4 ms·

For the conspiracy-minded here, I ask: Why would any organization bother to murder a whistleblower who delivered documents over a year ago? He's no longer rele

For the conspiracy-minded here, I ask: Why would any organization bother to murder a whistleblower who delivered documents over a year ago? He's no longer relevant.

Doubtme 5y ago
Well at this point is this even able to be considered a conspiracy. We all know what happened. Its sad hes dead obviously. But the feds should've protected their assets better.
- rosndo 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1518820453833355265 https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1518820453833355265
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > We all know what happened. Worth a watch [0], it's not his first (or his father's) run-in with these matters. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVVK5mokKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVVK5mokKw
lawn 5y ago
I'm not into conspiracies, but it could be a deterrent for future whistleblowers. "We'll get you when you think you've gotten away. You'll never be safe."
konart 5y ago
To make a point? You do this to us - we do this to you. No statute of limitations.
d--b 5y ago
Revenge? Retribution? Vengeance? Retaliation? There is a reason why the witness protection program allows people to change identity for life and not just for the time they're relevant.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
Why is Assange still imprisoned? The Swiss state does the same with some whistleblowers and their own citizens have to hide abroad. They are considered traitors (Well, they are to the criminal enterprise technically). I don't know anything about this case and it doesn't seem plausible that anyone had him killed. But the release of panama papers did also lead to the sudden death of a few people.
- 4ggr0 5y ago
  > The Swiss state does the same with some whistleblowers and their own citizens have to hide abroad As a Swiss I have never heard about this but it does sound very interesting. Do you have any sources for this?
  - raxxorraxor 5y ago
    Not on hand really. This was a pretty prominent case, but not the only one: https://taxjustice.net/2017/06/02/whistleblower-ruedi-elmer-vs-swiss-justice-system/ https://taxjustice.net/2017/06/02/whistleblower-ruedi-elmer-... There was also the case of Eckart Seith. He was very recently acquitted probably because the issue gained too much attention to cover it up. He was accused of economic espionage and other crimes. The prosecutor very clearly was partial and only after 5 attempts he was dismissed. This isn't restricted to Switzerland at all of course, similar problems are as prevalent in other countries if you look closer.
    - 4ggr0 5y ago
      Interesting, surprised that I never heard about this case. As glad as I am to be born and living in Switzerland, it makes me sad to see how much BS my country does in the background, be it banking, resource industry like Glencore, food industry like Nestle etc. And due to our small size it seems like not many scandals leak or come to light, not even internally. Of course Credit Suisse and UBS get slapped with fines almost every year it seems, but that feels more like a show than anything more.
simmo9000 5y ago
Would apparently giving away $3,000,000,000 make him relevant? https://nitter.net/i/status/1481500647698493440 https://nitter.net/i/status/1481500647698493440
- simiones 5y ago
  If we were to believe the tweet, that is $3,000,000,000,000, not 3 billion. Any entity having something that could actually be exchanged for 3 trillion dollars is obviously impossible, so I see no reason to put any stock in the tweet.
simiones 5y ago
Why is the US still trying to prosecute Edward Snowden almost 10 years after his leak? Or is that a conspiracy as well? Any unethical organization wants to make one thing clear to potential whislteblowers: actually going through with it will mean you will be hounded for your entire life in various ways, legal or illegal. If it were enough to lay low for one year after leaking sensitive documents, and then all would be forgiven, many more people would leak things. Powerful organizations of any kind (corporations, unions, state agencies) don't want to allow that. Note: I am not claiming this MUST have been foul play. I'm just claiming it can't be dismissed a priori with such arguments.
- wil421 5y ago
  Snowden was a government employee, mostly through a contractor IIRC, there’s a huge deference. The Feds have the largest resources in the world and will wait decade(s) if they need to. They are trying to make an example out of Snowden to deter someone doing something similar in the future.
CyanBird 5y ago
> He's no longer relevant. Because the goal is not to per se bury the story, but to intimidate others whom might want to leak You don't murder these whom are on the spotlight, you murder them after they have left the spotlight and their deaths would be less covered by mainstream media outlets
pmontra 5y ago
Old Latin and Chinese wisdom of about 2000 years ago. “Unum castigabis centum emendabis”, “punish one, teach a hundred” (can't write it in Chinese, sorry.) Made popular again by Mao Zedong about 50 years ago.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

For the conspiracy-minded here, I ask: Why would any organization bother to murder a whistleblower who delivered documents over a year ago? He's no longer relevant.

Doubtme 5y ago

Well at this point is this even able to be considered a conspiracy. We all know what happened. Its sad hes dead obviously. But the feds should've protected their assets better.

rosndo 5y ago
https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1518820453833355265 https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1518820453833355265
Melting_Harps 5y ago
> We all know what happened. Worth a watch [0], it's not his first (or his father's) run-in with these matters. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVVK5mokKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVVK5mokKw

lawn 5y ago

I'm not into conspiracies, but it could be a deterrent for future whistleblowers. "We'll get you when you think you've gotten away. You'll never be safe."

konart 5y ago

To make a point? You do this to us - we do this to you. No statute of limitations.

d--b 5y ago

Revenge? Retribution? Vengeance? Retaliation? There is a reason why the witness protection program allows people to change identity for life and not just for the time they're relevant.

raxxorraxor 5y ago

Why is Assange still imprisoned? The Swiss state does the same with some whistleblowers and their own citizens have to hide abroad. They are considered traitors (Well, they are to the criminal enterprise technically). I don't know anything about this case and it doesn't seem plausible that anyone had him killed. But the release of panama papers did also lead to the sudden death of a few people.

4ggr0 5y ago
> The Swiss state does the same with some whistleblowers and their own citizens have to hide abroad As a Swiss I have never heard about this but it does sound very interesting. Do you have any sources for this?
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  Not on hand really. This was a pretty prominent case, but not the only one: https://taxjustice.net/2017/06/02/whistleblower-ruedi-elmer-vs-swiss-justice-system/ https://taxjustice.net/2017/06/02/whistleblower-ruedi-elmer-... There was also the case of Eckart Seith. He was very recently acquitted probably because the issue gained too much attention to cover it up. He was accused of economic espionage and other crimes. The prosecutor very clearly was partial and only after 5 attempts he was dismissed. This isn't restricted to Switzerland at all of course, similar problems are as prevalent in other countries if you look closer.
  - 4ggr0 5y ago
    Interesting, surprised that I never heard about this case. As glad as I am to be born and living in Switzerland, it makes me sad to see how much BS my country does in the background, be it banking, resource industry like Glencore, food industry like Nestle etc. And due to our small size it seems like not many scandals leak or come to light, not even internally. Of course Credit Suisse and UBS get slapped with fines almost every year it seems, but that feels more like a show than anything more.

simmo9000 5y ago

Would apparently giving away $3,000,000,000 make him relevant? https://nitter.net/i/status/1481500647698493440 https://nitter.net/i/status/1481500647698493440

simiones 5y ago
If we were to believe the tweet, that is $3,000,000,000,000, not 3 billion. Any entity having something that could actually be exchanged for 3 trillion dollars is obviously impossible, so I see no reason to put any stock in the tweet.

simiones 5y ago

Why is the US still trying to prosecute Edward Snowden almost 10 years after his leak? Or is that a conspiracy as well? Any unethical organization wants to make one thing clear to potential whislteblowers: actually going through with it will mean you will be hounded for your entire life in various ways, legal or illegal. If it were enough to lay low for one year after leaking sensitive documents, and then all would be forgiven, many more people would leak things. Powerful organizations of any kind (corporations, unions, state agencies) don't want to allow that. Note: I am not claiming this MUST have been foul play. I'm just claiming it can't be dismissed a priori with such arguments.

wil421 5y ago
Snowden was a government employee, mostly through a contractor IIRC, there’s a huge deference. The Feds have the largest resources in the world and will wait decade(s) if they need to. They are trying to make an example out of Snowden to deter someone doing something similar in the future.

CyanBird 5y ago

> He's no longer relevant. Because the goal is not to per se bury the story, but to intimidate others whom might want to leak You don't murder these whom are on the spotlight, you murder them after they have left the spotlight and their deaths would be less covered by mainstream media outlets

pmontra 5y ago

Old Latin and Chinese wisdom of about 2000 years ago. “Unum castigabis centum emendabis”, “punish one, teach a hundred” (can't write it in Chinese, sorry.) Made popular again by Mao Zedong about 50 years ago.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]