CIA Director Gina Haspel
Joshua Cho at Equity and Accuracy in Reporting writes—WSJ Says CIA Chief Would not Do Something ‘Inappropriate’—Regardless of Report of Torture and Coverup:
A Wall Avenue Journal report (5/25/19) by Warren Strobel whitewashed CIA Director Gina Haspel’s profession and put a constructive spin on the CIA’s insulation from public accountability with its flip in direction of its best opacity “in many years.”
Whereas one may anticipate CIA officers to help larger secrecy across the group, it’s odd that ostensibly impartial journalists—with a mission to carry official organizations accountable by informing the general public—would deal with much less info coming from the company as a constructive growth.
But that’s precisely what the Journal report did, depicting Haspel’s technique of avoiding backlash from the Trump administration by not publicly contradicting its doubtful claims as “defending the company” from “the home menace of a poisonous US political tradition.”
“She and her company have adopted their lowest public profile in many years,” Strobel writes—simply earlier than summing her up as a “CIA director who has been warmly acquired by the workforce she has spent her life amongst.”
In different phrases, for the Journal, a public intelligence company sharing its intelligence with the general public is a nasty factor, until it helps US overseas coverage by agreeing with regardless of the Trump administration is saying. This place is echoed within the piece by official sources, like former CIA official and workers director of the Home Intelligence Committee Mark Lowenthal, who assures us, “It’s not going to be any good for her [Haspel] to be on the market attracting lightning bolts.”
Nonetheless, essentially the most egregious a part of Strobel’s report is its whitewashing of Haspel’s disturbing file within the CIA by uncritically transmitting glowing endorsements by different CIA officers:
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell stated he’s completely assured that Ms. Haspel will push again if coverage makers ask the company to do one thing it shouldn’t.
“I used to be instructed that anyone requested that the company do one thing that was inappropriate. Her response was, ‘No. And don’t ask once more,’ ” stated Mr. Morell, who hosts the Intelligence Issues podcast. He stated he didn’t have particulars of the incident.
Unusual: That’s exactly the other of what Haspel did when she was requested to violate home and worldwide regulation by torturing post-9/11 prisoners (euphemized by Strobel as “controversies” over “remedy of detainees”), and peddling lies about torture’s effectiveness (Nationwide Safety Archives, four/26/18).
Nor did Haspel say “No. And don’t ask once more,” when instructed to destroy videotape recordings of the CIA inflicting torture on its captives, which was condemned as “obstruction” by 9/11 Fee chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean (Intercept, three/13/18; New York Instances, half/08).
Haspel really supervised Detention Website Inexperienced in Thailand, one of many US’s infamous “black websites” the place suspects have been despatched to be tortured after being kidnapped and held in a foreign country to evade authorized accountability within the US (Washington Publish, 11/2/05). Sondra Crossby, a US Navy Reserve physician with intensive expertise treating torture victims around the globe, described one in every of Haspel’s prisoners as “one of the vital traumatized people I’ve ever seen.” […]
TOP COMMENTS • HIGH IMPACT STORIES • THE WEEK’S HIGH IMPACT STORIES
“A nation that continues 12 months after 12 months to spend extra money on navy protection than on packages of social uplift is approaching non secular doom.” ~~Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
On this date at Each day Kos in 2017—After rewriting ethics guidelines to permit it, Trump shares his authorities with lobbyists:
If Trump and his fellow Republicans fill the swamp any deeper you may have to constitution a ship to go to the Washington Monument.
Federal companies issued only a handful of waivers exempting political appointees from battle of curiosity guidelines within the first three months of the administration, a mirrored image in a part of how President Trump has made it simpler for lobbyists to work in companies they as soon as sought to affect.
Why do not the 80-plus lobbyists who Trump has or is planning to put into authorities want waivers liberating them to take action regardless of federal moral guidelines? As a result of Workforce Trump stated they not have to, that is why.
That’s as a result of an govt order that Trump signed in January did away with a rule laid down by former president Barack Obama banning lobbyists from becoming a member of companies they’d lobbied within the earlier two years.
The earlier rule was that lobbyists could not be made a part of companies that they’d beforehand made money cash lobbying at. The brand new Trump rule is that lobbyists can now do precisely that, they only must recuse themselves from any particular situation they’d beforehand been paid to advocate for.