Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gina Haspel defends "moral compass" in grilling over CIA interrogation program
CBS "News" ^ | May 9, 2018

Posted on 05/09/2018 11:51:32 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

President Trump's pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, was adamant throughout her confirmation hearing on Wednesday that she would not restart previous "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the Agency in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11. But in questioning from various senators, Haspel would not explicitly say if those past techniques were immoral or wrong.

"My parents gave me a moral compass, I would never ever take CIA back to an interrogation program," she told the committee.

Under questioning by California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, Haspel again would not explicitly say if past techniques at the CIA were immoral.

"I believe that the CIA did extraordinary work to prevent another attack," she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 115th; cia; ginahaspel; trumpcia; trumpgwot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: grania

I am also a member of the branch of Conservatives that feels that it’s our borders and invaders in our country that we should be worrying about. I’m all for mutual respect among nations and religions as well.

But not only do I NOT feel that our actions in the Middle East and securing our own borders are mutually exclusive, I feel that they are strongly intertwined, as the 19 terrorists who killed our fellow Americans were here in our country legally, when they shouldn’t have been. And that also bears on respect for religions as well.

Not only do we NOT have to choose to do one or the other, I think it is vital that we do both, but as our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us, what we do, and how we do it is important as well.

I personally don’t have any issue with regime change. It is, after all, what we pursued with the Soviet Union, successfully, and for good reason. My views on nation building, however have changed. I thought we were right to try, but Islam makes it, I believe, impossible, and going forward, conduct our foreign policy with that in mind.


21 posted on 05/09/2018 6:00:44 PM PDT by rlmorel (Leftists: They believe in the "Invisible Hand" only when it is guided by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
You mention the 911 terrorists. If the logic of being in the ME was them, Saudi Arabia was the place to attack. We went into Afghanistan to "get BinLaden". Once he was gotten in Pakistan (who we didn't invade), we should've been pulling out our troops out of Afg the next day.

We're still there.

We're still not doing a good enough job keeping potential terrorists out of the US.

22 posted on 05/09/2018 6:31:21 PM PDT by grania (President Trump, stop believing the Masters of War!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: grania

I am not talking about them specifically, I am speaking about them generally. And I DON’T think we are doing a good job keeping them out of the US.


23 posted on 05/09/2018 7:13:40 PM PDT by rlmorel (Leftists: They believe in the "Invisible Hand" only when it is guided by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX

Why would she reveal that waterboarding is now off the table?


24 posted on 05/09/2018 8:20:07 PM PDT by JohnnyP (Thinking is hard work (I stole that from Rush).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“Trump has nominated this women to head the CIA and we should back him in that decision. “


I don’t think so. I doubt you back him signing the atrocious omnibus spending bill last month. Those who did so end up trying to rationalize that blunder with wishful fantasies such as “Trump will use his executive power to spend as he likes and take the money from the military budget to build the wall”.
Sorry, wrong is wrong, backing something wrong doesn’t make it right.
Now, if Trump has a change of heart about Gina Haspel after hearing what she said, I’ll back him for sure.


25 posted on 05/09/2018 11:52:10 PM PDT by miniTAX (au)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX
"....if Trump has a change of heart about Gina Haspel after hearing what she said, I’ll back him for sure...."

So I take from that statement, that you don't support him now.

The nitpicking and criticism at every turn that Trump gets from everyone around him, the RINOs and liberals and Deep Staters and Swamp creatures and many here on FR, it is a wonder he gets anything done.

It's him against the entire world of globalist creatures and various other enemies that are literally trying to forcibly remove him from office. All the while, he's trying to undo Obama's legacy and get some things accomplished that will help the country reverse the slide into a liberal, progressive state.

This is his decision, not yours. It's his cabinet, not yours. And as such, he should be able to pick who he wants, not who you want.

If his supporters don't have his back when he he's trying to maneuver around these coup-critters, then who does?

I am not a fair-weather supporter. He's my guy. He deserves my support in the face of everyone else complaining about something this gal said at a hearing.

Maybe Hillary would have picked someone more to your liking, huh?

26 posted on 05/10/2018 5:43:32 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“....if Trump has a change of heart about Gina Haspel after hearing what she said, I’ll back him for sure....”

So I take from that statement, that you don’t support him now.


Nonsense! I was talking about backing Trump-in-Haspel-nomination and you know it well, so stop the leftist strawman game.
You used the “nobody is perfect” argument when I criticized Haspel and now you deny it when I criticize Trump in his choice, that’s at best illogical, at worse dishonest.


27 posted on 05/10/2018 7:35:33 AM PDT by miniTAX (au)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX
So now you go straight to the name-calling phase? "Dishonest"? Pleeease. I am not dishonest just because I disagree with you.

Trump is not a conservative. He is not a liberal. He is not an ideologue at all. He's a successful business man who's been around the block more than a few times.

He makes decisions, not based on some conservative purity test for his nominees, but on who he feels comfortable with.

This gal is his choice. You seem to have some hang-up on something she said in her confirmation hearings.

I can guarantee you, Trump will not be bothered by it. And neither am I.

28 posted on 05/10/2018 9:03:14 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“So now you go straight to the name-calling phase? “Dishonest”? Pleeease. I am not dishonest just because I disagree with you. “


I’m not a leftist, I don’t need nor use name-calling. What I called out as dishonest was your argument, not you, so once again, you were using a strawman.


29 posted on 05/10/2018 9:21:39 AM PDT by miniTAX (au)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX
Oh, I get it now.

My argument is dishonest but I am not dishonest.

Is that different from Hillary Clinton spewing her dishonest spittle onto the American public but she herself is not dishonest?

Twisted yourself into a pretzel to come up with that logic.

30 posted on 05/10/2018 9:33:59 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“Oh, I get it now.

My argument is dishonest but I am not dishonest.

Is that different from Hillary Clinton spewing her dishonest spittle onto the American public but she herself is not dishonest? “


Yeah, get it and stop being willingly obtuse.
You made ONE dishonest argument, and I attack the argument, I could not possibly attack you because I don’t know you.
Attacking an argument is not attacking the person, how is it so hard to see the difference ?
So comparing to Hillary is a totally bogus equivalency. Hillary is a dishonest person because she constantly has dishonest arguments, things, decisions, deals, associates... not because she make ONE dishonest argument.


31 posted on 05/10/2018 11:05:27 PM PDT by miniTAX (au)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX
My argument is that I don't agree with you.

How is THAT dishonest?

Your argument is full of crap.

But, of course, I would never imply that YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP.

32 posted on 05/11/2018 12:01:24 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson