CIA Secretly Plotted To Kidnap And Potentially Assassinate Julian Assange

[rogue06]

[...]

3) Anonymous sources. Admittedly, this is one case where I would expect anonymous sources - but 30 of them? And these are 30 people with classified security clearance and likely work for the CIA? Some Yahoo! reporters simply approached them and they all spilled their guts? This sounds more like some Deep Throat told them about a molehill, and then it evolved into a fanciful mountain from 29 other secret agents. I mean, where does one find 30 loose-lipped CIA agents anyway? And this isn't even going into the anonymous stinkhole that the NYT and WaPo pushes at us every day and what those usually amount to.

That was the part that raised a red flag. This Yahoo reporter got 30 different people with security clearance to step forward and divulge this or at least affirm it.

[Gondwanaland]

I'm inclined to believe it because for one: it's CIA, thus perfectly plausible (and the intelligence community absolutely hated him), and two: the political left has no reason to make something like this up since they now hate Assange, especially when Trump commended wikileaks at one of his rallies, hence, that was the moment the political left completely flipped against wikileaks. In fact, you even had Cenk and Ana of TYT claim he was working for Russia. If it had been about Trump, I might be a little suspect.

Exactly. Like, this is the same organization that plotted out and attempted to assassinate a literal head of state numerous times (Castro), has attempted and sometimes succeeded in overthrowing other governments, subjected its own citizens to experimentation, ran a years long torture program that they insisted was legal but produced nothing at all,etc., but now somehow kidnapping/assassinating someone who leaked secrets, is somehow not believable?

[Gondwanaland]

It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Here's why:

1) Risk vs gain. If the CIA attempted to kill or kidnap Assange and anything went wrong and the operation was exposed, it could easily start a war. It would be a huge risk with little to gain. Assange wasn't causing much trouble while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Why risk starting a war, alienating allies, just to get hold of some who was basically hamstrung?

2) Ridiculous planning. US agents crashing their car into a Russian vehicle to kidnap Assange? Seriously? Did the plan also call for Tom Cruise to hang onto the wing of a jet and shoot the pilot with his pistol? This is pure Hollywood stuff. Putin has Novichok slipped into their drink. As we've seen, that's the way it's done in the real world.

3) Anonymous sources. Admittedly, this is one case where I would expect anonymous sources - but 30 of them? And these are 30 people with classified security clearance and likely work for the CIA? Some Yahoo! reporters simply approached them and they all spilled their guts? This sounds more like some Deep Throat told them about a molehill, and then it evolved into a fanciful mountain from 29 other secret agents. I mean, where does one find 30 loose-lipped CIA agents anyway? And this isn't even going into the anonymous stinkhole that the NYT and WaPo pushes at us every day and what those usually amount to.

4) Who Benefits from This? Assange. The US is still trying to extradite him - and now his attorneys are crying "See! See! The Americans are going to kill our client!"

I am saying this as someone who sympathizes with Assange and feels he's being persecuted. And I have no love for Pompeo. But, again, it just isn't passing the smell test.

Pompeo literally admitted to it with his attempted defense of it, my dude.

And these arent some 'Yahoo! reporters' just making things up. These are actual seasoned reporters, with two being investigative reporters, IIRC. One almost broke the Monica Lewinsky story before his employer shut down the story just before it was published. Another has worked for numerous news outlets on foreign policy. The third worked for Army Times for years. This isn't some bunch of liberals making something up. Your denial simply doesn't make sense.

[Ronson]

Pompeo literally admitted to it with his attempted defense of it, my dude.

And these arent some 'Yahoo! reporters' just making things up. These are actual seasoned reporters, with two being investigative reporters, IIRC. One almost broke the Monica Lewinsky story before his employer shut down the story just before it was published. Another has worked for numerous news outlets on foreign policy. The third worked for Army Times for years. This isn't some bunch of liberals making something up. Your denial simply doesn't make sense.

I am not "denying" it, I am saying I am having trouble believing this - as presented. Like atheists often claim: I don't disbelieve in God(s), I just don't believe it as presented.

I don't put it past the CIA to kill and maim and kidnap, or to attempt to overthrow governments. That's the business they're in. But the details aren't adding up for me. Assange isn't Castro (a then-immediate threat allowing missiles to be installed in Cuba aimed at the US), or some hostile autocracy with enough vulnerabilities for the CIA to infiltrate. The guy ran a renegade website, went into hiding, and became a non-threat while growing a beard with a bunch of Ecuadorians.

Snowden, OTOH, would be more believable as a target. He had (still has) firsthand access to government secrets - not yet revealed!, and is holed up in Moscow as a guest of a US adversary.

But Assange?

[seanD]

It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Here's why:

1) Risk vs gain. If the CIA attempted to kill or kidnap Assange and anything went wrong and the operation was exposed, it could easily start a war. It would be a huge risk with little to gain. Assange wasn't causing much trouble while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Why risk starting a war, alienating allies, just to get hold of some who was basically hamstrung?

2) Ridiculous planning. US agents crashing their car into a Russian vehicle to kidnap Assange? Seriously? Did the plan also call for Tom Cruise to hang onto the wing of a jet and shoot the pilot with his pistol? This is pure Hollywood stuff. Putin has Novichok slipped into their drink. As we've seen, that's the way it's done in the real world.

3) Anonymous sources. Admittedly, this is one case where I would expect anonymous sources - but 30 of them? And these are 30 people with classified security clearance and likely work for the CIA? Some Yahoo! reporters simply approached them and they all spilled their guts? This sounds more like some Deep Throat told them about a molehill, and then it evolved into a fanciful mountain from 29 other secret agents. I mean, where does one find 30 loose-lipped CIA agents anyway? And this isn't even going into the anonymous stinkhole that the NYT and WaPo pushes at us every day and what those usually amount to.

4) Who Benefits from This? Assange. The US is still trying to extradite him - and now his attorneys are crying "See! See! The Americans are going to kill our client!"

I am saying this as someone who sympathizes with Assange and feels he's being persecuted. And I have no love for Pompeo. But, again, it just isn't passing the smell test.

1) a war with whom? Everyone in the establishment hated Assange. Ecuador protected him for awhile, but eventually betrayed him. Why would CIA be afraid of Ecuador anyway? Are you saying a war between the establishment and the populists? I think CIA could care less about that. In fact, they may have even wanted populist reactions to further demonize them.

2) Just google and read about Operation Northwoods, and how they planned to stage a false flag in order to justify a war with Cuba and you'll see how planning such a scenario isn't farfetched for these folks.

3) They may have embellished it a bit there.

4) Cui bono? That's exactly what I say. I can't see which political side would benefit from this if it was made up, and why. Certainly not the political left, because, as I stated, they hate Assange. The political right doesn't benefit because, though they seem to be indifferent about Assange, they tend to side with the intelligence community.

[Gondwanaland]

I am not "denying" it, I am saying I am having trouble believing this - as presented. Like atheists often claim: I don't disbelieve in God(s), I just don't believe it as presented.

I don't put it past the CIA to kill and maim and kidnap, or to attempt to overthrow governments. That's the business they're in. But the details aren't adding up for me. Assange isn't Castro (a then-immediate threat allowing missiles to be installed in Cuba aimed at the US), or some hostile autocracy with enough vulnerabilities for the CIA to infiltrate. The guy ran a renegade website, went into hiding, and became a non-threat while growing a beard with a bunch of Ecuadorians.

Snowden, OTOH, would be more believable as a target. He had (still has) firsthand access to government secrets - not yet revealed!, and is holed up in Moscow as a guest of a US adversary.

But Assange?

Assange has all sorts of info, and has slowly but surely been releasing it. At the time of these kidnapping and assassination plots they were releasing CIA secrets via wikileaks.

As to Snowden, as I noted, I would not be surprised if they had similar plots against him. And he's a 'guest' there only in that the US forced him there.

[Ronson]

1) a war with whom? Everyone in the establishment hated Assange. Ecuador protected him for awhile, but eventually betrayed him. Why would CIA be afraid of Ecuador anyway? Are you saying a war between the establishment and the populists? I think CIA could care less about that. In fact, they may have even wanted populist reactions to further demonize them.

A proxy war with Russia, if the CIA intentionally crashed a car into one of their government vehicles to kidnap or kill a passenger, that would be really serious business if uncovered. And Britain would be royally pissed off about it too.

2) Just google and read about Operation Northwoods, and how they planned to stage a false flag in order to justify a war with Cuba and you'll see how planning such a scenario isn't farfetched for these folks.

The far-fetched component of my argument wasn't regarding its immorality, but its recklessness. All the CIA needed to do was pay an Ecuadorian embassy worker a couple $million to dump cyanide into Assange's lemonade. All done; lots cheaper, no mess, little risk.

Operation Northwoods is a lesson in immorality, not really recklessness.

3) They may have embellished it a bit there.

4) Cui bono? That's exactly what I say. I can't see which political side would benefit from this if it was made up, and why. Certainly not the political left, because, as I stated, they hate Assange. The political right doesn't benefit because, though they seem to be indifferent about Assange, they tend to side with the intelligence community.

I always look to see who benefits from these stories. Yahoo! benefits from the publicity, and it could be nothing more than that: Sales/Advertising. Assange (or his lawyers) benefits from the sinister implications of extradition. It's not necessarily a Left / Right thing.

[seanD]

A proxy war with Russia, if the CIA intentionally crashed a car into one of their government vehicles to kidnap or kill a passenger, that would be really serious business if uncovered. And Britain would be royally pissed off about it too.



The far-fetched component of my argument wasn't regarding its immorality, but its recklessness. All the CIA needed to do was pay an Ecuadorian embassy worker a couple $million to dump cyanide into Assange's lemonade. All done; lots cheaper, no mess, little risk.

Operation Northwoods is a lesson in immorality, not really recklessness.



I always look to see who benefits from these stories. Yahoo! benefits from the publicity, and it could be nothing more than that: Sales/Advertising. Assange (or his lawyers) benefits from the sinister implications of extradition. It's not necessarily a Left / Right thing.

I don't know how the planning processes work in cia, but I would imagine they have optional plans and strategies. Just because that may have been an option on the table doesn't mean they would have executed it that way. The point is that they wanted to kill Assange, and I find that perfectly plausible. However, considering how much the US establishment also hates Russia, and the tension between US and Russia over Syria and Ukraine, I also find it perfectly believable they'd want to start a war with Russia, or at least not go out of their way to avoid one. In fact, if they believed Assange was working for the Russians, that would have been a satisfying blackeye to them against Russia.

Yahoo is establishment news, perhaps not as bad as cnn, but establishment nonetheless, so I still don't see it, in fact, I'm surprised assuming the story is true that they even reported it. Making it up from scratch is too farfetched for me to believe of an establishment news site. If it had been specifically about Trump, that would have set off red flags for me.

[tabibito]

I don't know how the planning processes work in cia, but I would imagine they have optional plans and strategies. Just because that may have been an option on the table doesn't mean they would have executed it that way. The point is that they wanted to kill Assange, and I find that perfectly plausible. However, considering how much the US establishment also hates Russia, and the tension between US and Russia over Syria and Ukraine, I also find it perfectly believable they'd want to start a war with Russia, or at least not go out of their way to avoid one. In fact, if they believed Assange was working for the Russians, that would have been a satisfying blackeye to them against Russia.

Yahoo is establishment news, perhaps not as bad as cnn, but establishment nonetheless, so I still don't see it, in fact, I'm surprised assuming the story is true that they even reported it. Making it up from scratch is too farfetched for me to believe of an establishment news site. If it had been specifically about Trump, that would have set off red flags for me.

Yes. CIA intent to kidnap or kill Assange can reasonably be accepted. Running all sorts of scenarios, including brainless ones like running gun battles on the streets of London without any intent to actually put the scenario into practice is also believable. Disregard for honour or legality -

[seanD]

Yes. CIA intent to kidnap or kill Assange can reasonably be accepted. Running all sorts of scenarios, including brainless ones like running gun battles on the streets of London without any intent to actually put the scenario into practice is also believable. Disregard for honour or legality -

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the plausibility of the moral aspect of it in regards to CIA, and that makes me satisfied. It seems to be the source in question, which I also don't see any issues with.

[Sparko]

Truth hurts, don't it.

When you take evidence that directly contradicts what you claimed, and reinterpret it as supporting your claim, then you really have no claim to "the truth" Gond.

[Gondwanaland]

When you take evidence that directly contradicts what you claimed, and reinterpret it as supporting your claim, then you really have no claim to "the truth" Gond.

There is no evidence directly contradicting my claim, hun.

[Sparko]

There is no evidence directly contradicting my claim, hun.

[Gondwanaland]

Okay, H_A