Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 282 posts

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#261

Post by pvg »

photochemsyn wrote: post #238
pvg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Ah, I did qualify that statement with the search term 'SECRET' (classification level box) on the CableGate archive. Yes, there are unclassified and even classified cables discussing human rights initiatives - but I'm guessing 'SECRET' is what they really care a lot about, and that stuff in my experience of reading literally hundreds of cables (okay I was leaning more towards energy research) that's just not an issue…

Oh I see, I misread it as scare-quoted secret rather than specific classification level but there are also piles of SECRET documents/cables that are about human rights, promotion of democracy, etc as well.

I don't think it makes much difference either way because I think you're over-interpreting the classification level as some sort of extra level care. All of this stuff was readily available to a Private First Class stuck on a forward base in the Iraqi desert. And I think my point still holds - whatever views one might have on US foreign policy, one can form them and support them just as well by simply reading the news. Besides piles of detail, the cables don't tell you anything different. They're basically this but for diplomacy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtrT3E4vb8

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#262

Post by beebeepka »

busterarm wrote: post #176
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Well, guy is no saint but the way the whole thing was handled speaks volumes. He pissed off powerful people and illegal actions were taken getting him. Apparently that's ok

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#263

Post by stephen_g »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #237
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is to let people stand trial when they've violated legitimate laws, in front of a jury of their peers. The Unconstitutional, Orwellian Espionage Act that Assange is accused of violating is a stain on the US "justice" system and an affront to everyone who believes in free speech and the Constitution.

Isn't it claimed that he assisted people who were committing cybercrimes? That's not journalism. If only there was a way to figure out the truth- a trial perhaps.

It’s ridiculous to this non-US person that the United States thinks they should have jurisdiction here. This is an Australian citizen who published in the UK and Europe. The whole case is baseless, he’s not subject to the US’s Espionage Act. And of course the ‘assisting hackers’ stuff is nonsense that was tacked on when it looked like the initial indictment wouldn’t stick because of the rules about not extraditing for political crimes.

But the core point still stands - the general consensus remains that it would be impossible for Assange to have a fair trial in the US legal system.

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#264

Post by antihero »

photochemsyn wrote: post #62

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 cr…

Capitalism Enforcement Agency :)

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#265

Post by busterarm »

beebeepka wrote: post #262
busterarm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, guy is no saint but the way the whole thing was handled speaks volumes. He pissed off powerful people and illegal actions were taken getting him. Apparently that's ok

I didn't say it was okay. I just said that it was funny and that he deserved it.

Kim is the kind of person that deserves to have his asshole tickled with glowing hot metal rods...but that isn't an endorsement if somebody goes and does it.

It's fine to be outraged at the US & NZ governments, but it's not fine to spare the man a shred of sympathy.

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#266

Post by raxxorrax »

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #164
newbamboo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)…

Compromising people through their sexuality is pretty solid lever for influence. Always has been, always will be. I think Epstein was more or less a high society pimp that got caught, which is rare because in such a position there are many that protect you.

Maybe victims were coerced and groomed instead of directly being forced.

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#267

Post by raxxorrax »

roody15 wrote: post #147

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 b…

Is it really a farce? Give me one US paper that would report critically on it. If a writer would take this on his colleagues would probably excommunicate him. So they could just prosecute him without too much notice. Some of these papers were complicit in selling wars of aggression to the public. But I don't think guilt and bias are even needed to give a prediction on reporting.

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#268

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

stephen_g wrote: post #263
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it claimed that he assisted people who were committing cybercrimes? That's not journalism. If only there was a way to figure out the truth- a trial perhaps.

It’s ridiculous to this non-US person that the United States thinks they should have jurisdiction here. This is an Australian citizen who published in the UK and Europe. The whole case is baseless, he’s not subject to the US’s Espionage Act. And of course the ‘assisting hackers’ stuff is nonsense that was tacked on when it looked like the initial indictment wouldn’t stick because of the rules about not extraditing fo…

IANAL but I've been told by a lawyer that international law is messy. The US has jurisdiction if your host country says that they do. Countries are also free to tell the US to pound sand.

I'd just like some answers. I'd like it to be tried in court. I don't think the trial would necessarily be unfair. These conversations go in circles because we are all denied the truth so we argue hypotheticals.

Re: Former U.S. officials describe details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange

#269

Post by raxxorrax »

michaelmrose wrote: post #113

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.

It would already be nice to know whom they serve. It doesn't seem to be the executive part of the United States government. That would mean they completely lack legitimacy for their actions.
Post reply on HN