The Conservative Case Against Gina Haspel
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
27 March 18
President 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.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner