6 ms·

What an absolute joke. FBI/CIA recruits a child molester to lie about Assange. https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/09/25/siggi_the_hacker_gets_three_y

What an absolute joke. FBI/CIA recruits a child molester to lie about Assange. https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/09/25/siggi_the_hacker_gets_three_years_in_prison/ https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/09/25/siggi_the... Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?”

jacobolus 5y ago
I guess “I and most of my associates (including the ones who provided evidence against me) are pathological liars and criminals” is one kind of defense Assange can mount, but it doesn’t exactly build sympathy from at least this disinterested third-party reader.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I believe it should give you pause to adjust your point of view of the history. Not that it'll matter if you're truly disinterested, but you posted a reply, so I guess you're not.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous. As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right? Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange consulted for the Victoria Australia police to apprehend child molestors and pornography distributors.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions. [0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
      - jacobolus 5y ago
        > Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
        the_optimist 5y ago
        One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.
        jacobolus 5y ago
        What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all. The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”. A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.
Taniwha 5y ago
To be fair we don't know whether he's telling the truth now - but it certainly creatges reasonable doubt
- ozfive 5y ago
  More than reasonable doubt. The case will need to be thrown out. Between the false allegations of rape and now this their case is hanging by a thread if not dead in the water.
bobthepanda 5y ago
> Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?” There's a whole political party whose dominant position is to go "rah rah" and paint pretty much any criticism of these agencies as unpatriotic. It is still not a settled opinion in the US that waterboarding is torture.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Truth and justice have no political affinity, stated nor implied.
- Leparamour 5y ago
  So glad Barack Obama closed down Guantanamo and stopped the persecution of whistleblowers...oh wait
  - VortexDream 5y ago
    Also, he punished those responsible for the CIA torture program. Oh, wait, he didn't because "morale was so bad". Americans are a joke when it comes to their supposed values.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Obama did try to close Guantanamo several times early on in his term. Congress passed amendments and bills that prohibited actually transferring detainees into the mainland US, because people went full NIMBY over “terrorists” in their backyard. The President’s power is not absolute.
ISO-morphism 5y ago
> are we the baddies I'm quite torn. I feel like a dissonance in theory and practice is at play here. If you ask people about "American values" a lot of times you'll come up with things around freedom, liberty, in general individualism and protection from the "other" of tyrannical government. That's the theory. In practice, those individuals that make up U.S. intelligence agencies justify the dissonance between their tyrannical actions and their ideals by arguments such as "if it were the Russian/Chinese/Other on top things would be worse", etc. All boiling down to "necessary evils". So, which is better, a tyrannical regime that professes values of liberty or a tyrannical regime that tacitly admits that it's tyrannical? I feel like I may be betraying a bit too much of my lack of authority and competence on the subject, but there's something that has stuck with me as the central point of one of the sides at the end of the anime "Legends of the Galactic Heroes". SPOILER Paraphrasing: "Democracy may be just as bad for the people as autocracy, but at least in democracy the people deserve their fate".
- atoav 5y ago
  I think this is a false dichotomy all together. Staying true to the values you promised to defend does not mean you are automatically hand over the power to the next, much worse tyranny. If Assange would have gone free and unbothered the only real hard consequence for our governments would be a PR debacle (which arguably already happened). And a strong precedent that whistleblowers can blow their whistle without having their lives destroyed by tyranny. That means more people can blow the whistle which should be no issue if you are the good ones and act ethically sound.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > So, which is better [...] Your juxtaposition is wrong in the first place, but yes, that is a common line of thought in rationalizing breaking the laws you are supposed to protect. On the contrary, it leads down the same road, so there isn't any practical difference.
smashah 5y ago
Who exactly thinks the CIA does any good in the world?
- the_optimist 5y ago
  I do, but such polarity isn’t the question. The real question is whether or not it’s appropriate to have an independently governed, extra-national paramilitary organization funded by the US but not limited by its laws or oversight. What we can and should do as citizens when that group renders monstrous, rogue injustice under your name and funding.
  - smashah 5y ago
    The polarity is the result of asking the question. It's not a presumption. Any basic knowledge of CIA history would conclude that they're a complete geopolitical and moral liability. Must be worth it to some maniacs though.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      If you ask, "Do they do ANY good?", then yes. Organized criminals are also active in charity. A good question is, is the net effect positive, and are the downsides worth the upsides? Arguably not at all. Possibly in a severely restrained, reformed, governed manner. JFK was quite bitter about his experience, for example, and suggested he wished to "splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-policy-or-tool-survey-finds-widely-feared-agency-is.html https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-pol... https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatterCIAtoWinds.pdf https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatter...

jacobolus 5y ago

I guess “I and most of my associates (including the ones who provided evidence against me) are pathological liars and criminals” is one kind of defense Assange can mount, but it doesn’t exactly build sympathy from at least this disinterested third-party reader.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I believe it should give you pause to adjust your point of view of the history. Not that it'll matter if you're truly disinterested, but you posted a reply, so I guess you're not.
the_optimist 5y ago
Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous. As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right? Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange consulted for the Victoria Australia police to apprehend child molestors and pornography distributors.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions. [0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      > Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.
        jacobolus 5y ago
        What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all. The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”. A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.

Taniwha 5y ago

To be fair we don't know whether he's telling the truth now - but it certainly creatges reasonable doubt

ozfive 5y ago
More than reasonable doubt. The case will need to be thrown out. Between the false allegations of rape and now this their case is hanging by a thread if not dead in the water.

bobthepanda 5y ago

> Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?” There's a whole political party whose dominant position is to go "rah rah" and paint pretty much any criticism of these agencies as unpatriotic. It is still not a settled opinion in the US that waterboarding is torture.

the_optimist 5y ago
Truth and justice have no political affinity, stated nor implied.
Leparamour 5y ago
So glad Barack Obama closed down Guantanamo and stopped the persecution of whistleblowers...oh wait
- VortexDream 5y ago
  Also, he punished those responsible for the CIA torture program. Oh, wait, he didn't because "morale was so bad". Americans are a joke when it comes to their supposed values.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Obama did try to close Guantanamo several times early on in his term. Congress passed amendments and bills that prohibited actually transferring detainees into the mainland US, because people went full NIMBY over “terrorists” in their backyard. The President’s power is not absolute.

ISO-morphism 5y ago

> are we the baddies I'm quite torn. I feel like a dissonance in theory and practice is at play here. If you ask people about "American values" a lot of times you'll come up with things around freedom, liberty, in general individualism and protection from the "other" of tyrannical government. That's the theory. In practice, those individuals that make up U.S. intelligence agencies justify the dissonance between their tyrannical actions and their ideals by arguments such as "if it were the Russian/Chinese/Other on top things would be worse", etc. All boiling down to "necessary evils". So, which is better, a tyrannical regime that professes values of liberty or a tyrannical regime that tacitly admits that it's tyrannical? I feel like I may be betraying a bit too much of my lack of authority and competence on the subject, but there's something that has stuck with me as the central point of one of the sides at the end of the anime "Legends of the Galactic Heroes". SPOILER Paraphrasing: "Democracy may be just as bad for the people as autocracy, but at least in democracy the people deserve their fate".

atoav 5y ago
I think this is a false dichotomy all together. Staying true to the values you promised to defend does not mean you are automatically hand over the power to the next, much worse tyranny. If Assange would have gone free and unbothered the only real hard consequence for our governments would be a PR debacle (which arguably already happened). And a strong precedent that whistleblowers can blow their whistle without having their lives destroyed by tyranny. That means more people can blow the whistle which should be no issue if you are the good ones and act ethically sound.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> So, which is better [...] Your juxtaposition is wrong in the first place, but yes, that is a common line of thought in rationalizing breaking the laws you are supposed to protect. On the contrary, it leads down the same road, so there isn't any practical difference.

smashah 5y ago

Who exactly thinks the CIA does any good in the world?

the_optimist 5y ago
I do, but such polarity isn’t the question. The real question is whether or not it’s appropriate to have an independently governed, extra-national paramilitary organization funded by the US but not limited by its laws or oversight. What we can and should do as citizens when that group renders monstrous, rogue injustice under your name and funding.
- smashah 5y ago
  The polarity is the result of asking the question. It's not a presumption. Any basic knowledge of CIA history would conclude that they're a complete geopolitical and moral liability. Must be worth it to some maniacs though.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    If you ask, "Do they do ANY good?", then yes. Organized criminals are also active in charity. A good question is, is the net effect positive, and are the downsides worth the upsides? Arguably not at all. Possibly in a severely restrained, reformed, governed manner. JFK was quite bitter about his experience, for example, and suggested he wished to "splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-policy-or-tool-survey-finds-widely-feared-agency-is.html https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-pol... https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatterCIAtoWinds.pdf https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatter...