Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:09PM   Printer-friendly

Veteran spy Gina Haspel will become the first female director of the CIA after six Democrats joined Republicans in a Senate confirmation vote that overrode concerns about her role in the spy agency's harsh interrogation program after 9/11.

Thursday's 54-45 vote split both parties, and the margin was the closest for a CIA nominee in the nearly seven decades that a nod from the Senate has been required. Haspel, who has spent nearly all of her 33-year CIA career in undercover positions, is the first career operations officer to be confirmed since William Colby in 1973.

Haspel, 61, is a native of Kentucky but grew up around the world as the daughter of an Air Force serviceman. She worked in Africa, Europe and classified locations around the globe and was tapped as deputy director of the CIA last year.

Source: Fox News

Also at the New York Times, CNN[warning: autoplay video], and Vox among others.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:29PM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:29PM (#681631)

    After all, without those Democratic votes she wouldn't have been confirmed. The last thing we need right now is to have a CIA head that's OK with torture.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=3, Total=6
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:46PM (25 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:46PM (#681657) Journal

    There's no reason to believe she is OK with it.
    She worked there when Obama thought it was OK, but that doesn't mean she had control over it.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:57PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:57PM (#681659)

      You just reminded me that Obama wasn't 100% awful. He did at least have our enemies tortured. The drone strikes were pretty respectable too.

      I suppose, distasteful as it is, that even Hillary deserves a bit of credit, although it was pretty damn careless to use an insecure Blackberry for approving drone strikes.

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:45PM (2 children)

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:45PM (#681693) Homepage Journal

        Obama was killing Americans at will with drones but waterboarding was not allowed -- only in America!

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:16AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:16AM (#681713)

          I had this ready then didn't submit it.

          .
          Common Dreams reports
          "Black Mark in Our History": Six Democrats Join GOP to Confirm Torturer Gina Haspel as CIA Chief [commondreams.org]

          "The confirmation of Gina Haspel marks the completion of President Trump's new war cabinet", [said] Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's senior director for policy and political affairs. "We now have a Bush-era neocon serving as national security adviser, an Islamophobic war hawk as Secretary of State, and a torturer as CIA director."

          [...]The 54-45 vote came before many senators had even been able to review crucial components of Haspel's record, in large part because as acting CIA director, Haspel herself had final declassification authority over what was and wasn't made available to lawmakers for review.

          [...]With two Republicans--Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)--voting no and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) not voting, the six Democrats who voted Yes provided the key support [twitter.com] to make Haspel America's next CIA chief.

          [...]the six Senate Democrats who voted to confirm Haspel: Mark Warner (Va.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Joe Donnelly (Ind.).

          Are all you youngsters ready for reinstatement of The Draft? [wikipedia.org]
          N.B. Be sure to get a note from your physician real soon "certifying" your bone spurs.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday May 19 2018, @09:12PM (20 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Saturday May 19 2018, @09:12PM (#681661) Journal

      There's no reason to believe she is OK with it.

      It was done in a facility that she ran. She also destroyed records of torture. Who knows what those may have revealed. Worse torture? The ineffectiveness of torture?

      In case you suggest that she was just following orders, I refer you to the Nuremberg trials.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:14PM (19 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:14PM (#681681) Journal

        Torture is wrong, much of the role of the three-letter-agencies is perpetrating wrong on behalf of the US Government.

        Having said that.

        In case you suggest that she was just following orders, I refer you to the Nuremberg trials.

        The nongodwinizing difference is that she was just following lawful orders. Performing acts of psychological torture that were ordered from above, okayed by the justice department, about which Congress was briefed beforehand, with nary a peep of complaint.

        Even disagreeing with whether it was "okay" to do, as she appears to, her options were limited. Had she refused the legal interrogations that had been ordered, any further attacks would have been "her fault" for not following lawful orders.

        I would not have wanted to have been in her shoes.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:16PM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:16PM (#681682)

          The nongodwinizing difference is that she was just following lawful orders. Performing acts of psychological torture that were ordered from above, okayed by the justice department, about which Congress was briefed beforehand, with nary a peep of complaint.

          None of the orders were lawful, and the detainees didn't even receive due process (which still wouldn't make torturing them constitutional anyway). The fact that crazy lawyer logic was used does not change the fact that torture is illegal.

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:32PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:32PM (#681688)

            It's not illegal just because you hate it. Nothing in our law made the torture illegal.

            Although "international law" is a farce, used only when democracies win wars, we can pretend it is legit. The actions are still not illegal.
            For multiple reasons, most of the people were not even covered by treaties like the Geneva convention. (for example, by not wearing uniforms)

            Fuck, it was a war zone. Obama could have dropped a nuke.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:34PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:34PM (#681705)

              It's not illegal just because you hate it.

              Torture is absolutely illegal (being cruel and unusual), including according to international law.

              For multiple reasons, most of the people were not even covered by treaties like the Geneva convention. (for example, by not wearing uniforms)

              Which doesn't somehow make torture legal. Not to mention that zero due process was involved, and there are good reasons to suspect that many of the detainees were completely innocent.

              Fuck, it was a war zone. Obama could have dropped a nuke.

              Nope. Gitmo was not a war zone. Things are different after you capture someone.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:51PM (#681709)

              You're one of those (the majority of??) USAians who have allowed your addled, rarely actually used, brain to believe that if your gov't does something, then it's not illegal.
              (Very Nixonian of you.)

              The Geneva Accords, of which USA is a signatory, definitely outlaws the torture of prisoners.
              That is a treaty and a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate has the force of law.

              So, you're not just wrong, you're a flag-waving idiot who's spouting gibberish as well.

              Carl Schurz was a German-born[1] revolutionary who served as a general office in the Union Army, US senator from Missouri, and Secretary of the Interior.
              So, a really smart and able dude.
              A lot of folks remember a bit of something he said: "My country, right or wrong".

              It is shameful that very few know more of that.
              "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." [google.com]

              [1] Sadly, not being a native-born USAian, he was never eligible to be president.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:27AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:27AM (#681716)

                I'll start with the obvious: the Geneva Accords do not apply to a random thief in his own country. We could punish him by cutting off his hand, as Saudi Arabia would, and this torture would not violate the Geneva Accords.

                So, some people are not covered. It's only specific people in a war zone who are covered.

                Spies are not covered. Traitors are not covered. People who fight without uniforms are not covered. People who fight without the approval of their nation-state are not covered. People representing a nation-state that hasn't ratified the Geneva Accords are not covered.

                ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda have all failed to ratify the Geneva Accords. Generally, they also fail to fight in uniform.

                • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @02:33AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @02:33AM (#681744)

                  As others have noted below, USA.gov has outlawed torture via numerous legal measures.
                  BY LAW, TORTURE DONE BY A USAian IS A CRIMINAL ACT.

                  in his own country

                  That USAians believe that they have sovereignty to do whatever they want to outside their own borders is simply arrogance.
                  It takes a special kind of twisted brain to think it's OK to pull that shit.
                  You certainly wouldn't tolerate someone from another county coming here and doing that.

                  ...and BTW, the Constitution states

                  No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

                  Note that is does NOT say "no citizen of the USA" nor does it say "no one residing in the USA".
                  It says NO PERSON.

                  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:27PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:27PM (#681853) Journal

              It's not illegal just because you hate it.

              Who says otherwise? It's illegal for two reasons. First, the US has an amendment, the 8th Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment - torture counts. Second, because the US has signed treaties, which have the force of law in the US, which prohibit torture explicitly.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:28PM (#681686)
          Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime [washingtonpost.com]

          After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

          Bobby Scott: After WWII U.S. executed Japanese for war crimes including waterboarding [politifact.com]

          Yuma Totani, a history professor at the University of Hawaii, said she knows of two additional Japanese officers who were executed after U.S. military trials conducted from 1944 to 1946. "Both accused were found guilty on grounds that they disregarded their duty to take control of subordinate army units, which included kenpeitai (Japanese secret police) that was known to have used various torture methods against detainees at Fort Santiago, the kenpeitai interrogation center at Manila," Totani said in an email. "Waterboarding being one of the commonplace torture methods of kenpeitai, one could argue that these accused were convicted of a charge that included waterboarding as one of the torture methods, commonly applied by the members of their subordinate army units."

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:31PM (4 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:31PM (#681687) Journal

          The nongodwinizing difference is that she was just following lawful orders.

          Wrong. Illegal orders. Illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, illegal under the Convention Against Torture, illegal under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C. Just because some Regent alum "lawyer" says an order is "lawful" does not mean that it in fact is. In fact, it might be part of "lawfare" that the US Military is waging, where the lawyers are actually illegal enemy combatants. Nueremberg principle still apply:

          Principle I

          "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
          Principle II

          "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
          Principle III

          "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
          Principle IV
          Main article: Superior orders

          "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

          This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:44PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:44PM (#681692)

            For example, the Geneva convention protects only the uniformed soldiers of nation-states that ratified the Geneva convention. I don't see ratification by Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and anyway they were not wearing uniforms.

            Given that the United Nations Convention against Torture is ratified by nearly every country, it certainly can't mean what you think it does. I see it has been ratified by Libya, Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Tajikistan, Yemen, Venezuela, Russian Federation, Democratic Republic of the Congo... you know, I'm thinking the treaty must require torture.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:36PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:36PM (#681706)

              I don't see ratification by Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and anyway they were not wearing uniforms.

              Where's your proof that all of the detainees were even guilty? There was no due process, so they could have just kidnapped anyone and claimed they were terrorists.

              Given that the United Nations Convention against Torture is ratified by nearly every country, it certainly can't mean what you think it does. I see it has been ratified by Libya, Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Tajikistan, Yemen, Venezuela, Russian Federation, Democratic Republic of the Congo... you know, I'm thinking the treaty must require torture.

              That countries violate international law does not mean the law doesn't exist.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:59AM (#681738)

                Where's your proof that all of the detainees were even guilty? There was no due process, so they could have just kidnapped anyone and claimed they were terrorists.

                That's exactly what happened in more than one case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:24AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:24AM (#681826) Journal

              For example, the Geneva convention protects only the uniformed soldiers of nation-states that ratified the Geneva convention.

              Also not true. Once international law has been ratified by enough states, it becomes "customary International Law", binding upon all, even non-signatories. And combatants are combatants is they identify themselves as such, which means not necessarily a "uniform", but just a signifying mark, such as just an armband, or the open bearing of arms. And the right of non-state political communities to wage wars has been recognized at least since the Protocols Additional of 1970. Speak not of what you know not. You are playing into the neo-cons hands.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:09AM (#681724)

          Fuck you. Gassing the Jews (and others) were "lawful" in the Nazi Germany.

          Fuck you.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:21AM (#681727)

          > Performing acts of psychological torture that were ordered from above, okayed by the justice department, about which Congress was briefed beforehand, with nary a peep of complaint.

          It would behoove the country to investigate what THE FUCK went wrong. Ha ha ha just joking.

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by bradley13 on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:48AM (1 child)

          by bradley13 (3053) on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:48AM (#681832) Homepage Journal

          "she was just following lawful orders"

          WTF? You think the people running concentration camps weren't? The hypocrisy of the Numerberg trials is precisely the fact that the prosecuted people really were following orders that were legal and binding in the context they were issued. But winners get to retroactively change the rules, so that they can impose revenge (as opposed to justice) on the losing side.

          In the case of the US and torture, the orders actually were illegal. That's probably at least part of the reason they sent many prisoners to other countries for torture - in an attempt to hide what was going on. Which doesn't make it any more legal, since those prisoners were under the jurisdiction of the US> People all the way up the chain, up to and including the President, were aware of the activities - and should be in jail.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:43PM (#681945)

            I wonder if some modder mis-characterized your post.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:25PM (#681933) Journal

          God damn it, NO. "Befehl ist befehl" was not a legal defense at Nuremberg, and is not one now. I'd hate to have been in her shoes too, but I would have resigned over that and gone to the media, even if it meant I ended up dead by "committing suicide" with 7 different high-powered rifles in the back at once.

          Lawful does not necessarily equal moral and vice versa.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:23PM

            by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:23PM (#681965) Journal

            Lawful does not necessarily equal moral and vice versa.

            That's absolutely correct, and something people often forget.

            In the moral climate of the time, "finding out what the terr'ists know" was considered the overarching moral good by many people, and "is this particular method legal" was considered simply red tape.

            If you were in the CIA at the time, you may well have considered the moral good to be to find out what the prisoners know, even if torture was declared to be not torture and you were required to use the not-torture torture to find it out. Can't answer the hypothetical one way or another, but it's still not as cut and dried as you and many others are making it out to be here.

            The moral climate has changed in a few significant ways since then, and she's being judged by the standards of now applied to her behavior then. But she seems to have changed along with everyone else.

            "Befehl ist befehl" was not a legal defense at Nuremberg, and is not one now.

            A pretty significant difference is that the government that 'ordered' these atrocities and considered them legal--has prosecuted nobody for committing them and isn't likely to--is still in power, is unrepentant, and isn't facing any sort of threat to being in power at all, much less significant opposition. And that's the government that decides what's legal and is calling for the wide-ranging violations ranging from listening in on our phone and internet up to and including years of torture as "interrogation".

            There have been a few minor personnel shakeups, but the [R] and [D] superparty of bigger government, removing freedoms, spy on its own citizens, and torture foreign nationals under the guise of "interrogating" them is still very much a going concern, and nothing's changed, even if the narrative doesn't immediately continue to include "waterboarding" now that they are finished with it for now. (Remember, when you get a new president, you don't get a new government, just a new figurehead for the same old government.)

            Attention voters in that country: If these thread-godwinizers are representative of you in any way, then you have the duty to vote only for [I]s, libertarians, greens, anyone BUT the [R] and [D] evildoers who currently constitute that country's evil, oppressive government. The [R] or [D] by their name means they expressly support this system under which torture was declared legal. It may yet be possible to turn it around (or it may already be too late).

            Don't be fooled [freworld.info] -- know the similarities between them as well as the differences.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @05:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @05:28AM (#681788)

    Not having a penis may be all that matters to the democrats