• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gina Haspel

Sunburn74

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Gina Haspel. The person Trump has nominated for the CIA director. Career servicewoman for decades. Well recommended by many in the CIA including past directors. However, apparently oversaw a blacksite torture program that perhaps went even beyond what was formally allowed after its initial approval (waterboarding a guy 87 times in a month which was never allowed. In fact some reports suggest she not only oversaw the blacksite but personally took part in these torture methods)

Her defense is that she was simply following orders and currently there is a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution given by Obama for all involved in such programs. However, that immunity does not mean this cannot be brought up to decide her candidacy for the top leadership position which in many ways is largely symbolic in the CIA. In addition, there is consideration of her being prosecuted for crimes against humanity within the EU for such actions at this very time.

Is following orders a viable defense in a time of stress and high emotion (circa 2002 shortly after 9/11 when tensions and security concerns were high) for her participation in a very very black chapter in US history ? Or should the potential future leader of the CIA have spoken up? Can we apply what we learned from trials of nazi guards to this situation?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a war criminal to me. If our legal system is so broken that we cannot prosecute war criminals then maybe we should deport her to Europe to stand trial there.
 
She seems to have the support of career intelligence dems and republicans alike. The flip side is she’s on cables as instructing to destroy tapes showing the torture that occurred. The latter would disqualify her for me irrelevant of everything else she ever did in her career.
 
Pens1566 said:
Eh, she's a torture proponent. On the other hand, it could be worse and be Cotton. I'm legit torn.
Click to expand...
I myself am also torn which is why I think its worth talking about and I have interest in seeing how this nomination process will turn out (don't forget McCain was tortured as a POW. He probably will not just look the other way on this). Whilst I respect the opinion of people in those actual fields, I just don't know how you can nominate someone who did horrible stuff to a leadership position when they refused to demonstrate leadership at the most poignant and important moments in their career. Historically we have not given a pass to people for "just following orders".

Fanatical Meat said:
Thanks Obama

*didnt Obama relieve her or her job?
Click to expand...
He gave a blanket immunity to them all and left them in their jobs. Basically bush and his DOJ approved the torture program, and it was carried out under several years under Bush. In around 2005 there began to be serious concerns. And in Obama's term he gave a blanket immunity to all involved in these programs because at the time technically they were legal, though highly unethical. Legal though is questionable in two forms: 1) by report Haspel went way beyond what the DOJ allowed in terms of waterboarding (she waterboarded bin laden's limo driver I believe with extreme prejudice way more than the DOJ allowed them to do), 2) by international law its totally illegal and constitutes torture.
 
Last edited:
Sunburn74 said:
Gina Haspel. The person Trump has nominated for the CIA director. Career servicewoman for decades. Well recommended by many in the CIA including past directors. However, apparently oversaw a blacksite torture program that perhaps went even beyond what was formally allowed after its initial approval (waterboarding a guy 87 times in a month which was never allowed. In fact some reports suggest she not only oversaw the blacksite but personally took part in these torture methods)

Her defense is that she was simply following orders and currently there is a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution given by Obama for all involved in such programs. However, none of that relates to candidacy for the top leadership position in the CIA. In addition, there is consideration of her being brought up for crimes against humanity within the EU for such actions.

Is following orders a viable defense in a time of stress and high emotion (circa 2002 shortly after 9/11 when tensions and security concerns were high) ? Or should the potential future leader of the CIA have spoken up? Can we apply what we learned from trials of nazi guards to this situation?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I thought this was not in keeping with his usual pattern of picking people with no experience. I was actually happy that he picked a career CIA employee. But, alas we now see why this person is acceptable to Trump, cause you know if he could he would bring back torture. Hell, he wants the cops to beat up suspects in the "paddy wagon".
 
Sunburn74 said:
Gina Haspel. The person Trump has nominated for the CIA director. Career servicewoman for decades. Well recommended by many in the CIA including past directors. However, apparently oversaw a blacksite torture program that perhaps went even beyond what was formally allowed after its initial approval (waterboarding a guy 87 times in a month which was never allowed. In fact some reports suggest she not only oversaw the blacksite but personally took part in these torture methods)

Her defense is that she was simply following orders and currently there is a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution given by Obama for all involved in such programs. However, none of that relates to candidacy for the top leadership position in the CIA. In addition, there is consideration of her being brought up for crimes against humanity within the EU for such actions.

Is following orders a viable defense in a time of stress and high emotion (circa 2002 shortly after 9/11 when tensions and security concerns were high) ? Or should the potential future leader of the CIA have spoken up? Can we apply what we learned from trials of nazi guards to this situation?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Was it an acceptable defense for the nazis we caught and put on trial? (I'm asking because I don't know).
 
ivwshane said:
Was it an acceptable defense for the nazis we caught and put on trial? (I'm asking because I don't know).
Click to expand...

Initially, at least for some, it *did* work (sort of)

"After the Allies tried top-ranking members of the Third Reich in a series of 13 military tribunals at Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949, a newly partitioned Germany took over prosecution of the remaining Nazi criminals. While communist East Germany’s trials were highly ideological—politics often trumped justice—democratic West Germany struggled as well. Allied attempts at “denazification” had largely failed—as of 1945, historians estimate that as many as 8 million people, about 10% of the total German population, were former members of the Nazi party, which meant the judiciary was filled with judges with Nazi connections. Rather than use a 1954 law specifically tailored to genocide, the West German justice system decided to pursue these crimes under the German penal code, effectively treating deaths in the Holocaust like any other murder. That meant prosecutors had to prove that defendants were personally guilty of killings—a high bar because of the bureaucracy of the death camps. “That was probably a cardinal mistake,” says historian Edith Raim, an expert on West German prosecutions of Nazis.

The German government did keep investigating crimes through a central office established in 1958 in Ludwigsburg in southwest Germany. Their work led to the most infamous series of Nazi prosecutions: trials in Frankfurt from 1963 to 1965 of 22 second- and third-tier Auschwitz personnel. Many defendants argued successfully that they had only been following orders, so that even soldiers who had shot and killed prisoners could be convicted only on lesser charges. In the end, only the worst sadists were convicted of murder. Of the 17 found guilty of a charge, just six were sentenced to life in prison, while the others received sentences ranging from three to 14 years.

http://time.com/nazi-trials/
 
Victorian Gray said:
Initially, at least for some, it *did* work (sort of)

"After the Allies tried top-ranking members of the Third Reich in a series of 13 military tribunals at Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949, a newly partitioned Germany took over prosecution of the remaining Nazi criminals. While communist East Germany’s trials were highly ideological—politics often trumped justice—democratic West Germany struggled as well. Allied attempts at “denazification” had largely failed—as of 1945, historians estimate that as many as 8 million people, about 10% of the total German population, were former members of the Nazi party, which meant the judiciary was filled with judges with Nazi connections. Rather than use a 1954 law specifically tailored to genocide, the West German justice system decided to pursue these crimes under the German penal code, effectively treating deaths in the Holocaust like any other murder. That meant prosecutors had to prove that defendants were personally guilty of killings—a high bar because of the bureaucracy of the death camps. “That was probably a cardinal mistake,” says historian Edith Raim, an expert on West German prosecutions of Nazis.

The German government did keep investigating crimes through a central office established in 1958 in Ludwigsburg in southwest Germany. Their work led to the most infamous series of Nazi prosecutions: trials in Frankfurt from 1963 to 1965 of 22 second- and third-tier Auschwitz personnel. Many defendants argued successfully that they had only been following orders, so that even soldiers who had shot and killed prisoners could be convicted only on lesser charges. In the end, only the worst sadists were convicted of murder. Of the 17 found guilty of a charge, just six were sentenced to life in prison, while the others received sentences ranging from three to 14 years.

http://time.com/nazi-trials/
Click to expand...
But that's exactly the point. It wasn't a viable defense. At best its a qualifying circumstance to allow for less punishment. At best.
 
Sunburn74 said:
But that's exactly the point. It wasn't a viable defense. At best its a qualifying circumstance to allow for less punishment. At best.
Click to expand...

3 to 14 years instead of execution (as per the example I posted) shows that it did work to a degree. If it hadn't been accepted as at least a partial defense they would most likely have been sentenced to life along with the others.

As the 1st paragraph states the Germans handcuffed themselves by not using the best law for prosecution under:

"Rather than use a 1954 law specifically tailored to genocide, the West German justice system decided to pursue these crimes under the German penal code, effectively treating deaths in the Holocaust like any other murder. That meant prosecutors had to prove that defendants were personally guilty of killings—a high bar because of the bureaucracy of the death camps. “That was probably a cardinal mistake,” says historian Edith Raim, an expert on West German prosecutions of Nazis."
 
And tell me? What ever happened to Trump's favorite fear-inspiring topic: ISIS and the Muslims? Oh! That's right! ISIS was being defeated according to the plans established before Trump!

There hasn't been any event recently to whip up the Chicken Littles.

Just thank God for the civil service, in face of the musical chair game.

There is no doubt that Trump is doing damage to our government.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
And tell me? What ever happened to Trump's favorite fear-inspiring topic: ISIS and the Muslims? Oh! That's right! ISIS was being defeated according to the plans established before Trump!

There hasn't been any event recently to whip up the Chicken Littles.

Just thank God for the civil service, in face of the musical chair game.

There is no doubt that Trump is doing damage to our government.
Click to expand...

He's desperately hoping people don't start paying a lot of attention to that, as Turkey and Russia are openly threatening the troops we have there. He doesn't want people seeing just how cowed Putin has him, and he doesn't want to have to do something about Turkey slaughtering people. Getting embroiled in yet another war in that region will tank his support, and hurt the economy. He doesn't want people to know how involved we are there (more than has been disclosed, although hardly a massive involvement either), and he doesn't want to have to face down Russia/Putin over it either. Putin is trying to goad him into it though so he can save his own ass (Putin stupidly got involved and now is stuck, unable to abandon Syria as it could mean them losing their naval base, but he can't afford to do more either, so they're stuck at a stalemate; which if that alone doesn't tell you the state of Russia's military, that even when paired with the psychopathic Syrian regime and even Turkey helping them by attacking some of the same rebels, they're being forced into stalemates against rebels with middling US support; oh and the bonus is that Russia is probably going to end up with even more sanctions over the situation so Syria is going to be causing them problems for some time). Putin needs Turmp to stumble into it and make America have to sort out the situation. I believe that was his plan all along, hoping that posturing with the Russian military would get the US to go charging in full force and be stuck with the aftermath, letting Russia quickly acquiesce while they played nice to keep their naval base. That, or even more stupidly, Putin genuinely believed that Russia would be able to end things in Assad's favor quickly.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Gina Haspel. The person Trump has nominated for the CIA director. Career servicewoman for decades. Well recommended by many in the CIA including past directors. However, apparently oversaw a blacksite torture program that perhaps went even beyond what was formally allowed after its initial approval (waterboarding a guy 87 times in a month which was never allowed. In fact some reports suggest she not only oversaw the blacksite but personally took part in these torture methods)

Her defense is that she was simply following orders and currently there is a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution given by Obama for all involved in such programs. However, that immunity does not mean this cannot be brought up to decide her candidacy for the top leadership position which in many ways is largely symbolic in the CIA. In addition, there is consideration of her being prosecuted for crimes against humanity within the EU for such actions at this very time.

Is following orders a viable defense in a time of stress and high emotion (circa 2002 shortly after 9/11 when tensions and security concerns were high) for her participation in a very very black chapter in US history ? Or should the potential future leader of the CIA have spoken up? Can we apply what we learned from trials of nazi guards to this situation?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I recall when the "I was just following orders" defense worked, like at Nuremberg.



....oh, wait. hmm.

damn I was way late. 😀
 
"Following orders" Is just a convenient scapegoat to not take responsibility for the actions you've committed. If you tortured someone, you're a torturer and should be prosecuted accordingly.
 
Gina gets a pass on her torture foul becasue we scored the overall victory.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
DrunkenSano said:
I'm okay with her being tapped as the next choice, there are much worse options out there.
Click to expand...
But aren't there better options? As per Trump he has the ten of the best lining up left and right if you believe him.

I am very curious to see how McCain will vote on this. Rand Paul has already said he will vote no.
 
Sunburn74 said:
But aren't there better options? As per Trump he has the ten of the best lining up left and right if you believe him.

I am very curious to see how McCain will vote on this. Rand Paul has already said he will vote no.
Click to expand...

Of course there are better options, but are there better options that Trump will be willing to pick? Sometimes it's better to get out while you're ahead, especially with this President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top