Trump defends 'tough on terror' CIA director nominee who oversaw prison where detainees were 'tortured'

Nominee Gina Haspel to face tough questions in upcoming confirmation hearing

CIA director nominee Gina Haspel (R) attends Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's ceremonial swearing-in at the State Department (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

President Donald Trump has defended his embattled nominee for CIA director, claiming Democrats only oppose his pick because she is “too tough on terror”.

Mr Trump’s nominee, Gina Haspel, reportedly offered to withdraw from the nomination last week, as questions grew about her role in the CIA’s controversial interrogation programme – including instances of waterboarding and other techniques some have called torture.

The president made it clear on Monday that he did not accept her offer.

“My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists,” he tweeted.

“Think of that, in these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want OUT because she is too tough on terror,” he added. “Win Gina!”

The White House Press Office followed up with an email declaring Ms Haspel the "best choice for CIA director," quoting snippets of praise from various newspaper editorials.

Ms Haspel, a 33-year CIA veteran, offered to withdraw her nomination on Friday, according to the Washington Post. Administration officials had summoned her to the White House to discuss her role in the post-9/11 CIA interrogation programme.

Ms Haspel reportedly told the officials that she did not want to damage her reputation, or that of the CIA, in her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday.

She added that she did not want to be the next Ronny Jackson – a reference to Mr Trump’s nominee for head of Veterans Affairs, who withdrew his nomination under scrutiny of his drug prescribing practices.

White House legislative affairs director Marc Short and White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders reportedly rushed to CIA headquarters in Virginia after the meeting, to convince Ms Haspel to stay in the running.

Ms Sanders tweeted her support for the nominee on Saturday, adding that “any Democrat who claims to support women's empowerment and our national security but opposes her nomination is a total hypocrite”.

To pass her confirmation hearing, Ms Haspel will need the support of nearly every Republican in the Senate, where the GOP holds a slim 51-to-49 majority. Several Republicans are still quietly questioning their vote, according to NBC News.

Democrats have been more vocal in their opposition, demanding access to more documents about Ms Haspel’s three-decade CIA career – most of which was spent undercover.

The 61-year-old oversaw a CIA “black site” prison in Thailand in 2002, during which time at least one detainee was waterboarded. Groups like Human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights – and even the British government – have called such techniques torture.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report from 2014 found the CIA interrogation programme was flawed and that officials portrayed it as more effective than it was. The extent of Ms Haspel’s role in the programme is not known publicly, with the report's executive summary – which obscured names of agency operatives – being the only pages released.

In 2005, Ms Haspel wrote a cable ordering the destruction of more than 100 videotapes of waterboarding sessions at the black site. The incident set off a Justice Department review, in which a special prosecutor declined to bring charges against anyone involved.

The CIA recently declassified a disciplinary review conducted by former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell, which absolved Ms Haspel of any responsibility in the incident. The review found Ms Haspel had “no fault” in the destruction of the video tapes, noting that her boss at the time was the one to sign and send the cables.

The release did not satisfy Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, and Martin Heinrich, who called the CIA’s response to their requests for information “wholly inadequate”.

“Concealing [Ms Haspel’s] background when no sources and methods are at stake shows nothing but contempt for the Senate and the public,” the senators wrote in a joint statement.

“We believe senators and the American public have the need to know whether or not the nominee before us was a senior manager for a program that has been shown to be deeply flawed, as well as a number of other disturbing facts about her record.”