3 ms·

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 acces

by 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
  Or it might cause a political shit-storm and undermine American credibility, while giving a moral imprimatur to future leaks. Wikileaks is more powerful as an idea than an organization. They've legitimized the idea of web-based distribution of leaks, much like Napster legitimized file-sharing services. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. Shutting down Napster only gave rise to a host of unaccountable, decentralized services. Shutting down Wikileaks would likewise only lead to the creation of new decentralized services that facilitate leaks without any of the human editorial control that Wikileaks currently provides.
  - Aloisius 16y ago
    Yes, because I'm sure professionals would find it so very difficult to make it look like an accident, self-inflicted or frame someone
    - badkungfu 16y ago
      Maybe it's in the works. We'll see what the outcome of the rape charges are. Could give him a good reason to "off himself".
- grandalf 16y ago
  Assange serves both as the founder and as lightning rod. If he were to be assassinated, the organization would continue on with no interruption. Of course Wikileaks is vulnerable to a variety of attacks, but killing Assange is not one of them.
d2viant 16y ago
I'm not suggesting they assassinate him. He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him. I can't imagine that the public relations fallout from his arrest would be any worse than the public relations disaster they have with the release of these cables.
- gnosis 16y ago
  "He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him." Are we still talking about the CIA? Has it become a law-enforcement agency and I didn't notice? If your point is regarding the possibility of the US government going after Assange by legal means (not via some extralegal, shadowy CIA antics), I'm certain they would if they could. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe their case against him isn't quite as airtight as you believe. But regardless of what they do or try to do to Assange, it won't stop Wikileaks. The best that the US government could manage is to extract some sort of retribution or send out a warning to future leakers and whistleblowers.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    And your argument is not based on the laws of the US at all. If the US government (more specifically Obama's justice department) wanted to prosecute, surely they could, would, and would win. There are political ramifications of that move. I would bet the negative (inflaming a lot of people against the Obama administration) outweigh the positive (not really sure what the positive is, the papers would still find their way out). Thus, they are aiming their legal guns squarely at the guy who actually leaked this stuff in the first place.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    The fact that they haven't leads me to believe their case against him isn't quite as airtight as you believe. I'm not sure whether he's broken any US laws or not. He did not, after all, leak the information, he merely publicised it after someone else (Bradley Manning, apparently) leaked it. Wikipedia mentions no warrants out for his arrest apart from the rape one, for which he's apparently right now "under arrest in absentia" in Sweden. Bradley Manning, of course, remains in solitary at Quantico pending court martial -- he most certainly broke some laws.
raquo 16y ago
If you are known to reliably kill/torture/imprison/enslave people for X, MUCH fewer people will be doing X. Works in Russia at least.

by gnosis 16y ago

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
Or it might cause a political shit-storm and undermine American credibility, while giving a moral imprimatur to future leaks. Wikileaks is more powerful as an idea than an organization. They've legitimized the idea of web-based distribution of leaks, much like Napster legitimized file-sharing services. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. Shutting down Napster only gave rise to a host of unaccountable, decentralized services. Shutting down Wikileaks would likewise only lead to the creation of new decentralized services that facilitate leaks without any of the human editorial control that Wikileaks currently provides.
- Aloisius 16y ago
  Yes, because I'm sure professionals would find it so very difficult to make it look like an accident, self-inflicted or frame someone
  - badkungfu 16y ago
    Maybe it's in the works. We'll see what the outcome of the rape charges are. Could give him a good reason to "off himself".
grandalf 16y ago
Assange serves both as the founder and as lightning rod. If he were to be assassinated, the organization would continue on with no interruption. Of course Wikileaks is vulnerable to a variety of attacks, but killing Assange is not one of them.

d2viant 16y ago

I'm not suggesting they assassinate him. He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him. I can't imagine that the public relations fallout from his arrest would be any worse than the public relations disaster they have with the release of these cables.

gnosis 16y ago
"He's broken numerous laws and they have a pretty compelling case against him." Are we still talking about the CIA? Has it become a law-enforcement agency and I didn't notice? If your point is regarding the possibility of the US government going after Assange by legal means (not via some extralegal, shadowy CIA antics), I'm certain they would if they could. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe their case against him isn't quite as airtight as you believe. But regardless of what they do or try to do to Assange, it won't stop Wikileaks. The best that the US government could manage is to extract some sort of retribution or send out a warning to future leakers and whistleblowers.
- krschultz 16y ago
  And your argument is not based on the laws of the US at all. If the US government (more specifically Obama's justice department) wanted to prosecute, surely they could, would, and would win. There are political ramifications of that move. I would bet the negative (inflaming a lot of people against the Obama administration) outweigh the positive (not really sure what the positive is, the papers would still find their way out). Thus, they are aiming their legal guns squarely at the guy who actually leaked this stuff in the first place.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The fact that they haven't leads me to believe their case against him isn't quite as airtight as you believe. I'm not sure whether he's broken any US laws or not. He did not, after all, leak the information, he merely publicised it after someone else (Bradley Manning, apparently) leaked it. Wikipedia mentions no warrants out for his arrest apart from the rape one, for which he's apparently right now "under arrest in absentia" in Sweden. Bradley Manning, of course, remains in solitary at Quantico pending court martial -- he most certainly broke some laws.

raquo 16y ago

If you are known to reliably kill/torture/imprison/enslave people for X, MUCH fewer people will be doing X. Works in Russia at least.