My case against Gina Haspel
There is a defense of Ms. Haspel that roughly can be summarized this way:
She was a mid level employee during an extremely challenging time in the CIA. She wasn't responsible for the decisions that were made and she was only tangentially involved it the actual execution of most of that policy. She's learned alot from that experience which puts her in a unique place to lead the agency forward.
Here's my rebuttal:
There were many people at the time within the agency that drew the conclusion that what was going on was morally wrong and were counter productive to the goals and aims of the US. Through their objections, or their efforts to avoid involvement, their careers were negatively affected. Some left, some worked the system to get reassigned to positions with less opportunity of advancement yet divorced directly from what was going on, and some who voiced contrary opinions assuredly were passed over for assignments and promotions.
Ms. Haspel did none of that. Furthermore, on every occasion she was given to demonstrate that in fact she had "learned" anything, she has avoided doing so. She advocated (apparently regrettably) the destruction of the tapes that document those acts which she now wishes to avoid. When offered the opportunity to declare what was done was morally wrong, she attempts to justify it, all the while claiming she wouldn't do it again.
Ms. Haspel is hoping to be confirmed for a leadership position. It is one that requires the American people to place a significant amount of blind trust since the vast majority of what she will do will never see the light of day. That kind of trust demands that we see in her past, the demonstration that when difficult decisions have to be made, she will make them correctly, at the time, not 10 years later when it is meaningless. She may have "learned" from these past incidents, but where is the evidence? I see no evidence that when confronted with new challenges and decisions she will make the right decision, at the time that the decision needs to be made, instead of 10 years later. This isn't a job where one "learns as they go". This is a job where subordinates will be looking for her to lead them in the right direction, at the time. It will require that she listen to those voices who were silenced back then and were willing to see clearly the moral fallacies as they were happening.
Where is that evidence?
= new reply since forum marked as read
