6 ms·

Wikileaks believed at the time that Clinton was ready to send a drone to get rid of Assange. Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day.

• civilian 8y ago
  How about drone strike via due process? :(
• jsutton 8y ago
  'Believed' is a loose term, you'd have to be deluded to believe something like that.
  • busterarm 8y ago
    Would you though? The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point. More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission. False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies have a history of being Wild and Crazy Kids. Assange gets an extraordinary amount of political attention for even a public figure. It's perhaps an unreasonable conclusion for them to make but it's not _too unreasonable_.
    • ixtli 8y ago
      > Would you though? Well, yes. The ever-increasing, horrible drone campaigns conducted from the Obama years onward as a tool of destabilization are one thing, but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd use them to assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries or that they actually have the ability to do such a thing. The contexts are totally different, however the narrative IS in keeping with the typical far right behavior of cultivating the image of a victim terrorized by an all-powerful shadow cabal
      • busterarm 8y ago
        > doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_in_Euro...
        • darawk 8y ago
          Which of those do you think is relevant?
        • AnimalMuppet 8y ago
          That's quite a list. However, I see exactly zero mention on it of the USA, the CIA, or drone strikes.
    • throwawayjava 8y ago
      Clinton was a hawk but think about what you're saying. You really think she would have drone bombed an embassy in the heart of fucking London? Come on. That's clearly delusional.
    • allemagne 8y ago
      Yes. None of that (even if you buy into all of it) adds up to "Clinton would literally order a drone strike on Julian Assange", let alone if he happened to be in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at the time.
      • monocasa 8y ago
        https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik... It was from before he was in the embassy, after the CableGate thing.
        • kahirsch 8y ago
          Truepundit.com is a site with no named reporters but somehow still manages to get "scoops" from unnamed sources in the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the FBI. Yet these scoops are never confirmed by other sources and many of them are proved false, like these: * November 4, 2016: BREAKING: Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes http://truepundit.com/breaking-comey-mandates-all-fbi-agents-report-to-d-c-offices-prep-for-raids-arrests-in-clinton-probes/ http://truepundit.com/breaking-comey-mandates-all-fbi-agents... * December 27, 2016: Hillary Negotiating Secret Pardon With Obama’s White House Counsel Who Previously Worked for Clinton Family & White House http://truepundit.com/hillary-negotiating-secret-pardon-with-obamas-white-house-counsel-who-previously-worked-for-clinton-family-white-house/ http://truepundit.com/hillary-negotiating-secret-pardon-with... In other words, it publishes hoaxes.
          • monocasa 8y ago
            Her actual response: https://youtu.be/ErH29hrpqvg?t=233 https://youtu.be/ErH29hrpqvg?t=233 "I don't recall having said, but if I did it would have been a joke", while smirking. That's politics code for "I totes said that, but I don't want to be caught in a lie if there's some record of it."
          • ColanR 8y ago
    • longerthoughts 8y ago
      >More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission. Source?
      • hammock 8y ago
        Here is a starting point. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702-compliance-violations/ https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702... Here is another source that says 0.5% https://www.aclu.org/foia-document/semiannual-assessment-compliance-procedures-and-guidelines-issued-pursuant-section-7-5 https://www.aclu.org/foia-document/semiannual-assessment-com...
        • FireBeyond 8y ago
          So a blog says one number, but an FOI released document shows ten times less? I think I know which to go with.
          • hammock 8y ago
            Which, and why?
      • autoexec 8y ago
        I was curious too so some googling brought me to this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170514/10071637362/inspector-generals-report-shows-section-702-isnt-only-thing-being-abused-nsa.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170514/10071637362/inspe...
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "Would you though?" Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'. There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'. And besides - there would be no 'false flag' with any kind of attempt to kill Assange. The notion that Clinton (or any agency) would go after Assange with drones and hellfire missiles is well into crazyland territory. Not even the crazy among them are thinking it, it doesn't make sense really on any level I think.
      • merlincorey 8y ago
        > There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'. What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag? I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.
        • sonnyblarney 8y ago
          A false flag is an intentional action that creates false justification for something. A misrepresentation is just that. So - if the US sent in CIA agents and planted WMD's in Iraq, and then had the UN inspectors show up and 'find' them - that would be a false flag. Otherwise, say the inspectors find some WMD but it's only a small account, and then the government says "Look WMDs, therefore war!" - that's another scenario. The 2003 war was not based on false flag, more along the lines of misrepresentation of information. Sometimes it can be shady, as I believe the gulf of Tonkin was a sketchy one. There was an incident between US and Vietnamese ships, but later, during a second encounter, the US knew it was unlikely there were Vietnamese ships (just misleading radar signature) but used it anyways as justification for escalation. But consider that this is just populism anyhow - the 'good' reasons for conflict, are often at odds with the 'populist' reasons for war. WW2 being possibly a good example: it might have been much better for everyone were the Americans to be involved much earlier ... but the public was not down with it until Pearl Harbour. Consider for a moment if there was no attack on Pearl Harbour. Consider if the Germans did not have to pull resources from the Russian front to fight in Italy, Africa and then France ... my gosh man that would re-shape world history. As for Assange, I don't believe his leaks represent quite the malicious acting by the US that some believe, although maybe they are important, moreover, I understand that he has very serious character flaws - this from his relationships with his own allies at the Guardian and Spiegel etc. and his recent involvement with the Russians.
    • tw04 8y ago
      So... Because Clinton was "in charge" when the unfortunate events in Benghazi occurred, you think she would've authorized a drone strike in London? That's well past the point of crazy conspiracy theory territory.
    • kevinh 8y ago
      > I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point. I'm sorry about that, but losing someone in an attack doesn't make your point any more valid.
  • Alex3917 8y ago
    You've apparently forgotten all about that whole Osama Bin Laden thing. You know, the person who Clinton sent a team to kill even though he was never charged with any crime. There's even a video of Clinton watching his illegal assassination.
    • jacobush 8y ago
      Clinton?
      • monocasa 8y ago
        Yep. She certainly appears to be there. https://businessinsider.com/situation-room-bin-laden-2016-5 https://businessinsider.com/situation-room-bin-laden-2016-5
        • hnmonkey 8y ago
          Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden? By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.
          • monocasa 8y ago
            Are you really questioning the idea that the Secretary of State had a hand in approving a CIA-led assassination mission when there's literally pictures of her watching it go down?
            • hnmonkey 8y ago
              I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all. I did however basically say that she did not send the team to get him. That's what a President signs off on and military leaders plan.
  • buboard 8y ago
    Thats what gadaffi thought
• komali2 8y ago
  That's an obviously absurd belief given he's in an embassy. The USA has done a lot of insane shit but that would be a ridiculous line to cross to eliminate a single "criminal."
  • busterarm 8y ago
    Pretty absurd. That said, the Saudi government just straight up murdered a journalist in one of their embassies, the whole world knows it and politically it appears things are still business as usual...
    • airstrike 8y ago
      How is that comparable at all? And no, things aren't business as usual, there have been lots of developments on that story.
      • mattnewton 8y ago
        Lots of hand wringing to be sure but I don’t see any real deterrents to doing it again.
      • kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        The house of Saud just crafted their latest excuse about the hit squad being "rogue agents" and they're going to execute some faithful servants to prove their point. That is plenty good enough for Trump to dismiss the issue. American's don't care about mass Iraqi civilian deaths. Journalists are the enemy. A single "fake news" writer won't matter.
    • AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Attacking someone in your own embassy is crossing a line. Attacking someone else's embassy is crossing several more lines.
    • komali2 8y ago
      But that's not the United States. They're a straight monarchy...
• akhilcacharya 8y ago
  She was very clearly joking. I personally thought it was hilarious.
• craftyguy 8y ago
  > Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day. I'd take the drone strike. The end result is, with almost 100% certainty, going to be the same. At least with the drone attack, you don't have to waste away in prison until you die. It's all but certain he would be convicted.
• coretx 8y ago
  Close but not quite. The exact ( back then ) secretary of state's expression was "Can't we just drone that guy". The context of this quote being dialog with her staff who had a hard time convincing her that it's a bad idea.
• AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I've seen the American justice system in action, "due process" is a joke.
• ForrestN 8y ago
  There is absolutely no evidence of this, either that Clinton was "ready to send a drone" or that Wikileaks actually believed she was. Taking at face value the statements of the organization regarding this would be extremely naive.