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

181–190 of 282 posts

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

#181

Post by samhw »

ok123456 wrote: post #168
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…

glow harder

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 cliché, 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.

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

#182

Post by busterarm »

sillystuff wrote: post #66
busterarm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Citing this 1619 Project horseshit as fact is exactly why it needs to be opposed so vehemently.

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

#183

Post by busterarm »

ActorNightly wrote: post #41
busterarm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just so everyone is clear, you think Trump would have been the better choice than Biden?

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.

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

#184

Post by 1cvmask »

sydthrowaway wrote: post #35

Assange needs to keep going. The Mandela moment is only a couple of political cycles away.

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...

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

#185

Post by AtlasBarfed »

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…

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.

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

#186

Post by blitzar »

giardini wrote: post #129

Did anything useful come out of the "Vault" revelations? I mean for examples improvements in the WWW, PC hardware/software, browsers, etc.

I dont think so, certainly nothing on the scale of the original Snowden stuff which by all accounts shook up google et al.

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

#187

Post by AtlasBarfed »

hutzlibu wrote: post #106
marcinzm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"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.

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.

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

#188

Post by legolas2412 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #169
boomboomsubban wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How were they violated?

> 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

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

#189

Post by billyhoffman »

sudosysgen wrote: post #179
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…

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?

> 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.”

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

#190

Post by [deleted] »

samhw wrote: post #181
ok123456 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

glow harder

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 cliché, to assert the speaker's own tribal allegiance and to place their interlocutor on the 'wrong side'. I really d…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN