US Intelligence Sources Discussed Poisoning Julian Assange, Court Told (theguardian.com) 138
hackingbear shares a report: Plans to poison or kidnap Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy were discussed between sources in US intelligence and a private security firm that spied extensively on the WikiLeaks co-founder, a court has been told. Details of the alleged spying operation against Assange and anyone who visited him at the embassy were laid out on Wednesday at his extradition case, in evidence by a former employee of a Spanish security company, UC Global. Microphones were concealed to monitor Assange's meetings with lawyers, his fingerprint was obtained from a glass and there was even a plot to obtain a nappy from a baby who had been brought on regular visits to the embassy, according to the witness, whose evidence took the form of a written statement.
The founder and director of UC Global, David Morales, had said that "the Americans" had wanted to establish paternity but the plan was foiled when the then employee alerted the child's mother. Anonymity was granted on Tuesday to the former employee and another person who had been involved with UC Global, after the hearing was told they feared that Morales, or others connected to him in the US, could seek to harm them. Details of their written evidence were read out at the Old Bailey in London on Wednesday by Mark Summers QC, one of the lawyers for Assange, who is fighting extradition to the US on charges relating to leaks of classified documents allegedly exposing US war crimes and abuse.
The founder and director of UC Global, David Morales, had said that "the Americans" had wanted to establish paternity but the plan was foiled when the then employee alerted the child's mother. Anonymity was granted on Tuesday to the former employee and another person who had been involved with UC Global, after the hearing was told they feared that Morales, or others connected to him in the US, could seek to harm them. Details of their written evidence were read out at the Old Bailey in London on Wednesday by Mark Summers QC, one of the lawyers for Assange, who is fighting extradition to the US on charges relating to leaks of classified documents allegedly exposing US war crimes and abuse.
heh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the story, the source doesn't really sound that credible. The US government dislikes Assange but the latter's narcissistic paranoia to the contrary, he's more of an irritant than a feared enemy.
no discussion! there's concrete plan! (Score:2, Troll)
The plan is to inject Lyso and bleach into the arms of Julian Assange, as ordered by the Commander-in-Chief of the US military.
Re: no discussion! there's concrete plan! (Score:2)
Absolutely ZERO chance that would happen.
This shit sounds like something coming out of russia or more likely china.
Re: (Score:2)
US method is for prisoners to fall down stairs, get attacked by other prisoners, screw with eating and sleeping and isolation, deny medical services until you tire and die. In this case it is all too be done in the UK by pommie cunts. You not keep adding stuff to the extradition request until assange dies in prison. No trial they can not win, so imprisonment until death via prosecution as punishment. You know the crap, two years later, the whole proceeding must start again because 'er' 'um' one of the 'i's
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, reality is taking over.
Re: (Score:2)
What were they trying to do? Deodorize him? Good luck with that, the Ecuadorians were trying for years, and they even had direct access to him this whole time.
Re:heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I recall how he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy with the preposterous claim that he feared the US might try have him extradited. How paranoid can you get!
Re:heh (Score:5, Insightful)
After nine years of poking the bear, Assange does not get to say "I told you so" when the bear finally bites.
Given that this particular bear is supposed to be a democratic nation with integrity and respect for the rule of law (we'll ignore the criminal proclivities of its current head of state), if the bear is actually contemplating an extra-judicial murder, he does get to say it, and we should all be appropriately horrified by it.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has behaved in manners you could fairly accurately describe as Criminal consistently pretty much since WW2. The thing is, so has everyone else.
At some point of time its like everyone decided international lawlessness was the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should distinguish between two things. What is known in hindsight and what is reasonable deduction.
Obama decided not to actually put Assange in jail with the espionage act but this decision was made in a context where use of every other means was already decided upon. It was quite reasonable for Assange to fear that Sweden was to send him to the US and he explained his reasoning in a long document for the Ecuadorian government. Assange knew that the rape charges were fraudulent and that Sweden was up t
Re: (Score:2)
"quite reasonable for Assange to fear that Sweden was to send him to the US"
It was NOT reasonable considering that the actual claim was that Sweden was seeking extradition from the UK for the purpose of facilitating extradition from Sweden to the US when the US could have just sought direct extradition from the UK in the first place.
Not once have any of the people touting the double-extradition theory identified any obstacle to the US extraditing from the UK directly that would not have applied to the doubl
Re: (Score:2)
If the US needed to extradite him from anywhere, the UK would be a lot easier than Sweden. The only reason he didn't want to go to Sweden was to avoid justice. Not very bright of him to opt for a self-imposed jail sentence instead while giving the US a reason to go after him.
Sweden and poisoning (Score:2)
My guess is that the dubious "rape" charges were initially just a consequence of excessive feminism on the part of the prosecutor. She did refuse to inverview Assange in England, which she could have easily done, and if she then charged Assange I would be surprised if statute of limitations applied. And now she seems to strangely have dropped the more serious "rape" charge, even though Sweden had first dibs on Assange.
But then, once the play became known, the USA definitely wanted to use the more opaque S
Re: (Score:2)
Why must you turn this site into a house of lies?
UK is one of the most difficult countries to extradite from, the reason being that during British Raj they didn't want british people to attend hearings all over their colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
After nine years of poking the bear, Assange does not get to say "I told you so" when the bear finally bites.
The Russian Bear? Poisoning does sound more like something from Putin's playbook. Maybe it was his suggestion.
Re: heh (Score:2)
Re:heh (Score:5, Informative)
UN rapporteur Nils Melzer has investigated that officially and has proven that the accusations were fraudulent: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/r... [medium.com] .
So why do you believe otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are trying to build a case that he had good reason to fear for his life.
It's probably just a show trial anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the source is a pretty poor source.
A security company employee that leaks operational information to one of the subjects they're surveilling? That wouldn't even be legal in many places; at a minimum it would be honest services fraud if he didn't return the pay; and since it was his employer who was paid, that's really dicey.
And so this dishonest actor also says a bunch of bad things about the people he backstabbed? So what?
Scrounging a diaper from the trash to establish paternity is a pretty normal, l
Re: (Score:3)
So stool pigeons aren't to be trusted, eh?
The "source" submitted testimony to a COURT OF LAW about the CRIMINAL INTENTIONS of the people he "backstabbed".
Not all of us get our morality from the Mafia.
Re: (Score:2)
No, taking diapers from the trash is not a crime, and becoming dishonest with your client over that is clearly unethical.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they don't think the guy is a threat. That doesn't mean they don't want to make an example of him to deter others, and it doesn't mean they wouldn't at least think really hard about resorting to dodgy measures to achieve that. And, by the way, I read "poison him" not as "try to kill him", but "try to make him sick enough that he has to leave the embassy, so that we or the UK can grab him".
As for source credibility, the story doesn't give you much to assess the source one way or another... although
"Discussed" vs Attempted (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not surprised that US Intelligence discussed getting rid of Assange. I will not surprised that the US Intelligence has discussed ways to kill of any major figure that may have a tendency against American Interests. This is kinda the job of a Countries Intelligence, KBG, CIA, MI6... How many times when the Press asks the question about a problem, they will say All options are on the table. They are some really bad options that we hope the president and the leaders hope they don't need to do.
My main guess is what Assange did, the state he is in, isn't worth the risk of public relations of if such went through. However, I figured they would have talked about it. The United States, isn't the good moral country, It isn't under Trump, It isn't Under Obama, It isn't Under Bush, It isn't under Clinton. Actions that go against nations self interest will have discussions to how to stop it. Many items discussed, are quickly considered unconscionable, others are considered impractical, others they figure it will cause more problems then it solved...
I'd like to live in a world (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stop excusing the horrible things our country does in the name of "National Interests". If I came into your home, killed your family and took your stuff then said "well, it was in my interests" you'd be upset. The US does this as a matter of course and we're all like "meh, gotta protect our interests".
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't do a horrible thing. A Spanish company discussed if they wanted to do a horrible thing, and ultimately they chose not to.
But you seem confused; you say
The US does this as a matter of course
but the actual story is, they didn't try to do that, even when it was offered as a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the country. Russia is well known for poisoning inconvenient people, at least in recent memory, and one of them was earlier this year. The other I believe one died and his spouse survived after they applied poison on the doorknob.
Anyhow, an
Governments, Corporations, are not people. (Score:2)
Individuals function differently and are different than groups managed by hierarchies of people. Haven't you ever been in a staff meeting and watched the cumulative IQ drop as more people enter the room?
Planning for many options is routine. Some whole departments are tasked with dreaming up and planning for every possible idea-- and other groups evaluate "proposals". They filter and edit stuff before it even gets to the top level decision meetings. So illegal, immoral, petty, disproportionate options ha
Re: (Score:2)
where the difference between my government carrying out an assassination of a foreign citizen or not isn't "how's this gonna play out in the press".
To be more specific, an assassination of someone who did nothing illegal.
We were at war with Germany (Score:4, Insightful)
We have the most powerful military in human history. No country can fight us without resorting to nukes. Even China can't. They don't have enough food to feed a standing army and their country would break up long before they won a battle. We don't need underhanded tactics, we use them anyway.
I'm assuming violence is already happening (Score:2)
And we can't lose. We could destroy literally any country on earth with conventional firepower. Yes, even China.
Why is wrong with you that you don't know this? An offshore troll string up trouble? If you are, you should be terrified. You helped put a psychopathic "white supremacist" (/. won't let me use the "N" word here) in charge of that army and he's $1.1 billion in debt.
And if you're not, then seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
You've never served in the military, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
We could destroy literally any country on earth with conventional firepower. Yes, even China.
Nonsense. You'd run out of ammunition. Although by then you'd have lost New York, Los Angeles and Boise, Idaho.
When the flying f**k did I defend Obama (Score:2)
I'm literally saying we need to stop excusing that shit. I don't care who does it or why. It needs to stop. Now.
Poison does not mean kill (Score:2)
Just make Assange sick enough to need to go to hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not supposed to kill them with missiles either, except under conditions agreed upon internationally as legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not surprised that US Intelligence discussed getting rid of Assange. I will not surprised that the US Intelligence has discussed ways to kill of any major figure that may have a tendency against American Interests. This is kinda the job of a Countries Intelligence, KBG, CIA, MI6... How many times when the Press asks the question about a problem, they will say All options are on the table. They are some really bad options that we hope the president and the leaders hope they don't need to do.
My main guess is what Assange did, the state he is in, isn't worth the risk of public relations of if such went through. However, I figured they would have talked about it. The United States, isn't the good moral country, It isn't under Trump, It isn't Under Obama, It isn't Under Bush, It isn't under Clinton. Actions that go against nations self interest will have discussions to how to stop it. Many items discussed, are quickly considered unconscionable, others are considered impractical, others they figure it will cause more problems then it solved...
The US government can be pretty amoral, but part of that amorality includes maintaining a certain public image.
And a public assassination of anyone but a labelled terrorist is well outside that brand.
What's being described isn't an American Op, it's a Russian one straight out of Putin's playbook.
I don't know if it's real (the article sounds sketchy) but if it is then it came from Mr. Orange.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's real (the article sounds sketchy) but if it is then it came from Mr. Orange.
Tim Roth is now controlling US foreign policy?
It makes sense. After all it was Tim that joked about drone striking Assange:
https://torontosun.com/2016/10... [torontosun.com]
Out of curiosity have you asked DC police to interrogate Tim Roth and find his movements on the morning Seth Rich was murdered?
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is not against american interests, it is for american interests. Good journalism has a function in a democracy to expose power so the citizens can judge it.
Currently power controls the media so it will control the stories going out in order to make you hate good journalism and then it will destroy it and you won't care.
What happened in 2017 was even more simple. "wikileaks has made the CIA lose face. Therefore the CIA will get revenge and fuck american interests whatever that means".
You have a ver
War crimes ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't we have to have a declaration of war for that?
We considered it years ago, but that would have triggered allies' cooperation, particularly NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:War crimes ... (Score:4, Interesting)
"War crimes ..."
What war?
The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-allied Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.
~ wiki
Re: (Score:2)
Don't we have to have a declaration of war for that?
We considered it years ago, but that would have triggered allies' cooperation, particularly NATO.
No, you don't have to declare war on anybody for a Spanish security company to have a discussion with you about doing something illegal. Especially if, as in the story, you chose not to do the thing.
Come on (Score:3)
Assassination is currently against US law, and would be stupid in such a high-profile case.
Re:Come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Took the best of 3 seconds to find a credible example https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine, if you yell IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US before you blow it away.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. So if the US government calls a US citizen a terrorist, they can just kill them, no trial needed.
I think that's somewhere in the constitution, right? There's no way that could ever be a slippery slope!
Poison does not mean kill Assange (Score:2)
Assange just needs to be sick enough to need to go to hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange just needs to be sick enough to need to go to hospital.
'Needs'? Your verb tense is a bit strange. Julian Assange was evicted from the Ecuadorian embassy and is now in custody in the UK. This testimony is being entered into a court proceeding concerning his possible extradition to the US from a UK jail.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no possible way that such a high profile person could possibly ever be assassinated and no one be brought to justice over it and everyone just shrug their shoulders and say "that is suspicious but they say it was a suicide so what are you going to do?" and just get on with their lives and forget about it.
Re:Come on (Score:4, Interesting)
That didn't help Osama bin Laden, did it? Even though the same helicopter, that extracted his corpse, could've extracted him alive, Obama ordered him killed [theatlantic.com]... No judge, no jury. And not just him — having said so much against Guantanamo, Obama couldn't afford to send new prisoners there. So he started killing them instead [theguardian.com]...
And we're talking about the brilliant jurist and an otherwise nice guy and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, not the Orange Usurper, here...
Why would Assange be treated any better by the same regime?
Re: (Score:2)
That's irrelevant. He was not tried in court, so ordering his death was just that — an assassination [worldnewstrust.com]. Legally Assange is on the same footing as bin Laden was — even if politically the cases are different.
SEALs may not be trained as policemen — and the detachment didn't have a psychiatrist among them (which presence needs to be a requirement, according to Biden's words last night), but they had the pre
Re: (Score:2)
They could've detained (unarmed) Osama just as well, if such were their orders...
You, and your articles, are making an awful lot of assumptions. It's certainly possible that Osama was on his knees with his hands in the air, saying "Don't kill me! Please! I can prove my innocence! One day in court is all I need." and the SEAL spat out his cigar, grunted "'Murica" and shot Osama twice before sneering and laughing and teabagging the corpse.
Or it could be that Osama was running away, or yelled "You'll never take me alive!" while leaping at his attackers. Or it could be that they were und
Re: (Score:2)
but you dismiss my theory
No, you didn't present a theories. You stated without equivocation that Obama ordered him killed. I made it abundantly clear that it was possible, but not established or even well argued. My theory: you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said. I don't know why, but I don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Assassination is currently against US law, and would be stupid in such a high-profile case.
When has the law ever stopped the president?
Re: (Score:2)
Assassination being illegal hasn't stopped at least the last two.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair Trump has been denied by the law a few times, most recently on his TikTok ban and destroying the USPS to rig the vote.
His mistake is not doing it in secret like Obama did so that by the time anyone finds out and can make a legal challenge it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well when you break it so often eventually at some point it'll accidentally catch you out ;-)
Poisoning people? That's in the Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Option 1:
1. Indict someone for a criminal event [or have a grand jury indict them]
2. Have them appear before the court and provide bail as per bail guidelines (what will bring you back to court, not the nature of the crime)
3. Have a jury [or judge] find them guilty
4. Sentence them as per the federal sentencing guidelines
5. Serve sentence
6. "Rehabilitation" (I'm not even going to Fn touch this)
Option 2:
Poison a person who is not in the US, has not been in the US, has committed no crimes while in the US.
Seems to me the US has learned too much from Putin... so much that it violates the Constitution.
E
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me you can't comprehend the word "discussed," and that you didn't notice you don't know who raised the issue. All you know is that it was discussed, and the US didn't do it.
But you think they did? Even though it didn't happen? Weird stuff you got in your attic, man.
Re: (Score:2)
When the US government DISCUSSES something that is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL that's wrong.
That was pretty clear in what I wrote. We want OUR GOVERNMENT ACTING LEGALLY.
Sorry it flew past your big noggin. No worries about my attic though.
E
What about "Reaping" his room at the Embassy? (Score:2)
Yeah, collateral damage but it is soo "accurate, lethal, and fast"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Pfff!! Poison, that's so Putin, just make it American.
Sources about the Assange case (Score:3, Informative)
Consortium News is doing good work on the Assange case,
https://consortiumnews.com/ass... [consortiumnews.com]
and this is a very thorough debunking of the massive load of smears against Assange.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2... [caitlinjohnstone.com]
Eh, what? (Score:2)
Is that American slang or baby-talk for something else, because I don't get it at all. All I read is "a plot to obtain nap time from a baby" which makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not slang, it's the actual word used for the garment an infant wears to capture its urinary and faecal emissions.
In the US the equivalent term is diaper.
Discussed (Score:3, Informative)
"What are our options for dealing with Assange?"
"We could poison him."
"That's just crazy talk. And it would be illegal. What other options do we have?"
Poisoning has been discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Droning too. Hillary proposed that in 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Disgusting (Score:3)
No doubt this was just posturing by some CIA type ppl, but, bad that they believe that we have the right to murder somebody that has not attacked America.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not caught" isn't the same as "isn't suspected".
And the allegation is that he conspired to break into a classified military system, with someone who was convicted of breaking into a classified military system. (And "breaking into" is just another term for "unauthorised access", the same way you can break into your own home, before you start down that line.)
The whole article here revolves around someone saying that someone else said "We could leave the doors open and maybe someone will poison him", which i
Re: (Score:2)
the allegation is that he conspired to break into a classified military system
The whole article here revolves around someone saying that someone else said "We could leave the doors open and maybe someone will poison him", which is hardly sufficient evidence of an assassination attempt
The allegation is conspiracy to kidnap or poison, and you've just stated that conspiracy justifies international extradition.
When will the US be handing over the intelligence officials that worked with this Spanish company?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely that's a question for Spain?
Re: (Score:2)
UC Globalâ(TM)s David Morales is being prosecuted in Spain for spying on Assange in the Equadorian embassy. He at least won't escape justice.
The US is not cooperating with the spanish requests for information.
Re: Disgusting (Score:2)
Re:Obama and Clinton (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the easier way for an idiot to appear intelligent. Memorize a few big words and learn to use them, and then refuse to actually engage in discourse.
But in my experience, if you can't tell, it means they're an idiot who practiced using words.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually surprised, since it seems that Assange has worked to benefit Trump more than anything.
Unless this is one of those "he's outlived his usefulness" things.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what Kim had for breakfast this morning???
Foie gras de Assange avec feves.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what Kim had for breakfast this morning???
Foie gras de Assange avec feves.
And a black covfefe to wash it all down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just trolling dude.
Naturally. That's all you're good for, after all.
No one gives a shit about any of this.
You don't. Obviously. Many others do. Again obviously. You don't speak for them.
Since you're a self-confessed troll, please FOAD, preferably DIAF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a result of this foolishness, people have (correctly) realised that not doing the wrong thing is *good enough* and will use their spare time and energy helping themselves, not others who need it more.
All this political debate is utterly pointless when society doesn’t acknowledg
Re: (Score:2)
With all the crazy political shitstorm going on, we don't need you.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling, verb: something you retrospectively claim you were doing after being called out on your bullshit, ill-conceived hot take.
Re: (Score:3)
carry on, then.
Re: (Score:2)
No, moron, you being a troll does not imply other people are not here for better reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a history of international misdeeds that's a lot longer than one or two presidencies.
I'm curious whether the UK has the stones to refuse extradition to a country that considers assassination of a private citizen in a foreign country in the embassy of another nation a viable option.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have to be deemed a credible threat, and there would need to be a belief that due to that threat (and other statements made in the US) that Assange would not receive a fair trial, or would be subject to torture or the death penalty while in the US.
I think he would but I also consider forced perpetual solitary confinement to be a form of torture.
Assange's lawyers likely introduced this testimony as part of building such a case, but I'm not following the court proceedings closely enough to know for
Moron (Score:2)
and just about anything from trump was pushed by trump. Sadly idiots run around screaming what a great leader he is, just like 1945 germans who saw and worked at the death camps still proclaimed Hitler was great.
Re: (Score:2)