Report: In 2017 America's CIA Plotted to Kidnap Julian Assange From Ecuador (yahoo.com) 149
"In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder," reports Yahoo News, "spurring heated debate among Trump administration officials over the legality and practicality of such an operation."
The report is based on conversations with more than 30 former U.S. officials, "eight of whom described details of the CIA's proposals to abduct Assange." 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. 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...."
While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies for years, these plans for an all-out war against him were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication of extraordinarily sensitive CIA hacking tools, known collectively as "Vault 7," which the agency ultimately concluded represented "the largest data loss in CIA history." President Trump's newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape allegations he denied... The CIA's fury at WikiLeaks led Pompeo to publicly describe the group in 2017 as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." More than just a provocative talking point, the designation opened the door for agency operatives to take far more aggressive actions, treating the organization as it does adversary spy services, former intelligence officials told Yahoo News. Within months, U.S. spies were monitoring the communications and movements of numerous WikiLeaks personnel, including audio and visual surveillance of Assange himself, according to former officials...
There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency's WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting... In late 2017, in the midst of the debate over kidnapping and other extreme measures, the agency's plans were upended when U.S. officials picked up what they viewed as alarming reports that Russian intelligence operatives were preparing to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow... In response, the CIA and the White House began preparing for a number of scenarios to foil Assange's Russian departure plans, according to three former officials. Those included potential gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London, crashing a car into a Russian diplomatic vehicle transporting Assange and then grabbing him, and shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow. (U.S. officials asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed, according to a former senior administration official.)
One former senior official told Yahoo News that "It got to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards."
The report is based on conversations with more than 30 former U.S. officials, "eight of whom described details of the CIA's proposals to abduct Assange." 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. 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...."
While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies for years, these plans for an all-out war against him were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication of extraordinarily sensitive CIA hacking tools, known collectively as "Vault 7," which the agency ultimately concluded represented "the largest data loss in CIA history." President Trump's newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape allegations he denied... The CIA's fury at WikiLeaks led Pompeo to publicly describe the group in 2017 as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." More than just a provocative talking point, the designation opened the door for agency operatives to take far more aggressive actions, treating the organization as it does adversary spy services, former intelligence officials told Yahoo News. Within months, U.S. spies were monitoring the communications and movements of numerous WikiLeaks personnel, including audio and visual surveillance of Assange himself, according to former officials...
There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency's WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting... In late 2017, in the midst of the debate over kidnapping and other extreme measures, the agency's plans were upended when U.S. officials picked up what they viewed as alarming reports that Russian intelligence operatives were preparing to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow... In response, the CIA and the White House began preparing for a number of scenarios to foil Assange's Russian departure plans, according to three former officials. Those included potential gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London, crashing a car into a Russian diplomatic vehicle transporting Assange and then grabbing him, and shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow. (U.S. officials asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed, according to a former senior administration official.)
One former senior official told Yahoo News that "It got to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards."
Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, what is not surprising is Trump turning on Wikileaks and Assange when Assange failed to do his bidding and say teh Russians didn't hack the Democrat's email servers. This episode is just another example of how Trump will turn on anyone who doesn't do his bidding without question. Fortunately there were still administration officials who took steps to thwart trump.
As for Assange to Russia, Putin is no better and Assange doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who want to have to jump every time the boss says so. Did he think Putin would let he leave whenever he wants and to run Wikileaks how he wants? He would simply have been Putin's stooge and no doubt suffer a tragic accident if he crossed him.
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand Trump would be the friend of whoever feigns loyalty to him, no matter how evil or terrorist they are. I am not just talking about people like Kim Jong-un but also terrorists like the current leader of the Taliban who shook hands on a deal with Trumpâ(TM)s Secretary of State. References:
https://www.voanews.com/a/midd... [voanews.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://apnews.com/article/joe... [apnews.com]
If countries like Iran were smart enough to have said Trump is a nice guy they too would have gotten everything they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not just talking about people like Kim Jong-un but also terrorists like the current leader of the Taliban who shook hands on a deal with Trumpâ(TM)s Secretary of State.
C'mon! That's old shit [wikimedia.org] by now
Re:Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, from my understanding Julian Assange did deny russian involvement in the DNC emails disclosure. Also, I thought we figured out that too much data was copied too quickly for it to be an internet based hack, someone copied the data to something like a USB thumb drive on a local bus. This means it was a leak, not a hack.
You say "Fortunately there were still administration officials who took steps to thwart trump". Are you sure that President Trump himself was pushing the covert assassination of Assange? I haven't read any indication of which way he would lean in a decision like that. My thinking is Trump probably would've let Pompeo let the CIA have their revenge killing. I think that revenge is for Vault7, not the DNC emails - do you really think Pompeo would want to push revenge for publishing that leak?? That helped him...
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is open about being willing to deliberately target innocent families of people he suspects of terrorism, so yeah it is not out of character for Trump to want to do something like this.
References:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
https://www.worldpoliticsrevie... [worldpoliticsreview.com]
https://time.com/4132368/donal... [time.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks position on the DNC leak was
- leaks are fully anonymous by design. If the Russians want something authentic published all they have to do is upload it. Wikileaks will publish after verification and of course if it makes a difference. (not yet published, has political relevance,..).
- in this case the leaker(s) contacted Wikileaks directly and the identities are known to Wikileaks. And they are not state actors. Assange has communicated with the DNC leaker and Craig Murray has met the Podesta leaker
Re: (Score:2)
William Binney thinks it was a leak rather than a hack. But I guess we will probably never know for sure.
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:2)
All the file mod times showed is that the files were transferred from a USB at some point. For instance, to move the files between two PCs without using a network as a competent hacker would want to do to help protect their identity (in case they got reverse hacked).
In fact, it was proven to be a hack as a foreign intelligence did in fact hack the hackers and watched them on their networked security cameras.
Re:Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, what is not surprising is Trump turning on Wikileaks and Assange when Assange failed to do his bidding and say teh Russians didn't hack the Democrat's email servers. This episode is just another example of how Trump will turn on anyone who doesn't do his bidding without question.
Some times telling the absolute truth gets you modded as a troll.
It does not change the fact that it is the truth. Some times it confirms the veracity of the statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, what is not surprising is Trump turning on Wikileaks and Assange when Assange failed to do his bidding and say teh Russians didn't hack the Democrat's email servers. This episode is just another example of how Trump will turn on anyone who doesn't do his bidding without question.
Some times telling the absolute truth gets you modded as a troll.
It does not change the fact that it is the truth. Some times it confirms the veracity of the statement.
Yup. Today Trump said Stacy Abrahams, a Democrat, may have been a better governor of Georgia than Kemp, his former golden boy Republican, who didn't toe his election steal line.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, what is not surprising is Trump turning on Wikileaks and Assange when Assange failed to do his bidding and say teh Russians didn't hack the Democrat's email servers. This episode is just another example of how Trump will turn on anyone who doesn't do his bidding without question.
Some times telling the absolute truth gets you modded as a troll.
It does not change the fact that it is the truth. Some times it confirms the veracity of the statement.
Yup. Today Trump said Stacy Abrahams, a Democrat, may have been a better governor of Georgia than Kemp, his former golden boy Republican, who didn't toe his election steal line.
Did you see how Trump praised the Cyber Ninjas right before they released their audit report showing that Biden actually picked up votes?
Now he's walked it back as fraudulant. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Trump turn against a guy who said Hillary was a "sadistic sociopath"?
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
In those same leaked 2016 chats Assange also said he thought it better for the US to elect a GOP president because the press is overwhelmingly hostile to GOP so a GOP president they hold to the maximum scrutiny, whereas a Dem president they coddle.
To say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Trump turn against a guy who said Hillary was a "sadistic sociopath"?
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
In those same leaked 2016 chats Assange also said he thought it better for the US to elect a GOP president because the press is overwhelmingly hostile to GOP so a GOP president they hold to the maximum scrutiny, whereas a Dem president they coddle.
To say the least.
That was in 2016. Trump, based on observed behavior, requires absolute loyalty all the time, and if he thinks you aren't will happily throw you under the bus. Turning on Assange when he didn't do what he asked is classic Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
In this debate Yanis Varoufakis describes what kind of a person Assange is: 4minute piece starting from around minute 53
https://youtu.be/uuaohhDxIG4?t... [youtu.be]
That is, the kind of asshole who given a way out stands on principle while everybody is trying to save him. And this guy would be working for the Russians? Wikileaks is his baby. He'd die for it, and he would certainly not compromise it in a vague attempt to influence elections between candidates who both suck.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, the kind of asshole who given a way out stands on principle while everybody is trying to save him. And this guy would be working for the Russians? Wikileaks is his baby. He'd die for it, and he would certainly not compromise it in a vague attempt to influence elections between candidates who both suck.
Trump wouldn't care about Assange's standing on principle. He wanted him to do his bidding and when he refused he was now an enemy to crush. It's not like Trump has any principles beyond what is best for him right now, nor respect anyone who actually took a principled stand against him. If he thought it would get him elected again he'd switch to back to being a Democrat and pick AOC as his running mate.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump hardly played a role in this apart from not objecting to whatever the CIA decided. I don't see how he considered Wikileaks an enemy. He was concerned about Russiagate and a public statement of Wikileaks could maybe help him, but if they didn't I doubt if he spent another thought on that.
But what most people have trouble with is that they think Wikileaks had any other agenda apart from establishing Wikileaks as a very reliable publisher of secret information.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA seems to indicate that the Trump admin was pushing back against this:
There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting. “There were serious intel oversight concerns that were being raised through this escapade,” said a Trump national security official.
Further on down, it seems to pin most of this on Pompeo.
Re:Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Further on down, it seems to pin most of this on Pompeo.
Who was doing his level best to suck Trump's shriveled, tiny dick [chicagotribune.com] in order to get/justify his position as head of the CIA. Gee, I wonder if that might have anything to do with this...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The plots to assassinate Assange didn't go through. But the plot to declare Assange a non-journalist and therefore fair game for publishing information did go through.
The spying inside the embassy through UC Global also did go through. All the data on every visitor was scanned and there were cameras and microphones in every part of the apartment.
So stripping of protection of any journalist worldwide who publishes secret information about the US gorvernment is already a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
But the plot to declare Assange a non-journalist and therefore fair game for publishing information did go through.
Given Assange didn't actually do any publishing that stands to reason. Calling him a journalist is a bit disingenuous, and he wasn't being sought in the legal system for anything related to publish, but rather for computer related crimes, something journalists aren't magically immune from.
What about the rapes? (Score:3)
I thought this was supposed to be all about some dubious rape cases in Sweden? What happened to the Swedes? Seem to have gone very quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the charges hit the time limit on possible prosecution (statute of limitations), the rest werent pursued because they didnt provide a worthwhile case on their own
But by that time, Assange had breached British law by skipping bail, which is why he was ultimately arrested and couldnt walk as a free man.
Re: (Score:2)
UN rapporteur about torture may have caused the rape case to be finally shut down: https://www.republik.ch/2020/0... [republik.ch] . The British destroyed their mail communication with the Swedes so we can't know everything but it is known they pressured the Swedes to keep it alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe someone running long enough managed to get the statute of limitations to expire. Nice link. I stopped reading at the second word when a "reporter" decided to play the role of judge and jury.
Here's a tip for a better life: Read less bullshit and realise that criminal justice systems exist for a reason. Or you can be braindead enough to some random written article tell you what to think and that the evidence is all made up. You can choose how intelligent you want to present yourself online.
Re: (Score:2)
here is a tip for you: when given the choice to confront yourself with information and admit you've been wrong about everything in the last ten years, opt for self preservation and just dismiss that information as beneath your exalted standards.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was supposed to be all about some dubious rape cases in Sweden? What happened to the Swedes? Seem to have gone very quiet.
That's the wonderful success story of an accused criminal running from the law for long enough. In 2015 the statute of limitations expired, something genuinely sad for the alleged victims. Sweden was forced to drop the case as a result, it stands to reason they are quiet.
As for "dubious" I'm glad that you managed to play judge and jury based on assumptions, biases, and things you read about only in the media. Personally I would have greatly preferred we let an actual criminal justice system run its course,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the plot to declare Assange a non-journalist and therefore fair game for publishing information did go through.
Ok, a few things to clarify:
#1 - Assange/Wikileaks weren't and aren't "journalism" by any stretch of the imagination. It's been pretty clear that both their funding and operations were backed by Russian government operators, and specifically targeted towards attacking America and certain European nations, with an emphasis on attacking political parties that weren't pro-Russia/pro-Putin. As
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're all awaiting your detailed point-by-point response refuting his well-sourced post.
Re: (Score:2)
Woh, you put it in bold. I guess it must be true.
Text in bold is more of an inline TL;DR. It is really helpful to those of us who skim and it looks much better inline than an ugly appendix that a typical TL;DR is.
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:3)
Assange/Wikileaks aren't journalism, they're a Russian espionage operation.
Honestly, who gives a fuck what they are. For all care they could be a cryptocurrency-trading hamster with a high-tech wheel and two tunnels.
The only important question is: is the information they've published false?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that argument is used by Wikileaks about their sources. But it is relevant whether Wikileaks is considered a Russian espionage operation. It is important whether it is considered legitimate or not.
The wikileaks case is about deciding whether there can be an effective and *legitimate* mechanism providing government transparency or whether this is killed off. The people in the mainstream news media are right to conclude that Assange is not like them and therefore the risk to them is limited. Assange
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:3)
But it is relevant whether Wikileaks is considered a Russian espionage operation.
It is not relevant to me (European) or the rest of the world. We know for a fact that essentially everything else is a US espionage operation, the NSA actively listenes in on conversations of our state officials for fuck's sake. To say nothing of us, mere mortals. But we still shrug and buy Cisco, Microsoft etc, and let them in our daily lives. What difference does it make, all of a sudden, if Wikileaks spies for the Russians?
To you, if you're American... I agree that it may matter in any other issue (e.g.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that the value of information can be weighed independently of who provides it. That is short term value. But you seem to ignore longterm value.
Wikileaks matters by itself because it you want it as a legitimate actor as part of your society. This is about the original meaning of a fourth power. The fourth power should be adversarial and provide transparency of government. It should not be a foreign state actor. With foreign state actors a deal can always be made and they stop. They can also be motiva
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:3)
That is short term value. But you seem to ignore longterm value.
True, to an extent. (Not outright ignoring it, but I agree to the general the picture.) The problem, in your turn, is you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Would I rather have us have a "neutral" Wikileaks? Yes. A larger one, maybe, to cover all states? Hell, yeah. With proper legal protection, financing, accountability to the people and not to the government, e.g as a peoper 4th power anchored in the Constitution?... That'd be nice.
But we don't. The solution now is not to demonize what we hav
Re: (Score:2)
If I gave the impression that I was thinking in terms of perfection that was not my intention. I was thinking in terms of direction: making Wikileaks more legitimate and worthy of support, and a large part of that is in public and media perception.
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:2)
Wikileaks matters by itself because it you want it as a legitimate actor as part of your society.
Also this just came fresh to mind: the overall, societal value of Wikileaks is not only (tome, it even primarily) as a 4th power. That's what traditionally the press should be. Yes, Wikileaks is "like" the press in many aspects, but it's actually a superset in the fact that they purposefully expose dirty secrets.
I don't know if you read the game-theoretical white paper of Assange from the beginnings. Yeiu can google it. But the general idea is that the mere existence of such an institution, regardless of w
Re: Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:2)
making Wikileaks more legitimate and worthy of support, and a large part of that is in public and media perception.
Well, yeah, that's true, but that ship has essentially gone under 10-ish years ago, together with its captain Assange. The Wikileaks that followed, initially with Daniel at its top, later who-knows-who, was just a shitshow. A shadow of its former self.
Assange had an inner conviction (initially), truly altruistic principles, that seemed fairly untainted politically, to me at least. (Of course, later, after what was done to him by the US, I wouldn't expect anyone to stay neutral; people have become radical te
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares who publishes, as long as it's provably accurate? I am aware that the usual argument goes like "but they selectively publish information to harm $OURPARTY, while withholding information that would harm $OTHERPARTY". Well... even if, so what?
#1 - Lying by omission is still lying. Selectively editing what is posted to create a false narrative, is selectively editing what is posted to create a false narrative. It can be "truthful" in the barest sense of "did someone say this tiny sequence of word
Re: (Score:2)
First, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that you're right and they're massively editing to create false narratives. (I don't know that they do, but let's just assume they do.) The defense is simple: publish the facts, including the context. We're talking about WHOLE FUCKING STATES being pointed fingers at here, with all their government PR, press, propaganda and other publication mechanisms at their disposal.
But this never happens. What we instead see are numerous examples of "discredit the messenge
Re: (Score:2)
"Collateral Murder" is manufactured controversy. There is one point in the video that could possibly be a war crime (a vehicle stops to load wounded, and is brought under fire) but the vehicle itself is not in any way marked as a "non combatant" has no red crosses, etc so the point is debatable.
There is nothing in the rest of the video that is a problem (other than the obvious "people are getting shot and blown up" that most sane humans have in response to war in general), what is the "message" that you th
Re: (Score:2)
I think Zak covered the one, and to the rest... the moment you said "So what are you, a freakin' shit ostrich, with the head in your ass all the time?!" was the moment where I stopped giving a fuck about the rest of your dishonest spamming crap.
Wikileaks is a Russian disinformation project, plain and simple. That they release some legitimate things in batches to help camouflage the outright bullcrap and the misleadingly "lie-by-omission" edited, does not change the fact that it's a KGB psyop.
Re: (Score:2)
The Cossacks work for the Czar.
Re:Trump loved Wikileaks until he didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure why you're blaming Biden for this. Assange is currently locked up under the oversight of her majesty the queen of England, a perfectly ordinary process for people charged with a crime and facing extradition proceedings. It was a high court judge that deemed Assange a flight risk and demanded he remain in custody during this process, due to ... prior performance.
The USA has no say in the speed of the process. The USA has no say in the conditions of confinement. The only thing the USA can do is drop all charges, and why would they do that?
Please take your partisan US politics and shove it in whatever hole you feel is most appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing the USA can do is drop all charges, and why would they do that?
Because the charges are bullshit.. Biden and Trump are on the same side. Please, enough of the theatrics...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Trump was a Russian stooge. Now you're saying he's mad at the Russians for not helping getting him elected? Get your story straight.
One does not preclude the other.
Was "Vault" Software Useful to Anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, despite the efficacy of it all -- didn't the Vault 7 trove largely come from the NSA exploits that were leaked over time (EternalBlue, etc)?
Re:Was "Vault" Software Useful to Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
I mean "in a good sense". Have the "Vault's" revelations resulted in any security improvements in PC hardware, WWW, email et al?
Or was it a misleading bag of cruft peeled off by 3-letter organizations?
Ultimately it led to (1) The removal of the backdoored dual-ec-drbg from SP800-90A. (2) The removal of that algorithm from several software products. (3) My hypothesis - The signing of FIPS140-3 allowing it to replace FIPS140-2 and basing it on ISO19790-2012 - since there was nothing left to lose. The other backdoors in 140-2 were a matter of public discussion by then. (3) A general appreciation by non security people as to what shit goes down on the internets and who the enemy might be (4) Some movement on addressing X.509 certificates and all their problems.
This is mostly NSA stuff. Not CIA. But still good outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that a number of organizations pushed out a quick update to SMB v3 to close a few security holes revealed in the leak.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember right, it was used in a number of ransomware attacks against corporations that didn't update their software.
what about just pulling the fire alarm and gitting (Score:2)
what about just pulling the fire alarm and geting him when he is forced to go out side?
Good they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the CIA's track record, if they tried to assassinate Assange, they would have ended blowing up a donut shop three blocks down because they were holding the map upside down when they made the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not affirmative action.
It's because they are filled with Ivy Leagers: people who know how to "manage," not do.
Re: (Score:3)
They would then spread the claim through all authoritative media that the Russians were behind it and it would soon become commonly accepted fact.
Re: (Score:2)
We worked out the French sank the Rainbow Warrior pretty quickly, we'd be about to work out it was the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
That was merely an early attempt at building submarines.
Free Press? (Score:3)
hahaha
Re: (Score:3)
What is unfree about a news industry which is only concerned about doing business with clients that matter and which avoids costly activities like upsetting powerbrokers? If you don't like it go elsewhere and all that. Oh, and accept that you will be boycotted, labelled russian disinfo and conspiracy theorists. All's fair in business you know.
Well at least he'd eat well (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And there it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Some here accused Assange of being paranoid or dramatic when he acted as if the U.S. might be out to get him and refused to come out of his sanctuary at the embassy. We are now looking at evidence that he was absolutely right to be concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The most delicious part is this: Why didn't they go through with it any get him anyway? Their lawyers recommended against it.
Lawyers.
Lawyers saved the day. Lawyers championed for good. Lawyers did the right thing. Everyone one else said "fuck common decency" and the lawyers were all "hol' up."
Re:And there it is (Score:4, Informative)
You may have missed the part where he was hauled out of the embassy and has been in a high security prison since while the US try to get him extradited, or at least try to keep him in legal limbo in prison for the rest of his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, NOW that is true. Time passes, things change.
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually both your statement and mine refer to the situation after 2017. At least since 2017 the plan was to get Assange no matter what. That included outlawing the pubishing of secret documents. This report confirms the state of affairs after CIA vault.
Before that the deal was not to break journalism altogether but if they could get Assange any other way they would. This is the period where most people appear to think the policy against Wikileaks was hands off and it just happened he got himself in tr
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find the text of the application, but he followed his lawyer's advice and this is explained here https://scheerpost.com/2021/01... [scheerpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean that certain governments aren't out to get him.
Re: (Score:2)
We are now looking at evidence that he was absolutely right to be concerned.
Nope. We're looking at evidence that a bunch of nutcases had crazy ideas which were rejected and overruled. I.e. direct evidence that shows he didn't need to be concerned at all despite actively pissing off some very powerful people.
Re: (Score:3)
You believe that's the first time the nutcases (with government IDs) had crazy ideas? They were perfectly sane before?
Re: (Score:2)
Assange had absolutely zero actual concerns of that nature when this whole thing started - he fled from a country wanting to prosecute him for sexual crimes, but he fled *to* a country that is even easier to extradite to the US from. And he had utterly no problems staying in that country for several years fighting extradition to the first country.
Any claim about being frightened of extradition at that point was nothing but smoke and mirrors by Assange to work up his supporters.
So what changed?
Well, after A
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't flee. He asked prosecutors if they needed further testimony, they said no, the investigation is closed and he was free to go, so he went.
Then, in a highly irregular event, the investigation got unclosed and suddenly a warrant was issued. THAT tipped him off that there might be further problems, so he went into the Ecuadorian embassy asking for asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what Assange claims, the Swedish prosecutors are disagreeing
Assange's London lawyer Mark Stephens said that Assange had asked before leaving Sweden for an interview by prosecutors, but was told he could leave the country without it. Swedish prosecutors said that on the day Assange left Sweden they had informed Assange's Swedish lawyer Björn Hurtig that an arrest warrant would be issued for Assange.
So he we informed that he would be arrested and fled to the UK on the same day.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
What possible good could come out of it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that nobody should ever get the idea that they can mess with the CIA. Revenge is a basic operating rule for them.
Re: What possible good could come out of it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty certain that the argument you give was used by some in the administration to stop short of open assassination. But the CIA has a broad arsenal of methods for revenge [thehill.com] and they have always had ways to shift the blame too.
Overall the power and the sense of impunity in the CIA has increased dramatically.
Wow just wow (Score:2)
"gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London, crashing a car into a Russian diplomatic vehicle transporting Assange and then grabbing him, and shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow. (U.S. officials asked their British counterparts to do the shooting"
Left anything out, did we? So what would happen to any US and UK diplomat in Moscow if rozzers started ramming russian diplomatic cars and shooting airplane tyres in and around London? Vie
Re: (Score:2)
This serves as a reminder to those who are fed up with US agencies feeding us bullshit stories about Russian interference (a minority on here, I know).
CIA actually took seriously themselves the claims that the Russians wanted to extract Assange. Tracing it back however the claim came from the head of UC Global, the security company guarding the embassy who wanted more money from the US and everyone knows, if you want to get money you only have to yell 'Russia!'. So everyone is in on it these days, the 'blam
Re: Wow just wow (Score:2)
Hollywood (Score:2)
Whoever suggested that is nuts (Score:4, Informative)
And should be removed from whatever office he currently blocks a sane person from taking. Look, if the CIA overthrows a third world government and installs a puppet dictator, nobody cares. That's what they do. But you can't go into an embassy in a first world country, in an allegedly allied first world country (and, may I say, maybe one of the few allies you still have after the past, say, 20 years) and kidnap someone. That's insane. You could as well start a publicity campaign for Iran, North Korea and Russia by declaring yourself the boggeyman of the world.
This would so certainly end up on every frontpage of every even remotely relevant publication that is not firmly located in your anus (and yes, those things exist, dear US) and give everyone the justification to brand you as the threat to global peace for YEARS to come.
So. Could that idiot now present his suggestion again or did even a pea-brain like him realize that this action thriller pipe dream is nuttier than squirrel poop?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not get carried away. They were making contingency plans. The USG has contingency plans for everything. That doesn't mean they're going to use them, it means that if for whatever reason, that was seen as the best option, they already had the plan and could execute it quickly. Operational readiness means not having to wait 3 weeks to come up with a plan and missing your shot.
Re: (Score:2)
From an embassy? In a friendly, first world nation?
OK, this is news to me, where did this happen before?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall anything like that either. The US had a front group raid the North Korean embassy in Madrid a few years ago, and in a way they did dat with the Ecuadorian embassy but they first got Ecuador to agree. Before that they had the whole apartment bugged and everyone who entered screened. All the digital information people had on them was copied. As part of the UC global trial in Madrid all the journalists involved got the surveillance data about them returned to them so they could watch themselves
Re: Whoever suggested that is nuts (Score:2)
Seriously? They have nothing better to do? (Score:2)
inb4 the next movie (Score:2)
this sounds like a very dull version of a Jason Bourne movie. basically every scene that took place in an office, and none of the action. (Or, instead of "action" scenes, just a lot more shaky-cam and quick pans/edits of people looking intensely in a board meeting)
Defund the CIA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Assange titled one of his releases "smash into a thousand pieces and scatter
Or maybe just secure your systems (Score:2)
This is all punitive and reputational, also known as bullshit. What constitutes "leadership" in washington these days is political maneuvering and dick measuring.
They actually think the U.S. potentially causing a serious diplomatic incident because officials have their panties in a bunch about wikileaks makes us look strong. Newsflash - it actually makes us look ridiculously weak. It's just amazing how small the people who manage to make it to the upper echelons of power are these days.
Secure your system
As opposed to which other CIA? (Score:2)
I am confident that the headline could simply say - the CIA - without being ambiguous in this context.
Trump's CIA planned a kidnapping? (Score:2)
Right, what were they going to do, hand the guards exploding cigars?
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyl... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They found someone to blame [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also pretty sure something like 9/11 could never have taken place in Europe. The intelligence services there are continually on the lookout for these kinds of terrorist attacks, even well before 9/11/2001.
Re: (Score:2)
The question in general is 'competent at what?'
One does not expect a belligerent hegemon to be competent at defense. They aren't threatened. There aren't that many actors willing to attack and an attack only provides you with more freedom to act abroad. So 'organically' the system does not reach good levels of competence. You don't need any deliberate policy choices for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, since before they got created.