Who is the new CIA head, Gina Haspel

[Anonymous]

Brennan..........2014

“The cause-and-effect relationship between the application of those EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] and ultimate provision of that information” from detainees “is unknown and unknowable,” Brennan said in response to a question. “But for someone to say that there was no intelligence of value, of use, that came from those detainees once they were subjected to EITs, I think that lacks any foundation at all.”

The CIA chief declined to say if a future American president might once again order the use of brutal interrogation methods in a crisis. “I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis,” Brennan said.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/11/cia-chief-brutal-interrogations-could-come-back/

[Anonymous]

Haspel did participate in and condone torture. She had many opportunities to curtail the torture of various prisoners that she oversaw but did not. She has said that she won't authorize torture as the head of the CIA, but she hasn't said that it's wrong. Or against her moral code.

https://www.propublica.org/article/gina-haspel-black-site-cia-nashiri-interrogation-cable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haspel did participate in and condone torture. She had many opportunities to curtail the torture of various prisoners that she oversaw but did not. She has said that she won't authorize torture as the head of the CIA, but she hasn't said that it's wrong. Or against her moral code.

https://www.propublica.org/article/gina-haspel-black-site-cia-nashiri-interrogation-cable

This article is pure crap. She wasn’t present at this questioning, did not oversee it. The cable she sent was at the request of the station chief..... she did not send it on her own. You clearly did not listen to the questioning today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haspel did participate in and condone torture. She had many opportunities to curtail the torture of various prisoners that she oversaw but did not. She has said that she won't authorize torture as the head of the CIA, but she hasn't said that it's wrong. Or against her moral code.

https://www.propublica.org/article/gina-haspel-black-site-cia-nashiri-interrogation-cable

This article is pure crap. She wasn’t present at this questioning, did not oversee it. The cable she sent was at the request of the station chief..... she did not send it on her own. You clearly did not listen to the questioning today.

Read it again. I don't think you understood it the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure how I feel about this. Pompeo was a bad fit and I’m glad to see someone nominated who actually has extensive experience in the intelligence agency. My understanding is she’s fairly well liked by her colleagues. However, her link to the torture program and coverup is disturbing, to say the least.

How did you feel about Brennan’s link?
And, BTW - Haspel did not participate in any of the enhanced interrogation.

Oh I don’t like Brennan at all. Sounds like there may be a double standard among a few of the senators who voted forBrennan, although I did not watch either hearing.

[Anonymous]

Everyone who thinks this torture is all right should have the same thing done to them starting with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haspel did participate in and condone torture. She had many opportunities to curtail the torture of various prisoners that she oversaw but did not. She has said that she won't authorize torture as the head of the CIA, but she hasn't said that it's wrong. Or against her moral code.

https://www.propublica.org/article/gina-haspel-black-site-cia-nashiri-interrogation-cable

This article is pure crap. She wasn’t present at this questioning, did not oversee it. The cable she sent was at the request of the station chief..... she did not send it on her own. You clearly did not listen to the questioning today.

Trump is appointing her and that tells us that she is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pros: super experienced, knows the business

Con: linked to the torture program. let's hope she's put that behind her!

I hope they torture more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who thinks this torture is all right should have the same thing done to them starting with her.

If I was a terrorist and knew facts that could save countless lives, then I should be tortured to give up that info. Just substitute your family in the circumstance that may be avoided by water boarding the pieces of shi* to get the needed intelligence. Argument against it breaks down because it can be shown that lives were saved, and terrorists captured as a direct result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She shouldn't be confirmed.

Why?

DP. She promises to obey her moral compass, not the CIC, but then coyly refuses to say anything about what her moral compass is.

I mean, huh?

That is not true. She actually said that she believe the US should be held to a higher standard. And, she made this statement in response to Warner’s question:

“I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that is immoral, even if it is technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it. I believe CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values.”

Can’t see how that is not an answer.

Our current president thinks torture is great, separating families who arrive undocumented is a good idea, and thinks Muslims and Mexicans are evil baddies. Are those American values? Who's values are American values, if not the president's publicly stated values?

You need therapy

[Anonymous]

John Brennon was the #4 guy in CIA when the torture program was in place. Gina was a GS-15 then. Democrats had no problem confirming Brennon but the same senators now oppose her nomination? Hypocrisy at its best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Brennon was the #4 guy in CIA when the torture program was in place. Gina was a GS-15 then. Democrats had no problem confirming Brennon but the same senators now oppose her nomination? Hypocrisy at its best.

Haspel was there, in charge of sites where prisoners were tortured. Nobody should be okay with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who thinks this torture is all right should have the same thing done to them starting with her.

If I was a terrorist and knew facts that could save countless lives, then I should be tortured to give up that info. Just substitute your family in the circumstance that may be avoided by water boarding the pieces of shi* to get the needed intelligence. Argument against it breaks down because it can be shown that lives were saved, and terrorists captured as a direct result.

None of this is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Brennon was the #4 guy in CIA when the torture program was in place. Gina was a GS-15 then. Democrats had no problem confirming Brennon but the same senators now oppose her nomination? Hypocrisy at its best.

This is the bottom line and shows that the Dems are only obstructionists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was illegal about destroying those tapes?

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....

By the way, some people think that torture didn't happen because Haspel did what she did "legally" based on the justifications provided by the Bybee and Yoo memos. Some also think that because these acts happened outside the US, they are not crimes under US law. Both of these assertions are wrong.

18 USC 2340 specifically contemplates that torture may be done "under color of law" and prohibits it even when done "under color of law". That is because, historically, torturers have often used the law to justify their torture. See the definition of the law embedded in this section of the code, "“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control". This means if a person inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person in custody or physical control, they have committed torture, even if they think it is legally justified. Per the statute, there is no way to legally justify torture. This is why the Bybee/Yoo memos (if my memory serves me correctly) tried to assert that permitted "enhanced interrogation" techniques did not cause the "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" that is part of the definition of torture in the statute. The memos attempted to evade the torture statute by saying what was done was not torture, because the attorneys clearly knew that asserting it may have been torture but it was authorized or ordered was not a viable legal justification.

18 USC 2340A specifically addresses the location of the offense, jurisdiction --
"Offense.—
Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender."

This means that a US national can be prosecuted for torture even where that torture took place outside the US. The place of torture and the nationality of the victim is irrelevant.

A torture perpetrator who is not a US national can also be prosecuted in US courts if the perpetrator is present in the US. This means those non-US nationals torture perpetrators to whom we rendered detainees that were then subsequently tortured can also be prosecuted in US courts if they ever are caught setting foot in the US. Plus, probably any US nationals who participated in rendition could be prosecuted for conspiracy to torture per the statute.

Yeah? What does it say about this???