6 ms·

What surprises me most is that Julian Assange has lasted this long. This isn't OBL, where he's living in a cave somewhere -- this guy is known to travel between

by d2viant 16y ago

What surprises me most is that Julian Assange has lasted this long. This isn't OBL, where he's living in a cave somewhere -- this guy is known to travel between first world countries. I can understand those countries may not be willing to hand him over, but the US has lots of experience with rendition and I'm surprised some three-letter agency hasn't snatched him up yet.

jscore 16y ago
Why is it surprising? America can't go against every one who doesn't agree with them. It needs to weigh its options carefully and intelligently. The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact. The world is not black and white where we might send CIA or Special Forces to neutralize someone who we don't like. It's definitely more complicated than it seems. There are other, more indirect ways to neutralize what he's doing. A good one is using the media to sway public opinion, etc. Another one is to discredit the guy by linking him to some "terrorist group/government" and say they're funding him, etc.
- commandar 16y ago
  >The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact. That and the fact that the last time they tried, he turned out the be more resilient than expected -- and the coupe leaders far more incompetent; the coupe failed at least in part because they left Chavez's own people guarding the presidential palace after they took it over. Oops -- and the whole thing ended up being a huge embarrassment and likely gave Hugo an extra push over the old crazy ledge.
  - adolph 16y ago
    Just a style pointer: Coupe: a hardtop two door car [1.] Coup: an overthrow of a government by focused action against the central leadership [2.] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupé http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupé 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup
- zephyrfalcon 16y ago
  "Why is it surprising? America can't go against every one who doesn't agree with them. It needs to weigh its options carefully and intelligently. The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact." In this post-cold war world, he might be less important, so I would expect there would be less of an effort to oust him. The US does have, shall we say, a bit of a track record of unseating governments they don't like. (Look at this list [http://www.zompist.com/latam.html http://www.zompist.com/latam.html] for Latin America alone...)
  - sdcfvbnjkllkj 16y ago
    Actually it has a track record of failing embarrassingly to oust governments it doesn't like, cuba, angola, france ...
    - zephyrfalcon 16y ago
      Agreed, they haven't always been successful. I wasn't aware that they tried to replace France's government though...
hugh3 16y ago
And this actually proves an important point about the various three-letter agencies: they're not really the nefarious organizations that exist in the imaginations of people who have seen too many movies. Jason Bourne's CIA would has assassinated Julian Assange a long time ago. The real one just grumbles.
- gnosis 16y ago
  What good would assassinating him do? He's not the only one who runs Wikileaks or has access to the information. They'd need to "snatch" everyone who has access to it, which might be a very difficult proposition, not to mention a complete public relations disaster, considering Wikileaks is in the public spotlight right now. I very much doubt the CIA is holding back out of the goodness of their hearts. No. What we are witnessing is simply cold, calculated realpolitik in action.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the organization into disarray and thus irrelevance. Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that no such "Assange" exists yet.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      How much "leadership" does it take to put stuff up on a website? Really, I think you overestimate Assange's importance to the operation of Wikileaks, and the amount of "disarray" the "organization" will be put in if something happens to him. And, honestly, if someone chooses to leak info in the future and Wikileaks doesn't publish it for some reason, then some other website or news organization will. The really critical people in this whole scheme are the leakers and whistleblowers themselves, and silencing Assange will do nothing to stop them. It's just shooting the messenger.
    - gamble 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
patrickgzill 16y ago
For all you know he is controlled opposition. There is little reason to believe that the contents of these cables aren't already known to other governments, given that many soldiers from the rank of private on up had access to them; and that the UK, France, Israel, Germany, etc. also do extensive signals intelligence, crypto, and even good old fashioned human based spying.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Very true. I can't believe this point hasn't been raised elsewhere. The information has probably not been secret since it was made available to the wider audience after 9/11.
  - trop 16y ago
    While I wouldn't claim this is a reliable source, you could check out Dave Emory on Assange (http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-724-wiki-of-the-damned/ http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-724-wiki-of-the-d... and http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-725-leak-this-wiki-spooks-and-the-world-of-stieg-larsson/ http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-725-leak-this-wik...). Emory tries to connect Assange, the Swedish Pirate Party, a Nazi conspiracy, western intelligence agencies, and an Australian brainwashing cult of bleach-blond children. He also points to an interestingly dyspeptic cnet interview "Wikileaks' estranged co-founder becomes a critic" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html) with the founder of cryptome.org who (news to me) helped cofound Wikileaks.
- rtra 16y ago
  And the realization of this really undermines the assumption that these leaks threaten the US national security. These could have been leaked privately to an enemy just as easily - how worse would that be?
- secret 16y ago
  While I don't think it's the case, I do think it would be a brilliant strategy. The NYT article on the Iran negotiations seems rather helpful to the US, but nothing that could ever be said officially (especially the positions of other nations).

by d2viant 16y ago

jscore 16y ago

Why is it surprising? America can't go against every one who doesn't agree with them. It needs to weigh its options carefully and intelligently. The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact. The world is not black and white where we might send CIA or Special Forces to neutralize someone who we don't like. It's definitely more complicated than it seems. There are other, more indirect ways to neutralize what he's doing. A good one is using the media to sway public opinion, etc. Another one is to discredit the guy by linking him to some "terrorist group/government" and say they're funding him, etc.

commandar 16y ago
>The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact. That and the fact that the last time they tried, he turned out the be more resilient than expected -- and the coupe leaders far more incompetent; the coupe failed at least in part because they left Chavez's own people guarding the presidential palace after they took it over. Oops -- and the whole thing ended up being a huge embarrassment and likely gave Hugo an extra push over the old crazy ledge.
- adolph 16y ago
  Just a style pointer: Coupe: a hardtop two door car [1.] Coup: an overthrow of a government by focused action against the central leadership [2.] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupé http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupé 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup
zephyrfalcon 16y ago
"Why is it surprising? America can't go against every one who doesn't agree with them. It needs to weigh its options carefully and intelligently. The mere reason that Hugo Chavez is still in power testifies to this fact." In this post-cold war world, he might be less important, so I would expect there would be less of an effort to oust him. The US does have, shall we say, a bit of a track record of unseating governments they don't like. (Look at this list [http://www.zompist.com/latam.html http://www.zompist.com/latam.html] for Latin America alone...)
- sdcfvbnjkllkj 16y ago
  Actually it has a track record of failing embarrassingly to oust governments it doesn't like, cuba, angola, france ...
  - zephyrfalcon 16y ago
    Agreed, they haven't always been successful. I wasn't aware that they tried to replace France's government though...

hugh3 16y ago

And this actually proves an important point about the various three-letter agencies: they're not really the nefarious organizations that exist in the imaginations of people who have seen too many movies. Jason Bourne's CIA would has assassinated Julian Assange a long time ago. The real one just grumbles.

gnosis 16y ago
What good would assassinating him do? He's not the only one who runs Wikileaks or has access to the information. They'd need to "snatch" everyone who has access to it, which might be a very difficult proposition, not to mention a complete public relations disaster, considering Wikileaks is in the public spotlight right now. I very much doubt the CIA is holding back out of the goodness of their hearts. No. What we are witnessing is simply cold, calculated realpolitik in action.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the organization into disarray and thus irrelevance. Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that no such "Assange" exists yet.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    How much "leadership" does it take to put stuff up on a website? Really, I think you overestimate Assange's importance to the operation of Wikileaks, and the amount of "disarray" the "organization" will be put in if something happens to him. And, honestly, if someone chooses to leak info in the future and Wikileaks doesn't publish it for some reason, then some other website or news organization will. The really critical people in this whole scheme are the leakers and whistleblowers themselves, and silencing Assange will do nothing to stop them. It's just shooting the messenger.
  - gamble 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

patrickgzill 16y ago

For all you know he is controlled opposition. There is little reason to believe that the contents of these cables aren't already known to other governments, given that many soldiers from the rank of private on up had access to them; and that the UK, France, Israel, Germany, etc. also do extensive signals intelligence, crypto, and even good old fashioned human based spying.

grandalf 16y ago
Very true. I can't believe this point hasn't been raised elsewhere. The information has probably not been secret since it was made available to the wider audience after 9/11.
- trop 16y ago
  While I wouldn't claim this is a reliable source, you could check out Dave Emory on Assange (http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-724-wiki-of-the-damned/ http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-724-wiki-of-the-d... and http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-725-leak-this-wiki-spooks-and-the-world-of-stieg-larsson/ http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-725-leak-this-wik...). Emory tries to connect Assange, the Swedish Pirate Party, a Nazi conspiracy, western intelligence agencies, and an Australian brainwashing cult of bleach-blond children. He also points to an interestingly dyspeptic cnet interview "Wikileaks' estranged co-founder becomes a critic" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html) with the founder of cryptome.org who (news to me) helped cofound Wikileaks.
rtra 16y ago
And the realization of this really undermines the assumption that these leaks threaten the US national security. These could have been leaked privately to an enemy just as easily - how worse would that be?
secret 16y ago
While I don't think it's the case, I do think it would be a brilliant strategy. The NYT article on the Iran negotiations seems rather helpful to the US, but nothing that could ever be said officially (especially the positions of other nations).