprivation? How much is ok? What about lowering or raising the temperature? How about jail food? How about all the men who are raped in our domestic prisons? That's actually the subject of jokes.
My point is that now that waterboarding is officially illegal, some people are awfully righteous and judgmental about it when they weren't 17 years ago. And they probably tolerate a lot of other things now that will be illegal and - allegedly - "clearly immoral" 20 years from now.
Sure, but what does that mean? How do you define it?
Maybe you should read the Convention Against Torture and learn something? If you're engaging in actions beyond ordinary law enforcement and you're doing it on behalf of the state, it's quite likely to be torture.
.
My point is that now that waterboarding is officially illegal, some people are awfully righteous and judgmental about it when they weren't 17 years ago.
LOL. Waterboarding has always been a crime under US law. In fact the US first prosecuted its own soldiers for engaging in that practice in 1902, and we executed some Japanese soldiers for doing it in WWII. Only a few years before the Bush regime came into power the DOJ defended the conviction of a Texas sheriff and his deputies for waterboarding a prisoner in the mid-1980s. They didn't realize that the prisoner they were torturing was an undercover FBI agent.
it's quite likely to be torture.
Sorry, but "quite likely" is not an acceptable standard. If you want to come back 15 years from now and lionize or condemn someone for doing "right" or doing "wrong" you should be able to define it definitively.
My simple Google dictionary defines Torture as:
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something
Does waterboarding, by itself, inflict severe pain? I don't know. I'm sure it sucks. How do you define "severe pain?" I bet if I spent a night on a jailhouse bed, I'd wake up in what I would think of as severe pain. Have I been tortured?
Maybe you should read the Convention Against Torture
I'm sure it's fascinating. Did Al Qaeda sign that one? Did ISIS?
Here's my basic position: If I am confident that waterboarding a known murderer will save an innocent life, I support it. I choose innocent life over the non-lethal comfort of murderers. I would love to hear the rationale that we should allow the next 9/11 to happen so that we can avoid being mean to the Khalid Sheik Mohammeds of the world.
Sorry, but "quite likely" is not an acceptable standard.
As I said, read the CAT to understand the issue. Clearly you have not done so and prefer to comment in ignorance.
What matters is A) whether the treatment exceeds the standards of ordinary law enforcement, and B) whether the intent is to extract information or to punish. Plus the perp must be a government actor. So with Bush's torture program we have government actors and civilians employed by the government, extraordinarily harsh physical and psychological abuse, and the key component - the intent to extract information.
None of this is in doubt since the ICRC has formally found that the US did engage in torture in its abusive treatment of many prisoners held during Bush's War of Terror. Note that the ICRC is the body which officially investigates claims of torture for the UNHRC.
.
Maybe you should read the Convention Against TortureI'm sure it's fascinating. Did Al Qaeda sign that one? Did ISIS?
It's completely irrelevant whether the victims of torture (or any group they belong to) signed the CAT. The CAT applies to its signatories and governs the actions of those signatories. I'll help you out by quoting part of the CAT since you obviously have no intention to educate yourself:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
.
Article 15 of the CAT also prohibits any statements extracted under torture from being used in any judicial proceeding against the victim. That's why none of Bush's torture victims can be fairly prosecuted, not even in the kangaroo court at Gitmo.
By the way perhaps you can explain why in 2005 the Bush OLC retracted the memos issued by John Yoo? The IG of the DOJ later said that they never should have been issued and had no anchor under US or international law. If the Bush torture program were legal then why aren't those memos which authorized it still in force?
Good to know according to what you posted that the water boarding wasn’t torture. Some of us went through it in the 60s in the military. Yeah it was certainly unnerving and scary, but not torture
Good to know according to what you posted that the water boarding wasn’t torture.
The US & UK governments, the ICRC and the UNHRC disagree with you.
.
Some of us went through it in the 60s in the military.
No, you merely went through an elective training exercise which you could end at any time and in which you trusted the instructors with your life. Even the SERE instructors say that it's really nothing like a prisoner being waterboarded but is merely intended to expose the trainee to a brief sampling of the kind of torture they might expect if they are captured.
However it's great that you mentioned it given that the SERE training derives directly from a 1950s Chinese torture manual which was designed to elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. It's also rather revealing that the two former SERE psychologists who developed Bush's torture program had no experience whatsoever in interrogation techniques and had no relevant cultural expertise.
Yeah, but....if she was a Democrat the left would be clamoring to support her. Did you know that HRC supported enhanced interrogation?
And she is wrong, too
I don't care what letter is behind your name, if you like torture, you should have to undergo it
if you like torture, you should have to undergo it
I don't think Hillary Clinton was planning the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
So....yes to torture then?
I honestly don't feel bad that we waterboarded this asshole: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
If we outlaw enhanced interrogation, only outlaw nations will have enhanced interrogation. 
Torture is already illegal and only rogue outlaw nations use it. George W Bush is in international outlaw...
How many times was he waterboarded and to what end?
He initially refused to cooperate.
Then, I think they poured water on him something like 180 times. That's not 180 distinct sessions. I think it was 5 distinct sessions.
In the wake of that, he began to cooperate and, according to some, gave us useful information that saved lives. I don't have the kind of top secret clearance that would confirm that. Nor, I expect, does anyone here. I do understand, though, that that's why it was done.
Of course we can't be certain that waterboarding is the reason he cooperated. It's possible that if he hadn't cooperated, some innocent people would now be dead. In exchange, he is still alive with some awful memories. He planned 9/11 and chopped off the head of reporter Daniel Pearl and put it on the internet. I'm not sorry for his treatment.
Waterboarding is not pouring water on someone
I'm simply describing a step in the process. I'm not trying to minimize it. In fact, that fact should have the opposite effect.
If I had said only that he had been waterboarded 5 times, that wouldn't be nearly as informative or compelling as the knowledge that they literally poured water on his face 180 times. Adding the 180 applications of water makes the description worse, not better.
I bet you'd 'cooperate' and say whatever you thought they wanted you to say.
I sure would. That's what makes it unreliable and that is the reason it's not morally right. Not because it's mean, but because it doesn't work well. On the other hand, if you've got someone you think will tell you the truth, and that truth will save lives, then you have a different situation, and it can be a moral good.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decapitated journalist Daniel Pearl and put it on the internet. He didn't just confess under torture. He bragged about it with pride. He also orchestrated 9/11. Just imagine if we could have waterboarded him on September 10, 2001. Would you be willing to give him a bad day if it meant saving 3,000 lives?
If you're against this woman running the CIA, I'd love to know who you think is a better choice. Who is more qualified? And let's have an actual name.
I think the self-righteous posturing about waterboarding is nauseating. It's fine to have a negative view of it. I always did. I sure wouldn't want to go through it, but I also recognize that it strides a bit of a grey area in coercive techniques. It's not like you're breaking bones, burning skin, or pulling out fingernails. It's a kind of psychological torture and we have been pretty ok with that kind of thing for a long time. For example, we still use a limited form of sleep deprivation. I can remember our troops blasting rock music at Manuel Noriega. I think most Americans thought that was funny. Also, it's perfectly legal for cops to lie to people to get information out of them. And have you seen a real jail cell?
Where is the line separating "uncomforatable" and "torture?" Is that objectively knowable? "No physical damage" is not such a bad line to draw and, in theory, waterboarding stays on the right side of that line.
And when we're talking about people in the military or the CIA, they are ordered to do unpleasant things all the time. They have gone through intense physical and psychological training such that they are willing to do things when ordered (like kill a person) that they would never do in civilian life. It's unfair to judge Haspel too harshly for being part of an unpleasant fringe tactic that she had been told was lawful.
Sounds like you don't support the rule of law and have no problem when government employees commit war crimes, violate treaties which the US wrote, and criminally violate US laws which carry the death penalty.
Removed for Sweeping Generalization per the Updated CoC "BF"
Kind of parallels the teavangelicals willingness to break any/every commandment to save 1 soul, don't it?
No war crimes were committed. Can you point me to some convictions?
Sure, although it must be said that the Bush regime didn't treat these war crimes with the gravity they deserve and they usually just covered them up. One good example would be the conviction of Sgt. Joshua Claus for "pulpifying" the legs of an innocent Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar. Note that Claus wasn't the only war criminal convicted in Dilawar's torture and murder but most of them just got a slap on the wrist.
No war crimes were committed.
As has already been pointed out... Torture is a violation of the 8th amendment and the geneva convention. It IS a WAR CRIME.
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (commonly known as the United Nations Convention against Torture ( UNCAT )) is an international human rights treaty , under the review of the United Nations , that aims to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment around the world.
The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture in any territory under their jurisdiction , and forbids states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured.
The text of the Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984 [1] and, following ratification by the 20th state party, [3] it came into force on 26 June 1987. [1] 26 June is now recognized as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture , in honor of the Convention. Since the convention's entry into force, the absolute prohibition against torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment has become accepted as a principle of customary international law . [6] As of August 2017, the Convention has 162 state parties. [1]
The Covenant follows the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), with a preamble and 33 articles, divided into three parts:
Part I (Articles 1–16) contains a definition of torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offense under a party's municipal law (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's nationals (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offense (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 and 13), and victims of torture, or their dependents in case victims died as a result of torture, must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting , extraditing, or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).
Parties are required to train and educate their law enforcement personnel , civilian or military personnel , medical personnel , public officials , and other persons involved in the custody , interrogation , or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest , detention, or imprisonment , regarding the prohibition against torture (Article 10). Parties also must keep interrogation rules, instructions, methods, and practices under systematic review regarding individuals who are under custody or physical control in any territory under their jurisdiction, in order to prevent all acts of torture (Article 11).
Parties are also obliged to prevent all acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under their jurisdiction, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment. (Article 16).
Part II (Articles 17–24) governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Article 21) and allows parties to recognize the competence of the Committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention by a party (Article 22).
Part III (Articles 25–33) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Convention. It also includes an optional arbitration mechanism for disputes between parties (Article 30).
Main provisions [ edit ]
Definition of torture [ edit ]
Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture as:
For the purpose 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 , punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
.......
So what's the next argument? It wasn't really torture? Some of these people DIED as a result of their torture...pretty sure that clears the, "is it really torture" hurdle.
I have no more love of terrorists than anyone else. But it gets old hearing the rightists scream about being all about law and order and respecting the constitution only to turn around and shit on it as soon as it's convenient. It's called hypocrisy. Also, if you read the report from the Gitmo torture, absolutely NO USABLE INTEL was obtained by torturing prisoners. NONE.
.......
Look for yourself...
Findings listed in the report [ edit ]
The 6,000-page report produced 20 key findings. They are, verbatim from the unclassified summary report: [1]
-
The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
-
The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.
-
The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
-
The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.
-
The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
-
The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.
-
The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.
-
The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.
-
The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General .
-
The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
-
The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.
-
The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.
-
Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.
-
CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.
-
The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.
-
The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.
-
The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious or significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systematic and individual management failures.
-
The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
-
The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.
-
The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.
No war crimes were committed. Can you point me to some convictions?
.
History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding
"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.
McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.
So . . . you don't have the name of a better candidate.
I'd nominate Ali Soufan, Matthew Alexander or one of the ethical CIA officers who leaked info about Bush's torture program to the press, or one of several ethical officers who resigned because of it......like the former head of the CIA's psychology unit who resigned at the black site run by Haspel in Thailand rather than helping her torture prisoners. By the way it was Ali Soufan not Haspel who actually got useful intel from Abu Zubaydah, and he did it without torturing him.
At the very least I'd want a bureaucrat with a sense of ethics not a war criminal like Haspel. Her true obligation to the country was to refuse Bush's illegal order to torture and she utterly failed that simple test which others easily passed. She also knew that they were engaging in war crimes given that she obstructed justice by writing and sending an order to destroy all video evidence of these crimes, in direct violation of a court order (and WH & CIA order) requiring the CIA to preserve that evidence. This article nails it:
Opposition to Ms. Haspel’s nomination is growing elsewhere. More than 100 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Monday saying they believe she is unfit to lead the C.I.A. because of her role in the interrogation program and destroying the videos. The letter was organized by retired Gen. Charles C. Krulak, the former Marine Corps commandant.
“We do not accept efforts to excuse her actions relating to torture and other unlawful abuse of detainees by offering that she was ‘just following orders ,’ ” they wrote.
“We did not accept the ‘just following orders’ justification after World War II, and we should not accept it now,” they added, referring to the defense used unsuccessfully by some Nazi leaders at the postwar Nuremberg trials.
.
I also think the US would be far better off if all the people involved with Bush's torture program were fired and prohibited from government service entirely.
Laughable. Make sure you have a copy of this nonsense when you go talk to a jihadist. You may live long enough to see them smile right before they cut off your head
You generally have to be at war to commit war crimes.
The AUMF is STILL in force. The U.S. is STILL @ war.
The report that is linked was authorized on in Dec. 2012 and the declassified summary was released in Dec. 2014. ALL of the activities that it includes were done while the U.S. was @ war.
If we insist that we are the preeminent Nation of Law in the world [and we do], we MUST be willing to hold ourselves to the highest standard. Any and all violations of the Geneva Convention by OUR citizens, especially those in OUR employ, should be prosecuted.
I agree to a very, very large extent, especially about her vast experience ( and if she is not confirmed - I hope she stays on until the maximum age)
but many people think these two issues are like softball sized horse flies sitting on a cheesecake.
No thanks.
if she is not confirmed - I hope she stays on until the maximum age
I think we need to purge from government service any war criminals and anyone so lacking in ethical mooring as to be incapable of refusing or even recognizing an illegal order. Haspel might be "good" at her job in a certain sense but it was that kind of "good" which resulted in a false confession which was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. Thousands of Americans and likely millions of Iraqis are dead as a result.
Intelligence leaders, including many from the Obama administration praise the nomination of Haspel
• A bipartisan group of former leaders in the intelligence community have endorsed Gina Haspel to be the next Director of the CIA, including three CIA Directors, two Acting CIA Directors, one Director of National Intelligence, and one National Security Agency Director.
◦ President Obama's former CIA Director John Brennan called Haspel an "exceptionally well-respected professional" who deserves the chance to "take the helm at the CIA."
◦ President Obama's former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated he was glad Haspel was chosen to head CIA and noted that she "knows the CIA inside out."
◦ President Bush's former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden called Haspel "the absolute best choice to be director of CIA."
◦ Former Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Haspel "highly capable" and "widely respected."
• More than 50 former senior U.S. government officials have expressed their unqualified support for Haspel in a letter to the Chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Former CIA Deputy Director And Former White House Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haines Called Haspel "Intelligent," "Compassionate," And "Fair," And Said She Had An "Unparalleled Understanding" Of The CIA. "Gina Haspel is intelligent, compassionate, and fair. Moreover, Gina has an unparalleled understanding of the institution, the Agency's work, and she will support the workforce -- all attributes the Agency needs from its Director." (Press Release, "Bipartisan Support For Gina Haspel's Nomination To Be CIA Director From Distinguished National Security Leaders," Central Intelligence Agency , 03/19/18)
• Haines Served In The Obama Administration As The First Female Deputy Director Of The CIA And The First Female White House Deputy National Security Adviser. "During the Obama administration, Haines broke two glass ceilings: She was not only the first woman to hold the number two position at the CIA but also the first female White House deputy national security adviser." ("A Top Intelligence Officer Joins The Law School," Columbia Law School , Accessed 05/04/18)
Former Acting CIA Director And CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell Said Haspel Was "Highly Capable," And Cared "Deeply About The Mission Of The Agency And She Cares Deeply About The Men And Women Of The Agency." "She is highly capable, she has deep integrity, and she has the best interests of the country, the Agency, and the men and women who serve it at heart. She is widely respected both across CIA and from top to bottom, and she will be welcomed in the new job by both current and former employees." (Press Release, "Bipartisan Support For Gina Haspel's Nomination To Be CIA Director From Distinguished National Security Leaders," Central Intelligence Agency , 03/19/18)
Morell Served As Acting Director Of The Central Intelligence Agency Under President Obama. "Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Obama Administration, is one of our nation's leading national security professionals…" ("Michael Morell," The University Of Chicago , Accessed 05/04/18)
Former Director Of U.S. National Clandestine Service John Bennett Called Haspel "One Of The Most Accomplished Officers Of Her Generation." "That said, she is one of the most accomplished officers of her generation, having held a series of major field commands and headquarters positions. She has served in Europe, in denied areas and the Third World. She has taken on some of the most demanding and least rewarding assignments in the War on Terror, not because she sought them out, but because she felt it was her duty during the time of greatest anxiety and uncertainty for the American people in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. She has a proven track record in multiple assignments of being able to work productively with key foreign partners as well as the FBI." (Cipher Brief Analysis, "Haspel Nominated To Lead CIA, Pompeo To Replace Tillerson," The Cipher Brief , 03/13/18)
• Bennett Served As Director Of The CIA's National Clandestine Service. "John Bennett retired from the Central Intelligence Agency in 2013 after a 33 years of service. His senior assignments included: Director, National Clandestine Service, Deputy Director, NCS for Community Humint, Chief, Special Activities Division and Deputy Chief, Africa Division." ("John Bennett," The Cipher Brief , Accessed 05/07/18)
Former Chief Of Staff At The Department Of Defense And The Central Intelligence Agency Jeremy Bash Called Gina Haspel "Among The Most Qualified People Ever Nominated To Lead The CIA." "Haspel has served as agency's deputy director for the past year, having previously served in senior roles in the directorate of operations and as chief of station in a major allied capital. During the years after 9/11, she worked on a range of sensitive counterterrorism missions. Quite simply, she is among the most qualified people ever nominated to lead the CIA." (Jeremy Bash, "Gina Haspel Is The Rare CIA Director Nominee That Both Parties Should Love," NBC News , 05/02/18)
• Bash Served As Chief Of Staff To The Director Of The CIA And As Chief Of Staff to The Secretary Of Defense Under President Obama. "Mr. Bash has spent the past 15 years advising national leaders and chief executives on a range of strategic, management, legal, and policy issues. He is the only Obama Administration official to have served as Chief of Staff in two national security departments or agencies: first as Chief of Staff to the Director of the CIA (2009-2011) and most recently as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense (2011-2013)." ("Jeremy Bash," Beacon Global Strategies , Accessed 05/07/18)
She is a criminal that violated the US Constitution, (which you rightists insist we must NEVER violate), and she violated the Geneva Convention which makes her a war criminal, Author called Off topic {SP}
How did she violate the convention? What uniformed soldiers did she abuse, genius?
You've obviously never read any of the Geneva Conventions much less the Convention Against Torture. But note that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits torture and SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan v Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 protects the prisoners held by the US during Bush's War of Terror.
In addition the Convention Against Torture has an absolute ban on torture in all circumstances. That ban was implemented in the US via 18 USC 2340 and 2441. Torture is also prohibited under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so violations of that are a fundamental violation of the UN Charter.
There is a rule about not using perjorative names for key leaders....
False.
.
......and parties like rethuglican and democrap
True.
I don't see why you insist on spreading falsehoods but the claim you made about "key leaders" is simply false.
While I very much appreciate your sentiments, I know you realize the difference between disrespecting public figures and members of NT or NV.
"Key leaders" are not exempt from the childish partisan name calling.
So why did Obama send people to those "black site" far away places with strange sounding names??
HA called off topic on an offensive comment by Frost - I agreed and deleted it.
as per the CoC
Moderation
The NewsTalkers is a member moderated site – moderators are members of the NT community.
When a moderator deletes an offensive comment, all comments that pertain to the offensive posting will also be deleted.
There are no violations for Off Topic or Removed for Context
She did neither. Why don’t you go have that chat with a jihadist
Water boarding might be off the table, but death by a thousand cuts, flaying alive and draw and quarter have not been eliminated.
Yep, so it's OK to kill the enemy, but we dasn't dare hurt their feelings, make them uncomfortable, or scare the shyt out of them! 
so it's OK to kill the enemy
In combat but not captured combatants. That is murder. Torturing people is against international and US law...
Torturing people is against international and US law...
Any idea which "Other" countries actually don't ?
Hell.....even LITTLE "Singapore" Canes it's own folks for breaking their laws.
Remember U.S. Citizen Michael Fay ?
No news is good news on the torture front ! 
As long as the CIA exists we are all culpable for it's unethical and nefarious activities.
Even more so when they're not held responsible when they do violate US and international law.
Who is online
80 visitors
Torture rules.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo.
A little waterboarding never hurt anyone....and besides, everyone else uses enhanced interrogation, so the US might as well too.
Besides death, waterboarding can cause extreme pain, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, and lasting psychological damage .
Huh? Really? LMFAO!!!
So it's ok if others do it? Aren't we supposed to set an ethical standard, be better than the rest? But you want to jump in the ditch with the other lowlifes? We are a nation of laws...torture is ILLEGAL. Didn't trump swear to uphold our laws and protect the constitution? NOW you want to just overlook it because, "well others are doing it!!!!"?
Sickening.
I thought we were the good guys?
Other country's also behead people in the public square, just for thinking differently, should we start doing that too?
How about you volunteer for a session and get back to us.
We were...now we are the laighing stock.
I love how people imagine international politics as some kind of high school clique or country club. Why are we supposed to be impressed with claims that we're a laughing stock? i.e., First, how would you even know? And second, why should we care? Since when does America only act to impress the cool kids?
Shouldn't the US lead by example?
Do you know what diplomacy is?
Why should we care? Seriously? The right screamed that Obama was a disaster with diplomacy regarding our allies, (which was a flat out lie), but now, "who cares"? Next time just admit trump is embarrassing and be done with it.
OH! You mean like this?
Oh I almost forgot that y'all think that we're all xenophobic. I have longtime friends [ex-pats] that live overseas. England and Germany to be specific. Both tell me about how our closest allies are laughing hysterically and scared shitless at the same time.
Gee, even Trump asked for France and England to join us in smacking down Syria. One would think that alone would give you a clue. Guess not...
Since Jan. 20. 2017 when we intentionally acquiesced our leadership in that group and elected Trump, a man whose only desire is to be a mere member of that very group.
I'd like to think that we are. But leading by example doesn't mean doing things the way other people would do them.
Let me show you how stupid and meaningless those polls are. Here's a quote from the survey:
Do you seriously think I give a crap what some average Heinrich in Germany thinks about how we solve our immigration issues with Mexico?? Do you think that same German cares what I think about German/Czech issues?
Which they did. So, I guess all this talk of laughing at us is either 1) irrelevant or 2) bullshit. Clearly, when it matters, nobody of consequence is laughing.
That doesn't even make sense. You are almost countering your own position. I am trying to say that the US has always gone its own way. Other countries follow along. It was Obama who changed that and concerned himself more with making Europeans happy as opposed to Americans. Trump wants to focus on what America wants and needs, not what pleases a bunch of Europeans who don't take the risks and make the expenditures that America does.
At the very least we should honor the commitments we make.
I didn't say that we should do things the way others do them, that's part of leading by example. Finding new ways to do things that don't include torture and mayhem and destruction and death
Well though they are ex-pats, they are still US citizens and they vote. That makes them consequential.
Really? How so?
Not much on history I see.
That's a load of bullshit.
Trump could not care less about 'what America wants and needs' and no thinking person thinks that he does.
RIGHT! That's why Trump get's his money from Deutsche bank and sucks up to China and Russia rather than bolstering our relationships with those in our own hemisphere.
Torture is a violation of the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution and it is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.
If Haspel willingly had any part of torturing prisoners, she doesn't need to be running the CIA, she needs to be making license plates in prison.
Trump saying that dems don't like her because she is, "too tough on terrorists", is just more of his BS. Trump says he respects the constitution...but wants to appoint someone to the top of the CIA that violated the constitution? What a fucking moron.
It's also a direct violation of 18.USC.2340 and 18.USC.2441, as well as the Convention Against Torture.....a treaty the US wrote.
Given that Trump endorses torture I'm not at all surprised that he'd nominate a criminal to lead the CIA.
I actually didn't know that, thanks for the information!
Haspel is now promising not to use torture while she's the CIA Director but can anyone believe what she says given that it was strictly illegal when she conspired to torture and she suffered no consequences whatsoever for committing a war crime, a treaty violation and numerous violations of US law? Depending on which incidents of torture she was involved in she should be subject to 20 years in prison or quite possibly the death penalty if the torture victim died.
Exactly. And didn't bush and cheney authorize torture in Gitmo....where prisoners DID die as a result of torture? Yep.
Then that's exactly what the Senate should do - reject the nomination of a torturer conspirator and a criminal who destroyed evidence in direct violation of a court order.
.
Sounds like she spent at least 4 or 5 years of that committing war crimes and deliberately breaking US and international law.
Sounds just like Senator Warner's comments in the last few minutes.
Will you follow the "law", or follow your "Heart" Miss Haspel" ? I hope you follow your "Heart".
She has been in the CIA 32 years and deputy director for the last year. How come nobody cared about all this stuff before the day before yesterday? I think it's because she has been doing exactly what was asked of her and what was expected of her. It's seems monumentally hypocritical to condemn her for it now.
People do care. The problem is that the CIA and the Bush regime hid the names of many of their co-conspirators. Even the Senate report on the Bush torture program redacted the names of the perps.