The Daily - The C.I.A.’s Moral Reckoning

Episode Date: May 10, 2018

Gina Haspel, President Trump’s pick for C.I.A. director, faced the Senate Intelligence Committee for the first time on Wednesday as her confirmation hearings began. Lawmakers addressed her with an unusual line of questioning: What is your moral character? Guest: Matthew Rosenberg, who covers intelligence and national security for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, the confirmation hearing of Gina Haspel as President Trump's CIA director focused on an unusual line of questioning. What is your moral character? It's Thursday, May 10th. Matt Rosenberg, what is the situation that Gina Haspel is walking into on Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill?

is walking into on Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. So Gina Haspel is not a name that is known to most Americans because she spent 33 years as a clandestine officer in the CIA. Almost her entire life was classified until very recently. She played a significant role in what was known as the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program under the Bush administration, the torture program, the program under which suspects were waterboarded. They were kept in secret prisons at black sites. So in 2002, she briefly oversaw one of these black sites in Thailand and a Al-Qaeda suspect was waterboarded three times while she was there. A few years later, she was a senior official

back at CIA headquarters in Langley. And an order to destroy videos documenting brutal interrogations and torture at that black set in Thailand was conveyed under her name. Now, the order was made by her boss at the time, but there's always been a lot of questions. What was her role in this? Was she pushing for the destruction? The White House didn't want it destroyed. There were a lot of other parts of the government saying, do not destroy this. So those are the big things that the Democrats especially are looking to pressure on. And I think for most Americans, this is an issue that's in the past, but her nomination has kind of brought it back

out into the forefront. And going into Wednesday's hearing, we were going to get another airing of the unanswered questions about this program and this chapter in both the CIA's history and American history where we basically tortured suspected al-Qaeda members. A kind of moral reckoning. Yes. I call this hearing to order. So what actually happens when this hearing starts? I'd like to welcome our witness, acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Ms. Gina Haspel. So, Senator Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who is the chairman,

he opens it with, I mean, what can only be described as a very adoring statement. Gina, congratulations on your nomination. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the committee to begin consideration of Ms. Haspel's qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by all members. He calls her the most qualified nominee he's ever seen in his 24 years in Congress. You are without a doubt the most qualified person the president could have chosen to lead the CIA and the most prepared nominee in its 70-year history. He kind of sends a shot across the bow of the Democrats saying this hearing is about the next CIA director, not about a program that's in the past. This hearing's not about programs already addressed by executive order, legislation,

and the court of law. It's about the woman seated in front of us. You should be asking past presidents, past attorney generals, past CIA directors about that. She's not the one to ask about that. Ms. Haspel, what the committee must hear and what I must hear is in your own view, given the benefit of time and hindsight, should the United States ever permit detainees to be treated the way the CIA treated detainees under the program.

Then you get Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the committee. He takes the other view. What I'm not willing to do, however, is to justify this dark period in our history or to sweep away the decision to engage in torture. Now, look, the techniques used in the program, waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, that's all been outlawed. So Haspel won't be able to decide on her own if they want to go back to that. But there is the specter of the president who's made it very clear that he thinks this works. He wants to see it brought back.

Ms. Haspel, I encourage you to take these issues seriously and to address them at length. My vote on your confirmation will be greatly influenced by how you address these questions today. So then it's Haspel's turn. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, and members of the committee. You know, this is somebody who's never before really spoken in public. I mean, this is somebody who really did live a life in the shadows. I welcome the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people for the first time.

It is a new experience for me as I spent over 30 years undercover and in the shadows. I don't have any social media accounts, but otherwise I think you will find me to be a typical middle-class American, one with a strong sense of right and wrong, and one who loves this country. And she tries to kind of portray herself as this kind of Air Force brat from Kentucky who became a spy. I joined CIA in 1985 as a case officer in the clandestine service. I think this is important because going into this, when she was first nominated in March, we didn't even know where she was from.

Literally, like, town, state? Literally, town, state. Didn't know where she went to high school, didn't know where she went to college. All that stuff was classified. So her kind of repeating this stuff is getting more of it out there and acknowledging that, like, nobody knows who I am.

I recall very well my first meeting with a foreign agent. She tries to kind of hit the romance of it. It was on a dark, moonless night with an agent I'd never met before. When I picked him up, he passed me the intelligence and I passed him an extra $500 for the men he led. It was the beginning of an adventure I had only dreamed of. She says something about how I excelled in finding and acquiring secret information that I obtained in brush passes, dead drops, or meetings in dusty alleys.

What's a brush pass? Literally brushing past somebody and they hand off information. And so, like, you know, you can see there's, like, this nod to the kind of... The cinematic version of this job. Yeah, exactly. But then she gets to the one question

that everybody's kind of got. In light of my counterterrorism experience, I understand that what many people want to know about are my views on CIA's former detention and interrogation program. I have views on this issue, and I want to be clear. And she addresses it, I think, in a way the CIA thinks is directly. addresses it, I think, in a way the CIA thinks is directly. Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, on my watch, CIA will not restart a detention and interrogation program.

It was clear that that was not going to satisfy Democrats on the committee. It was way too vague and they wanted a lot more. And they wanted to talk morals and right and wrong. She wanted to talk legal and illegal. Question I have. With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the program in terms of the interrogation program, was consistent with American values? So it felt like a lot of the questions were focused on these two incidents that are at the center of her reputation. The interrogations that happened under her watch and the tape destruction.

Let's start with the interrogations. What did senators want to know about that chapter of her career? Have your views of the program evolved in the years following the attacks on our country on 9-11? I mean, I'm not sure they wanted some details on this as to know if she regretted, if she thought it was wrong. And she just wasn't giving up ground on that. Senator, they have. I think it's very important. I think for any leader, as you go through a career, you have to learn the leadership lessons. I'm not going to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and judge the very good people who made hard decisions, who were running the agency in very extraordinary circumstances at the time.

You know, we were doing the best we could, making it up as we went along, is kind of the general theme here. And she later even says, she says, you know, they did extraordinary work. I'm very proud of the fact that we captured the perpetrator of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I think we did extraordinary work. She kind of very defiantly says, after 9-11. I didn't look to go sit on the Swiss desk. I stepped up. I was not on the sidelines.

I was on the front lines in the Cold War, and I was on the front lines in the fight against al-Qaeda. And then she says, to me, the tragedy is that the controversy surrounding the interrogation program has cast a shadow over what has been a major contribution to protecting this country. And when she says the Swiss desk, I assume she means kind of a comfy desk job in Europe where there's no conflict. Exactly.

Senator, I think like all of us who were in the counterterrorism center and working at CIA in those years after 9-11, we all believed in our work. So what's her essential argument about the interrogation techniques that were used post-9-11? That they were legal. And we had been informed that the techniques in CIA's program were legal and authorized by the highest legal authority in our country and also the president. And that's kind of the CIA argument of this, is that, like, look, these people were faithfully carrying out orders that were declared legal by the government. But CIA does not today conduct interrogations. We never did historically, and we're not getting back in that business.

But we don't want to do it again. We don't want to be interrogating people. That's up to the military, the FBI, whomever. The president has asserted that torture works. Do you agree with that statement? So she had an exchange with Kamala Harris, who is a California Democrat. I walked away from the exchange thinking, I don't know. I actually don't know what she thinks here. Senator, I don't believe that torture works. She does not believe that it works. But she then adds, I believe that in the CIA's

program, and I'm not attributing this to enhanced interrogation techniques, I believe, as many people, directors who have sat in this chair before me, that valuable information was obtained from senior al-Qaeda operatives that allowed us to defend this country and prevent another attack. Is that a yes? No, it's not a yes. We got valuable information from debriefing of Al-Qaeda detainees. And I don't think it's knowable whether interrogation techniques played a role in that.

So I'm like, well, what does she believe here? I mean, that's, look, it's the other problem here. You have a lifelong, we're talking like a real spy. And part of being good at that is being somewhat invisible, somewhat forgettable, and hard to pin down and not really committing oneself to one thing or the other. And I think you saw some of that on display. She could be very feisty, very confrontational, but also pretty evasive and kind of smooth about it, too. Let's move on to the videotapes. And what about the tapes? What did senators want to know about the destruction of these tapes, which captured some of these interrogation techniques that Haspel now says she thinks should be banned? So I think they wanted to know what exactly was her role here. Was she pushing for this? Was she a proponent of destroying them? You told me earlier this week that you supported the decision of the CIA's deputy director of operations

to order the destruction of those videotapes. Would you still support that order today? Senator, I would not. I think it's, as I said, it's very important that people learn experience is a good teacher. And the piece that was missing from the tapes was making sure that we had all the stakeholders' concurrence. She wouldn't get into it. She would say that, like, there were agency personnel whose faces were on the tapes and that was security risk. And there were a lot of leaks coming out of the CIA about that time. And so to protect people,

they had to do this. Destroy the tapes. Destroy the tapes. But she also seemed to acknowledge that a lot of, like, you know, the White House counsel's office and others had told them not to, that this may not have been an entirely right decision. So one question I've not heard you answer is, do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? So the question, Matt, that I kept hearing over and over again, and it doesn't feel like this is a topic that comes up a lot in Senate confirmation hearings. It's essentially, what is your moral code, Gina Haspel? Most importantly, in your view, was that program consistent with American values? You're right. It doesn't really come up because, I mean, how many government officials are confronted with that really stark question of morality? Am I going to, like, maybe torture somebody? That's not a question that a lot of people in our government

ever have to wrestle with. And Haspel oversaw interrogations that are, by almost any standard, considered torture. And she's going to be working for a president who has made it very clear he wants to torture people. We must hear how you would react if the president asked you to carry out some morally questionable behavior. Right. So senators might be especially concerned

with whether or not she's willing to exercise her own moral agency in the face of a commander in chief who says, do something that you have said you will not do. But I'm telling you now, you need to do it, especially something like waterboarding or torture. Exactly, and we've seen the president has a lot of power to kind of declare things legal. It may be gray, it may be ambiguous, but you can create the justification if you need it. And is she going to say no? My question is this.

On a going forward basis, is this. On a going forward basis, if this president asks you to do something that you find morally objectionable, what will you do? Will you carry that out or not? I mean, we're entrusting you in a very different position if you're confirmed. I just need to know what your response to that would be. Senator, my moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it. So you would not follow the order if you felt it was? No. I believe that CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values. America is looked at all over the world

as an example to everyone else in the world, and we have to uphold that. And CIA is included in that. She at one point did say yes. If there's something truly immoral, I will say no to him. Say no to the commander-in-chief. Say no to the president. Yes, say no to the commander-in-chief.

But I think the senators are also very aware that that answer is going to be given in private and that we may never hear about it. And they asked, are we going to be told if that's the case? And if you were approached in such a way and such a demand was made of you, would you inform this committee and the Congress that you had been so approached? Senator, I've worked very closely with this president. I don't I don't believe that such a circumstance would ever occur. CIA has been treated with enormous respect and our expertise is valued for what we bring

to the table. If it occurred, would you inform the committee? Senator, it's a hypothetical. I don't think it's going to occur. I'm very confident about that. It does not seem to be hypothetical. People have alleged that that has happened already. Senator, I don't know anything about that conversation.

It's kind of interesting. It reminds me a bit of James Comey as head of the FBI rejecting the president's request that he act out of loyalty to him, this famous dinner at the White House, at the expense of his own kind of moral judgments. And we all know what Comey did now because of the memos and the reporting in the Times. But

basically, Haspel's being asked, would you do what Comey did? Would you tell the commander-in-chief no? Exactly. There have been allegations, Mr. Comey, one, that while he was alone, the president asked for a personal pledge of loyalty. If you were ever approached by the president and asked for a personal pledge of loyalty, what would you respond? Senator, my only loyalties to the American people and the Constitution of the United States, I am honored bound and will work very hard to deliver to this president and his administration the best performance and intelligence CIA can deliver. And, you know, there is at the CIA especially this culture of keeping things secret.

This is an agency. I'm not sure everyone fully understands how much kind of transparency there is in our government. And even at the Pentagon, the State Department, when the secretary of state or defense travels, they take reporters with them. You can walk around those buildings. Reporters and outsiders have real access. At the CIA, we could spend weeks trying to find out the name of, like, the chief of staff for Ms. Haspel. I mean, there is just no access. The closest I can get on any given day is driving by on the main road outside of it.

There's the big signs saying no pictures, and there's,'s like a checkpoint half a mile away you can't see. This is a large, well-financed agency that does at times use violence, and it's only real oversight to committees and Congress. And so this rare public moment, they want to hear as much as they can and pin her down as much as they can.

Right. And at the FBI, Comey didn't intend for us to know what he had done vis-a-vis President Trump until he was fired. So in many ways, the senators at this hearing are saying, given that we may never know whether the president asks you to do something like this, we really need to ask you now and we really need to understand your moral code. And we need to ask you to tell us, too, that if it does happen, come and tell us. Did Democrats seem satisfied by the answers that Haspel gave about how she would handle requests from President Trump? Because it's really that question

that seems to be keeping them from supporting her. You know, I'm not sure, but I think, you know, the math was already in her favor that Republicans control the Senate. Rand Paul and John McCain had signaled they weren't going to vote for her, but Susan Collins seemed to be leaning in that direction. And there were Democrats who clearly wanted to vote for her and were just looking for her to say some things. Senator, my father's watching today. He served 33 years in the Air Force.

My parents gave me a very strong moral compass. I support the higher moral standard that this country has decided to hold itself to. I would never, ever take CIA back to an interrogation program. First of all, CIA follows the law. We followed the law then. We follow the law today. I support the law. I wouldn't support a change in the law.

But I'll tell you this. I would not put CIA officers at risk by asking them to undertake risky, controversial activity again. Thank you, Matt. You're welcome. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, North Korea released three American prisoners, removing a major diplomatic obstacle to a nuclear deal, ahead of a planned meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

who were held for at least a year on charges of spying and hostile acts, were released to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a 13-hour visit to North Korea. The Times reports that freeing the prisoners is Kim's most tangible gesture yet to improve relations with the U.S., and it signals a willingness to compromise in the upcoming talks. The prisoners are scheduled to arrive in the U.S., and it signals a willingness to compromise in the upcoming talks. The prisoners are scheduled to arrive in the U.S. on Thursday morning, where they will be greeted by President Trump at Andrews Air Force Base. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.