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

221–230 of 282 posts

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

#221

Post by tablespoon »

newbamboo wrote: post #158
huntermeyer wrote: post #140

With this, the idea that Epstein was suicided is not so far fetched.

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.

> Lol. Literally nobody thinks he actually committed suicide.

Well that's easily disproved: I think 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.

IMHO, theories to the contrary are most likely just the delusions of conspiracy theorists. And if we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, I'd rather talk about aliens at Area 51 than this garbage.

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

#222

Post by dragonwriter »

tablespoon wrote: post #221
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.

> Lol. Literally nobody thinks he actually committed suicide. Well that's easily disproved: I think 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. IMHO, theories to the contrary are most likely just the delusions of conspiracy theorists. And if we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, I…

> Well that's easily disproved

No, its not.

> I think he actually committed suicide.

Asserting a non-falsifiable contradiction is not disproof.

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

#223

Post by tablespoon »

dragonwriter wrote: post #222
tablespoon wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lol. Literally nobody thinks he actually committed suicide. Well that's easily disproved: I think 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. IMHO, theories to the contrary are most likely just the delusions of conspiracy theorists. And if we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, I…

> Well that's easily disproved No, its not. > I think he actually committed suicide. Asserting a non-falsifiable contradiction is not disproof.

>>> Lol. Literally nobody thinks he actually committed suicide.

>> Well that's easily disproved

> No, its not.

A statement "literally nobody thinks" is easily disproved.

>> I think he actually committed suicide.

> Asserting a non-falsifiable contradiction is not disproof.

Providing a counterexample to a statement like that is a disproof, and if I can't testify to my own thoughts to disprove it, then it's just nonsense.

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

#224

Post by secondaryacct »

simorley wrote: post #125
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…

> 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 m…

It's not a shock to me in Hong Kong. Been called a wumao by so many virtue signalers for just saying it's an illusion: we're less oppressed than they say we are, americans are less virtuous in their attempts to "free" us than they say they are.

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

#225

Post by StanislavPetrov »

marcinzm wrote: post #85
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…

> 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 certainly do, and that is one of the reasons we are seeing a massive authoritarian crackdown on free speech. The last thing the spy agencies and the rest of the deep state want is for people to understand what they actually do and how dirty they actually are.

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

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

asdff wrote: post #202
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.

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.

> When faced with a hand like that, I'm surprised more people aren't killing themselves in jail to be honest.

There's a reason for suicide watch, and a reason Epstein was previously on it.

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

#227

Post by StanislavPetrov »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #141
boomboomsubban wrote: post #90

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 a…

So what's the alternative? Don't make people you like stand trial?

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.

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

#228

Post by dataangel »

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…

> 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.

Uh… I assume you can see how leaving a note saying “CIA was here!!!” might run counter to the goals of a spy agency. You might separately not like some of the missions they are tasked with, but this is what they would be doing even if they spent all their time rescuing orphans and their puppies from North Korean salt mines.

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

#229

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

legolas2412 wrote: post #188
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Considered*

Did they try? The US also "considers" invading Canada. Consideration means nothing. And the US monitors people suspected of crimes all of the time. I'm tired of hearing about hypothetical "unfair" trials.

Once again, the alternative you guys seem to want is a world where people that you like can do whatever they want. You like Assange and because of his celebrity status no trial can be fair- very convenient. Nobody famous has ever stood trial?

My 2 cents

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

#230

Post by dataangel »

simorley wrote: post #148
deanCommie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

> 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 w…

You ignored that China limits religious expression and puts people in re-education camps. That’s not propaganda, that is the actual situation. They also make an enormous point of trying to portray themselves in the best possible light. That’s why their news media is extraordinarily censored. That’s why people trying to spread virus information by text had to use ridiculous circumlocutions to avoid the automatic banned-phrase detectors.

Russia has sham elections where Putin always gets 99% of the vote. It absolutely tries to pretend it’s a democracy.

There is an obvious moral appeal to democracy that is inherent to the idea. Likewise guarantees of human rights. China and Russia could embrace these ideals for real and have the same moral high ground, but that is obviously not the state of things, and the fact that they are both run by leaders not accountable to a real vote is why I they are unlikely to change soon. At least the US has means to course correct.

Post reply on HN