Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 19, @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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @06:29PM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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.

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

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19, @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, @08:57PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @10:45PM (2 children)

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

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

          --
          #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @12:16AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @09:12PM (20 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Saturday May 19, @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, @10:14PM (19 children)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19, @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, @10:16PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @10:32PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @11:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @11:51PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @12:27AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @02:33AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @01:27PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @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, @10:28PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @10:31PM (4 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday May 19, @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]

            --
            #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
            • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @10:44PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @11:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @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, @01:59AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @10:24AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday May 20, @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.

                --
                #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @01:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @01:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @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, @10:48AM (1 child)

            by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @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, @07:43PM

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

              I wonder if some modder mis-characterized your post.

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

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @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, @09:23PM

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @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, @05:28AM

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

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

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 19, @06:43PM (22 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19, @06:43PM (#681638) Journal

    Just putting that out there. "Woman in position of power" != feminism or womens' lib or anything necessarily good. This person is evil beyond redemption in this world and the Democrats who voted for her are traitors both to the US and to humanity as a whole.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Saturday May 19, @07:02PM (3 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) on Saturday May 19, @07:02PM (#681640)

      Indeed. With the backing of both the Democrats and the Republicans, the US has declared unequivocally that it is now counted on the bad team. There's no wiggle room or abiguity with both parties (if you can call them two parties) backing a known criminal who dealt in torture and destroyed evidence of torture.

      Pretending to tie the decision to feminism is a complete distraction. But hey it works watch the mainstream media now and how their post-disaster debates will now focus on her gender rather than her disqualitifactions.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:13PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:13PM (#681651)

        > the US has declared unequivocally that it is now counted on the bad team

        Not so much "now" as "ten years ago". Obama administration continued most of Bush's post-9/11 atrocities, and introduced some new ones just in case. If indiscriminate drone bombings of civilian targets doesn't mark you as evil, nothing does. Doubly so since the bombings are done in countries US is not even at war with, which means that they can't even surrender. I mostly liked Obama, but both his and Bush's administrations need to be tried for war crimes.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:38PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:38PM (#681666)

          I mostly liked Obama, but both his and Bush's administrations need to be tried for war crimes.

          Mostly? He was a typical warmongering, authoritarian neo-liberal controlled by corporations. I won't even give him credit for the ACA, since even though it might the situation a bit better, the democrats had a supermajority at one point and didn't even seriously attempt to get singlepayer or even a public option. Even when he got something right, it was only a baby step in the right direction (Dodd-Frank). And to me, anyone who is okay with conducting mass surveillance (which is unconstitutional in the US) on the populace is automatically subhuman garbage.

          The absolute best that can be said about Obama is that he was somewhat less evil than his Republican challengers and Clinton.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @04:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @04:40AM (#682047)

            Not wrong, but 43% of the population vote for the "other" team who openly advocate more war, more torture and solutions involving nuclear war. But them Dems, huh? Weak and no moral guidance.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:26PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:26PM (#681654)

      Your freedom to bitch about the ugly reality of human existence, and your ability to enjoy a cushy life of relative (by world standards) luxury, comes about as a result of the mighty power of the USA. This power is created and maintained by battle, both traditional and nefarious. Other countries -- all of them that it -- are attempting to do likewise.

      Fortunately for you, the USA is winning bigly. Are you tired of winning?

      You aren't tired of winning: You don't reject it. You reap the rewards. You have always been free to leave, give up your citizenship, and go join a losing team.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:17PM (#681663)

        Hey, contracts troll. Not feeling so libertarian today?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday May 19, @10:04PM (5 children)

        by c0lo (156) on Saturday May 19, @10:04PM (#681676)

        Other countries -- all of them that it -- are attempting to do likewise.

        Suuure. Just don't look how the Swiss people enjoy a higher standard of life, in spite of being neutral for centuries.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @10:47PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @10:47PM (#681695)

          Doesn't "Nazi gold" ring a bell?

          Switzerland gets their dirty work done. They do what is needed to get ahead and stay ahead.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday May 19, @11:14PM

            by c0lo (156) on Saturday May 19, @11:14PM (#681700)

            Switzerland gets their dirty work done. They do what is needed to get ahead and stay ahead.

            How's that supportive to the idea that "You need war and human rights abuses to be enjoy a high standard of life?" (the "Your freedom to bitch...is created and maintained by battle")
            Are you suggesting the Nazi went ahead with WWII because they had the Swiss to store the gold? Or had Switzerland coerced them into starting the war to have the Nazi gold stored there? Or was that gold essential to maintaining the Swiss people "freedom to bitch" - without that gold they would have been... what... a third world country?

            Let's take Japan, a country that was raised to the ground in terms of industry and major infrastructure in WWII. Has been neutral since.
            For fuck sake, take Germany after WWII - not only their entire economy was destroyed in the war, they needed to pay war reparations too. Have they engaged in war ever since?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @07:45PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @07:45PM (#681946)

            Jesus fucking christ you rwingnuts have the craziest goddamn theories. It would have to have been more gold than exists in the world to prop up Switzerland's economy that much. Basically a few families got rich. How about we point to slavery as the only reason the US is the economic big dog right now? Does that sound reasonable to you?

            • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 21, @12:06AM (1 child)

              by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 21, @12:06AM (#681992) Homepage

              Well, I will tell you this: If those uppity Blacks start getting reparations, we won't be the economic big-dog for long. I suggest we work with the Jewish media to develop Black Panther sequels and carve out a patch of land in Africa, called Wakanda, where we can resettle our disgruntled Blacks in their own ethnostate and on our dime. Or, we can resettle them to Sweden. Either choice would be a better long-term arrangement for America.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @03:24AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @03:24AM (#682035)

                While we're dreaming I'd like to add in opening the 9th circle of hell and putting you through in a box with a big "RETURN TO SENDER".

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20, @07:16PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @07:16PM (#681929) Journal

        Do you truly think I don't know that? I think about that or some variation of it every damn day. It's a paradox, and the only resolution to it comes from recognizing the innate tendencies of human nature and navigating around them.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday May 19, @09:33PM (4 children)

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday May 19, @09:33PM (#681664) Journal

      She will help fight Islam, which is well known for supporting female genital mutilation, the one thing worse than the prospect of atomic weapons being used on a global scale, I'm sure, in addition to killing lots of brown skinned misogynists. I'm certain the black sites only torture men, so there shouldn't be a problem for feminism here.

      Explain to me how Gina Haspel is any worse of a person than Hillary Clinton. Feminists still have not gotten over She Lost, as evinced by their anti-democratic, sexist abrogation of due process and presumption of innocence called #MeToo, so I do not see how an equally vile person unlocking a "first female xyz" achievement is not something to celebrate.

      Is there something different about the "first female head of state" achievement that allows us to celebrate even if the person who unlocked it is a vile, inhuman monsters? (Truth be told, I was not aware that any of the "first female xyz" achievements required the person unlocking them to pass some kind of minimum moral standard.)

      Or are you just a filthy rapist incel? Truth is, it really sounds like you're an incel who hates women because you can't get laid.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:41PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:41PM (#681668)

        Explain to me how Gina Haspel is any worse of a person than Hillary Clinton.

        That's quite a high standard you have there. She's evil, but she's no more evil than that other person over there! Wow. That makes me feel so much better. Thanks, you moron.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @01:05AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @01:05AM (#681723)

          I hope you're not a feminist, AC. Otherwise you might sound like a total hypocrite.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @02:45AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @02:45AM (#681747)

            That depends on your definition of "feminism," since there are different kinds. And I hope you're not trying for a tu quoque fallacy.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20, @07:21PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @07:21PM (#681931) Journal

        Uhh...Kurenai? I was never an "incel," am not aware of women ever calling themselves that in the first place, and have not been celibate/single since 2006. At least get your insults right; I'm supposed to be a, what was it you called cis women, "superior beings" with a helping of snark? "Cisgender hunnies?"

        Shit, I give up. You're a walking, talking argument for the TERF agenda, and you do more to hurt your own cause and your own chances of properly finishing transition and having a normal life than any number of abusive assholes at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Congratulations on that, Kurenai. It takes a special kind of self-hating insanity to hate and hurt yourself more than people who outright think you're insane. Go fuck yourself. Man or woman, you're a piece of shit, and just like Caitlyn Jenner, a shiny new set of boobs won't make you less of a piece of shit.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday May 20, @02:26AM (3 children)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @02:26AM (#681742) Homepage Journal

      No, I wouldn't say I'm a feminist. I mean, I think that would be, maybe, going too far. I'm for women, I'm for men, I’m for everyone. But I have great respect for women, believe me. I've put women in positions in the Trump Organization, in positions in the White House, in many places where they've never been before. I have women working in high positions. I was one of the first people to put women in charge of big construction jobs. I was the one that really broke the glass ceiling on behalf of women, more than anybody in the construction industry. And, you know, I've had a great relationship with women. And Gina will be great. Very easy name to remember!!

      --
      #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @03:24AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @03:24AM (#681759)

        I'm for women, I'm for men, I’m for everyone

        Donald J. Trump Sr. is only for himself--first, last, and always.
        He was sent to a military boarding school when he was young.
        During the months that school was out, his mother went to her home country of Scotland--without him.
        His father only cared about money. He was so dishonest that he was hauled before a congressional hearing.
        His grandfather was a pimp. [google.com]

        Their offspring has no empathy because the gene pool from which he oozed had none.
        He, like his forebearers, knows only self-centeredness.

        If subjected to Room 101, [google.com] I'm quite certain that he would immediately sell out his own children and certainly his wife.

        It won't surprise me a bit when Mueller starts bearing down on him and and he spills his guts about everyone with whom he has ever come in contact.

        Oh, and Donald's mentor was self-hating homosexual Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy's "Jew lawyer".

        ...in case you have wondered why Donald is such a complete moral sinkhole and can look you straight in the eye and lie to you.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 21, @12:11AM (1 child)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 21, @12:11AM (#681994) Homepage

          Good luck getting a politician in power who has any empathy. The ones who do like my former dog Gary Johnson would have just giggled from weed high while selling our workforce out to Mexico.

          Maybe next you're gonna suggest that Linus Torvalds step down because he's too much of a meanie-head.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @04:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, @04:08AM (#682044)

            Meet Barbara Lee, [ballotpedia.org] who has represented California's East Bay in Congress since 1998.
            Before that, she was in state gov't, serving the same bunch.

            When she's in doubt about how to vote, she asks her constituency.
            As a rule, that isn't necessary (she has empathy in abundance).
            Every time she runs, she creams the competition (no challengers in 2018). [ballotpedia.org]
            The people love what she does.[1] [ballotpedia.org]

            [1] Ballotpedia (and Judgepedia and WikiFOIA) are owned by a Reactionary operation. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [prwatch.org]
            They don't bother to mention all the poison pills that GOPers have inserted into bills.

            .
            Senator Paul Wellstone had so much empathy that the GOP made sure he died in a plane crash.

            .
            President Jack Kennedy was pressing for civil rights and voting rights, was about to disassemble the CIA (assassins) and pull USA out of Vietnam (Imperialist aggression).
            The Reactionaries made sure his head was blown apart in Dallas.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by mendax on Saturday May 19, @07:53PM (6 children)

    by mendax (2840) on Saturday May 19, @07:53PM (#681649)

    This appointment as CIA director is about beginnings. Let the torture begin (again).

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:44PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @08:44PM (#681655)

      She promised not to use Waterboarding but she didn't promise not to use PowerPoint.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Saturday May 19, @08:51PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Saturday May 19, @08:51PM (#681658)

        Ok, but if she tries pulling out Microsoft Project during a meeting, I am drawing the line.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday May 19, @09:53PM (2 children)

        by looorg (578) on Saturday May 19, @09:53PM (#681673)

        Sometimes when you sit there and watch those hour long, or more, PowerPoint presentations you start to long for waterboarding or just the sweet sweet release of death. Then you drool a little and someone hits you in the side cause you have been snoring.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 19, @10:08PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) on Saturday May 19, @10:08PM (#681679)

          Then you drool a little and someone hits you in the side cause you have been snoring.

          I'm not snoring. It must have been the other, on the side, the head of whom landed on my shoulder

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @09:25PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @09:25PM (#681966)

            You guys have it easy. What happens to me is I get called on to provide my opinion. It can be very hard to come out of such situations alive... or gainfully employed.

            When everyone knows that everyone is bored, but you're drooling AND caught not paying attention... your co-workers won't let you get away with it unchallenged!

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 20, @01:41AM

        That's what the US Army calls training that teaches the troops not to be duped by enemy phishing

        --
        "Every time a bulbous dickhead helps the employers by running a job board for them, employers win." -- AC
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @11:47AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @11:47AM (#681837)

    Still nobody making a peep about how bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, obama, clinton, etc... all walk free. Clinton even ran for president after personally approving extrajudicial killings.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @05:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @05:11PM (#681901)

      Many people have complained but without popular support it goes nowhere. Unless there is context wI wouldnt spam it like the contracts or other spammers round here.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20, @07:28PM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @07:28PM (#681935) Journal

      I'm with you on this. Were it up to me, every president we've had since and including Nixon, with the possible exception of Carter, would be hanged at the ICC, and that includes the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, etc you mention. Bolton too while we're at it.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @07:49PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20, @07:49PM (#681948)

        "hanged" ==> "charged with war crimes"

        Don't drop your better nature just because others are a waste of good carbon and water.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20, @08:27PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20, @08:27PM (#681953) Journal

          Isn't hanging what we did at Nuremberg to war criminals? Sauce for the goose etc...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(1)