Who is the new CIA head, Gina Haspel
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Apparently, you didn't get the memo.
Correction: Trump’s Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah ProPublica erred when it reported in 2017 that Gina Haspel was in charge of a secret prison in Thailand during the infamous interrogation of an al-Qaida suspect. by Raymond Bonner, special to ProPublica March 15, 6:38 p.m. EDT On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002. The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended. Our account of Haspel’s actions was drawn in part from declassified agency cables and CIA-reviewed books which referred to the official overseeing Zubaydah’s interrogation at a secret prison in Thailand as “chief of base.” The books and cables redacted the name of the official, as is routinely done in declassified documents referring to covert operations. More: https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture |
Anonymous
Yeah, I love ProPublica and they do good work but this is a serious f*ckup. No way she gets a fair hearing unless the whole report is declassified, which may not be such a bad thing anyway. |
Anonymous
| What this tells me is a news organization made some ASSumptions. |
Anonymous
OK, but she still was in charge when another prisoner was waterboarded 3 times and she participated in ordering the destruction of 92 interrogation tapes, which makes her complicit in the cover up of torture. she is still unsuitable for this position. I don't care that she had a stellar 30 year career; she tarnished it when she participated in torture. Don't you people understand the message Trump is sending with this pick? Untill now his approach has been to fire or encourage civil servants to leave. Now the message is to those who have managed to stay - don't worry if you are asked to do something unethical or against the law or democratic norms, cooperation is the way to advnce your career. |
Anonymous
| Rand Paul already said he wouldn’t be voting for her. I doubt McCain will either. She faces a tough fight. |
Anonymous
How do you figure? What was illegal about destroying those tapes? |
Anonymous
You think the head of the Russia's SVR, Iran's MOIS, or China's MSS are nice guys? I kinda want the head of the CIA to be an asshole. Good appointment. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| What was illegal about destroying those tapes? |
Anonymous
I don't think you understand. The selfless patriots here at DCUM view those who captured, beat down, and killed terrorists as the bad guys. They would love to see these bad boys pay for their war crimes. What a strange world they live in! |
Anonymous
|
I am ready to watch the left devour a woman in the confirmation hearings. Afterwards, we can put in a real tough guy. Just stick with the plan! |
Anonymous
So we get Cotton then. Careful what you with for folks..... |
Anonymous
18 USC 1519 - Destruction of Evidence It's a federal crime to destroy or tamper with evidence. Those tapes were evidence of a crime. Torture is illegal under US law - 18 USC 2340. The US also signed and ratified the UN Convertion against Torture. And the US Constitution's 8th Amendment prohibts "cruel and unusual punishment". BTW, 18 USC 2340 (Torture) subjects perpetrators to a fine and/or up to 20 years in prison, except where the victim died as a result of torture, in which case, the perpetrator may be subject to life in prison or a death sentence. One can also be charged for conspiracy under this statute, thus sweeping many more CIA and other administration officials into potentially being charged. And the Torture Victim Prevention Act allows victims to sue perpetrators in US court, potentially exposing people like Gina Haspel to financial ruin in addition to long jail terms. So, you can now understand why they destroyed the evidence.... |
Anonymous
|
I don't care that torture was legal at the time. To a decent person, torture should be inherently wrong, and the fact that laws permit it should not compel him/her to engage in it.
What if rape was legal? What if CIA came up with a different name for it, like "Enhanced Intimate Naked Interrogation Technique"? Would it make it OK? The kicker is that as I understand, waterboarding did not produce any useful intelligence at that time. Essentially, CIA tortured them for nothing. That should feel awesome. |
Anonymous
So, you seem to have given this example as a kind of argument defending Haspel's order to destroy videotapes of torture (which is a crime). Your argument seems to be -- Haspel ordered something to be deleted but so did the Obama Administration, therefore what she did isn't wrong. Putting aside that, as a matter of logic, the conclusion that Haspel didn't commit a crime doesn't follow.... Your example is inapposite. The torture tapes Haspel ordered were (arguably, at a minimum) evidence of a crime. What the Obama Administration did was interpret who was a fugitive in order to determine whether the fugitive's name should or should not be included in a database. This does not affect any evidence of the underlying crime committed by the fugitive. Or maybe your argument is the Obama Administration used the administrative definition/regulation process to keep something from the public eye, therefore it is OK that the Bush Administration used the administrative definition/regulation process to keep something from the public eye? Well, that is a more apt comparison. The Bush Administration did indeed, thru the Bybee and You memos, try to redefine what they called "enhanced interrogation" as something that was not "torture". Unfortunately, your comparison falls apart. The people who engaged in torture now defend their actions as "following orders" and "legal" even though the memos were subsequently withdrawn and Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) to reaffirm existing anti-torture statutes. By contrast, including or not including someone in a criminal database is not a criminal act. Sadly, but predictably, people who followed orders ARE now subject to serious criminal penalties if the Executive Branch ever decides to prosecute, plus they are subject to prosecution and suit in other countries (like as is being requested in Germany). I will explain in a response to your other post why your assertion that no crime was committed is false. |