Home | About | Donate

The CIA Can't Keep Gina Haspel's Torture Record Secret


The CIA Can't Keep Gina Haspel's Torture Record Secret

Brian Tashman

While the CIA has been trying to salvage Gina Haspel’s rocky nomination to lead the agency with a series of gushing tweets and by making public only flattering bits of her record, the American people have to reckon with a nominee whose role in torture and the destruction of torture evidence is still shrouded in secrecy.


“The CIA Can’t Keep Gina Haspel’s Torture Record Secret”

Sure they can.


If recent history is any indication, they don’t have to keep it secret, Enough DINO’s will cave and she will get the votes needed. Might as well face it, the wars will continue.


You have to be severely brain damaged to not understand why Haspels nomination is a blight on humanity. Lets see the truth and then decide. Write your representatives and demand the truth, you paid for the investigation and have a right to see the results. Or, just let your silence be considered approval.


Truth is, that “investigation” is a coverup. The tag team Feinstein and Obama made damn sure of it.

Feinstein has NEVER accused Haspel, or anyone in the CIA of committing torture. Rather, the summary’s conclusion cites but does not challenge the “legality” according to John Yoo’s Justice Dept memos.

In the summary that was released, the only place the word “torture” appears is acknowledging that John McCain deemed the “enhanced interrogation techniques” as torture.

Feinstein has been witness to the worst of the worst of the evidence, yet she never called for criminal prosecution of torturers.

She quantifies those acts as “mistakes”.

She belongs in prison, along with Pompeo, Haspel, John Yoo, Obama, Feinstein, James Mitchel, John Bruce Jessen, and the thugs in the CIA at the black sites and the military General and troops that were directly involved.

Feinstein’s summary has served as a very effective roadmap for the ultimate defense of the indefensible war crime of torture. That “mistakes” were made, and that it was “legal” at the time. The supposed conflict between the CIA and Feinstein at the time, was so much theater, as is what is happening now with her supposed consternation that the CIA is not being forthcoming with the dirty secrets about Haspel that she systematically helped gather together and bury.

Considering what she must actually know, and considering her not forcefully opposing this nomination in clear language, tells you all you need to know about the monster Feinstein.

We had a very lengthy debate on this, which I will not repeat. Just putting my argument on record about Feinstein and her cohorts in all of this. If you think she really wanted the report to see the light of day, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Have the last word.



And no one knows that better than Feinstein who helped systematically bury the evidence.


I recall our debate and your ability to make less than accurate assumptions. Feinstein did better than make accusations, she called for an investigation and established fact without which would be just accusation. The summary, if you understand it and most people in a position to act on it have an understanding, is damning. There are people in jail for less. As I said before, she did her job, others did not. So here we are again.

“Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to the CIA this week, protesting that it has continued to hide Haspel “behind a wall of secrecy” while suppressing “disturbing facts about her record.” Sen. Heinrich also said that the agency appeared to be “running a full-on propaganda campaign” in support of her nomination, while “withholding” key information.”

Write your representative, it is not too late.


I recalled our debate without any personal attack, so on that count I won’t let you have the last word.

My ability? Go cluck yourself.

The FACT is Feinstein has NEVER stated that torture occurred, and my characterization of the summary is factual in that the only utterance of the word “torture” is acknowledging John McCain’s correct assertion.

Feinstein, the monster, the gatherer and then hiding of evidence of the most heinous war crime, torture, can write all of the propaganda she wants, and she will.

Again her public statements, her legislative actions in regard to ensuring those “mistakes” never happen again, are all aligned with the summary of her coverup i.e., that mistakes were made and that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used and legal at the time, and that those in the CIA should not be prosecuted for “mistakes” according to that “legality”.

I’m not making any assumption whatsoever that’s who you defend here.


This is not a personal attack, I’m telling you that you may not have given the summary full consideration based on how you characterize it. The point is that it is unusual for such a summary to not garner further action and why four Senators want more information. Or, more important why the agency is hiding it.

The issue is Haspel not Feinstein. And, Obama is no longer the president.

And, What is “go cluck yourself” a term of endearment?


What does Obama not being President do with the facts surrounding this argument? Absolutely nothing?

So what “full consideration” am I missing in asserting the FACT that the summary actually asserts that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were legal at the time?

What “full consideration” am I missing in regard to the only time the word “torture” was used, was acknowledging John McCain’s assertion?

What “full consideration” am I missing in regard to Feinstein’s ultimate position that “mistakes” were made but that the CIA was operating according to John Yoo’s determination of the “legality” of “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

My assertions are factual, and Feinstein has never clearly stated that torture was used, and that anyone should be prosecuted for it.

Circumstantial evidence (assumptions of intent) are used all the time in arguments, and in law. There is enough circumstantial evidence against Feinstein that she helped orchestrate what amounts to an elaborate defense of the CIA and everyone else involved in torture to escape any criminal prosecution related to it.

And Obama was President at the time he made his contribution to bury it. And you think that Feinstein and Obama in reality were adversaries in that end?

Feinstein is entwined with Haspel until the final curtain falls, and Obama and everyone else involved in this sick coverup of the crime of torture, blocking the prosecution of torturers, and those who carried it out.

Obama’s refusal to hold those accountable for the destruction of evidence of torture at the CIA, his stuffing the “investigation”, and his prosecution of the CIA torture whistleblower Kiriakou are of utmost relevance to the fact that Haspel could even be considered to head the CIA in the first place.

Obama’s actions, and those of Feinstein, in conjunction with the torturers and and everyone else culpable in this hideous criminality, are responsible for what WILL be reality very soon. Which is…

A former CIA director openly supportive of torture as Secretary of State, a new CIA director who actually ran a black site and personally oversaw the torture of at least one terror suspect and who helped orchestrate the destruction of video evidence of torture, will be part of the Administration of a dangerous fascist who has openly called for torture, more torture, worse torture, and to make it legal.

And according to your reasoning, the fact that Obama isn’t President, has no relevance. Right.

Feinstein knows where the bodies are buried, and has seen the bloody evidence. But those were “mistakes”, and “legal” at the time. And she writes serious letters about all of it. And she is seriously considering, rather than just clearly opposing the monster Haspel.

And you defend this.

And, no “go cluck yourself” is not a term of endearment. For the record.


Especially with the help of the media–guardians of “knowledge”.


Ok, your the one that made Feinstein and Obama responsible, not me. I just want to be sure it is understood that times and conditions have changed. Your historical account is mostly accurate by default, it would be better without the misplaced motivations which no one can really prove.

A comprehensive report paid for by taxpayers exists that would further the vetting of Haspel. Why haven’t we seen it? Write your senator and ask them.

Continue to make this personal if your must, I’m only interested in the facts.

I have to go but will respond at a latter time if needed.


I’ve made it no more personal than you have, during our debate on this topic, so spare me.

You are interested in only the “facts” that do not counter your defense of Feinstein.

As per intent. Really I can strip away any such assumption based on circumstantial evidence, and just go with the cold hard facts, but even that you assert has no relevance.

Facts like, the summary is the defense, Obama stuffed the “investigation”, Obama blocked any criminal investigation or prosecution but instead prosecuted the whistleblower, Feinstein has never clearly asserted that torture was used or that anyone should be prosecuted for it, or the destruction of evidence.

It is also a FACT that Feinstein, regardless of her letter writing, is not openly opposing Haspel becoming CIA DIRECTOR, knowing what she knows.

And you defend her, and Obama from my factual arguments.

To be fair to Feinstein, in the following quote she said the word torture. Note the tortured qualifier. I’ll put it in bold, just in case you might otherwise miss it.

“I am of the opinion that putting somebody right now at the head of the CIA who played a role in let’s say torture is not necessarily appropriate. I have met with Gina Haspel. I know her somewhat. I know that she is talented but I also know that she was fully supportive of the program that many of us are very critical of,”

A program that she was briefed on by the Bush Administration at the time it was being implemented, thus she is actually directly connected to the criminality that she was “investigating”.

But I’m not to assume any ill intent of hers, or Obama’s. Oh no.


I’m not hear to defend Feinstein, we disagree historically that she acted appropriately within her position. She was actually thanked by John Kiriakou. You can disagree.

Feinstein along with other intelligence committee members is asking for more information. The nature of that information is essential to this nomination. I would suggest if it is important to you that you contact your representative.


I’ve very likely corresponded with my representatives including Feinstein (when I lived in California) on this very topic than you have, including many letters and phone calls.

So you can drop that annoying clucking patronizing tag line.

Can you point me to any of your comments on this forum over the months and months and months and years that have been concerned with torture and a principled position against it, or calling for prosecution of anyone involved in torture? Aside from the subject coming up in our debate on this issue?

I’m very interested in your writing as well.

The fact remains, that Feinstein hasn’t opposed this nomination, knowing what she knows.

That is reprehensible, and apparently okay with you.


OMFG she actually called it torture in a press release in March…

I mean, I like to be fair!

“While many nominees have classified backgrounds, Gina Haspel is unique in that she was involved not only in the classified CIA torture program, but reportedly played a key role.

“That’s why I asked CIA to declassify her records. Senators must be able to fully review her activities so they can make an informed decision on her nomination – a key Senate responsibility – and the public should be aware of the background of its leaders.

“We know the CIA provided Congress and the public with inaccurate information about the torture program, we know the agency’s management of the program was suspect and we know the program was extremely brutal. We also know that no one was held accountable.

“To promote someone so heavily involved in the torture program to the top position at the CIA, the agency responsible for one of the darkest chapters in our history, is a move that I’m very wary of. Her experience may have served her well as deputy, but the top position is another matter entirely.”

This was following the considerable pressure put upon her by her challenger Kevin de León, after Feinstein had said this (after Haspel had been nominated)…

“I have spent some time with her. We’ve had dinner together. We have talked. Everything I know is she has been a good deputy director. … I think hopefully the entire organization learned something from the so-called enhanced interrogation program,”

“learned something”

How quaint!


I am relieved that you have supported efforts to first identify torture legalized during the Bush administration and oppose its continued use.

Here is where we differ in our opposition to the use of torture. I have a different approach. Especially since I spent a considerable amount of time advancing non-abusive methods in dependent populations. Which has some distance from torture but pretty much uses the same criteria and evaluation. So yeah, I continue to support that ideology among other changing guidelines.

My outrage is with Haspel.


Sorry, was adding to my post as you were responding apparently…I like to be fair!

Surely you noticed all of my posts regarding torture that I made against Trump…months and months of posts.

With many references to Obama, Feinstein, Kiriakou, and the rest.

Happy that you are relieved, regardless.

And your comment that your advancing “non-abusive methods in dependent populations” that has “some distance from torture but pretty much uses the same criteria and evaluation” is really quite disturbing.

If you have such desensitization to torture, perhaps you could have been valuable in advancing the CIA program as well.

Thanks for sharing.


After giving your post another read, and another, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying, relative to your “different approach”. I realize now you were saying that the methods “which” were the ones you were seeking to change by “advancing non-abusive methods”. were methods at “some distance from torture”.

I’m not alone in advancing the argument that John Yoo’s memos giving “legal” framework to “enhanced interrogation techniques” were NEVER legal to begin with.

The fact that Feinstein was briefed on these “enhanced interrogation techniques” long before Yoo’s memos were ever leaked to the public, makes her complicit in those acts.

Things like body slams, waterboarding, being shackled in stress positions to bolts in cement and left for hours, sleep deprivation, being put in small cages too small to stand or lay down, and the rest.

It takes a monster to look the other way, and to call such merely “mistakes” to be “learned from” and to never call for criminal prosecution of those involved.

I think anyone who takes a dispassionate view on this topic, never actually imagines themselves the victim of such in any lucid detail. It’s the place of pure terror and evil.

Yes, it is evil to do those things to other humans in any circumstance.


Frankly with how far gone the U.S. Empire is they don’t need to keep her record a secret. It essentially is the status quo now that people accept their 1% masters do the worst things all the time and just accept it. At least that is how the mainstream media wants you to think anyway.


It is just astounding where we are are in that regard. That “serious”, and “moderate”, and “pragmatic” legislators, policy wonkers, think tankers, and citizens can actually openly parse arguments that are in the end defenses of indefensible acts, and of the people involved in such.

I mean, heck, it was “legal” at the time. Serious individuals give that serious corn-sideration.

It blows my fucking mind.