From a quick search, four of the five are habitual Quislings (only Bill Nelson seems to have a mixed record). With allies like those, who needs enemies?
1 Like
“She was also involved in the agency’s destruction of tapes of interrogation sessions in 2005.”
Covering up war crimes. Running secret detention centers with “enhanced” interrogation programs.
In a different time she could have been one hell of an SS officer.
But alas, now we just call her the most qulified canidate.
5 Likes
I have no reason to doubt you, but what does one do? Dump the Quislings, and make way for a Republican to get elected? It seems like the McConnell issue for the GOP: Many Republicans don’t like him (for good reason) but he’s got powerful allies. It’s the same for Diane Feinstein; I think she’s bad (old and ineffective) but I can see why she keeps getting re-elected.
Take them into account and try to elect more senators who will counter their attempts to sell us out. That means getting at least 54 senators in November.
I’m not looking for ideological purity here, just agreement that Trump and co. are not acting in the best interests of the USA (and by the way they act, most of the rest of the world)
2 Likes
Time to start working on those daydreaming skills.
2 Likes
Haspel’s excuses for the torture are: that “it was legal” (declared so by OLC John Yoo’s “torture memo”); and, “Hey, it was 9/11!”
The “it was legal” defense is supposed to be an invalid excuse, ever since Nazis tried it in the Nuremberg Trials.
The “it was 9/11” is ridiculous. It’s always going to be 9/11 or World War 2 or some other conflict when civil liberties are in danger of being curtailed. These abridgements and injustices don’t generally happen in times of stability and peace. If the Fire Dept is inept at putting out a fire, their excuse cannot be “Hey, there was a fire!”
As for the destruction of the tapes, her excuses are just fradulent: that she feared for the identities of the agents involved and/or that she thought the tapes would be leaked. A) You could have blurred the faces and modified the voices of the torturers. B) You, the CIA, are destroying data because you cannot prevent said data from being leaked? Why do you even exist as an organization if you cannot keep certain specific data from leaking? It’s your primary purpose. The real reason was the opprobrium (and perhaps legal action) that could erupt from any public scrutiny as to just what happened in her torture cells.
6 Likes
Well, you know what Yoda says about trying.
1 Like
I remember during the Bush years, whenever they wanted to do something despicable, they justified it with, “we’re at war”. Of course we WEREN’T “at war” according to the Constitution, but nobody ever called them on it, and some people believed them.
2 Likes
No arguments from me on that. Anybody that voted to confirm this person should be fucking ashamed of themselves. Sucking up to the Intelligence Complex is something both the D and R side seem to be very good at.
3 Likes
You gotta wonder what kind of dirt the CIA has or created on them…
2 Likes
What is the worse you see at this point? Because promoting a known torturer to that job tells every underling that the way to a promotion is unthinking obedience and torture. Even a bumbling congresscritter doesn’t send that message. Her wringing her hands a bit that she might lose a cushy promotion for torturing people doesn’t tell me she doesn’t do it lightly.
If it helps illuminate my point I am trying to make, I’ll pose the question of what’s worse:
The possibility of torture of terrorism-related detainees?
or
Another 9/11 due to complete incompetence in running the agency? Recall, the FBI, NSA and CIA all refused to share information because they were running petty fiefdoms, and that’s how 9/11 happened in the first place.
(I do not get behind the justification of 9/11 for torture, to be clear)
ETA: Actually it’s a similar debate to the question of: “Who’s worse, Pence or Trump?” See: my comment on “Known Quantity”.
I asked the question of if we had a more qualified alternative:
Well and fine, she gets my vote then. You wonder the kind of pick I’m worried about? Imagine the carnage if Scott Pruitt was made CIA director instead of EPA Administrator. He’s arguably more qualified for the CIA than the EPA.
I understand and share in the BBS’s consternation with the near inevitable confirmation of a known torturer and criminal to lead the CIA, but…
Spies are by definition criminals. Trespassing, thieving, murderous, drug running, propaganda pushing, regime changing criminals. It’s been this way for generations. It’s not a D or R thing, it’s a USA thing. It’s a cornerstone of our modern society.
So by all means, lets hold the worst of the lot accountable so we don’t slide further into fascism. But… let’s not twist ourselves in knots that there are substantially better choices to lead the CIA.
Mark this event, and use it as fuel to continue fostering the hearts and minds of our new/struggling generations of citizens and immigrants in the hopes that, one day, with enough progress, we don’t have to have our collective psyches scarred by hoping against all odds for a spy master whose crimes remain hidden vs. a spy master whose crimes have been revealed.
You need to look at the larger picture; VichyDem swine like Manchin aren’t just legisislatively disastrous, they are also massively damaging to party credibility nationwide. In most parliamentary systems, they would have been expelled from the party long ago.
However, that ain’t gonna happen, because the Democratic Party is a vile and corrupt institution led by plutocratic scum. Therefore:
I kind of doubt that’s the way to get re-elected in West Virginia.
West Virginia has a lot more leftists than people realise.
However:
…
OTOH: who said anything about elections?
I do not see any realistic possibility of an effective electoral response to the current situation. US democracy is too far gone for that to be a viable option; fascists are counting the votes.
When I say revolution, I mean it.
I understand. I’m only suggesting reasons why Dems might vote for Haspel.
Yeah, it’s currently not a realistic thing, so let’s not work towards it…
The big problem is that both parties are variants of the same thing, and it’s just silly to think that either one is looking out for the average citizen. Yeah, I get that the Dems are a lot less evil than their foes, but settling for the lesser evil is kind of how we got here.
Dream big if you’re going to dream at all. Dream of a government of the people, by the people, for the people of some other silly bullshit like that.
1 Like
It would at least help dilute the funds a bit… Figuring a way to get the $ out of politics would be a great thing. Unfortunately the a-holes who are directly benefiting from the current system are the one’s who’d have to vote on rules/regulations changes. And that has about as much of a chance as my little one deciding to punish herself for bad behavior by taking away sweets and/or grounding herself. It may be best for everyone in the long run (including herself), but it’s not likely to happen if left up to herself.
1 Like
Never mind, I’m sure that they’ll be amply compensated by their donors.
