Kamala Harris says she will vote against Gina Haspel

[dukkha]

Harris said her decision to oppose Haspel's nomination is "not about the integrity of the men and women of that agency or its mission" but rather "about whether this particular person should head that agency." The senator said she is concerned that Haspel "is not the best signal to the workforce of that agency, to the American people or to our neighbors around the globe."

When Tapper asked Harris about that, the senator said,

"It's very important to have women in all these positions, but I'm not going to accept a false choice that you either accept a woman or you accept someone who has not admitted that torture is morally wrong. I think we can have both. There are plenty of qualified women in the CIA whose names should be put forward, for the nomination and for higher positions within the agency."

he Republican National Committee pushed back on Harris' comments Wednesday, taking aim at the senator who is frequently talked about as a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender.
"With an eye to 2020, Kamala Harris never misses an opportunity to grandstand in front of the cameras, even if it's at the expense of a 33-year CIA veteran who has risked her life to protect this country," RNC spokesman Michael Ahrens said in a statement.
Several Democrats, including Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, have now said they will oppose Haspel's nomination.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am shocked.....a demmycrat plans to vote against a Trump nominee?.....

[dukkha]

Harris questioning was facile yes or no on morality- but she also shows how lame her understanding of staffing the CIA is

I think we can have both. There are plenty of qualified women in the CIA whose names should be put forward, for the nomination and for higher positions within the agency."

no one comes close to Haspels abilities- it makes absolutely no sense to nominate an inferior candidate


John McCain is on his high horse about not answering questions of morality.
well John you can take that moral stance with you , hope it soon!

The question for ALL government officials,and even the Mueller investigation should be on legal lines-
and Haspel has repeated she would never start up enhanced interrogations -because they are illegal..

God help us all if the virtue signaling crowd gets into power. Government has legal limits not morality plays

[Stretch]

Yeah she's the wrong one to talk about morality. She thought it "immoral" to ban abortions after 5 months.
Love how all of a sudden Dems are the morality police.

[Cypress]

Torture is inexcusable, profoundly immoral, and just deplorable public policy.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...56#post2362256

Anyone associated with torture should be treated as a social outcast.

We had debates about torture for years on this forum, during the regime of George Dumbya.

With conservative largely defending and/pr providing cover for water boarding, sado-sexual torture, and sadism. It was, for myself, a watershed moment giving me insight into movement conservatism that I had previously not even dared entertain.

Liberals, universally, to a woman and to a man, came down against torture. Those debates were a profound moment in time of moral clarity. And conservatives did not distinguish themselves well.

We need to leave torture behind us, and anyone who was associated with in or advocated it.

Really, when you think about it, the Architects of Torture in the Bush Administration should be in The Hague on charges of war crimes.

[dukkha]

Yeah she's the wrong one to talk about morality. She thought it "immoral" to ban abortions after 5 months.
Love how all of a sudden Dems are the morality police.

well the point is I'm not concerned about one's view of morality. it's a poor way to judge future job performance
I want someone who follows the law and is an effective administrator. The laws are assumed to be moral

[Stretch]

well the point is I'm not concerned about one's view of morality. it's a poor way to judge future job performance
I want someone who follows the law and is an effective administrator. The laws are assumed to be moral

[dukkha]

Torture is inexcusable, profoundly immoral, and just deplorable public policy.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...56#post2362256

Anyone associated with torture should be treated as a social outcast.

We had debates about torture for years on this forum, during the regime of George Dumbya.

With conservative largely defending and/pr providing cover for water boarding, sado-sexual torture, and sadism. It was, for myself, a watershed moment giving me insight into movement conservatism that I had previously not even dared entertain.

Liberals, universally, to a woman and to a man, came down against torture. Those debates were a profound moment in time of moral clarity. And conservatives did not distinguish themselves well.

We need to leave torture behind us, and anyone who was associated with in or advocated it.

Really, when you think about it, the Architects of Torture in the Bush Administration should be in The Hague on charges of war crimes.

The Senate Intelligence Committee took care of this,
and the laws were re-written to ban enhanced interrogation-Feinstein know this yet she won't gt off her moral high horse.

The CIA is a vast and powerful entity. it either functions to aid national security, or it doesn;t
and if run by losers like Brennan and his "kill list" it can quickly devolve in to Deep State shenanigans.

We have to look for skilled administrators who promise to follow the law, and efectively play their role.
Haspel shows ever indication she fits the requirements across the board

[hvilleherb]

Gina Haspel get no thanks from Democrats for protecting Americans.

[dukkha]

Gina Haspel is quite possibly the most qualified person ever nominated to lead the CIA. She has experience in virtually every agency discipline, from counterterrorism to counterintelligence and offensive intelligence operations — including personally recruiting spies and directing covert operations.

Little wonder that so many senior Obama-era intelligence officials — including Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Michael Morell, James R. Clapper Jr. and Jeremy Bash — have urged the Senate to confirm her. To vote down someone so obviously qualified as political retribution for the CIA’s now-defunct interrogation program would be a travesty. President Barack Obama’s Justice Department concluded that no crimes had been committed.
Moreover, as CIA veterans point out, Brennan was himself deeply involved in the interrogation program, and was confirmed 63-34 as Obama’s CIA director, with only two Democrats and one independent voting against him. Why the double standard for the first woman nominated to lead the agency?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a0b6b4be8e57

[Cypress]

Here is somebody who knows something about torture

"I believe Gina Haspel is a patriot who loves our country and has devoted her professional life to its service and defense. However, Ms. Haspel’s role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing. Her refusal to acknowledge torture’s immorality is disqualifying. I believe the Senate should exercise its duty of advice and consent and reject this nomination."

- John McCain

[Nordberg]

I am shocked.....a demmycrat plans to vote against a Trump nominee?.....

Mccain urged them to vote against her. he a Republicunt, said that she showed no regrets for torture. Haspel refused to discuss the morality, suggesting she would do it again if asked. Trump loves torture.

Just a Nazi following orders.

[Nordberg]

Gina Haspel is quite possibly the most qualified person ever nominated to lead the CIA. She has experience in virtually every agency discipline, from counterterrorism to counterintelligence and offensive intelligence operations — including personally recruiting spies and directing covert operations.

Little wonder that so many senior Obama-era intelligence officials — including Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Michael Morell, James R. Clapper Jr. and Jeremy Bash — have urged the Senate to confirm her. To vote down someone so obviously qualified as political retribution for the CIA’s now-defunct interrogation program would be a travesty. President Barack Obama’s Justice Department concluded that no crimes had been committed.
Moreover, as CIA veterans point out, Brennan was himself deeply involved in the interrogation program, and was confirmed 63-34 as Obama’s CIA director, with only two Democrats and one independent voting against him. Why the double standard for the first woman nominated to lead the agency?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a0b6b4be8e57

yeah, a Repub. Most qualified ever. You cannot say that without acknowledging the others and comparing them. Otherwise talking out of sphincter. That is how trump talks.

[Nordberg]

well the point is I'm not concerned about one's view of morality. it's a poor way to judge future job performance
I want someone who follows the law and is an effective administrator. The laws are assumed to be moral

You would make a great Nazi, just following orders. If they tell me to do it, i follow orders.

[dukkha]

You would make a great Nazi, just following orders. If they tell me to do it, i follow orders.

no you douche Nazi card player.
Laws are written by Congress, and are assumed to be moral because we aren't Nazi Germany.

When in fact it was decided waterboarding /stress positions were too extreme to not be considered torture
the LAW WAS CHANGED.

(note: your buddy John Brennan backed enhanced interrogation as well as drone signature strikes which truely are immoral because the identity of the target isn't know -just it's behavior [signature] )