|
The Conservative Case Against Gina Haspel |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 27 March 2018 08:38 |
|
Kiriakou writes: "There is also a conservative case to be made against Haspel. At least, there is a Christian case against her."
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
The Conservative Case Against Gina Haspel
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
27 March 18
 resident Trump’s decision to nominate Gina Haspel as director of the Central Intelligence Agency is one of the most polarizing personnel decisions of his presidency. Predictably, progressives like senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have come out strongly against her. Libertarian-leaning Republican senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that not only will he vote against Haspel, he will also filibuster the nomination. Paul does that kind of thing to nominees who have a background in the CIA’s torture program; he filibustered John Brennan’s nomination as CIA director when President Obama made that appointment in 2013.
But there is also a conservative case to be made against Haspel. At least, there is a Christian case against her.
Almost none of my progressive friends (and most of my friends are on the left) know that I’m a former adjunct professor of intelligence studies at Liberty University, the right-wing evangelical university founded by the late Jerry Falwell. Liberty prides itself on its record of turning out conservatives and evangelicals and preparing them for a life of activism. I was assigned to the Helms School of Government, named after the late Republican senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), one of the most deeply conservative members that body has ever seen. I genuinely liked and respected every single professor and administrator I encountered at the Helms School, and I consider many of them to be my friends.
When Liberty first offered me a job, I asked, “Why would you want somebody like me? We will probably end up disagreeing on 99 percent of issues.” The response was quick: “Because torture is not Christian.” I accepted the position and I’m glad I did.
One of my closest friends at Liberty, and a man whom I considered to be something of a mentor, was Dr. Charles Murphy. Chuck is a patriot, a minister, and a former CIA officer. He’s immensely proud of his CIA career, which he completed before earning a Ph.D. and going into academia. At the end of my first semester at Liberty, he shared with me the final exam for his intelligence analysis class. The exam was so simple yet so profound that it has stuck with me all these years. It forms the basis of what I believe is the conservative, evangelical Christian case against Gina Haspel.
Chuck’s final had only four questions. The first was this: Let’s say you are a CIA operations officer. You’ve just captured one of the most important terrorists in the world. You know from other sources that there is a bomb about to go off in two hours in a major American city, but you don’t know exactly where. You know that the terrorist knows the details of the attack. Do you torture him? Explain your answer.
Question two made things a little more difficult. You torture the terrorist and he doesn’t tell you anything. But you have his wife in custody, too. You know that she knows her husband’s secrets. She has the information you need to prevent the attack. Do you torture her? Explain your answer.
Question three is a little more existential. You’ve tortured the wife, but she’s a true believer. She doesn’t tell you anything. You have the couple’s children in custody. Do you torture the children in front of the parents to force the parents to talk? Explain your answer.
Question four brought the exam all together. Its simplicity and directness were like a punch in the face: You’re standing before the judgment seat of Christ. He asks you to explain your actions. What do you tell him?
Chuck was right. Torture isn’t Christian. It’s hard to even ask rhetorically, “Who would Jesus torture?” because the question is so absurd on its face. The Gospels make it crystal clear that Jesus wouldn’t have ever tortured anybody. We know from Matthew 18:21-22, “Then came Peter to him and said, ‘Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘I say not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven.’” That’s clear enough for me. But if there’s any doubt, it’s dispelled in Romans 12:14: “Bless them which persecute you; bless and curse not.”
That brings us back to Gina Haspel. I have no doubt that Gina Haspel considers herself to be a patriot, as her supporters do. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is respect for the rule of law. We have had laws in this country since the end of World War II that specifically ban exactly those torture techniques implemented and overseen by Gina Haspel at a secret prison overseas. And the United States is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Indeed, we were the primary drafters of that measure, which, having been ratified by the Senate, has the force of law in the United States.
If Gina Haspel had any doubts about her “orders” from the CIA hierarchy, she had only to look at recent history. Just after the end of World War II, the United States executed Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American prisoners of war. Similarly, in January 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photo of an American soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered an investigation. The soldier was arrested, charged with torture, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years at Leavenworth.
Torture was illegal in 1946. It was illegal in 1968. And it was illegal in 2002, no matter what Bush Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay Bybee said. The law was clear.
Donald Trump has made up his mind. He wants Gina Haspel to head the CIA. The Senate can still prevent that. And if “Christians” in the Senate have any doubt about what to do when the Haspel nomination finally hits the Senate floor, they need look no further than their bibles. Gina Haspel has no business heading the CIA.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism
officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish
spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to
oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for
this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a
link back to Reader Supported News.
 |
|
An Ohio Bill Would Ban All Abortions. It's Part of a Bigger Plan. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43297"><span class="small">The New York Times Editorial Board</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 27 March 2018 08:32 |
|
Excerpt: "While Donald Trump once said he was 'very pro-choice,' since the start of his presidential campaign his stance on abortion has been consistent: It should be banned, no matter the consequences to women."
Pro-choice advocates and anti-abortion advocates rally outside the Supreme Court. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
An Ohio Bill Would Ban All Abortions. It's Part of a Bigger Plan.
By The New York Times Editorial Board
27 March 18
 hile Donald Trump once said he was “very pro-choice,” since the start of his presidential campaign his stance on abortion has been consistent: It should be banned, no matter the consequences to women. At times, he has even veered to the right of the mainstream anti-abortion movement, as when he said during a primary season town hall event that women who seek abortions should face “some form of punishment.” Most anti-abortion politicians profess to want to protect women, even when they pass laws that harm them.
Now legislators in one state want Mr. Trump’s cruel vision to become reality. Ohio lawmakers have proposed legislation to ban all abortions, period, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest or to save a woman’s life.
Carrying to term a pregnancy against one’s will is punishment enough — in fact, it can amount to torture, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council. But the Ohio bill would not only cut off access to the procedure, it would also open the door to criminal charges against both abortion providers and women seeking the procedure. One of the Republican co-sponsors of the legislation, State Representative Ron Hood, said it would be up to prosecutors to decide whether to charge a woman or a doctor, and what those charges would be. But they could be severe. Under the bill, an “unborn human” would be considered a person under state criminal homicide statutes. Thus, a prosecutor could decide to charge a woman who ended a pregnancy with murder. In Ohio, murder is punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.
READ MORE
|
|
|
Trump Wants War |
|
|
Tuesday, 27 March 2018 08:30 |
|
Ghoreishi writes: "Elevating John Bolton to national security advisor suggests that Trump is preparing for the very wars he promised to avoid."
Soldiers. (photo: PA)
Trump Wants War
By Shahed Ghoreishi, Jacobin
27 March 18
Elevating John Bolton to national security advisor suggests that Trump is preparing for the very wars he promised to avoid.
 ast Thursday, President Trump moved one step closer to completing his preferred cabinet. General H. R. McMaster, whom Trump called boring, was replaced as national security advisor by ultra-hawk John Bolton. This is the same John Bolton who wrote the forward for Pamela Geller’s hate-filled book about President Obama, called on Israel to nuke Iran, urged the United States to bomb Iran and North Korea, abused a female US Agency for International Development (USAID) employee, advocated on behalf of the National Rife Association for more gun rights for Russian citizens, and still defends the Iraq war. I could go on.
Trump’s other appointments have similar attributes. Mike Pompeo, set to take over in Foggy Bottom, compared Iran to the Islamic State and called it a “thuggish police state” that is “intent [on] destroying America.” Gina Haspel, set to take over the CIA, has a history of torturing detainees under the Bush administration. She even destroyed the recordings taken of the torture years later. Meanwhile, John Kelly remains in a precarious position as chief of staff.
This team constitutes a gang of evil. The anti-diplomacy, pro-torture, pro-war initiatives they have supported have cost lives and created instability in the Middle East to the detriment of US national security and international standing. Additionally, Bolton and Pompeo have ties to hate groups that promote division at home (no wonder Trump likes them). Also, some of the initial appointments belong to the same gang, including United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley and Michael D’Andrea, the head of the CIA’s Iran operations.
Three upcoming dates likely encouraged Trump to make these rapid changes.
North Korea and Iran
Trump is slated to meet directly with Kim Jong-Un by this coming May. The changes in Trump’s cabinet have put a damper on the preparations as the deadline approaches. However, the changes are no accident. Trump has used bellicose language towards North Korea from early on in his presidency.
By having a like-minded secretary of state and national security advisor in place, he is sending a deliberate signal to Kim Jong-Un. If Trump is going to play lead diplomat, he still has threatening cabinet members in place as a counterforce. But with such a high-level start to the talks, as many analysts have repeated, there’s little room for diplomatic recourse should the Trump-Kim discussions fail. Bolton would be the ideal person to game the next move in such a situation and show an aggressive posture. That some in the president’s own party don’t seem to care about the consequences of war or even the consequences of a limited strike does not bode well should the talks fail (or fail to happen).
The Iran nuclear deal is another worrying case. On May 12, Trump must decide whether the deal should be recertified. The International Atomic Energy Agency, assigned to overlook the implementation of the deal, has said that Iran has complied to the benefit of the international community. Meanwhile, the Europeans and the Iranians have grown frustrated regarding Washington’s threats to tear up the deal. The Europeans have proposed adding an addendum regarding Iran’s ballistic missiles, but the Iranians are not having it. Iran remains irritated by the lack of investment from foreign businesses and banks, which they blame on Trump’s bellicose language.
The recent hiring of Bolton sends a major signal to Iran’s leadership that the United States is doubling down on its aggressive posture. Again, this is by design. Trump wants either to provoke Iran to withdraw from the deal first — thus shifting blame away from Washington — or to add sanctions in May in direct violation of the deal and thereby killing it. Either way, Bolton’s presence increases the chance of a conflict that already has concerned US allies.
Several regional enemies of Iran would support an American intervention. The overlap of the Bolton announcement with the visit to Washington of hawkish Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, responsible for the deadly Yemen intervention, is likely no coincidence.
November
Everything points toward November. The president and the Republican Party know that they are likely to suffer a “blue wave” on election night. This is the third date likely inspiring Trump’s recent moves.
The president is a showman at heart. He is more timing and appearance than substance. Trump is likely to ratchet up tensions with Iran and North Korea in reaction to, or in prevention of, a blue wave. Of course, Trump would need the unlikely approval of Congress for any major intervention, but the intervention does not have to be on a regular armed conflict. It could also be in the cyber realm. Or it could be clandestine, which requires less congressional oversight.
During the campaign, Trump loved to say that he was against the Iraq war, which he called a “disaster.” Apparently during negotiations with Bolton, Trump had him promise that he “wouldn’t start any wars.” However, this is the same Trump who has continued America’s war for the Greater Middle East despite lamenting the “trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost” in the region.
The president has many attributes, but consistency is not one of them. Putting Pompeo and Bolton in such major positions of power suggests that Trump and his gang of evil are preparing for the very conflicts that he promised to avoid.
|
|
The Farcical Process of Egypt's Elections |
|
|
Tuesday, 27 March 2018 08:28 |
|
Sabry writes: "The crushing of political rivals [...] is neither the only, nor the top reason why this is not an election; in fact, it is an insult to elections to call what Egypt is experiencing today an election. Rather, the reason is that citizens across the nation would fear for their lives if they dared fail to loudly and boisterously applaud Sisi."
'The heated political debates I once witnessed in 2011 and 2012 outside of polling stations between representatives of different parties and even between voters are now considered a reckless risk that would likely lead to detention and an unknown fate.' (photo: Middle East Eye)
The Farcical Process of Egypt's Elections
By Mohannad Sabry, Middle East Eye
27 March 18
After repressing any potential competitors, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is poised for easy victory in this week's presidential vote
 n March 2011, I was in the border town of Salloum, at the land crossing from Egypt into Libya, ready to cast my vote in the referendum on constitutional amendments tailored by the then-ruling military council and their post-revolution partners from Egypt's Islamist spectrum, led by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Standing in a line of tribal, turban-wielding men, I certainly stood out. I was the recipient of threatening looks maybe because people assumed that I will vote no to the amendments described - at the time - by some religious leaders as a necessity to preserve Egypt's Islamic identity.
Despite the violations that marred this process and its effects on post-2011 Egypt, it remained a free and fair referendum, reflecting the power of various Egyptian political and revolutionary youth factions. It was a democratic process. My Salloum experience was the first, followed by the November 2011 parliamentary elections and the two rounds of presidential elections in mid-2012.
Past versus present
In spite of the instability and gradual crushing of the popular demands that once echoed on Tahrir Square, those elections continued to be the proud moments that saw - for the first time in the history of Egypt - independent, liberal youth under the dome of a parliament gripped for decades by dictators and their cronies.
It saw defected Muslim Brotherhood figure Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh campaign against his life-long partners, Mohamed Morsi and Khairat el-Shater; and it saw Hamdeen Sabahi fiercely compete under a leftist banner in the face of Islamist slogans, while Khaled Ali marched with the backing of labour unions he continually defended in the courts of law.
Those were elections, free and fair despite the violations. Those were democratic events into which I walked with my notebooks and cameras, freely conducted interviews with voters and monitors, wrote my coverage, then proudly returned to witness the ballot count and ink my signature and national ID number on the "witness form".
Those elections have nothing in common with what the current military ruler of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is trying to promote as elections.
In a recent television interview, Sisi appeared in casual attire, answering the questions of one prominent Egyptian cinema figure, Sandra Nashaat. "I wish there were 10 [presidential] candidates," Sisi said during his appearance, only a few days before the vote, which has been described by observers and commentators inside Egypt and across the world as a "farce".
Crushing of political rivals
What Sisi failed to refer to, and of course Nashaat would have never dared to mention, was Ahmed Shafiq, Sisi's long-time colleague under Hosni Mubarak, who was deported from the United Arab Emirates to Cairo in the most scandalous manner after announcing his wish to run for the presidency.
Nor did they mention Sami Annan, Egypt's longest-standing military chief of staff and Sisi's former commander, imprisoned in an unknown location because of his will to run for the presidency.
The list goes on, including Khaled Ali, the prominent lawyer whose campaign members were hunted by Sisi's security until he withdrew his candidacy, and Aboul Fotouh, who was thrown in prison over a television interview.
But the crushing of political rivals, despite how minuscule their chances are under Sisi's stifling rule, is neither the only, nor the top reason why this is not an election; in fact, it is an insult to elections to call what Egypt is experiencing today an election. Rather, the reason is that citizens across the nation would fear for their lives if they dared fail to loudly and boisterously applaud Sisi.
The heated political debates I once witnessed in 2011 and 2012 outside of polling stations between representatives of different parties and even between voters are now considered a reckless risk that would likely lead to detention and an unknown fate.
Military trial, forced disappearance, torture and eventual charges of funding, joining and running a terrorist cell, are all among the many grim scenarios ordinary Egyptians are threatened with every day.
Looking forward
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of voters are stranded in North Sinai in the name of another theatrical stunt dubbed the "Sinai 2018" military operation, also ushered in by Sisi weeks before the election in an attempt to regain some of his dwindling popularity.
As I write this, civilians in North Sinai celebrate if they manage to get a litre of milk and some tomatoes; cancer patients must be permitted by the military to travel outside of the blockaded peninsula to receive chemotherapy; and politicians and community figures beg the authorities to allow more food supplies into local markets.
When my fellow Egyptians stood up for their dignity and God-given rights in January 2011, inspiring the world and calling for bread, freedom, social justice and an end to death under torture in the dungeons of Mubarak's state security, they proved that three decades of iron-fisted dictatorship had not killed their civilized and proud souls, despite drowning them in poverty, illiteracy and injustice.
Egyptians might seem helpless today, as their oppressors celebrate and look forward to another term in power - but that doesn't and won't change the fact that today's polling stations, see-through boxes and permanent ink are nothing but a waste of national resources.
Egyptians deserve democracy and are capable of building and sustaining a democratic system. If today's farce is considered to be a democratic process, then let's at least be honest, save the world our lengthy debates and replay Omar Suleiman's slogan: "Egyptians aren't ready for democracy yet."
|
|
arely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
