specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
great writer, I may have to reread the postman, as its been a few decades.
Trump says Rex Tillerson out as Secretary of State, replaced by Mike Pompeo
- Thread starter donnay
- Start date
great writer, I may have to reread the postman, as its been a few decades.
Anti Globalist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 49,036
What a great role model. Every young girl should aspire to be like her. If I had a daughter, I'd be advising her to look up to her.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
The report noted that when Trump abruptly accepted an invitation for face-to-face talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, it contradicted what Tillerson, who was traveling in Africa, told reporters a day earlier, namely, that the United States was “a long ways from negotiations” with Pyongyang.
Trump said that he hadn’t discussed the idea in advance with Tillerson, explaining, “Rex wasn’t, as you know, in this country. I made that decision by myself.”
A more believable explanation is that Trump knew Tillerson was opposed to the idea so Trump just kept him out of the loop. Pompeo, in contrast, defended the president's decision.
Another point of disagreement between Trump and Tillerson was the Iran deal. NPR noted that Pompeo, like the president, has been a fierce critic of the Iran deal, saying it doesn’t go far enough in dismantling Tehran's nuclear program and that it’s not permanent.
Another area where Tillerson and Pompeo disagree is Trump’s recent decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. Tillerson was among the advisers who reportedly tried, unsuccessfully, to talk the president out of imposing the tariffs.
However, Pompeo defended the president’s decision in an interview with Fox News Sunday, especially with regard to China, the country widely blamed for the glut of steel and aluminum on the world market.
Pompeo — despite his drawbacks, which we’ll examine in a moment — is not as committed an internationalist as Tillerson. In an article last December, we noted:
Tillerson’s removal would be heartily applauded by all supporters of Trump’s “America First” inclination, since Tillerson clearly represents the opposite orientation, especially as it relates to that ultimate bastion of world government internationalism, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). We noted last March in our report on the Trump-Tillerson adoption of Communist Beijing’s “One China” doctrine (slamming our Free China ally, Taiwan) and the administration’s support of expanded U.S.-China “trade” (More Dangerous China Trade? Globalist Push vs. Trump Promise) that Tillerson, “while not a CFR member, has nonetheless been active as a speaker and participant at CFR events, a search of the Council’s website shows.” Moreover, “he has been endorsed or given high marks by CFR heavyweights and China Lobby stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and Dick Cheney. All of these developments stack up as decidedly unfavorable signs for those who are expecting (or hoping for) major reversals in our decades of disastrous policies regarding China.”
In his maiden speech before the Council, on March 9, 2007, Tillerson stated, “Although this is my first time speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, from a historical perspective, it feels a little bit like home.” So although Tillerson is not a CFR member, for all practical purposes, he shares in their internationalist philosophy. It is this philosophy that has dominated U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II, leading our nation into undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East.
The day before we wrote about Tillerson, we profiled Pompeo in another article, “Trump May Replace Rex Tillerson With Hawkish Mike Pompeo to Head State.” In that article, we cited a report in The New American from November 2016, written just after Trump nominated him to head the CIA. The article noted that “in many ways, Pompeo is a strongly conservative Republican,” but “in the areas over which his CIA directorship will be more relevant, Pompeo cannot be classified as a defender of various constitutional safeguards of civil liberties.” That observation was based on Pompeo’s support of the surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA), saying they do “good and important work.” In February 2016, Pompeo said that whistleblower Edward Snowden “should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence.”
Another area of criticism noted in that article is especially relevant to Pompeo’s anticipated role at the head of the State Department:
In May [2016] [Pompeo] voted against an effort to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which had authorized President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. The results of this open-ended military force authorization illustrates a reason to oppose mere congressional authorizations, rather war declarations. Congress chose to leave it up to the president whether to use military force in Iraq, instead of a more specific declaration of war. This unconstitutional delegation to the president of the congressional power to declare war is why the AUMF is still in effect, 15 years later. [Emphasis in original.]
For the constitutionalist hoping that the unlimited war powers ceded to former presidents might be withdrawn under Trump, the prospect of having a supporter of the AUMF heading the State Department is not promising. It portends yet more unbridled interventionism.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ry-hawk-pompeo
Trump said that he hadn’t discussed the idea in advance with Tillerson, explaining, “Rex wasn’t, as you know, in this country. I made that decision by myself.”
A more believable explanation is that Trump knew Tillerson was opposed to the idea so Trump just kept him out of the loop. Pompeo, in contrast, defended the president's decision.
Another point of disagreement between Trump and Tillerson was the Iran deal. NPR noted that Pompeo, like the president, has been a fierce critic of the Iran deal, saying it doesn’t go far enough in dismantling Tehran's nuclear program and that it’s not permanent.
Another area where Tillerson and Pompeo disagree is Trump’s recent decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. Tillerson was among the advisers who reportedly tried, unsuccessfully, to talk the president out of imposing the tariffs.
However, Pompeo defended the president’s decision in an interview with Fox News Sunday, especially with regard to China, the country widely blamed for the glut of steel and aluminum on the world market.
Pompeo — despite his drawbacks, which we’ll examine in a moment — is not as committed an internationalist as Tillerson. In an article last December, we noted:
Tillerson’s removal would be heartily applauded by all supporters of Trump’s “America First” inclination, since Tillerson clearly represents the opposite orientation, especially as it relates to that ultimate bastion of world government internationalism, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). We noted last March in our report on the Trump-Tillerson adoption of Communist Beijing’s “One China” doctrine (slamming our Free China ally, Taiwan) and the administration’s support of expanded U.S.-China “trade” (More Dangerous China Trade? Globalist Push vs. Trump Promise) that Tillerson, “while not a CFR member, has nonetheless been active as a speaker and participant at CFR events, a search of the Council’s website shows.” Moreover, “he has been endorsed or given high marks by CFR heavyweights and China Lobby stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and Dick Cheney. All of these developments stack up as decidedly unfavorable signs for those who are expecting (or hoping for) major reversals in our decades of disastrous policies regarding China.”
In his maiden speech before the Council, on March 9, 2007, Tillerson stated, “Although this is my first time speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, from a historical perspective, it feels a little bit like home.” So although Tillerson is not a CFR member, for all practical purposes, he shares in their internationalist philosophy. It is this philosophy that has dominated U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II, leading our nation into undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East.
The day before we wrote about Tillerson, we profiled Pompeo in another article, “Trump May Replace Rex Tillerson With Hawkish Mike Pompeo to Head State.” In that article, we cited a report in The New American from November 2016, written just after Trump nominated him to head the CIA. The article noted that “in many ways, Pompeo is a strongly conservative Republican,” but “in the areas over which his CIA directorship will be more relevant, Pompeo cannot be classified as a defender of various constitutional safeguards of civil liberties.” That observation was based on Pompeo’s support of the surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA), saying they do “good and important work.” In February 2016, Pompeo said that whistleblower Edward Snowden “should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence.”
Another area of criticism noted in that article is especially relevant to Pompeo’s anticipated role at the head of the State Department:
In May [2016] [Pompeo] voted against an effort to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which had authorized President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. The results of this open-ended military force authorization illustrates a reason to oppose mere congressional authorizations, rather war declarations. Congress chose to leave it up to the president whether to use military force in Iraq, instead of a more specific declaration of war. This unconstitutional delegation to the president of the congressional power to declare war is why the AUMF is still in effect, 15 years later. [Emphasis in original.]
For the constitutionalist hoping that the unlimited war powers ceded to former presidents might be withdrawn under Trump, the prospect of having a supporter of the AUMF heading the State Department is not promising. It portends yet more unbridled interventionism.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ry-hawk-pompeo
J
Jan2017
Guest
Secretary of State Tillerson has delegated his functions to Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan
until he officially leaves office on March 31 midnight.
until he officially leaves office on March 31 midnight.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
I stand with Rand on this.
AZJoe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2016
- Messages
- 6,163
Good quote from AntiWar:
"When Americans see Trump seemingly taking measures to gut the State Department and emphasize a more aggressive form of diplomacy, then go on to appoint someone like Mike Pompeo to Secretary of State, one may think that Trump is single handedly destroying the integrity of the US State Department. I think this comes from the mistaken view that the State Department had any sort of integrity in the first place."
"When Americans see Trump seemingly taking measures to gut the State Department and emphasize a more aggressive form of diplomacy, then go on to appoint someone like Mike Pompeo to Secretary of State, one may think that Trump is single handedly destroying the integrity of the US State Department. I think this comes from the mistaken view that the State Department had any sort of integrity in the first place."
AZJoe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2016
- Messages
- 6,163
CIA Whistle-blower John Kiriakou on torture demoness Bloody Gina Haspel,
Gina Haspel was referred as by some at the agency as "Bloody Gina". “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.”
John Kiriakou interview
Gina Haspel was referred as by some at the agency as "Bloody Gina". “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.”
John Kiriakou interview
AZJoe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2016
- Messages
- 6,163
Washington Elite Embrace Nuremberg Defense in support of Gina Haspel
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense ... The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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 is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as settled as anything possibly can be. …
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just following orders. Specifically, they say Gina Haspel, a top CIA officer whom President Donald Trump has designated to be the agency’s next director, bears no responsibility for the torture she supervised during George W. Bush’s administration.
Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed speculation that … these records … showed [not only torture, but] operatives employing torture to generate false “intelligence” used to justify the invasion of Iraq. …
Haspel was known to some at the agency as “Bloody Gina” … “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.” …
Some of Haspel’s champions have used the exact language of the popular version of the Nuremberg defense, while others have paraphrased it. …
Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency. In a Wednesday op-ed, … endorsed Haspel as head of the CIA, writing that “Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well.” [“Just following orders”] … on Twitter that Haspel’s actions were “consistent with U.S. law as interpreted by the department of justice.” … [referring to] notorious memos that it was legal for the U.S. to engage in “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were obviously torture. Of course, the actions of the Nuremberg defendants had also been “legal” under German law.
John Brennan, who ran the CIA under President Barack Obama, … [also embraced the Nurenberg Defense, saying] that its torture program was legal …
Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd used the precise language of the Nuremberg defense … “She was following orders. … She implemented orders and was doing her job.” … Notably, Blitzer did not have any follow-up questions for Hurd about his jarring comments.
The U.N. Convention Against Torture, which was transmitted to the Senate by Ronald Reagan in 1988, states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
Samantha Winograd, who served on President Obama’s National Security Council and now is an analyst for CNN, likewise used Nuremberg defense … she said, “was implementing the lawful orders of the president. … she was following orders.” …
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, who issued a ringing defense of Haspel in Politico, claiming she was merely acting “in response to what she was told were lawful orders.”
Remarkably, this perspective has even seeped into the viewpoint of regular journalists. At a recent press conference at which Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul criticized Haspel, a reporter asked him to respond to “the counterargument” that “these policies were signed off by the Bush administration. … They were considered lawful at the time.” … It fell to Paul to make the obvious observation … “This has been historically a question we’ve asked in every war: Is there a point at which soldiers say ‘no’? … Horrendous things happened in World War II, and people said, well, the German soldiers were just obeying orders. … I think there’s a point at which, even suffering repercussions, that if someone asks you to torture someone that you should say no.”
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense ... The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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 is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as settled as anything possibly can be. …
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just following orders. Specifically, they say Gina Haspel, a top CIA officer whom President Donald Trump has designated to be the agency’s next director, bears no responsibility for the torture she supervised during George W. Bush’s administration.
Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed speculation that … these records … showed [not only torture, but] operatives employing torture to generate false “intelligence” used to justify the invasion of Iraq. …
Haspel was known to some at the agency as “Bloody Gina” … “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.” …
Some of Haspel’s champions have used the exact language of the popular version of the Nuremberg defense, while others have paraphrased it. …
Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency. In a Wednesday op-ed, … endorsed Haspel as head of the CIA, writing that “Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well.” [“Just following orders”] … on Twitter that Haspel’s actions were “consistent with U.S. law as interpreted by the department of justice.” … [referring to] notorious memos that it was legal for the U.S. to engage in “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were obviously torture. Of course, the actions of the Nuremberg defendants had also been “legal” under German law.
John Brennan, who ran the CIA under President Barack Obama, … [also embraced the Nurenberg Defense, saying] that its torture program was legal …
Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd used the precise language of the Nuremberg defense … “She was following orders. … She implemented orders and was doing her job.” … Notably, Blitzer did not have any follow-up questions for Hurd about his jarring comments.
The U.N. Convention Against Torture, which was transmitted to the Senate by Ronald Reagan in 1988, states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
Samantha Winograd, who served on President Obama’s National Security Council and now is an analyst for CNN, likewise used Nuremberg defense … she said, “was implementing the lawful orders of the president. … she was following orders.” …
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, who issued a ringing defense of Haspel in Politico, claiming she was merely acting “in response to what she was told were lawful orders.”
Remarkably, this perspective has even seeped into the viewpoint of regular journalists. At a recent press conference at which Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul criticized Haspel, a reporter asked him to respond to “the counterargument” that “these policies were signed off by the Bush administration. … They were considered lawful at the time.” … It fell to Paul to make the obvious observation … “This has been historically a question we’ve asked in every war: Is there a point at which soldiers say ‘no’? … Horrendous things happened in World War II, and people said, well, the German soldiers were just obeying orders. … I think there’s a point at which, even suffering repercussions, that if someone asks you to torture someone that you should say no.”
Last edited:
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,192
How can anyone of good conscience continue to support a man who would nomonate a person of this low caliber for anything other than a prison cell?
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
timosman
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,090
AZJoe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2016
- Messages
- 6,163
From RPI:
Do you remember when those first photographs from the US-controlled prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq came out? … piles of naked men as torturers looked on with smiles … prisoners covered in feces, the horrible "statue man" …The final bit of evidence that President Bush's war on Iraq had nothing to do with democracy or freedom or keeping America safe, but in fact was the result of a blast of sadistic national psychosis brought about by the incessant neocon lies run through the constant droning on of the mainstream media. A media whose sole purpose seems to be serving as a conveyor belt for government propaganda. …
President Obama decided that no one from the Bush era should pay for their crimes …
Gina Haspel, was, according to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, the “handpicked warden of the first secret prison the CIA created to handle al-Qaida detainees.” … Haspel not only helped design the notorious torture techniques … not only supervised the torture techniques … but she actually appeared to take pleasure in -- to enjoy -- the torture of others. …
Abu Zubaydah was one of Haspel's victims. He was captured in a raid in Pakistan in March 2002, and was shot in his leg and groin. The CIA claimed he was one of al-Qaeda's top leaders. They were wrong. …
Haspel took delight in the torture of Zubaydah. He was waterboarded 83 times in a single month. His head was repeatedly slammed against a wall; he was confined for hours in a coffin-like box and deprived him of sleep for days. He suffered sexual abuse and humiliation under her authority. [Haspel] watched on as "Zubaydah vomited, passed out and urinated on himself while shackled. During one waterboarding session, Zubaydah lost consciousness and bubbles began gurgling from his mouth."
Did she stop the torturers as Zubaydah lay near death (and as the interrogators had already determined that he had nothing to offer by way of information)? No, she did not. In a book written by one of the interrogators, she walked up to him and “congratulated him on the fine quality of his acting.” As the victim was near death she sneered at him, “Good job! I like the way you’re drooling; it adds realism. I’m almost buying it. You wouldn’t think a grown man would do that.”
Haspel knew her crimes … so she simply covered them up. She ordered all evidence -- some 92 videotapes -- of the torture to be destroyed. … This is the monster that President Trump has tapped to lead the CIA.
We can only applaud Senator Paul's determination to block this appointment and encourage others to urge their Senators to follow his lead. What is left of the moral conscience of the United States is at stake.
Do you remember when those first photographs from the US-controlled prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq came out? … piles of naked men as torturers looked on with smiles … prisoners covered in feces, the horrible "statue man" …The final bit of evidence that President Bush's war on Iraq had nothing to do with democracy or freedom or keeping America safe, but in fact was the result of a blast of sadistic national psychosis brought about by the incessant neocon lies run through the constant droning on of the mainstream media. A media whose sole purpose seems to be serving as a conveyor belt for government propaganda. …
President Obama decided that no one from the Bush era should pay for their crimes …
Gina Haspel, was, according to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, the “handpicked warden of the first secret prison the CIA created to handle al-Qaida detainees.” … Haspel not only helped design the notorious torture techniques … not only supervised the torture techniques … but she actually appeared to take pleasure in -- to enjoy -- the torture of others. …
Abu Zubaydah was one of Haspel's victims. He was captured in a raid in Pakistan in March 2002, and was shot in his leg and groin. The CIA claimed he was one of al-Qaeda's top leaders. They were wrong. …
Haspel took delight in the torture of Zubaydah. He was waterboarded 83 times in a single month. His head was repeatedly slammed against a wall; he was confined for hours in a coffin-like box and deprived him of sleep for days. He suffered sexual abuse and humiliation under her authority. [Haspel] watched on as "Zubaydah vomited, passed out and urinated on himself while shackled. During one waterboarding session, Zubaydah lost consciousness and bubbles began gurgling from his mouth."
Did she stop the torturers as Zubaydah lay near death (and as the interrogators had already determined that he had nothing to offer by way of information)? No, she did not. In a book written by one of the interrogators, she walked up to him and “congratulated him on the fine quality of his acting.” As the victim was near death she sneered at him, “Good job! I like the way you’re drooling; it adds realism. I’m almost buying it. You wouldn’t think a grown man would do that.”
Haspel knew her crimes … so she simply covered them up. She ordered all evidence -- some 92 videotapes -- of the torture to be destroyed. … This is the monster that President Trump has tapped to lead the CIA.
We can only applaud Senator Paul's determination to block this appointment and encourage others to urge their Senators to follow his lead. What is left of the moral conscience of the United States is at stake.
Last edited:
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,192
What is left of the moral conscience of the United States is at stake.
IS there any moral conscience left?
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
From The Hill:
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
To be fair, Schumer does have some concerns with regard to Pompeo. He might not be belligerent enough toward Russia.
Meanwhile, across the Washington D.C. cesspool hordes of “respected leaders” are vigorously defending Gina Haspel using the same defense used by actual Nazi war criminals after WWII.
From The Intercept:
Now here’s the best part…
Fortunately, there’s a small flicker of actual resistance to Trump’s shameless neocon pivot. It just happens to be coming from Rand Paul.
More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-15/trump-moves-toward-war-resistance-refuses-resist
This puts Democrats in a potentially powerful position to swing Haspel’s confirmation.
Yet early signs suggest that the minority is prepared to offer support, despite her controversial record, fierce opposition from human rights activists and the fact that she is a Trump nominee.
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), on Wednesday cited a “very good working relationship” with Haspel, currently the agency’s deputy director. Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), a red-state Democrat who also sits on the Intelligence panel, said he was “very much open-minded.”
Even one of the Senate’s harshest critics of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the architect of the so-called torture report, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), signaled a surprisingly open reception to Haspel that could pull others off the fence.
“We’ve had dinner together. We have talked. Everything I know is she has been a good deputy director,” Feinstein said on Tuesday, adding, “I think, hopefully, the entire organization learned something from the so-called enhanced interrogation program.”
Feinstein in 2013 blocked Haspel’s promotion to run clandestine operations at the agency over her role in interrogations at a CIA “black site” prison and the destruction of videotapes documenting the waterboarding sessions of an al Qaeda suspect there.
Did you catch that? Feinstein blocked Haspel in 2013, but now, under Trump, she’s open to an even bigger promotion.Yet early signs suggest that the minority is prepared to offer support, despite her controversial record, fierce opposition from human rights activists and the fact that she is a Trump nominee.
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), on Wednesday cited a “very good working relationship” with Haspel, currently the agency’s deputy director. Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), a red-state Democrat who also sits on the Intelligence panel, said he was “very much open-minded.”
Even one of the Senate’s harshest critics of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the architect of the so-called torture report, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), signaled a surprisingly open reception to Haspel that could pull others off the fence.
“We’ve had dinner together. We have talked. Everything I know is she has been a good deputy director,” Feinstein said on Tuesday, adding, “I think, hopefully, the entire organization learned something from the so-called enhanced interrogation program.”
Feinstein in 2013 blocked Haspel’s promotion to run clandestine operations at the agency over her role in interrogations at a CIA “black site” prison and the destruction of videotapes documenting the waterboarding sessions of an al Qaeda suspect there.
A few lawmakers have come out in opposition to Haspel – most prominently Paul and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) – but it’s unclear how much influence they will wield. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that he is not whipping votes to oppose Haspel.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet “the resistance.”
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
To be fair, Schumer does have some concerns with regard to Pompeo. He might not be belligerent enough toward Russia.
But Democrats stressed on Tuesday that their previous support for Pompeo did not automatically mean they would support him to be secretary of State.
Schumer noted he wants to know if the former House member will be tougher on Russia if he’s confirmed to be the country’s top diplomat.
You seriously can’t make this stuff up. Also, don’t forget that 14 Democrats supported Pompeo for CIA director back in 2016, and Democrats also supported increased surveillance state spying powers late last year. I find it fascinating that when it comes to mass surveillance and torture, suddenly the Democrats don’t want to “resist.”Schumer noted he wants to know if the former House member will be tougher on Russia if he’s confirmed to be the country’s top diplomat.
Meanwhile, across the Washington D.C. cesspool hordes of “respected leaders” are vigorously defending Gina Haspel using the same defense used by actual Nazi war criminals after WWII.
From The Intercept:
During the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, several Nazis, including top German generals Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, claimed they were not guilty of the tribunal’s charges because they had been acting at the directive of their superiors.
Ever since, this justification has been popularly known as the “Nuremberg defense,” in which the accused states they were “only following orders.”
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged. The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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 is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as settled as anything possibly can be.
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just following orders…
Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed speculation that part of the CIA’s motivation for destroying these records may have been that they showed operatives employing torture to generate false “intelligence” used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA operative who helped capture many Al Qaeda prisoners, recently said that Haspel was known to some at the agency as “Bloody Gina” and that “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.” (In 2012, in a convoluted case, Kiriakou pleaded guilty to leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer to the press and spent a year in prison.)
One who paraphrased it is Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency. In a Wednesday op-ed, Hayden endorsed Haspel as head of the CIA, writing that “Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well.”
John Brennan, who ran the CIA under President Barack Obama, made similar remarks on Tuesday when asked about Haspel. The Bush administration had decided that its torture program was legal, said Brennan, and Haspel “tried to carry out her duties at CIA to the best of her ability, even when the CIA was asked to do some very difficult things.”
Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd used the precise language of the Nuremberg defense during a Tuesday appearance on CNN when Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond to a statement from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: “The Senate must do its job in scrutinizing the record and involvement of Gina Haspel in this disgraceful program.”
Hurd, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and a former CIA operative as well, told Blitzer that “this wasn’t Gina’s idea. She was following orders. … She implemented orders and was doing her job.”
Bipartisan support of torture using a literal Nazi defense. Unfortunately, I’m not even surprised.Ever since, this justification has been popularly known as the “Nuremberg defense,” in which the accused states they were “only following orders.”
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged. The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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 is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as settled as anything possibly can be.
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just following orders…
Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed speculation that part of the CIA’s motivation for destroying these records may have been that they showed operatives employing torture to generate false “intelligence” used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA operative who helped capture many Al Qaeda prisoners, recently said that Haspel was known to some at the agency as “Bloody Gina” and that “Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.” (In 2012, in a convoluted case, Kiriakou pleaded guilty to leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer to the press and spent a year in prison.)
One who paraphrased it is Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency. In a Wednesday op-ed, Hayden endorsed Haspel as head of the CIA, writing that “Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well.”
John Brennan, who ran the CIA under President Barack Obama, made similar remarks on Tuesday when asked about Haspel. The Bush administration had decided that its torture program was legal, said Brennan, and Haspel “tried to carry out her duties at CIA to the best of her ability, even when the CIA was asked to do some very difficult things.”
Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd used the precise language of the Nuremberg defense during a Tuesday appearance on CNN when Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond to a statement from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: “The Senate must do its job in scrutinizing the record and involvement of Gina Haspel in this disgraceful program.”
Hurd, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and a former CIA operative as well, told Blitzer that “this wasn’t Gina’s idea. She was following orders. … She implemented orders and was doing her job.”
Now here’s the best part…
Notably, Blitzer did not have any follow-up questions for Hurd about his jarring comments.
Gotta love CNN.
Fortunately, there’s a small flicker of actual resistance to Trump’s shameless neocon pivot. It just happens to be coming from Rand Paul.
More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-15/trump-moves-toward-war-resistance-refuses-resist
r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
Boy, nothing the Swamp™ hates more than extraordinary rendition, without trial, and permanent torture in Thailand.
...well, 'cept smaller government,
But, mainly, it's about making America's Illegal Torture Camps Great Again.
I'm excited, myself..
...well, 'cept smaller government,
But, mainly, it's about making America's Illegal Torture Camps Great Again.
I'm excited, myself..
r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,192
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
It appears Kushner/Adelson zionism team may have couple of more wins soon:
[h=3]Netanyahu ally Adelson wanted McMaster out because of his "anti Israel" views and he is out[/h]
“This Is Kelly’s Way of Saying, ‘It’s Me or Jared’”: Inside the West Wing, Security Clearance-gate Is Getting Uglier by the Day
Kushner is asking people to advocate on his behalf. McMaster is lobbying Mike Pompeo and Dan Coats to support Kelly. But in the end, it’s all up to Trump.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
I'm sure it is just spin but is there any other source than Propublica?
Similar threads
