Senate confirms Trump's pick Gina Haspel to lead CIA. Here are the 6 Democrats who voted 'yes' for torture


#21

One of the things that jarred during the hearings was her statement about how strong her moral compass is.

I mean, those are nice words, and people certainly can change over course of more than a decade. But actions speak louder than words, and in the mid-2000’s her moral compass was seriously fucking broken. Did her parents only ‘raise her right’ beginning 10 years ago? Or did she ‘compartmentalise’ her upbringing when it was inconvenient? What assurance is there that she won’t compartmentalise it again? Sens Warner and Heinrich asked the question, but got a spectacularly weaksauce answer.


#22

“I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal.”

Wow.


#23

Maybe they’re… into that kind of thing.


#24

There’s an element of that. It’s ugliness, to be sure.


#25

Right? I mean, the point is that she has already not just passively allowed it, but actively facilitated it.


#26

#27

#equality #feminism

See? Women can be awful, too!


#28

Y’all are taking one snippet of what I wrote instead of responding to the total thought. :frowning:


#29

Okay then.

.

No, not just a couple of administrations ago. Every modern administration. Torture is not the only crime of the CIA.

The current administration is exceedingly unlikely to shift the CIA to a less evil trajectory. Haspel is not stupid enough to be unaware of this.

See this thread:

image

image

Haspel has not apologised for being a torturer. She has not even admitted her crime.

It was not always so, and it does not need to be so. To quote Truman:

Excerpt from http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

image

Your country has spent the last two decades routinely kidnapping, murdering and torturing people across the globe in large numbers. If you find this to be a matter which you can casually dismiss as part of the normal give and take of routine politics, it does not reflect well upon your apparent ethical standards.

Yes.


#30

So your reaction is to burn it all down. Okay, this is principled, but not, to me, pragmatic.

Or put another way, were I a senator I would not be voting for the woman’s confirmation, but I can understand why 6 of the 49 members of the minority did. That there’s daylight for a difference of interpretation here. Calls elsewhere on the BB – not from you, to be clear! – to vote these 6 bums out strike me as lunatic. Do you want ants? 'Cause that’s how you get ants. And by ants, I mean ironclad reactionary control of all 3 branches of US government.


#31

You already have that. And history provides a very clear demonstration of the consequences of your proposed strategy.

image

Burn? No.

But avoiding the fire this time is going to require radical action.


#32

But not the first war criminal to lead the agency.


#33

Not being to answer what your stance on torture should automatically disqualify you for a leadership position anywhere.


#34

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.