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

241–250 of 282 posts

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

#241

Post by photochemsyn »

dataangel wrote: post #228
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 al…

Perhaps one of the missions they were 'tasked with' was ramping up tensions with Russia (for the benefit of the arms dealers) by launching a lot of bogus false flag attacks on US corporations, with attendent hysterical media coverage?

The CIA is more of a propaganda outfit than anything else in my opinion, although their dirty banking and drug dealing games are right up there to. Their 'intelligence role' on important issues could be entirely subsumed by the DIA. Should have been shut down in the 1960s like JFK wanted to do. Useless failure agency on 9/11, too. And, the CIA was behind all the dirty Iraq/Afghanistan torture programs, were they not?

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

#242

Post by legolas2412 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #229
legolas2412 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 convenie…

Consideration means planning.

If you caught a policeman planning to shoot an innocent African American, or if a neo-nazi was found to be planning to blow up a synagogue, would you not suggest taking legal action?

If I planned to kill someone just like the us govt did, I would be in prison the next day.

Assange should be given a fair trial. But the government spying illegally and planning to kill him doesn't give anyone confidence in that.

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

#243

Post by boomboomsubban »

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.

What he supposedly did isn't relevant in the arguments being made. His right to a fair trial has already been compromised, and there's ample reason to suspect the US will continue to ignore that right.

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

#244

Post by refurb »

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…

Why can’t it be both? Since when are people or countries only motivated by one thing?

If you think the US went to war with Nazi Germany for purely altruistic reasons you’re sorely mistaken.

But at the same time an evil fascist dictatorship was defeated because the US got involved.

The world is a messy complicated space and human actions are messy and complicated.

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

#245

Post by refurb »

pphysch wrote: post #157
holaxes wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you list some them? Bonus points if outside Western Europe.

Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.

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

#246

Post by tcmart14 »

seaourfreed wrote: post #43
jeroenhd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Establishment Democrats hate Assange. Assange published things that hurt the Hillary / 2016 Democrat elections.

Huh, DJT didnt seem to have an issue executing snowden for a long time until right before election. Im not saying establishment democrats don't hate Assange, but that your argument is purely one sided and bias when in fact this hate is across a spectrum of politicians. Establishment Republicans hate Snowden and even Trump hates snowden. It is just surprising right before an election he mentions a potential pardon when he had 3 years to consider a pardon.

[1] https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-nw-nyt-tru... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-said-considering-pardo... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/tr...

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

#247

Post by tcmart14 »

tcmart14 wrote: post #246
seaourfreed wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Establishment Democrats hate Assange. Assange published things that hurt the Hillary / 2016 Democrat elections.

Huh, DJT didnt seem to have an issue executing snowden for a long time until right before election. Im not saying establishment democrats don't hate Assange, but that your argument is purely one sided and bias when in fact this hate is across a spectrum of politicians. Establishment Republicans hate Snowden and even Trump hates snowden. It is just surprising right before an election he mentions a potential pardon whe…

Some more from 2016 Republicans hopefuls.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/republicans-2016-edw...

I think this shows on either side of the aisle, there is little love for Snowden and people alike.

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

#248

Post by blitzar »

ok123456 wrote: post #205
blitzar wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

You must watch fox "news" all day.

You missed the bits about 'the NSA had a direct pipe into google, microsoft, yahoo, att and hoovered up everything you said, did and wrote'

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

#249

Post by g8oz »

ch4s3 wrote: post #117
sillystuff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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 m…

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gary-webb-dark-alliance_n_596...

“CIA did not inform Congress of all allegations or information it received indicating that Contra-related organizations or individuals were involved in drug trafficking,” the inspector general’s report found. “During the period in which the FY 1987 statutory prohibition was in effect, for example, no information has been found to indicate that CIA informed Congress of eight of the ten Contra-related individuals concerning whom CIA had received drug trafficking allegations or information.”

This complicity of the CIA in drug trafficking is at the heart of Webb’s explosive expose — a point Webb makes himself in archival interview footage that appears in Levin’s documentary.

“It’s not a situation where the government or the CIA sat down and said, ‘Okay, let’s invent crack, let’s sell it in black neighborhoods, let’s decimate black America,’” Webb says. “It was a situation where, ‘We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it.’”

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

#250

Post by milkytron »

legolas2412 wrote: post #242
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 convenie…

Consideration means planning. If you caught a policeman planning to shoot an innocent African American, or if a neo-nazi was found to be planning to blow up a synagogue, would you not suggest taking legal action? If I planned to kill someone just like the us govt did, I would be in prison the next day. Assange should be given a fair trial. But the government spying illegally and planning to kill him doesn't give anyo…

> But the government spying illegally and planning to kill him doesn't give anyone confidence in that.

Planning to kill him is terrible, but was the spying actually illegal? With all the permissions the government has on spying, I have such a hard time determining if any single instance of spying is illegal or not, regardless of whether it's ethical.

Post reply on HN