All of the above as expected have come out against Gina Haspel, the President’s nominee for CIA Director. But there is one other prominent person who has come out against her nomination, and he is one we would not have expected. Kahlid Sheik Muhammed (perhaps more frequently referred to as KSM), is perhaps better known by the sobriquet “Mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.” Yes, that KSM, who planned and plotted and executed the destruction of the World Trade Center and the rest of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, and the murders of over 3,000 people; he has come out in opposition to Ms. Haspel’s nomination.
Well, it seems likely that the nomination will squeak through despite the opposition of Republican Senators Rand Paul (on libertarian grounds) and John McCain (more on that later) because a handful of Democrat Senators, moderates to begin with and who have been made more so because they represent states carried by President Trump in 2016 and they are up for re-election this fall, have come out in support of Ms. Haspel. One would imagine that disgust over being on the same side of anything as KSM would be sufficient to cause at least a few others to vote in favor of the nominee, and maybe it will, but if the tenor, tone and direction of most of the questions from most of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee is any indication, their membership in the Resistance assures they won’t stray over to the pro-Trump camp.
We strenuously object to Senator McCain’s use of the term “torture” to describe waterboarding, but the definition is something reasonable people can dispute. Here’s something we don’t think can be disputed. The 9-11 terrorists were and are hideous monsters of the worst kind, who carried out a sneak attack on civilian targets. Some of the Senators questioned if Ms. Haspel was “immoral.” We doubt if they would use that word about KSM. “Enhanced Interrogation” may be a bit hard for some to stomach, but it was legal at the time it was done; it was done a limited number of times on a limited number of people (three, to be exact) and was done under the strictest supervision, including the presence of medical personnel. The 9-11 attacks, in contrast, were completely illegal, completely immoral, and were limited not by law or morality or conscience but by the lack of capability – in other words, if they could have hijacked a hundred planes, they would have done so. On the other hand, no one, not Ms. Haspel nor anyone else in authority, would have waterboarded anyone else. It was done for a strict and limited reason and purpose, and all three men who were subjected to the procedure are alive today. The Bush administration officially ended the practice of waterboarding, the Obama administration institutionalized its termination, and the Trump administration (although it has speculated on its value) has not legalized it nor employed it. Ms. Haspel has testified that it no longer is legal and she would not employ it. The terrorists practice harsher and more permanent methods, such as beheading, and please ponder this: Americans in both political parties, in the CIA and the military, and in the government and in our free press, can publicly object to anything the CIA does. What are the odds about people in “the terrorist high command” bringing legal action or even questioning any of the brutal tactics employed by radical jihadists? Whatever the United States, and Ms. Haspel, did in response to 9-11 was done to protect Americans, to save lives and to prevent any further attacks. The terrorists have clearly more deadly motives and are not encumbered by the rule of law or considerations of “morality.”
Ms. Haspel, who has served in the CIA for over 30 years, is about as highly qualified as they come. Oppose her if you wish, for we are free to do so in this country – but please, under no circumstances, should she nor any other American military or intelligence community personnel, be perversely maligned as the “moral” equivalent of a terrorist.