It should be stated that Gina actually answered a question that was asked along the lines of "Will you continue to torture" and she basically said no.
Is that worth anything? I don't know, but that was her answer.
This question already has an answer: Joe Manchin broke ranks and announced he will vote to confirm Haspel
no
If Manchin will vote to confirm you can expect Doug Jones and maybe other moderate dems to vote to confirm as well.
she said that she wouldn't resume or start any new torture up, and she wouldn't have to be we still do that
She trained under the CIA director that Obama appointed, Obamas CIA director has approved her.
And if she answered the question with the answer she wouldn't resume current torture methods doesn't that mean she won't continue the programs that were in place previously?
Just asking, seems to be some confusion here.
the word "resume" implies that it stopped, if it's still going it's fine for her to do it under this answer because she never lied
Well if she's not resuming torture that is in place now, and she's not starting new torture, I'm not sure what lines you're reading between
Torture that is in place now does not need to be resumed to continue, is what he's saying.
By saying "I will not resume" she isn't saying that she will stop torture that hasn't been put on hold in the first place.
Joe Donnelly has become the second Democrat to back Haspel, meaning she is almost certain to be confirmed
https://twitter.com/SenDonnelly/status/995295453448163335?s=19
I mean, kind of. She repeatedly dodged answering the question when asked whether she thought torture was right / moral / defensible, and basically just parroted, "we used every legal method to save American lives," and, "I will follow the law."
Which is basically just an admission that she stands behind torture, and will continue to utilize torture if given the clearance to do so and/or if the legal definition of torture is altered to allow her to continue employing brutal torture techniques. As a reminder, under these techniques, an innocent pregnant woman was repeatedly punched in the stomach, amid other equally horrifying shit.
A first-person accounting of being subjected to CIA torture at black sites like the one overseen by Gina Haspel:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/gina-haspel-questions-cia.html
Not fully condemning this shit is grounds for immediate recusal from any government positions, in my opinion. The abuses that people, many of them innocent, were subjected to under this shit is absolutely horrific. I don't care what kind of experience or seniority Gina Haspel has: she oversaw torture programs like this, tried to destroy and/or cover up evidence of what had occurred, and to this day refuses to unequivocally condemn what was occurring, and to promise that she would never allow it to continue while serving as the CIA director.
I figure it's fine to vote in favor of torture; but only as long as you're willing to undergo it for forty-eight hours.
So since when do we want our CIA director to act according to their feelings? If a combat brigade out on tour feels like they don't want to go fight that day because they feel its morally wrong is that okay? Everything she did was legal when she did it as provided by DOJ memos.
Because the President of the United States is on record as approving of torture.
You may not care but some people fucking do and they're mad as hell. They want the CIA Director to vow not to use torture, not to vow to "only do things that are legal".
Because if Trump had his way, blowing up the houses of civilians to kill the families of terrorists, which by the way is an international war crime, would be considered legal, and therefore perfectly okay to do. Torture could be resumed in an instant by way of secret, classified interpretation of statutes. In the age of President Trump, you need your gatekeepers to demonstrate the moral authority to guide their agency with the ethical values of the American people, not squirm away from answering except to say "I vas only following orders".
Torture is not an American value, unless you, as an American, would like to tell me that it is. And, that's fine, but you don't get to consider your country the "good guys" anymore.
Yeah this doesn't read anything like someone who says they condemn torture and wouldn't repeat the "enhanced interrogation techniques" of the past. "We used every legal method to save American lives" is simply rewording the argument the right has made for torture, implicitly making the argument that torture is necessary to protect America. I don't see her as some sort of sadist like Cheney or Trump who would immediately re institute a torture program as soon as she was confirmed but I have absolutely zero confidence she would do anything to stop a push from this administration to restart it.
You don't know what you're talking about do you? Attacking civilians who have no part in the hostilities is forbidden by protocol 1, article 51 of the geneva convention. WHICH THE US HAS NEVER RATIFIED ONLY SIGNED.
Got a little secret for you, those people are gonna stay mad as hell when she gets confirmed because a cia director would never vow against any techniques if it offers a chance at actionable intelligence. Also, noone in any decent position really cares about being seen as the good guys because at the end of the day try comparing the CIAs techniques to isis and come back and tell me which one has more respect for international law.
Oh god it's one of those people.
Oh look its an Ad hominem
And in what way is "America can do anything they want as long as Isis is worse" not a logical or at least moral fallacy
Well it's not the worst fallacy ever so, according to your own logic, who cares?
Funny how you put something in quotes despite not actually quoting me. I was responding to the guy who said I can't consider who I want as the good guys, Well lets play your game then. Who are the good guys?
i'm glad our standards for Trump appointees have become "not literally ISIS".
Again. putting things in quotes that aren't actually a quote. I don't get this is this a meme thing?
They got it from that lady who interviewed Jordan Peterson. "So what you're saying is......"
It's implied when you say that anyone in a "decent position" (presumably you and not us bleeding heart liberals) doesn't care about being seen as a good guy because CIA techniques more more respect for international law than ISIS techniques CIA techniques that took place under Trump's CIA appointee. Ergo Trump's CIA appointee shouldn't be criticized for her part in the CIA torture techniques because they aren't as bad as ISIS.
Torture doesn't work, we've never gotten anything good from it. Anyone who still wants to torture is just a sadist who wants their enemies to suffer.
It's a shame we don't live in a fantasy land where unicorns are real, clouds are made of marchmallows and torture is an effective way of extracting information from a person.
let's be real, this campaign of torture was never about extracting information, it was about feeding a sadistic racist hateboner
The report you linked saying the "CIA itself has said is ineffective" was a report by the senate. The "cia itself" has said it is effective in times. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/0006541535.pdf
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
