[HN Gopher] Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA's ...
___________________________________________________________________
Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA's proposals to
abduct Assange
Author : greatgib
Score : 344 points
Date : 2021-09-26 12:17 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.yahoo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.yahoo.com)
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The CIA out to be fully disbanded with anyone who participated in
| illegal actions like assassinations or torture prosecuted. You
| can't fix an agency that believes in its institutional guts its
| above moral and criminal law. I don't know how you possibly get
| from here to a government we can actually be proud of instead of
| ashamed.
| giardini wrote:
| Did anything useful come out of the "Vault" revelations? I mean
| for examples improvements in the WWW, PC hardware/software,
| browsers, etc.
| blitzar wrote:
| I dont think so, certainly nothing on the scale of the original
| Snowden stuff which by all accounts shook up google et al.
| Ms-J wrote:
| At this point, what is the difference between a hardcore criminal
| and the intel agencies?
|
| I would trust an everyday criminal before one of these
| organizations, and I'm being totally serious. The ordinary
| criminal does not harm me.
|
| What value, other than terrible things like deception, do we get
| out of these agencies in a free society?
| [deleted]
| sneak wrote:
| It's amazing to me how willing the UK is to be totally complicit
| and offer assistance to the US in this ongoing effort to deny
| Assange his human rights.
|
| He's been imprisoned for nearly a decade without trial now.
| motohagiography wrote:
| The interesting bit I didn't know was the article says that
| Wikileaks did not publish the complete contents of the Vault 7
| materials they had. Not sure whether they just published shasums
| of the bits they didn't, or if they proved some other way they
| had parts they were holding back as leverage.
|
| It's odd to read what was really at stake. Pompeo's team was
| ready to assasinate Assange in London, and the only thing
| stopping them was the justice dept and only nominally the office
| of the President. What WL (and Snowden) did was show to the
| public the intelligence community, who was ostensibly accountable
| to them, for what they truthfully were. The news media took a
| bigger credibility hit for their history of spiking these stories
| and delivering hit pieces than the spies ever did.
|
| Most people saw how the sausage was made and decided they still
| liked sausage. Not only do we tolerate what these services do,
| but now that we know about it and have done nothing to change it,
| we have acknowledged it and rewarded them for it all. Snowden's
| story practically created the ability for retired generals to
| accept pulpits from tv news where they can armchair QB the issues
| of the day, and they should thank him for the minor television
| celebrity and speaker circuit feting they now enjoy. Whether that
| undermines the credibility of their institutions is still to be
| seen, but all that plotting to kill Assange just to sustain some
| lame narrative about a bureaucracy seems like it was just a fatal
| distraction from the real unseating of western power that we are
| clearly into the endgame of today.
| GordonS wrote:
| > Most people saw how the sausage was made and decided they
| still liked sausage.
|
| I'm not sure that's really true. All of the stuff Snowden and
| Assange leaked was very much down-played by the popular media -
| it felt like it was very under-reported and even then with a
| fair bit of bias.
|
| If you ask some people about how they feel now, they'll say
| that it wouldn't affect them "because they haven't done
| anything wrong", or "but Assange is a rapist!", or even "that's
| just movie stuff, conspiracy bullshit".
|
| I really believe that the population at large either don't
| believe what the CIA are doing, are in denial about it, or just
| don't care because it largely affects brown people in far off
| lands.
| blitzar wrote:
| > Most people saw how the sausage was made and decided they
| still liked sausage.
|
| > I'm not sure that's really true. All of the stuff Snowden
| and Assange leaked was very much down-played by the popular
| media - it felt like it was very under-reported and even then
| with a fair bit of bias.
|
| It was not at all played down, especially not Snowden, it was
| rolling 24 hour news for weeks, they still try and drum up
| some drama over it whenever they get a chance.
|
| The problem is, people dont care. I feel genuinely sad that
| Snowden blew up his life, and outside of a few privacy
| communities nothing has changed. Everyone agrees it is wrong,
| but they dont care, you are a traitor if you dont believe it
| has to be done.
|
| He should have won a Nobel prize and been given a ticker tape
| parade for blowing the whistle, but instead he is holed up in
| Russia, the illegal spying goes on, and the people call for
| more spying at every turn.
| ok123456 wrote:
| The story that was rolling on the 24 hour news for weeks
| wasn't about the contents of the leaks. It was all about
| Snowden.
|
| If you wanted to know what the leaks said, you basically
| had to go to the source materials. If you wanted to hear
| some talking head give his opinion about whether or not
| Snowden did "treason," who more often than not said it was,
| you didn't have to work very hard.
| smolder wrote:
| The population at large has been trained not to think about
| things like what their government does on their behalf;
| them's terrorist thoughts. Support da troops. One must give
| the appearance of being a team player by timidly ignoring
| Uncle Sam's glaring failures to operate within its claimed
| principles.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| It's basic cognitive fatigue, the basis of the success of
| the big lie.
|
| If American's don't adopt the big lie, then all of a sudden
| they need to accept:
|
| - the US enacted genocide on Native Americans and still
| effectively does via reservations and enforce poverty
|
| - the US started the vietnam war and would need to realize
| that we did in fact do the Gulf of Tonkin
|
| - the US has strongly backed dozens of repressive regimes
| that have collectively murdered millions of people. By
| strongly backed, I mean trained, advised, and directed
| these operations to kill and torture political opposition
| "inconvenient" to the US.
|
| - the current Mexican cartel leaders were formally trained
| by US operatives at the "School of the Americas", as part
| of the program to strongly back repressive regimes
|
| - the Iraq War was a massive scam from its inception to the
| end
|
| - the Afghanistan War was a massive scam for 90% of its
| period
|
| - the CIA and other security agencies have a 100%
| functional total information awareness and infrastructure
| for complete totalitarian control of the US. All it needs
| is one president to decide to activate it on a whim. It's
| basically a switch sitting in the Oval Office.
|
| and so so so many other transgressions.
| roody15 wrote:
| One major issue with Assange is prosecuting him. Honesty most of
| the 17 charges are quite week and it remains to be seen how they
| even apply to a foreign national.
|
| Assange received classified material and published it. This has
| been done countless times by journalist and it's a pretty far
| stretch to somehow apply criminal charges just because he
| published it.
|
| Honestly from the CIA perspective it would probably have been
| better to assassinate him. This sends a message to other
| journalists on what the US will do to protect its interest. A
| trial just further embarrasses the US since everyone knows the
| outcome and that it is largely a farce
| tunesmith wrote:
| If a journalist receives classified material, is that different
| than if the journalist coordinates the acquisition of that
| classified material, or offers resources to aid in the
| acquisition of that classified material, or participates in the
| placement of resources to gain access to those classified
| materials...?
|
| I think that's the difficult part of this, right? It's a
| spectrum with many levels of gradation, that each imply
| different levels of legality and illegality.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Assange received classified material and published it.
|
| This gets repeated a lot but is not what Assange is charged
| with. He didn't just "receive" classified information. He's
| alleged to have not only communicated with Manning to direct
| her to grab specific information and tried to help her break
| into systems.
|
| He'd have a much better case if he had just been a passive
| publisher of information. You can't be _involved_ in a crime
| and then claim journalistic protections after the fact.
|
| Assange is _not_ a journalist. He 's a wannabe spymaster and
| muckraker. Zero percent of his case has anything to do with
| real journalists as none of them would have participated in the
| exfiltration of classified documents.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >He didn't just "receive" classified information. He's
| alleged to have not only communicated with Manning to direct
| her to grab specific information and tried to help her break
| into systems.
|
| One of the seventeen charges is about this. The others are
| all solely to do with publishing classified information.
|
| If all of the other charges were dropped, maybe you'd have a
| point but it's clear that the entire thing is primarily about
| his work as a journalist publishing documents.
| roody15 wrote:
| I disagree. Chelsea Manning bears the overwhelming fault from
| a US Legal perspective. He was a member of the armed forces
| under oath and knowingly shared classified information.
|
| Assange has no oath to the US and despite his interest in the
| material it is quite a stretch to somehow suggest he "made"
| Chelsea share this info.
| huntermeyer wrote:
| With this, the idea that Epstein was suicided is not so far
| fetched.
| newbamboo wrote:
| Lol. Literally nobody thinks he actually committed suicide.
| It's just that nobody knows for certain who did it. You can
| rule out certain nations but was it Clinton, Gates Dershowitz?
| We'll never know.
| asdff wrote:
| Oh come on. The guy was going from living in his own personal
| hedonism for most of his life to a slow death behind bars,
| and he was already no spring chicken at that point. When
| faced with a hand like that, I'm surprised more people aren't
| killing themselves in jail to be honest.
| cbHXBY1D wrote:
| I doubt the people you listed would have the ability to pull
| it off. Intelligence agencies like the CIA or Mossad could
| though.
|
| I think the secret to understanding Epstein is staring us in
| the face: Epstein was an intelligence asset. He himself
| bragged for years to be in intelligence [1], Alex Acosta was
| told to give him a lenient plea deal because he was "owned by
| intelligence" [2], his partner's (Ghislaine Maxwell) father
| was a Mossad spy [3]. US and Israeli intelligence works
| together on a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if both
| were his "clients".
|
| [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
| features/jeffre...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta#Non-
| prosecuti...
|
| [3] https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Maxwell-Israels-Superspy-
| Gordo...
| FDSGSG wrote:
| Very interesting to see how this will end up impacting the
| Assange extradition trial.
|
| Who's gonna agree to extradite him knowing that Trump was
| planning to assassinate him? Seems like a hard sell.
|
| E: Turns out that this isn't even news
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8041597/US-plotted-...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| These are separate US based discussions about kidnapping or
| murdering Assange, the UC Global's actions were another one of
| the intelligence agencies schemes but these were separate
| actions.
|
| And the article makes it sound lime the British were kept in
| the loop for most of it, the previous assassination allegations
| didn't stop extradition so I doubt these ones will.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Couldn't read the article as Yahoo news is such a cluster-f*k of
| mess on-screen.
|
| Too many distractions, bad layout, autoplaying videos.
|
| ...and this is with heavy ad blocking.
|
| As it was my first visit to Yahoo news, it gave me the options on
| which kind of cookies/tracking I want to accept. Obviously I
| select "none". I shudder to think what would happen if I had
| selected "accept-all".
|
| Sorry for the rant - but I can see why Yahoo is in decline if
| this is what they offer. No idea if the article's content is
| actually any good - I feel bad for the people who wrote it.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Looks good in reader mode.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Nice - I had to install an extension to add a reader mode in
| Brave:
|
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/reader-
| view/ecabif...
|
| This extension apparently uses Mozilla's open-source
| Readability implantation.
| codedokode wrote:
| > Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump
| administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to
| request "sketches" or "options" for how to assassinate him.
|
| > One of those officials said he was briefed on a spring 2017
| meeting in which the president asked whether the CIA could
| assassinate Assange and provide him "options" for how to do so.
|
| I don't understand how this can be legal. Cannot such a request
| be considered a conspiracy to commit a murder? Or some people are
| "more equal" and the law doesn't apply to them?
| roenxi wrote:
| Part of the government's job is to have a plan to kill
| every/anyone. Or if there are too many people to kill
| efficiently, starve them in to compliance (which is the plan
| with a heavy sanctions regime). They are not nice people, but
| it isn't illegal.
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm a long way from understanding international law, but I
| thought one of the principles of Westphalian sovereignty was
| that the highest power of a nation was its own government and
| never a different government?
|
| It might not be illegal under US law, but London isn't in the
| USA.
| bserge wrote:
| Say it's illegal. "What are you gonna do about it?"
| ben_w wrote:
| Well indeed, but that's not what I was responding to.
| nivenkos wrote:
| The Mossad approach.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| There is a fancy name for kill lists:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
| [deleted]
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The real reason they were so pissed off at Assange seems to be in
| two parts: 1) The Chelsea Manning State Department cables. The
| video was all the hype, but just dig through the 'SECRET' cables
| on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. Zero interest in 'human rights and
| democracy', lots of interests in oilfields, pipelines, military
| sales contracts, etc.
|
| 2) Those Vault7 CIA leaks are incredibly embarrassing, it's like
| so closet criminal organization - and with a program to run
| cyberwarfare attacks using Russian/Chinese signatures in the code
| to hide atttribution? That's kind of insanely deceptive and
| criminal I think.
|
| All told, those revelations make the State Dept. and the CIA look
| more like some kind of organized white-collar mafia outfit in the
| service of Wall Street shareholders than anything else. That kind
| of raw exposure makes the corrupt insiders in the US government
| very sad.
|
| I'd guess they've got a lot more to hide, and are most worried
| about further eruptions of embarrassment.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| It's always funny that every big revelation has dozens of
| comments of people coming to the realization that the FBI, CIA,
| NSA, etc are not friends of democracy.
|
| We are fortunate that they need to bathe themselves in the
| trappings of democracy, unlike, say, Putin's services.
|
| It's instructive that they view the third world and the UK as
| different rules. They get to shit all over the third world and
| know they can get away with it. Assassinations? Abductions? All
| A-OK in the brown countries.
|
| This isn't me characterizing things, the quotes are from the
| officials in the article.
|
| As for the mafia, the founding basis of all mafia romanticism
| is that government is just another source of power and abuse,
| and the mafia are simply another competing source.
|
| That would be ridiculous, but the security agencies of the feds
| certainly do their best to make it plausible.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I'm reading "The Secret History of The American Empire."
| Recommended. It's difficult to believe Perkins - after his
| initial book - was still around to continue to tell the tales.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fVAifnnlg0
| simorley wrote:
| > Zero interest in 'human rights and democracy', lots of
| interests in oilfields, pipelines, military sales contracts,
| etc.
|
| Is this a shock to anyone? "Human rights and democracy" is the
| new imperial "white man's burden". We use it to justify
| invading, colonizing and stealing from others. When have we
| ever cared about human rights and democracy? I forget if it was
| chomsky or someone else who said that we've murdered more
| people, caused more human suffering and stolen more wealth in
| the name of "human rights and democracy" than nazi germany did
| in the name of nazism. Think about that.
|
| I wish the non-western world would just collectively laugh at
| and mock any western leader when they talk about "human
| rights", "democracy", "western values", etc. How can they stand
| the hypocrisy? How can we?
| deanCommie wrote:
| I 100% agree with everything you're saying.
|
| However, let's not forget that 50/80 years were dominated by
| a two-headed fight for world hegemony under the threat of
| nuclear war and potential apocalypse.
|
| In this fight, while the US was far more evil than anyone
| cared to admit at the time, and the USSR far less than the US
| propaganda would have you believe, RELATIVELY speaking one
| side did offer more freedom, liberty, and prosperity than the
| other. And the primary counterargument from the Communists
| was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
|
| This remains true today with China. CPC apologists are all
| too happy to point out (factually correct) gaps in US
| integrity and freedom. But in the grand scheme of things,
| relatively speaking, for all it's flaws, "The West" still has
| due process, doesn't ban religious expression, and doesn't
| put millions of citizens into force re-education camps.
|
| The most recent Chinese return of the 2 incarcerated
| Canadians in return for the Huawei executive is the most
| blatant current example that China will do absolutely
| whatever it wants.
|
| Whereas even in this news story - where you have government
| agents freely discussing assassinating Assange - there are
| others working against them, Lawyers using legal guidelines
| to flummox the plan, and ultimately it doesn't go forward.
|
| For all of the US's evils, Russia and China would not have
| hesitated to kidnap or execute Assange in identical
| circumstances if he was hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy on
| their soil. He would have been disappeared a decade ago.
| simorley wrote:
| > However, let's not forget that 50/80 years were dominated
| by a two-headed fight for world hegemony under the threat
| of nuclear war and potential apocalypse.
|
| Nuclear war? And in that 50/80 years, only one side has
| ever nuked a city full of civilians. Twice.
|
| > This remains true today with China. CPC apologists are
| all too happy to point out (factually correct) gaps in US
| integrity and freedom.
|
| "CPC apologists". Did we have any integrity and freedom
| when we were colonizing china? You do realize that we
| colonized china for nearly 100 years. It was the "CPC" and
| the communists who liberated china. You do realize that
| right?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol
|
| How anyone can claim a nation brutally ( and partly
| motivated by racism ) colonizing another nation is the one
| with integrity and freedom is beyond me.
|
| > And the primary counterargument from the Communists was
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
|
| "Whataboutism" is a well-worn social media propaganda term
| used a few years ago. Nobody uses it anymore because it
| exposes the person who uses it.
|
| > The most recent Chinese return of the 2 incarcerated
| Canadians in return for the Huawei executive is the most
| blatant current example that China will do absolutely
| whatever it wants.
|
| China arrested two canadian spies/operatives in retaliation
| for canada kidnapping one of their spies/operatives?
| Shocking. What do you expect. It's statecraft. Tit for tat.
| Like when we kick out chinese or russian diplomats. They do
| the same. Or are you still pretending china arbitrarily
| locked up two innocent canadian tourists?
|
| Strangely you aren't worked up about canada kidnapping a
| chinese national. Kidnapping chinese is fine but kidnapping
| canadians is wrong?
|
| > For all of the US's evils, Russia and China would not
| have hesitated to kidnap or execute Assange in identical
| circumstances if he was hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy on
| their soil. He would have been disappeared a decade ago.
|
| But two canadian spies were arrested and not "disappeared".
| Using your logic, china should be shipping two body bags
| right? China hasn't disappeared the dalai lama. How many
| chinese traitors hiding all over the west has china
| "disappeared"? Absolutely none.
|
| You are just stating the same propaganda we've heard over
| and over again. It gets stale and boring. China bad. Russia
| bad. US good. Right. At least you didn't bring up anything
| about genocide.
|
| At the end of the day, everyone has done good and everyone
| has done bad. But one has done far more evil than good
| while hypocritely pretending to be the world's beacon of
| good. This hypocrite not only colonized one of the "bad",
| it also invaded the other "bad".
|
| It's the hypocrisy that's just unbearable. I don't remember
| china claiming to be the world's beacon of good. Don't
| remember russia claiming to be the epitome of freedom and
| democracy.
| minusf wrote:
| both china and russia have ridiculous claims for every
| day of the week just as well.
|
| at some level all political claims are ridiculous but all
| countries mentioned in your post are pathological liars,
| they just lie about different things in different ways.
| _hilro wrote:
| Your puppet strings are showing...
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| >>>It was the "CPC" and the communists who liberated
| china. You do realize that right?
|
| Depends on what you mean by "liberated". The bulk of the
| fighting against the Imperial Japanese military was done
| by the KMT Nationalists, under Chiang Kai-Shek. The KMT
| lost the civil war afterwards due to still being a shitty
| unpopular government, and then the CPC went on to
| "liberate" tens of millions of Chinese from their
| corporeal bodies during the Cultural Revolution.
|
| >>>I don't remember china claiming to be the world's
| beacon of good.
|
| The Chinese government is VERY good at information
| operations.[1] It is usually more subtle than America's
| ham-fisted chest-thumping. The CCP uses a lot of proxies
| to sing its praises, like this: [2]. But Xi Jinping is
| generally assertive in casting China as a model for the
| world. From [3]: "China will become more assertive on the
| world stage and believes its governance model is
| attractive to other countries will likely raise all sorts
| of alarms in Asian and Western capitals. Xi declared that
| China "has become a great power in the world" and "it is
| time for us to take center stage in the world and to make
| a greater contribution to humankind".
|
| [1] https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/bridge-
| ii_fullreport...
|
| [2] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-05/31/c_1399804
| 63.htm
|
| [3] https://sinocism.com/p/welcome-to-the-xi-era-
| sinocism-weekly...
| axiolite wrote:
| > while the US was far more evil than anyone cared to admit
| at the time, and the USSR far less than the US propaganda
| would have you believe,
|
| Have you not heard of Stalin? Many more murders than the
| fascists / Nazis / holocaust.
| aschlafly wrote:
| Why do you think even the pro-democracy forces in China see
| the US's support of "democrats" as a farce? Why do you think
| the images in HK of protestors with the US flag were seen as
| nothing short of treason, even among the liberals of China?
| The hypocrisy is so obvious, and the naked self-interest too
| glaring.
|
| The US's foreign policy has set back the cause of democracy
| and liberalization in China by decades with its underhanded
| shenanigans. To recieve their support, even moral support, is
| the kiss of death in China.
| holaxes wrote:
| There are numerous countries in the world that have becomes
| democracies inspite of the blundering and corruption of the
| powers that be in the west. Dont use the US and its
| dysfunction as an excuse please.
| pphysch wrote:
| Can you list some them? Bonus points if outside Western
| Europe.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Tunisia.
| fartingflamingo wrote:
| Not anymore unfortunately [0].
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/tunisians-
| protest-again...
| curiousgal wrote:
| See that's the thing, it's not that simple. The ruling
| party which controlled the parliament for a few years is
| corrupt. The president, who was democratically elected by
| the majority of the people, used the constitution to
| suspend said parliament, with the support of the people.
| It's definitely an unorthodox move but it relates to one
| of democracy's limitations; what could be done when an
| elected party represents its own interests and not the
| people's?
| fartingflamingo wrote:
| Lots of factors could be at play indeed. I'm certainly
| not an expert, but if I read correctly, the man has
| disbanded parliament and ruled by decree since two
| months, publicly announcing his disregard for the
| constitution. To me, that does not count as democratic
| anymore.
| asdff wrote:
| The former yugoslavia
| pessimizer wrote:
| I've never heard of those, but I've heard of the
| countries whose dictators we propped up and helped (often
| by literally sending lists of names) to exterminate their
| secular opposition. Then when they have a revolution
| because the degree of crushing desperation of the
| populace exceeded the strength of internal policing, the
| only leaders left are religious, thereby turning the
| country into a theocracy.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| When US dysfunction includes things like regime change
| and election tampering, it can definitely be used as an
| excuse.
|
| Yes, some countries have independently produced pro-
| Western democracies, but if they have enough value and
| start electing anti-Western leaders their democracy will
| become a target of Western attack. See the ~2002 US
| backed coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, or the recent
| Morales elections.
| pvg wrote:
| _Zero interest in 'human rights and democracy', lots of
| interests in oilfields, pipelines, military sales contracts,
| etc._
|
| You can go to the cable archive and type 'human rights' in the
| search box and see this isn't remotely true. Whatever one might
| think of US diplomacy and its goals, the cables are mostly of
| historical interest and cause for mild embarrassment. They
| don't really show some diabolically clever empire cynically
| manipulating the world. They mostly show it pursuing its
| publicly stated goals and interests - one can have a pretty dim
| view of these goals and interests but you don't need the cables
| to develop or support that viewpoint.
| ok123456 wrote:
| glow harder
| samhw wrote:
| I wish we had moderation policies that would just remove
| mantras like the above, which contribute precisely zero to
| the conversation. We all know what they are: "do you like
| [licking or some variant thereof] that boot [,
| bootlicker]?", "cry more, libtard", etc. They only serve as
| a thought-terminating cliche, to assert the speaker's own
| tribal allegiance and to place their interlocutor on the
| 'wrong side'.
|
| I really don't think HN would be any the worse if they were
| removed. Anyone who wants to have a slanging match rather
| than an intelligent exchange of ideas can go to the Other
| Site.
| [deleted]
| fightme wrote:
| You're making a tone argument but calling it a thought-
| terminating cliche. Anyone who's capable of forming an
| opinion on the CIA's policies has already settled on one.
| On the other hand, the parent downplays the CIA's
| actions, starting off with "Whatever one might think of
| US diplomacy", which oozes of propaganda and should be
| called out.
|
| Talking about places like "the Other Site" certainly
| sounds like tribalism though-- I hope that observation
| helps you on your journey!
| ok123456 wrote:
| Yes. Only the correct (i.e., pro natsec) position
| allowed. Good hacker ethos.
|
| If you actually go through and read the cables they show
| the opposite of humanitarian interest. It's mostly horse
| trading and appeasing despots. Above all else, the empire
| must be maintained.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Sorry, that's an abysmal argument. The fact that human rights
| are mentioned is not at all proof that US intelligence cares
| about them, when there is clearly no regard for them in the
| actions.
|
| Hegemony is a publicly stated goal of the US. What do you
| think that entails? What do you think is necessary for a
| nation of 327 million to be the hegemon over 7.5 billion?
| billyhoffman wrote:
| > Hegemony is a publicly stated goal of the US.
|
| Where? Stated by whom?
|
| A president? We've had 46 with wildly conflicting public
| statements and goals. A Congress? We've had 117 sessions of
| Congress.
|
| "The US" isn't a single entity. I don't think you can make
| any blanket statements across that much time and that many
| people much beyond "they are all humans."
| pvg wrote:
| I'm not sure what argument you're responding it, it doesn't
| sound like it's one I made. The point I'm making is about
| how these cables are characterized by the OP, not US
| policy. What they reveal is much closer to _The Quiet
| American_ than, I dunno, Star Trek 's Cardassians and
| that's an easy thing to check by looking at the cables.
| marcinzm wrote:
| > That's kind of insanely deceptive and criminal I think.
|
| That just seems like standard for spy agencies along with a
| pretty mild black propaganda angle. Even books about WW2
| propaganda cover the topic.
|
| I think people just underestimate what spy agencies actually do
| and how dirty it's always been.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "I think people just underestimate what spy agencies actually
| do and how dirty it's always been. "
|
| They do. But maybe they do, because of being told by the
| governments and in schools, that the CIA and co only fight
| terrorist and evil empires.
|
| Those leaks showed the general public more of the real
| picture, not the fake official one. And sure, they do not
| like that.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| The real source of embarrassment of the leaks (ESPECIALLY
| the state department ones) is how much these services are
| basically at the beck and call of the elite, and how all
| the dirty shit that is done for those power brokers then
| blows back on us.
|
| Most of the time that blowback is the gradual, steady
| erosion of America's soft power, ideals, and "good guy
| image"
|
| Sometimes it is planes crashing into skyscrapers.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"AtlasBarfed"
|
| I absolutely love this nick
| adventured wrote:
| > because of being told by the governments and in schools,
| that the CIA and co only fight terrorist and evil empires.
|
| That's not their image in the US at all and that's not how
| formal education about the CIA works in schools in the US.
| The opposite is closer to the truth.
|
| You're maybe aware of the common American conspiracy theory
| that JFK was murdered by the CIA? As retribution for the
| Bay of Pigs, among other things.
|
| Every other Hollywood movie in which they make an
| appearance has portrayed the CIA as up to no good for
| decades now, especially when it comes to topics like the
| war on drugs and terrorism. They're frequently portrayed as
| duplicitous and incompetent. That's because that's how the
| culture views them at this point. They do not have a good
| reputation with the American public.
|
| See: American Made (2017), Kill the Messenger (2014),
| Syriana (2005), The Siege (1998), The Jason Bourne movies,
| among many others
| hutzlibu wrote:
| There has been some shift in cultural perception, true
| (even though "Day of the condor" is even from 1975)
|
| - but the official picture and the ones painted by a
| common movie, is still a very different one, from
| reality. I mean take James Bond for instance.
| Glorification of the noble spycraft par excellence. (but
| I have not watched the latest ones, maybe there was
| change, too?)
|
| And I have no first hand experience with US school
| education, but here in germany we kind of were educated
| about our intelligence agencies(and about the ones of the
| US) in a very friendly way. One that does not match
| reality.
| reissbaker wrote:
| James Bond is a fictional _British_ spy who works for
| MI6, not the CIA. American cultural perception of the CIA
| is not great.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Yeah, I know that. I think we were talking in general
| about spycraft and the perception of it in the west and
| not just about the CIA.
|
| "I think people just underestimate what spy agencies
| actually do and how dirty it's always been. "
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| If you own a bakery, the ingredients you use need to be
| transported to your bakery. Once there, they have to be
| processed by some form of equipment. Your employees and
| customers need to physically go to your bakery...
|
| Every activity in that bakery, in one way or another, depends
| on energy. That is also true for any other economic activity.
|
| By selling energy you effectively have a share of everyone's
| business.
|
| Also, if you control the fuel supply, you can control entire
| economies.
| wffurr wrote:
| Are you trying to say we can't have energy _and_ care about
| human rights and decency?
|
| The United States has plenty of domestic energy reserves
| _and_ the capability to build a lot of renewable energy and
| nuclear energy. There's zero reason to be catering to Middle
| East despots, other than corruption and cronyism.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| I never said anything related to that.
|
| But governments and organized crime have a lot in common.
| wffurr wrote:
| I can't see clear to what other point you could possibly
| be trying to make in this context. Perhaps you should
| clarify what you meant then?
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| If you don't know what I meant then why assuming malice
| as your first reaction?
| 1cvmask wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7
|
| https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| > 2) Those Vault7 CIA leaks are incredibly embarrassing, it's
| like so closet criminal organization - and with a program to
| run cyberwarfare attacks using Russian/Chinese signatures in
| the code to hide atttribution? That's kind of insanely
| deceptive and criminal I think.
|
| I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse or you're just an
| extremely histrionic, but it's clear you didn't reach that
| conclusion through principled reasoning.
| croes wrote:
| >Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred "at the
| highest levels" of the Trump administration, said a former senior
| counterintelligence official. "There seemed to be no boundaries."
|
| No idea why Assange feared to be extradited from Sweden to the
| USA./s
| slim wrote:
| My "holy shit" moment was this : received
| "sketches" of plans for killing Assange and other Europe-based
| WikiLeaks members
|
| CIA planned to kill some of my friends
| 8note wrote:
| They likely keep the plans up to date, and have one for you
| too, if they're your friends.
| nullc wrote:
| "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill
| everybody you meet." -- James Mattis, former secretary of
| defense
| capableweb wrote:
| I think at this point, if you haven't had any US government
| entity trying to come up with plans to hurt you, you've
| probably done something bad (beneficial to the US
| government). They seem to frequently want to be on the wrong
| side of history, so if you're on their list/been on their
| list, you're doing something right.
| ben_w wrote:
| The "to the USA" part is separate from the "from Sweden" part.
| He's currently fighting an attempt to go to the USA from the
| UK, so it's not like the country of origin is making much
| difference IMO.
| blitzar wrote:
| I remember the Assange fangirls back in the day claiming that
| he couldnt be extradited from the UK to the US which is why
| he had to fight so hard ... a little inconvenient that the UK
| loves to extradite people to the US like the good little
| lapdogs they are.
| [deleted]
| hktntbvuvu wrote:
| While we are at it, is Biden going to pardon Snowden?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Joe Biden had an innocent father and his 7 children killed as a
| way of distracting from his horrible, disinterested withdrawal
| from Afghanistan. He has yet to acknowledge this in any way
| other than calling it an "mistake" via his press bureau.
|
| He has spent his life lying about his credentials, and then
| selling the influence he gains in the us government to foreign
| countries.
|
| No, I don't think Biden will be pardoning Edward Snowden.
|
| Drone strike:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/pentagon-dron...
|
| Disinterested:
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/25/fac...
|
| Joes plagiarism: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-
| admits-plagiaris...
|
| More lying about law school credentials:
| https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
|
| Selling influence: https://news.yahoo.com/independent-source-
| confirms-authentic...
| fit2rule wrote:
| Bidens' cult of personality is not going to be kind to you,
| sir.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Don't forget that he wrote the bill that became the Patriot
| Act.
| busterarm wrote:
| and most of the War on Drugs...
|
| He might just be the most loathsome human being we've ever
| elected President. Although McCain would have been worse
| had he ever made it.
|
| In fact, Biden and McCain have always been my go-to
| examples of the worst that America has to offer and like
| cockroaches they always managed to hang on.
| sillystuff wrote:
| I also do not care for Biden, but, "the most loathsome
| human being we've ever elected President," is ignoring
| history.
|
| There isn't a single president where unpleasant facts
| about their actions are not documented-- there wasn't a
| single pure and good president of the united states--
| ever, nor even one who did not engage in activities which
| could be described as "loathsome".
|
| Starting with George Washington who lead an insurrection
| on behalf of rich slave owners (to protect slavery) and
| murdered those who would not join his cause. A man who
| had his dentures made from human teeth torn from the
| faces of men he had enslaved.
|
| Jefferson, who raped his slaves and enslaved his own
| children.
|
| Lincoln, "the great emancipator" said, "If I could save
| the union without freeing any slaves I would do it..." A
| man that went on to engage in genocide against the
| indigenous of what is now the United States.
|
| Reagan who engaged in drug dealing to support illegal
| wars of aggression and his far-right death squads who
| tortured and murdered many thousands. A man who was
| instrumental in the genocide of 250,000 indigenous in
| Guatemala.
|
| But, Johnson wins the prize for greatest single mass
| murder event, supported by a president, since the
| genocide of the indigenous in what is now the US. After
| the far-right dictator, Suharto came to power in a US
| backed coup. The US under Johnson provided surveillance
| information used to find and murder, millions of
| Indonesians who were guilty of the thought crime of
| belonging to the "wrong" political party (even far-right
| apologists acknowledge at least 500,000 murdered, but
| 1-2M is more credible).
|
| Carter who armed and trained the mujahadeen to overthrow
| the liberal government that arose in Afghanistan after
| the 1978 revolution (under this left government, Afghan
| women had equal rights and universal suffrage and the
| literacy rate had soared). The funding, and arming of
| these jihadis was continued by Reagan and "pappa" Bush.
| Yes, the same ones that defeated the US military over the
| last 20 years. During the US occupation, Afghanistan was
| tied as second worse place to be a woman giving lie to
| any noise about US intervention being to improve the
| status of women.
|
| "Baby" Bush who engaged in illegal wars of aggression
| against nations who had nothing to do with 911, but who
| the far-right e.g., the Heritage Foundation had long
| wanted to overthrow and in its place create a place free
| of any regulation that would prevent the rich and
| powerful from abusing those with less money and power--
| they even had a plan ready for the invasion when the
| opportunity presented itself. "Baby" Bush who's regime
| engaged in illegal, immoral, and reprehensible torture,
| and displaced and murdered millions.
|
| Every president in the history of the US has committed
| official, "loathsome", acts that would have landed an
| ordinary citizen in prison or the gas chamber.
| busterarm wrote:
| Citing this 1619 Project horseshit as fact is exactly why
| it needs to be opposed so vehemently.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I hear you, and you'll see me pushing back in somebody's
| Tobin the rest of the thread, burning think there's some
| nuance here. If we viewing as a piece of activism and not
| history then I think it becomes interesting. I think it's
| also useful to consider the work apart from the public
| persona of NHJ who is something of an internet troll.
|
| Puncturing the nationalist myth surrounding the
| revolution and founding is I think worthwhile. It was
| after all a violent revolution, carried out by people who
| disagreed strongly with one another. There are
| contradictions in the founding that at the same time
| could be troubling an inspiring. Deifying the founders
| does them a disservice. I thinking some sense their
| project was about separating the state and power from
| personalities.
|
| They were flawed people but accomplished something
| incredible. I'm against the sate conceptually, but they
| did a lot to bring governance closer to people.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Good lord this is a wall of misinformation.
|
| This thread is ripe for America hating propaganda.
|
| Most of what you said is either hyperbole or completely
| inaccurate.
| sillystuff wrote:
| Sorry about the wall of text. I tried not to favor
| anyone's "side".
|
| As for America hating. No. Those who are uncritical of
| their government are doing no one any favor. E.g., if we
| had more people speaking up critically against US
| policies abroad, 911 probably would never have happened.
|
| It will be the uncritical patriots who will allow America
| to be lead to ruin.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| I could go through each point, but let's start with
| Lincoln, you only took half the quote, what he said was:
|
| "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I
| would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the
| slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing
| some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
|
| The rest of your propaganda falls apart just as easily.
|
| You talk like someone from the 50 cent army or a useful
| idiot who believes the nonsense.
| sillystuff wrote:
| I added the ellipse to indicate there was more to the
| quote (originally, not an edit). The remainder of the
| quote doesn't affect the message at all. The message is
| that Lincoln was not ideologically for emancipation at
| the beginning of the war. He was pragmatic about it. All
| he cared about was keeping the union intact. If he could
| have won the war without freeing a single slave, he would
| have done so-- his own words.
|
| There is nothing false in any of what I wrote. There is
| one thing that is controversial since he wasn't
| convicted, but there is a great deal of evidence
| supporting Reagan selling crack cocaine to fund his
| illegal wars and death squads. Please go through point by
| point, if you allow yourself, you will learn something
| and possibly change your position.
|
| edit: added, "originally not an edit" for clarity.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Look, Regan was a hack, and a criminal but there's no
| evidence of the CIA selling crack, it's a conspiracy
| theory. John Kerry in 1986 tried to prove that it
| happened [1] but the committee never found evidence. They
| did point to funding of the Contras who in some cares
| were themselves involved in trafficking, but that's it.
| There's no solid evidence. You could point to the
| reporting by the San Jose Mercury, but it's mostly
| circumstantial.
|
| Now it could be sort of true if you squint and tilt your
| head, but it's far from conclusive and the narrative of
| "Reagan selling crack cocaine" is totally unsupported.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Committee_report
|
| edit - I'm more or less an anarchist and think that the
| state is evil, so a lot of what you're saying fits my
| priors really well. hat said, I think it's important to
| come armed with facts when criticizing power and the
| state. When we make overblown or false statements, it
| undermines the case.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > Starting with George Washington who lead an
| insurrection on behalf of rich slave owners (to protect
| slavery)
|
| This is absolutely ahistorical. None of the planners of
| the revolution ever documented this as a motivation. Some
| were even abolitionists. The British Slavery Abolition
| Act wasn't until 1833 anyway. On top of that, Dunmore's
| Proclamation which offered freedom to loyalist slaves was
| almost 8 months after the war started, so that couldn't
| have been a motivation.
|
| [edit] I don't have a stake in deciding which president
| was the worst or in defending Washington per se. I'm only
| addressing the particular historical claim which is
| pretty straightforwardly false, as far as I can tell.
|
| [edit 2] I would challenge anyone downvoting this to find
| historical evidence to the contrary.
| sillystuff wrote:
| Here is a supporting source:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/b
| lac...
|
| Since you posted your comment suggesting the claim is
| false, I found this supporting your claim:
|
| https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-pr
| oje...
|
| This one will have to wait to find more authoritative
| scholarly sources. But, I accept that it is controversial
| and possibly in question.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Are you serious? The fact checker and history professor
| from the politico article calls it an overstated claim.
|
| > Both sets of inaccuracies worried me, but the
| Revolutionary War statement made me especially anxious.
|
| A number of other prominent historians have leveled the
| same criticism.
|
| I'm not making any general claims about the revolution,
| or the politics of the moment as they relate to the
| telling of American history. But I am saying that the
| claim that it was motivated by the desire to preserve
| slavery is unsupported. This is the mainstream historical
| opinion.
|
| > This one will have to wait to find more authoritative
| scholarly sources. But, I accept that it is controversial
| and possibly in question
|
| It isn't controversial, it's completely without evidence.
| There is not a shred of evidence is presented. The linked
| essay from the 1619 Project picks up with Jefferson in
| 1776, a year and a half after the war started.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Just so everyone is clear, you think Trump would have
| been the better choice than Biden?
| busterarm wrote:
| Your bogeyman largely did nothing for four years.
| Actually sorry, he was the first politician anywhere in
| this country to guarantee women basic human rights in
| prison (he federally guaranteed that women in prison have
| access to sanitary products not through commissary, which
| is a priviledge that can be taken away).
|
| Biden has been a trainwreck for 50 years. Barack Obama
| himself said "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck
| things up" and that's exactly what the man did in
| Afghanistan, which might be the worst diplomatic blunder
| in our history. Our allies are extremely unhappy with us
| right now.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Your bogeyman largely did nothing for four years.
| Actually sorry, he was the first politician anywhere in
| this country to guarantee women basic human rights..._
|
| The theocrats he nominated for the Supreme Court will be
| there for decades, ensuring that no women without the
| resources of, say, a Trump family member, will be able to
| maintain control of their own bodies.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This is a false choice, they can both be awful along
| different axes. Biden however has a MUCH longer public
| record of bad policy decisions. Biden's crime bill from
| 1994 and the Iraq war which he supported caused more
| human misery than anything Trump had the opportunity to
| do in 4 years, all prior to the recent election. For all
| of his faults and criminality, Trump was mostly bluster
| and didn't actually do very much while in office, mostly
| it seems like he play golf and watched TV.
|
| In many substantive ways, Biden has continued most of the
| previous administrations policies. Sure, he's
| temperamentally different, but still a doddering old fool
| stuck in the politics of a previous era.
|
| In short, I would prefer neither.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And let's be entirely honest. It is not like policies
| vary from one administration to next. Many border
| policies were already in place before Trump and so was
| surveillance and so on. In general humanity loses every
| time.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The foreign policy situation since the end of the Cold
| Wars has been disappointing to say the least.
| fit2rule wrote:
| Biden was repugnant way before Trump entered the picture.
| gbdata123 wrote:
| And the Clipper Chip:
|
| https://reason.com/2015/04/09/the-feds-want-a-back-door-
| into...
|
| "One fine day in 1991, an ambitious senator named Joe Biden
| introduced legislation declaring that telecommunications
| companies "shall ensure" that their hardware includes
| backdoors for government eavesdropping. Biden's proposal
| was followed by the introduction of the Clipper Chip by the
| National Security Agency (NSA) and a remarkable bill,
| approved by a House of Representatives committee in 1997,
| that would have outlawed encryption without back doors for
| the feds."
|
| The man is an authoritarian, him playing an absent minded
| nice man of advanced age and his empty SJW phrases don't
| change that. You can get real glimpses of the personality
| like him "losing patience with the unvaccinated" lately.
|
| Firmly embedded in the swamp.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I actually believe that he is absent minded man of
| advanced age... Which makes whole USA political system
| even funnier from outside. Only if they didn't have
| nukes... Not that he doesn't deserve full punishment for
| all the crimes he has commited.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Biden is indeed a dangerous authoritarian who has worked
| tirelessly to erode civil liberties for decades. Even his
| VP is a prosecutor who started her career by ending a
| deferment program and ratcheting up prosecution of non-
| violent crimes.
| PerkinWarwick wrote:
| Honestly I think that's too strong.
|
| It's hard to define someone in a phrase, but I just view
| him as a half-bright grifter with backers. The backers
| are the people to be angry at. His views on civil
| liberties are probably more taking the easy road (or easy
| money) rather than being for or agin'.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| His appeals for tougher sentencing and weakening privacy
| have been consistent since the late 70s, and have
| outlived their popularity even with the kinds of people
| who fund him. He put a lot of work into what became the
| Patriot Act for over a decade before it became a reality.
| Very few politicians stick to something for so long and
| work so hard to get there. I'm inclined to believe that
| his actions demonstrate his revealed preference, as the
| Austrian Economists would say.
|
| In fact, it would have been politically expedient last
| summer for him to say the 1994 crime bill was a mistake
| in hindsight, but he did the opposite. I think this is
| who he really is.
| belter wrote:
| Can it be worst, that enemy number one, consider you so
| incompetent, that would tell his followers was not even
| worthwhile threatening you?
|
| "In the letter dated May 2010, the al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind
| wrote he had no assassination plots against Biden because he
| deemed him "totally unprepared" to lead the United States."
|
| "Bin Laden warned in 2010 letter that Biden would 'lead US
| into crisis'"
|
| https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/bin-laden-warned-
| in-2010-lette...
| jeroenhd wrote:
| As an outsider, I don't expect the American government to ever
| pardon people like him. Presidents come and go but they all
| play nicely with the military powers that remain after their
| terms. When presidents promise to do things the rest it the
| government doesn't like, those promises only get broken. Trump
| didn't complete his wall, Obama didn't close Guantanamo Bay,
| and so on. Presidents aren't kings, their actions will follow
| them and have consequences even after leaving office.
|
| Biden might pardon Snowden at the end of his term, but don't
| count on it. I haven't seen a single sign that Biden (or any
| American presidential candidate for that matter) would side
| with anyone for leaking government secrets. The government is
| sitting on many more juicy details that'd upset the global
| political balance and transparency is not in the USA's
| interests.
| truffdog wrote:
| Chelsea Manning got her sentence commuted to 0, which is
| almost like a pardon.
| pixel_tracing wrote:
| That's short term thinking and a failure of government.
| Working WITH Snowden will benefit the country more than
| working against.
|
| If it wasn't Snowden it would have been someone else, matter
| if time.
|
| Here's what the gov should do:
|
| 1.) Pardon Snowden publicly 2.) Work with Snowden as public
| front, to build a better (more privacy conscious)
| surveillance network and win back the public's trust
|
| Will this ever happen? Probably not
| seaourfreed wrote:
| Establishment Democrats hate Assange. Assange published
| things that hurt the Hillary / 2016 Democrat elections.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| It's not just "Establishment Democrats". He literally acted
| as a stooge for the Russian government in publishing DNC
| emails but suppressing damaging information on Republicans.
| zionic wrote:
| This is false. A single republican's personal laptop got
| hacked and a years-out-of-date outlook db was stolen.
|
| The DNC had their email server itself hacked, which is an
| entirely different level of compromise.
|
| Of course, they crafted a narrative that "republicans
| were hacked too!" which of course is true but highly
| misleading (typical of such propaganda campaigns).
|
| This was highly effective, as it's still popping up in
| discussions like this one 5+ years later.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| There's also no evidence the hacked laptop's data was
| offered to Wikileaks.
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| Surely, as a non-American he could chose any side he felt
| like?
|
| Much like I can - randomly or otherwise - choose any
| faction in the Nigerian elections.
|
| Or is their some planet-wide law that he fell under?
| abandonliberty wrote:
| I don't understand your comment. Whether he should be
| pardoned or not is separate from him picking sides and
| making adversaries of the democrats.
|
| Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions
| of others into account?
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| > Whether he should be pardoned?
|
| How do you pardon a foreign citizen?
| techrat wrote:
| 'Choosing a side' is what ceased to allow him to claim he
| was an impartial leaker and/or journalist.
| ben_w wrote:
| He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn't mean anyone
| has to like him for it.
|
| Furthermore, as Assange isn't an American citizen and
| doesn't get to vote in the USA, none of them have no
| reason to put personal dislike aside and defend him or
| his actions.
|
| Hell, he might have been a lot better off now if he _was_
| a USA citizen, or even if he'd been officially working
| for Russia.
|
| Right now, he's a conveniently unlicensed hot potato:
| held _personally_ liable by the powers, not even really
| seen as a journalist even if he was one.
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| > He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn't mean anyone
| has to like him for it.
|
| Indeed, hate away.
|
| But its a big jump to imprisoning (or as some would like
| killing) him.
|
| Just as - and focus here - its _not ok_ to extradite
| atheists to Saudi Arabia for heresy committed in say New
| Zealand.
|
| Its after all _just_ a wee election.
| pydry wrote:
| >He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian
| government
|
| Based upon the talking points at the time, establishment
| Democrats very much _wanted_ this to be true. This makes
| sense since the Russians are a convenient scapegoat.
|
| >suppressing damaging information on Republicans.
|
| They wanted this to be true but it didnt happen:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunk
| ed_...
| elpin wrote:
| "On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0
| through Twitter's private messaging function, writing,
| "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the
| next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is
| approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
| behind her after." The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded,
| "ok . . . i see." WikiLeaks also explained, "we think
| trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary .
| . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is
| interesting."".
|
| https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/downloa
| d
| pydry wrote:
| This suggests they wanted Bernie to win.
|
| In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well,
| journalism.
| elpin wrote:
| It shows they wanted to prevent Hillary from building
| supporters to hurt her campaign and were explicitly
| strategizing how to achieve that end:
|
| "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the
| next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is
| approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters"
|
| They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result
| of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of
| winning:
|
| "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against
| hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is
| interesting"
| pydry wrote:
| Yes, they were. Fox News hate democrats. CNN hate
| Republicans. Assange hated Clinton ever since she said
| "wouldnt it be easier if we just drone striked him?".
|
| He still didnt conceal any leaks in pursuit of that goal
| and he wasnt a russian spy. Nonetheless, both claims are
| frequently made in the mainstream media linked to
| Democrats.
|
| They are lies.
| bink wrote:
| He had his own show on Russian state television way back
| in 2012. He was quite literally being paid by them.
| pydry wrote:
| Know of any western TV channels that would offer him a
| show?
|
| lol I kid. Literally 0% chance CNN will give him one.
|
| _Every_ establishment critic faces the same choice:
|
| 1) appear on PressTV or RT
|
| 2) face ridiculously hostile interviewers
|
| 3) dont appear on TV
|
| Mostly they go for a mix of 1 and 2.
| [deleted]
| filoeleven wrote:
| No, it only suggests that they did not want Bernie
| supporters to solidify behind Clinton. The strongest
| suggestion is that they did not want Clinton to win.
| pydry wrote:
| Yeah, he did. Disliking Clinton does not make him
| dishonest, a Russian spy or somebody who acted against
| the principles of wikileaks, however.
|
| It makes him a journalist who doesnt appreciate being
| threatened with a drone strike by a sitting secretary of
| state for practising journalism.
|
| The fact people give him shit for this is pretty
| unbelievable.
|
| Excusing Russian style journalist assassination is not
| compatible with respect for Democracy.
| nullc wrote:
| At the time Assange was aware that as secretary of
| defense Hillary Clinton had suggested using a drone
| strike to assassinate him in the UK.
|
| Do you expect him to have been neutral on her candidacy?
| atatatat wrote:
| "rest of the government"
|
| No need to steer away from "deep state" so hard you go
| hyperbolic.
|
| Maybe use "Multiple competing power cabals", if you prefer?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The government is not just the president and the buddies he
| brings in. There are many departments that need to operate
| after the president and his crew leave office. All of those
| have a vested interest in keeping their jobs and being able
| to operate after the next election.
|
| It's no deep state conspiracy that the Pentagon or the CIA
| have their own opinion on world politics. If anything, the
| Trump administration has shown that there are still some
| restraints to the president's power. At some point details
| were made foggy or even left out in Trump's security
| briefings out of fear they might get leaked to Twitter. The
| end result of this process isn't to keep the elites in
| power or to control the people, it's much more tame than
| that. People don't like change and when a new guy rolls in
| and decides that the way some government body does
| something is wrong, people will naturally resist.
|
| There is always a power balance, usually in favour of the
| democratically elected officials, between the elected
| government and the government that sticks around. When push
| comes to shove the elected officials always have the power
| to overrule the unelected ones, but any future endeavours
| related to these parties would become difficult once you
| force matters.
|
| The CIA, FBI, DoJ and FDA don't get a complete reshuffle
| every four years. The figureheads and even organisational
| top can get replaced, but there are many layers of middle
| management below them that have cemented their ways in
| difficult to change processes, workflows and office
| culture.
|
| The system has its advantages, notably that the country
| doesn't collapse after giving a complete lunatic the reigns
| for four years, but also a great many disadvantages,
| notably elected officials being worked against in their
| quest for improvement and change. This effect can be
| increased or decreased, but it won't ever go away and
| denying that there is more to politics than elites at the
| top is just nonsensical in my opinion.
| holaxes wrote:
| > it wont ever go away
|
| It will erode away as American influence does. Just ask
| the Brits what happened with their War Office, India
| Office, Colonial Office etc etc etc. No one thought those
| were ever going away either.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| I wouldn't count on Biden administration to do anything
| remotely close. The whistleblower of the drone strike that
| killed 7 kids and 3 adults, all innocent, was convicted [1].
|
| [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/leaker-of-drone-
| secrets-ge...
| appleflaxen wrote:
| Didn't deep throat get a pardon?
| comrh wrote:
| Reagan did in 1981
| phpnode wrote:
| What possible advantage would there be in doing so? Biden would
| gain nothing but criticism, be accused of supporting a traitor
| and so on. Doing the right thing is rarely politically
| sensible.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Honorable people do the right thing even when they personally
| do not benefit.
| badinker wrote:
| Honorable people are not attracted to politics
| pydry wrote:
| They sometimes are but they tend to get filtered out at
| the lowest levels.
| christophilus wrote:
| Then the answer is no. It's almost a tautology that career
| politicians are not honorable.
| okamiueru wrote:
| I know of a couple of very good examples in us politics.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Honourable?
|
| This guy sent helicopters full of swat teams to arrest a
| single guy - Kim Dotcom. The whole thing was super illegal
| and almost hilariously over the top. "Almost" because there
| was nothing amusing about the whole thing. It was ugly
| busterarm wrote:
| Honorable, no. Funny, yes. Deserved, certainly.
|
| Let's not forget that Kim Dotcom is a miserable piece of
| shit who rats on his friends and used his position of
| trust to snoop through people's data and then snitch to
| governments and criminals for profit.
|
| Not enough people know his real history but the guy is a
| pure scumbag, credit card fraud criminal and con artist
| masquerading as freedom-loving CEO.
|
| He's exactly the kind of person that should be thrown in
| a hole somewhere and not heard from again and if you knew
| anything about him you would do it if you could.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I knew some dodgy things about that guy, but you seem to
| have more information, care to share? I would be most
| interested to read it.
| busterarm wrote:
| Ask his former business partners that he burned and other
| hackers. This isn't hidden knowledge, you just have to
| have been around the scene long enough. Part of why he
| ended up in NZ is because he literally burned everyone he
| could in Europe. He used to run shell boxes and brag
| about snooping on his customers and ratting them out to
| government agencies and shutting down carder rivals. He
| even used to boast "why would anyone trust me with their
| data?". This is long before Megaupload.
|
| Kim funded Megaupload largely off of his fraudulent gains
| on carder forums and a legitimate business that he
| scammed money off of.
| account-5 wrote:
| Traitor? Was he ever a US citizen?
| atmosx wrote:
| Snowden yes. Are you confusing Assange with Snowden?
| account-5 wrote:
| Yes, misread the OP and thought we were talking about
| wikileaks and assange as that was the article too.
| [deleted]
| ipaddr wrote:
| Biden seems to be clearing up older issues. Reminds me of
| someone closing out bugs in jira without looking to see if
| the work has been done. I could see him closing another
| chapter of history.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I hope not.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494157921...
|
| > The committee unanimously voted to endorse the report, and
| all members signed a letter to President Obama urging him not
| to pardon Snowden.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I would be surprised if the CIA didn't have all the options
| studied and planned out, ready to present should that option be
| selected by 'management'. It's what they do, and not a surprise
| that they did it in this case.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I wonder if the UK would trade Anna Sacoolas for Julian Assange.
| atok1 wrote:
| At this point, if you can't see how fucked up the US legal system
| is, I am sorry.
|
| Federal court has in the 90 percent conviction rate. Is it
| because they have such air tight cases and evidence to follow?
| No, it's a purely political kangaroo court.
|
| Someone would do well do wipe this cancerous 'judicial' system
| off grid.
| [deleted]
| tkojames wrote:
| Eh how is it purely political kangaroo court with jury
| convinctions? And for sure they only bring cases they think
| they can win they admit to this.. for sure having money helps
| get you better defense. But a purely political kangaroo is a
| pretty big stretch. Unless you are talking about the secret
| FISA courts sure. What is way more scary is the whole killing
| USA citizen via drone strikes in foreign countries no court
| cases at all.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Peremptory challenges?
| slim wrote:
| Sowing discord within the group seemed an easier route to success
|
| 2017 fits the period in which one hacker of the group was
| publicly accused of sexual harrassement by a female employee of
| the Tor project
| nullc wrote:
| This is the definitive reporting on the subject:
| https://github.com/Enegnei/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor/blob/mast...
| nyolfen wrote:
| i went back and checked and it looks like this took place in
| 2016; appelbaum had two accusers, one of whom later accused a
| bitcoin core dev of sexual assault and was sued, which i
| believe settled out of court for an apology. afaict appelbaum
| has completely dropped off the net in the years since
| dehrmann wrote:
| > As an American citizen, I find it absolutely outrageous that
| our government would be contemplating kidnapping or assassinating
| somebody without any judicial process...
|
| I clipped it at an unfair point, but remember Anwar al-Awlaki?
| Obama ordered the execution of a US citizen in a foreign country
| without trial.
| viktorcode wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken this is allowed by the US law.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| It's illegal and was probably on its face grounds for
| convicting Obama along with a laundry list of former
| executives except nobody has the political will to do it.
| adventured wrote:
| Well, Biden just murdered an innocent family in Afghanistan
| with a drone strike on a car to score cheap political
| points, to be shown doing something in response to the
| bombing at the Afghanistan airport that killed US soldiers
| during the evacuation. It's hard to figure out if any lines
| exist at this point, legally, for the President when it
| comes to commiting war crimes (and obviously George W Bush
| and numerous of the people in his administration should be
| in prison).
|
| After Biden was done murdering innocent people in
| Afghanistan, then he stabbed our oldest ally - France - in
| the back to such a degree they pulled their ambassador in
| anger.
|
| Good thing we got rid of Trump, he was super damaging to
| the US reputation and relationships in Europe and around
| the world.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| We have every reason to believe that the drone strike was
| undertaken based on faulty intelligence and was launched
| with the intention of preventing an attacker from bombing
| innocent people.
|
| Stating that we just launched an attack on an innocent
| family for PR is doesn't stretch credulity it explodes
| it.
|
| Insofar as France nations don't have friends they have
| interests. The France/Austria sub contract was first
| posed 5 years ago and they haven't delivered much but the
| projected price has balooned from 40 to 60 Billion and
| the original proposal was finally signed 16 months later
| than the proposed 2018 deadline over concerns about the
| suitability of the French design and concerns about the
| process.
|
| The most recent milestone was this January and France
| again failed to meet requirements.
|
| France is like the guy who thinks he's doing a great job
| who absolutely everyone knew was going to get fired. Ego
| alone demands that they be shocked at this.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-
| docume...
|
| In the list of goals of the leadership of nations nowhere
| is it written sacrifice substantial national interests in
| order to maintain ephemeral good will exchangeable not
| even for carnival stuffies at the local fair. As long as
| our interests align with France and they have reason to
| believe that our actions will consistently align with
| those interests we will continue to find common cause.
|
| That is why Trump's inconsistency, love affair with
| dictators, and unpredictable persuit of personal
| interests was so damaging. It gives nations cause to
| doubt whether their long term interests and values are
| aligned at all and whether long term strategic alignment
| will therefore pay dividends. Chaos discourages
| investment of literal and political capital.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Allowed probably isn't the best-fit word. Based on what I've
| read, the then HW legal team found a legal loop hole (or
| sorts) and shoved the action through. Given the general
| nature of the situation it's unlikely anyone was going to
| step forward and make a legal challenge otherwise. And the
| media naturally sided with the WH.
| monocasa wrote:
| Eh, only sort of. The Supreme Court only ruled that no one
| had standing to sue, either before or after it happened.
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20210926170157/https://news.yahoo...
|
| https://archive.is/GKrLA
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Assange needs to keep going. The Mandela moment is only a couple
| of political cycles away.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| It depends what you mean by a couple of political cycles away.
|
| The Democrats and Bill Clinton considered Mandela a terrorist.
|
| It was George W Bush who in 2008 lifted Mandela from the
| terrorist watch list - although he waited till the end of his
| second term and for Mandela to approach the age of 90.
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/20080702-us-drops-mandela-terror...
| throwawaybutwhy wrote:
| Nah. He has no uMkhonto we Sizwe behind him, nor a nation state
| financing, training, and arming his comrades, nor a wave of
| public opinion nor a wide international boycott of his enemies.
| Just a lonely guy rotting in prison.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Nah. He has no uMkhonto we Sizwe behind him,
|
| You can change that
| gatvol wrote:
| MK was spectacularly ineffective
| vorpalhex wrote:
| It would be almost negligent to not draft and forecast the
| scenario. Intelligence work has to operate from worst case
| assumptions.
|
| Obviously the plan was never executed. I am sure that was a
| choice based on risk factors and not just professional ethics.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| What is the worst case scenario of Assange being a free man,
| exactly?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Signalling that you can get away leaking embarrassing secrets
| to the outside world, mostly. I'd reckon there'd be a lot
| more Snowdens, Assanges and Mannings out there if the
| American government didn't grossly abuse its power to make
| their lives a living hell.
| codedokode wrote:
| But if you don't do anything illegal and don't kill
| innocent civilians then there will not be any embarrassing
| secrets to leak.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| That Assange is indeed compromised by foreign intelligence
| but is still able to receive exfiltrated American
| intelligence.
| pbaka wrote:
| I'm not sure in what sense do you are using "compromised",
| it is unclear for me in regards to context.
|
| He is not a US citizen, and he was never a "pro-western-
| mainstream" or "pro-establishment" type (he was born into a
| cult with a history of systematic children sex abuse in
| Australia, one of the leaders was close to the AU
| government, Assange then became a teenage hacker, etc). He
| was a contrarian against the West from the start, while
| being of the West.
|
| Do you use the term in relation to some of Wikileaks goals
| or mission statements, some hacker ethos, in the sense that
| he compromised himself in regards to some personal
| conviction of his ?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Wouldn't that information end up in some other hands
| anyway? It has to be exfiltrated already before he gets it
| and shares it...
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| You're unfortunately being downvoted because you are not
| toeing the HN crowd line that Assange is a hero. But the
| plain truth is he took a TV deal (bribe) from Russian state
| media[0] in exchange for suppressing whistleblowers leaking
| Russian involvement in Syria[1], and doesn't even bother to
| deny that he's been coopted by Putin[2] when confronted. He
| is very motivated to leak as much damaging information he
| can on America, but will censor and threaten those who want
| to bring his radical transparency on Russian oligarchs.
|
| [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article
| /amp/... [1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-
| syria-files-syria-r... [2]
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/in-the-
| know/i...
| Levitz wrote:
| I'm ready and willing to accept that Assange is by no
| means unbiased, thing is, I don't really care.
|
| I know that Russia has enormous corruption, as a matter
| of fact I don't even try to understand the degree and
| inner workings of said corruption and I very much doubt
| that it being public would really improve anything, that
| is, sadly, par for the course regarding Russia.
|
| I care that when confronted with some ugly truths, a good
| deal of the American public immediately sided with
| authoritarianism because it was inconvenient for them to
| do otherwise, going all the way to conspiracy theories
| (pee tape, Russian prostitutes etc) and deep into
| propaganda, It's not "blackmail", it's now "kompromat",
| it's not "geopolitics" it's "realpolitik", it's not just
| "the elite", it's "Russian Oligarchs", there is this
| effort of antagonization, of alienation that both
| disgusts and scares me, and I think that's a way bigger
| problem than anything related Assange himself.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| So your opinion is it's sometimes necessary to suppress
| much uglier truths in order to expose much lesser ones?
|
| If we're being honest though, we'd frankly acknowledge
| that we're not talking about Russian corruption. In this
| specific case we're talking about supporting chemical
| weapon attacks against civilians, but we could also talk
| about the brutal war crimes in Chechnya.
|
| Assange sees himself as at war with America and accepts
| Putin as his necessary patron to continue it. I just find
| it weird that other Americans (typically on the fringe
| left and right) try to tell me I need to view America as
| my enemy and Putin as my friend, and agree that we need
| to help censor truths about his rule in order to further
| his cause.
|
| Personally, I'm disgusted by people who see a dictator
| who regularly murders his opponents, bombs his own
| cities, supports chemical weapon attacks against
| civilians, and think "he's on my side", then try to
| defend censoring the truths of his actions under the
| guise of "well we hate the same people".
| FDSGSG wrote:
| >it's not "geopolitics" it's "realpolitik"
|
| At least that seems to have nothing to do with Russia.
| [deleted]
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't see how anybody could read this and then pretend that
| Assange has any chance of a fair trial in America. Not only were
| his communication constantly monitored for years, already a
| breach of client attorney privilege, the US considered flagrant
| assassination as a potential way to handle him.
|
| I've heard many people say that Assange committed actual crimes
| and it's time for him to face the consequences of those actions.
| While I personally disagree about whether he's done anything
| illegal, even if he has it impossible for him to get a fair trial
| and justice to be served. Everything being done to him is an
| effort to get revenge on the person who embarrassed the military
| and intelligence communities.
| m0zg wrote:
| Not after the entirety of the liberal press branded him a Putin
| stooge because he emabarrassed Hillary Clinton, that's for
| sure. Embarrassing the Clintons generally doesn't do any favors
| to one's life expectancy in this banana republic.
| TheTester wrote:
| Honestly those people are wrong and are usually boomers that
| lack any self awareness of the crimes of their country, or
| uniting ally evil people that have given up on the facade of
| humanity that the richest and most powerful in America used to
| have. Through the years quite honestly the actual issues that
| people have with Asante have become more and more clear... he
| showed the real face of how the hegemony gets power and
| resources, this made a lot of people that profit from this as
| well as their luckiest very mad. They can chimp out and or
| actually try to seem reasonable and say muhhh Hillary or "He
| helped Trump" or whatever excuse they want to find to accuse
| him of any sort of crime , but the truth is exposing the
| reality of the crimes and the murders and the borderline
| genocides of the rich and powerful, shouldn't be a crime but
| the duty of any decent person.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| So what's the alternative? Don't make people you like stand
| trial?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Don't flagrantly violate an accused's right to a fair trial.
| My opinions on the person aren't relevant, though I hardly
| like Assange.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How were they violated?
| legolas2412 wrote:
| > Not only were his communication constantly monitored
| for years, already a breach of client attorney privilege,
| the US considered flagrant assassination as a potential
| way to handle him.
|
| Not sure how OP could be more clearer
| laurent92 wrote:
| Well, now that he's been capture by the USA, we'll soon know
| whether he committed anything thanks to his trial, right? Wait,
| has it been more than a year without trial already?
| avianlyric wrote:
| Erm, last I checked the U.K. justice system wasn't the "USA".
|
| The U.K. just denied the US extradition request, so the US
| isn't even close to "capturing" Assange.
| m0zg wrote:
| Servant states like the UK do not have autonomy in such
| matters.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Hahahahahahahahaha, in what universe is the U.K. a
| "servant state". You need to go brush up on your world
| history, the U.K. is quite capable of telling the US to
| fuck off, and our judiciary in particular is quite happy
| saying the same to our government if they try to meddle.
|
| Remember we had a mostly independent judiciary before
| America was even founded, that lot don't take kindly
| being told their "servants" to any government.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Even if Assange's extradition request is granted, his court
| case won't show whether he has committed anything. I suspect
| much of the prosecution's argument would be secret, and like
| in Ellsberg's case Assange would not be permitted to present
| a defense.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Wasn't Wikileaks supposed to have been the means by which Russia
| took the election from Clinton? Why would the Trump
| administration be so unhappy with them? Were they perhaps
| continuing the previous administrations' "sweetness and light"
| approach?
| phpnode wrote:
| Why would they have any loyalty towards wikileaks? What is a
| useful idiot that has outlived it's usefulness?
| krona wrote:
| Wikileaks owes no loyalty to Trump. Trump had nothing to gain
| from defending him, strategically.
|
| Basic Realpolitik.
| michaelt wrote:
| Even if Trump had warm feelings towards Wikileaks, the
| directors of the CIA, NSA etc clearly didn't. So it depends on
| how inclined they were to lock antlers with each other.
|
| And from Trump's perspective, he may like seeing his rival
| taking a bullet - but that doesn't imply he'd feel protective
| of the spent shell casings on the ground.
| ipaddr wrote:
| By killing him you close the loop?
|
| In reality hawks in the miliary have wanted him since the video
| release showing that bombing at the wedding.
|
| He made enemies of both sides.
|
| If you think about it both sides play for the same team. Any
| powerful voice uncontrolled needs silencing. Hence why he is
| inprison and why laws were broken to get him in jail.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > Russia took the election from Clinton?
|
| Clinton's sense of entitlement and both parties' history of not
| supporting the working class lost her the election.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| She lost because she was a woman and because she rightly
| declared a large chunk of America is deplorable at the same
| time as Trump was speaking so effectively both to those
| deplorables and to many who felt left behind in our current
| America.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Seems like the article answered this question somewhat.
| Basically it's that the president wasn't consulted in some
| questions as there was a loophole and that the Intelligence
| services do not change at all when a president changes and they
| have long memories and wanted revenge.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-26 23:01 UTC)