Slashdot Mirror
Trump's Pick for New CIA Director Is Career Spymaster (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a AP report: President Donald Trump's choice to be the first female director of the CIA is a career spymaster who once ran an agency prison in Thailand where terror suspects were subjected to a harsh interrogation technique that the president has supported. Trump tweeted Tuesday that CIA Director Mike Pompeo will replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and that he has selected Gina Haspel to replace Pompeo. Haspel, the current deputy CIA director, also helped carry out an order that the agency destroy its waterboarding videos. That order prompted a lengthy Justice Department investigation that ended without charges. Haspel, who has extensive overseas experience, briefly ran a secret CIA prison where accused terrorists Abu Zubayadah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Only if she's complicit in destroying criminal evidence.
Typical Internet slander from the alt right. Post a big fucking lie 50,000 times and people get confused, start thinking "Well, maybe... who knows what Obama did or didn't do."
In fact Obama was extremely vocal against waterboarding. He banned that practice of the Bush administration.
Cheney was the one who kept calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques" while insisting it wasn't torture.
So you're saying we should treat women differently and shouldn't be outraged that she destroyed video documentation to hide torture and approves of harsh methods as we would even if it were a man doing the same thing?
No, her being Deputy Director is a problem, AND being made Director is a bigger problem.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Where's the option to mark a story with a -1 Troll? If this story were any more inflammatory it would contain trigger warnings for snowflakes.
So it's OK for her to be the Deputy director, but once she gets to climb one rung of the ladder that's a big problem?
It's not OK for her to be either Deputy Director or Director, but it is nearly impossible to pull out the bad ones who are already in place.
Waterboarding by the CIA was something that helped terrorists. Our doing it gave a powerful recruiting tool to terrorist organizations: it allowed them to show that the U.S. are not the good guys. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and we should object to her being Director because we should not reward people for doing stupid things in their job.
We hate you because you enjoy stuffing kittens into sacks to drown in rivers and you set dogs legs on fire.
If you happen to be a woman, then we have you personally who is a woman, because you enjoy stuffing kittens into sacks to drown in rivers and you set dogs legs on fire.
If you happen to be a man, then we have you personally who is a man, because you enjoy stuffing kittens into sacks to drown in rivers and you set dogs legs on fire.
People who promote such ideas like yourself really need a few months of your own treatment and spend twenty hours a day being tortured by someone like minded as you are.
Although I doubt even that would garner any human emotions out of you, so with luck you won't survive the process.
Leaking is remarkably rarely prosecuted, especially given how much administrations complain about it. The reason that administrations don't pursue leaking more aggressively is that the people in the administration want to preserve their own ability to leak.
Leaking is an essential part of the way government works. It's going over the head of the regular channels and appealing directly to the people. This can be done for both personal/professional reasons, and for patriotic reasons.
There has only been one exception to this pattern I can remember: the Obama administration. Obama didn't complain much about leakers publicly, he just quietly went after them. Only 13 people have ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and eight of those thirteen were on Obama's watch.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, he really did. Stop spreading lies.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/
Er, is being a career spymaster a bad thing for leading the CIA? Just wondering.
Because torture does not work and it ultimately does great harm to the torturers. I would cite moral reasons, but I get the impression from your question that morality is not an issue with you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He tried and congress would not let him.
You appear to be employing selective memory. He made the same argument about congress being a roadblock to fixing immigration. He maintained that position. After 3 or so years, when it finally suited him, he declared "I have a phone and a pen" and proceeded to do what he liked.
Now, you could argue whether he was right or wrong to act unilaterally without congress. You can also point to the problem those who supported Obama's actions on immigration face: an executive order by one president can be undone by another president. However, it is patently disingenuous to say that he did not close Guantanamo because congress would not let him.
Had he really wanted to close it, he would have closed it. After all, he really wanted the Affordable Care Act, and that made it through congress. Any failure to close Guantanamo, end rendition, and/or end "enhanced interrogation" is a direct result of a lack of real desire to see it done.
No, but until you torture and kill my father, brother or child, I could at least be indifferent to you.
After you do, I want you dead. You. And your father, your brother and your child.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1.: yes, why do 2. or 3. even matter? Even people in the Middle Ages understood that 2. is irrelevant and therefore 3. is irrelevant, too.
Ezekiel 23:20
Whataboutism is strong in this one
Please point to actual evidence that Islamic countries have in fact ever demonstrated that they have given the US any "moral authority".
No one "gives you" moral authority. You earn it with the combination of your words and deeds.
the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations has never, ever believed that the U.S. was part of the "good guys"... regardless of the existence of waterboarding methods.
This would be true if the world consisted of only two clearly distinct types of people "the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations" and the type that isn't, and if the type that "is" will always go and join Al Qaeda without any convincing. But the world is not, and they don't. People are anywhere in any range in between. Radicals have to be radicalized. Angry young men are plentiful, but they don't become terrorists until they have their anger focussed and fanned and, most particularly, given a target. "Terrorists" don't pop up out of nowhere, they are recruited and radicalized.
They might get radicalized to say "my country is repressive, I need to fight for more freedom for myself and my brothers." They might say "I need to fight to leave my country and go to America where I can open a falafel stand and get rich." Or they might get radicalized to "America is evil and wants to destroy us and our way of life and we need to fight it."
Our use of torture is a tool that gets organizations like ISIS or Al Qaeda the ability to take these angry young men and turn them to that last option.
Just like you can't convince a truther than 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, a birther that obama is an american, a fookooshimar that fukushima will kill every single person in japan and then some, a typical terrorist has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact.
But how did that "typical terrorist [who] has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact" become a terrorist? How do they get that image of the west? They are radicalized. We are giving the terrorist organizations the tools to do that.
I take you've never met anybody from the middle east, right? They aren't born saying "I need to kill infidels". They have to be recruited.