If I were a member of Congress, I would vote "Yes" to Gina Haspel.

[Stinky The Clown]

Number 1: She is a career CIA operative and administrator. (Experience)

Number 2: She lives and breathes CIA. (Dedication)

Number 3: She is not political. (Impartiality)

Number 4: She worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. (Apolitical)

Number 5: She did what she was told to do with respect to the tapes. It was a complicated issue then and now. (Doing what needs to be done)

Number 5: See the lead pronoun in each of my statements. SHE is qualified to run an agency that is, by definition, engaged in nasty business.

I know some of you all see my position on this as misguided. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Pass. nt

[bottomofthehill]

2. May well be the best we get with this administration too...

[PubliusEnigma]

3. She didn't have the integrity to refuse to do something she knew was wrong.

That's why Trump likes her.

[hlthe2b]

4. I'm never good with these "least horrible" choices... Feels like a 'devil's bargain', but...

I can appreciate your argument. But, it just seems like a no win choice, as I surely don't like sending a message that torture and its coverup is ok.

[gratuitous]

5. And 50 years from now?

Will you be glad that you're on record as supporting torture sanctioned by our government at the highest levels?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. She condoned and enforced torture. That negates all her "good" qualities, IMHO.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

I am entitled to mine.

I believe I hold the higher ground.

[Me.]

7. She Deliberately Destroyed The Tapes After Being Told Not To

[Sherman A1]

8. You are correct.

We must agree to disagree.

[average_mo_dem]

9. I also would vote yes

But I have no idea what the heck the pronoun has to do with it.

[leftstreet]

10. Any agency that 'needs' to torture should be abolished

If they can't run a country's intelligence service without torturing people, they need to fuck off and admit there's either something wrong with the agency or the country itself

No to Haspel

[spanone]

11. ummmmmm...no.

[Solly Mack]

12. She'll be confirmed. Not because she should be but because America has a sickness.

All too willing to lie about torture. Cover up torture. Pretend torture isn't torture. Pretend torture can be legal if you call it something else. All too willing to forget unpleasantness because, gosh darnit, ain't we the good guys?!?!. All too willing to embrace denial like it's the parent they've been yearning for all their life.

Sickness.

[G_j]

18. This is why she cannot be confirmed

and the answer should be loud and clear. Torture is never acceptable.

[Solly Mack]

19. And yet she will be.

Well, OK - maybe she won't be but good money is on the sickness prevailing. It has so far.

The war criminals - with very few nothing exceptions- got away with their crimes against humanity and America has pretty much accepted that torture as something they just can't do anything about. While some refuse to even accept America committed war crimes.
Some pretend it's a matter of debate.

Haspel should be in prison and not about to become head of the CIA, but...well..look at how some people speak about Bush these days?

See what I mean?

[DeminPennswoods]

13. Point 5 is the Nuremberg (just following orders) Defense

It didn't work for the Germans and it shouldn't for her either. Further, she did not have the moral courage to stand up to her career civil service superiors when it came to torture and refuse to partake in it. If confirmed she would be working for a President who not only condones torture, but wants it to be even harsher. If she couldn't/wouldn't stand up to her CIA bosses, how will she ever stand up to Trump?

I don't care how qualified she might be or that she might be the first female CIA director or how many terrorists she may have captured legitimately, she approved of torture, ran a black site that committed torture and helped destroy evidence of those crimes.

She is a war criminal. Period. Stop.

[procon]

15. Yes, I saw that too.

That alone should be a disqualifier.

2,3,4 are subjective and have little impact on her ability to run that agency. So, if #5 is out, now she's down to #1, and they must have other people with experience.

[Wounded Bear]

14. I probably would, too...

With the hope that she learned something from her experiences.

[DeminPennswoods]

17. No, she is a war criminal

What she deserves is a fair trial at The Hague for War Crimes, not a promotion at the CIA.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. If Reason Number 5 were referring to this person, would you still stand by that assessment?

[USALiberal]

20. Wow, I thought this was a satire post. Disgusting. nt