Anonymous wrote:

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.

Torture. We know you can say it. Torture.

Euphemisms are the refuge of despots and dictators.

Euphemisms? Puleeese......... “Undocumented immigrants” “Workplace Violence” “Pro-choice”

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.

Torture. We know you can say it. Torture.

Euphemisms are the refuge of despots and dictators.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been watching this confirmation hearing.

One thing that is blatantly obvious.............the Democrats on this committee are displaying a huge double standard, and they have been called out on it by a couple of the Senators.

So much of the hearing focused on enhanced interrogation. Many of the Dem Senators have expressed their opinion that she is not qualified because she was part of the CIA when this happened. Brennan was the #4 at the CIA when they were doing interrogation and he was cleared and nominated. But, because she is selected by Trump to run the CIA, they are saying they will vote against her nomination. Warner, Feinstein, Heinrich, Collins, King, Burr, Manchun, Weiden, and Rubio all voted to confirm Brennan. The Dems listed have said they now have reservations. What a crock of horse $hit.

Senator Cotton called them out:

It's not exactly the same thing, you know.

But I guess you think "enhanced interrogation" is fine, as long as it's us that's doing it.

WHAT?
She was low down on the totem pole when the EI happened. And, she was not involved at all in the interrogations. Brennan was #4. Explain how this is not a double standard.

Anonymous wrote:I have been watching this confirmation hearing.

One thing that is blatantly obvious.............the Democrats on this committee are displaying a huge double standard, and they have been called out on it by a couple of the Senators.

So much of the hearing focused on enhanced interrogation. Many of the Dem Senators have expressed their opinion that she is not qualified because she was part of the CIA when this happened. Brennan was the #4 at the CIA when they were doing interrogation and he was cleared and nominated. But, because she is selected by Trump to run the CIA, they are saying they will vote against her nomination. Warner, Feinstein, Heinrich, Collins, King, Burr, Manchun, Weiden, and Rubio all voted to confirm Brennan. The Dems listed have said they now have reservations. What a crock of horse $hit.

Senator Cotton called them out:

It's not exactly the same thing, you know.

But I guess you think "enhanced interrogation" is fine, as long as it's us that's doing it.

Anonymous wrote:She shouldn't be confirmed.

Why?

She shouldn't be confirmed.

I have been watching this confirmation hearing.

One thing that is blatantly obvious.............the Democrats on this committee are displaying a huge double standard, and they have been called out on it by a couple of the Senators.

So much of the hearing focused on enhanced interrogation. Many of the Dem Senators have expressed their opinion that she is not qualified because she was part of the CIA when this happened. Brennan was the #4 at the CIA when they were doing interrogation and he was cleared and nominated. But, because she is selected by Trump to run the CIA, they are saying they will vote against her nomination. Warner, Feinstein, Heinrich, Collins, King, Burr, Manchun, Weiden, and Rubio all voted to confirm Brennan. The Dems listed have said they now have reservations. What a crock of horse $hit.

Senator Cotton called them out:

The supposed opposition evidence against her will turn out to be a big nothing-burger.

John Kiriakou's op-ed sums up why Haspel should never head CIA -"I went to prison for disclosing the CIA’s torture. Gina Haspel helped cover it up."

Among other reasons:

"The message this sends to the CIA workforce is simple: Engage in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, and you’ll get promoted. Don’t worry about the law. Don’t worry about ethics. Don’t worry about morality or the fact that torture doesn’t even work. Go ahead and do it anyway. We’ll cover for you. And you can destroy the evidence, too."

It makes us seem at best hypocritical to our friends and allies ...."the message it sends to our friends and allies (and the countries we criticize in the State Department’s annual human rights reports) is this: We say we’re a shining city on a hill, a beacon of respect for human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. But actually, that’s nonsense. We say those things when it’s expedient. We say them to make ourselves feel good. But when push comes to shove, we do what we want, international law be damned."

And, it empowers our enemies......"The meaning of Haspel’s nomination won’t be lost on our enemies, either. The torture program and similar abuses at military-run prisons in Iraq were among the greatest recruitment tools that al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other bad actors ever had, according to legal experts, U.S. lawmakers and even the militants themselves. It energized them and gave them something to rally against. It sowed an even deeper hatred of the United States among militant groups. It swelled their ranks. It was no coincidence that the Islamic State paraded its prisoners in front of cameras wearing orange jumpsuits (like those worn by Guantanamo Bay detainees) before beheading them. Haspel and the others at the CIA who engineered and oversaw the torture program are at least partially responsible for that, because they showed the world how the United States sometimes treats captives. "

For the full op-ed, see .... https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-went-to-prison-for-disclosing-the-cias-torture-gina-haspel-helped-cover-it-up/2018/03/15/9507884e-27f8-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.a8ed7cc26077

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.