Julian Assange has said in an interview that he persuaded Edward Snowden to avoid seeking asylum in Latin America due to the CIA's reach, and that he fears assassination himself:
Julian Assange has said he advised the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden against seeking asylum in Latin America because there he could have been kidnapped and possibly killed. The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief said he told Snowden to ignore concerns about the "negative PR consequences" of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA's influence did not reach.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Times, Assange also said he feared he would be assassinated if he was ever able to leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition.
[...] WikiLeaks was intimately involved in the operation to help Snowden evade the US authorities in 2013 after he leaked his cache of intelligence documents to Glenn Greenwald, then a journalist with the Guardian. Assange sent one of his most senior staff members, Sarah Harrison, to be at Snowden's side in Hong Kong, and helped to engineer his escape to Russia – despite his discomfort with the idea of fleeing to one of the US's most powerful enemies.
"Snowden was well aware of the spin that would be put on it if he took asylum in Russia," Assange told the Times. "He preferred Latin America, but my advice was that he should take asylum in Russia despite the negative PR consequences, because my assessment is that he had a significant risk he could be kidnapped from Latin America on CIA orders. Kidnapped or possibly killed."
Assange also outlined his own fears of being targeted. He said that even venturing out on to the balcony of Ecuador's embassy in Knightsbridge posed security risks in the light of bomb and assassination threats by what he called "unstable people". He said he thought it was unlikely he would be shot, but that he worried that if he was freed he could be kidnapped by the CIA. "I'm a white guy," Assange said. "Unless I convert to Islam it's not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things creeping towards that."
Here's an example of the CIA's alleged influence in Latin America.
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 30 2015, @03:39PM
Both the advice, and the reasoning seem reasonable to me. There are few places in the world from which the US cannot extradite or "rendition" or "render" a person. Or, in worst cases, just drone your ass.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 30 2015, @03:44PM
I am surprised that the NSA and CIA have not already assassinated Assange or Snowden, or that the British (who do Washington's bidding) have not stormed the Ecuadorean embassy. They grounded and searched the President of Bolivia's personal plane for Snowden, so they clearly have no regard for diplomatic repercussions. The NSA and CIA have violated the most fundamental precepts of the US Constitution and universal law, so why would they shrink from simply doing whatever the hell else they want?
Maybe there's hope in that for the rest of us, because it means they do feel vulnerable to how ordinary schmucks like us think. I mean, we have ample proof that they don't give a crap for scruples or ethics, but that they shrink back from what they could do means we still have power.
We must use it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Sunday August 30 2015, @03:54PM
perhaps the intelligence agencies understand the streisland effect better than politicians...Untoward deaths draw too much attention (e.g. Diana Spencer died in a car crash, where the only person wearing a seatbelt survived....not a surprise really is it...?).
Essentially this is the "tradecraft" that has been written about extensively in the post-war decades, and forms the basis for just about every spy movie you have ever seen!! If you want to see some examples of the subtly (or not) of the intelligence agencies of years past, visit the spy museum in DC. It is educational in that, the technology is not that surprising, but right time, right place, is of paramount importance.
That said, grounding the planes where they *thought* snowden was on board, really tipped their hand.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:12PM
See my comment below. It really goes to show how effective that particular cryptoanarchist has been at getting under the skin of the elites that he got Snowden to Russia... and then used the fact that he was being spied on to get the U.S. to tip its hand and ground the plane of a President. It has been described as Assange creating "rumors" to get the plane grounded, but it was just disinformation on an insecure line of communication. Heckuva job, U.S. foreign surveillance.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zugedneb on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:50PM
...perhaps the intelligence agencies understand the streisland effect...
This has 2 sides...
I think they know, that the modern civilian, well informed in terms of pictures and videos, of how war and killing actually looks like, will not put his ass at risk.
The modern civilian will patiently wait, and drown it's sorrow in consumption, until any particular storm bloes over.
As examples, the Romanian revolution or demonstrations in Russia and China: people kind of knew/know how brutal a regime can be, and that the police and military do not ask too much before pulling the trigger, but they were/are not actually fed with youtube videos about the actions of their owners...
They revolt, because "knowing" violence is not the same as "seeing" violence.
This is the reason I like to troll threads about US...
With all the guns and all the claims about fighting for your rights, lemme see you actually pull of revolution.
I think the average US citizen values himself higher then being used as container for an entire magazine of bullets discarded by a fat cop...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:21PM
I think it has more to do with standard of living and the existence of a middle class. As long as the people are relatively well-off, they aren't desperate enough to fight against the government. That's the informal "deal" in China. You give up political freedoms but get relative economic prosperity. That deal may collapse if the urban-rural divide continues. Russia is well-off enough [oecdbetterlifeindex.org] to avoid regime change. In Syria, the people are either fighting or fleeing since stability is gone. It is likely the most well-documented civil war in history due to the proliferation of smartphones and cameras.
America has enough bread and circuses to pacify the majority of the population. The poor are too dispersed and are crushed by the middle class routinely. Easy access to drugs and alcohol helps to pacify this segment. Despite allegations of the media inciting violence against cops by playing up #BLM incidents, the cops routinely dictate to mainstream and local media. The Occupy movements got infiltrated and destroyed by the FBI. Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Rand Paul (who is doing terribly, he might as well quit) face opposition from the mainstream candidates and party infrastructure. The NSA has undergone token reforms that aren't even in effect yet. The list goes on and on. Nothing will change as long as MOST Americans feel financially secure and physically safe most of the time.
Being in the middle class correlates to greater access to "pictures and videos", but the global poor are increasingly using smartphones. If they topple governments in spite of seeing images of war and killing, or actually coordinate their opposition using the technologies, then the problem is income/safety, not imagery.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nollij on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:07PM
Storming an embassy creates a long list of difficult problems. At the worst, it can be considered a direct act of war.
Besides, he's quite effectively on house arrest there, and has had limited public visibility during that time.
I did not know that Assange claimed responsibility for Evo Morales grounding incident, but most of the countries involved DID issue apologies. It has led to diplomatic issues, and it seems the US is the only one that doesn't give a shit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:57PM
How does grounding and searching the plane of the president of a country also not meet this standard? I think it does. How would Americans react if Air Force 1 were forcibly grounded by China and searched by Chinese Special Forces? Do you think that that would not lead to war?
Of course realpolitik and pragmatism dictate that the US can make war on China far more ably than Bolivia can make war on the US, but it does rather strip away the pretense of a respect for the rule of law and diplomacy, does it not?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:21PM
Well, China does this shit [wikipedia.org] too.
And the Russians shoot down passenger planes. Multiple times too.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday August 31 2015, @12:04AM
Well, China does this shit too. And the Russians shoot down passenger planes. Multiple times too.
Ms Pot, meet Mr Kettle. [wikipedia.org]
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @12:26PM
Reads like the "shit" Scandinavian countries do all the time, when we send fighters up to tell the Russian spy planes to go home. Except for colliding, of course, but considering that the fighter pilot was killed in the incident, that sounds like an accident.
In fact, the need to continue doing so has been repeatedly mentioned as the reason for why we need to waste a lot of tax payer money buying a bunch of F35s.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:24PM
How would Americans react if Air Force 1 were forcibly grounded by China and searched by Chinese Special Forces? Do you think that that would not lead to war?
i do not think that would lead to war. the president is far too level headed for that and congress' outrage about most things is completely faux.
i recall a fighter pilot in distress (low on fuel) made an emergency landing at a Chinese airport and after refusing to let us fly the plane out, they sent the fighter jet back in pieces through the mail.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Sunday August 30 2015, @07:13PM
I don't recall the specific instance you are referring to, but that type of event has happened multiple other times also.
The time that springs to mind for me is Viktor Belenko's defection from the USSR by flying a MIG-25 to Japan. The following inspection of the aircraft completely changed the United States' perception of the aircraft (previously the MIG-25 was thought to be a fighter-bomber, not an interceptor).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:13PM
Why would they do that?
These people leaked what they had to leak. If they were carrying classified information and threatened to release them, that's grounds for putting a few bullets into them. But even then, that's the worst case scenario.
Better than that, get the person who wants to leak the data before they release it, and detain him at an undisclosed location. This allows to gather information on how the leak started, perhaps the leaker might also be willing to give the names of conspirators, or places where he or she made copies of data. Perhaps even the names of reporters who agreed to help publish the data and put them on no-fly lists.
As things are right now, this is actually the best case scenario for secret services. Why would they want to kidnap Assange? What could he tell them that they don't know already? And Snowden? He's not skiing in Switzerland or teaching at a University in The Netherlands, or living a peaceful life in the Bahamas, but in fucking Russia. And he really can't leave. But why would NSA want him back? They'd have to put him on trial, which will be highly publicized by the media. Right now, he's in the tender and loving hands of basically KGB, where he placed himself of his own volition. Ask any American what they think of him and they not only don't know who he is, and if You'd tell them that he ran for safety to Russia, they'll think of him as a commie spy.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:37PM
Assange is a legend in his own mind. If the US really wanted him, there are many many diplomatic options to lean on the Ecuadorians (cut aid, tarrifs, etc.). Sure, those aren't as romantic as living in The Bourne Identity, but real life never is, is it? Besides, if Assange can't keep telling everyone that he's the Most Dangerous Man in the World, and that the Big Bad US wants to kill him, that takes the edge off his ego and fundraising.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @12:57AM
Wow, Soylent is now big enough for shills. Congrats to everyone involved.
If nobody wants Assange, why have they spent £11,000,000 (about US $20,000,000) waiting outside the embassy?
And that's only the publicly known direct cost, there is also whatever it cost to push the bogus sex cases, and any other covert costs.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @03:47PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/accused-russian-hacker-on-tropical-holiday-nabbed-by-u-s-agents [bloomberg.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:04PM
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/28/assange_on_the_untold_story_of [democracynow.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:39PM
thanks for posting that. The times article is paywalled and I cannot be bother to find away around it....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:01PM
At this point why does the CIA even care? They have already done whatever damage they could have done and now they are just a PR irritant, not worthy of the risk. Sure, if they step foot on US soil they get picked up then extradited for trial and with luck spend a lot of time behind bars, but talking about 'secret midnight kidnappings' and ' personal drone strikes' is just plain silly. Neither of them are really that important.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:17PM
I think Snowden has less worth the U.S. than Assange, despite Assange being much more legally difficult to pin a leak-related crime on. Snowden has done his part while Assange seems determined to continue a WikiLeaks role. WikiLeaks has recently leaked TPP drafts, Sony documents, and more diplomatic cables.
There may not be a rational reason for the U.S. to have Assange or Snowden knocked off, but at the individual level, there have been murder mutterings [buzzfeed.com].
Don't forget that Assange has made more enemies than just big bad ol' Uncle Sam. Going through their abridged history [wikipedia.org], WikiLeaks has leaked "a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys", "corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi", "allegations of illegal activities at the Cayman Islands branch of the Swiss Bank Julius Baer", "the collected secret 'bibles' of Scientology," Sarah Palin's email account, two membership lists of the "far-right British National Party", "86 telephone intercept recordings of Peruvian politicians and businessmen involved in the 2008 Peru oil scandal", "a set of documents belonging to Barclays Bank that had been ordered removed from the website of The Guardian", an early Stuxnet/Natanz nuclear facility report, internal documents from Kaupthing Bank in Iceland, the British Joint Services Protocol 440 "advising the security services on how to avoid documents being leaked," a super-injunction that "was being used by the commodities company Trafigura to stop The Guardian (London) from reporting on a leaked internal document regarding a toxic dumping incident in Côte d'Ivoire", climate scientist emails (leaked elsewhere), 570,000 9/11/2001 pager messages, and alleged lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark and Thailand.
All of the above is prior to the Manning documents in 2010.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:10PM
Travel advice from Assange. That doesn't sound like advice anyone should take. The main interesting thing here to note is that the destination was Russia and all that talk about him wanting to go other places but being stuck in Russia by accident or actions comes of as bullshit. He did go where he had planned. Now he is sitting pretty in Russian, forever - unless he wants to trade that for being cellies with Manning in Leavenworth or some other equally lovely place.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:02PM
Sounds like he didn't go where he had planned, and that the plan changed due to the travel advice. I think he could have attempted to go to Latin America, at the possible risk of being grounded and snatched by the U.S. Reporters were certainly boarded a flight to Cuba [telegraph.co.uk] based on rumors and ended up chatting and drinking with each other instead. Evo Morales' plane was grounded due to (allegedly) Assange disinformation over an insecure line, not rumors. That incident proved that Snowden was best off staying in Russia at that point.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:19PM
The absolute WORST thing that could happen to Assange is for the US to pick him up. That's because NOTHING would happen to him. IF they wanted to try to try him in court, there's nothing he'll get convicted of. They try to push reporters around for publishing stuff like this, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the law is on their side. EVERY news outlet, and that would include the CNBC's and the Fox News', come out of the woodwork to support his "reporters" rights. He didn't steal any info. If he aided and abetted Snowden, maybe there is a charge there, but frankly I doubt the US would want to put up with the inevitable circus he'd create.
The reason this is the worst case for Assange is that he would realize that he's not as important as he thinks he is. Assassination? Are you fucking kidding me? He'd be killed by someone who's fucking sick of his self-promotion and histrionics, not by the CIA. I wouldn't put it past Assange to shoot himself in the foot so that he can claim that the CIA tried to kill him.
As for Snowden, sure the US wants him back because he stole classified material and gave it away? Assassination? Again, are you kidding me? For what purpose? He's given away the info, it isn't like killing him would prevent its release. He's got a hell of a lot more to worry about from "enemies" of the US. If he really does have a deadman's switch on the release of the info (which he first claimed in a TV interview, but quickly recanted the next day for the following reason), it is in the interest of the rest of the world to kill him to have it released.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Sunday August 30 2015, @05:56PM
Intelligence officials can become irrational murderers too, and there's certainly been calls from spies [businessinsider.com] and pundits to assassinate Snowden:
As for this part:
He said as much:
Assange may be an aggrandizing opportunist, but he is still a thorn in the side of the U.S., coordinating Snowden's escape to Russia from the embassy, and continuing to "facilitate" high-profile leaks. I use "facilitate" lightly because it's unclear how much WikiLeaks needs Assange to continue operating. As long as Assange continues releasing documents, the self-promotion can be forgiven.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:18PM
> bomb and assassination threats by what he called "unstable people"
The most plausible conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination is that the CIA 'groomed' Lee Harvey Oswald. Nowadays the FBI spends billions 'grooming' muslim terrorists just to arrest them. It would not be a stretch for them to send a few patsies in Assange's direction.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:06PM
Where is the -1 NSA agent mod when you need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @06:15PM
The absolute WORST thing that could happen to Assange is for the US to pick him up.
Countless people in the media called for his death. Maybe that means nothing, but I wouldn't be too keen on taking that chance. There are also things worse than death.
IF they wanted to try to try him in court, there's nothing he'll get convicted of.
You vastly underestimate the United State's reach. It has bullied and forced laws upon other countries for a long time now.
EVERY news outlet, and that would include the CNBC's and the Fox News', come out of the woodwork to support his "reporters" rights.
The media is generally biased against Assange and Snowden, and biased in favor of the mass surveillance and other unconstitutional practices. The media tends to promote draconian copyright laws too, so you can't claim they're big supporters of freedom of speech.
As for Snowden, sure the US wants him back because he stole classified material and gave it away?
He copied it, not stole. He gave us more evidence and details about the crimes the US government was committing.
And I'd say assassination is the least of his worries. Any trial he would receive is likely to be heavily biased against him, with the prosecutors tossing out any jurors who understand anything about jury nullification or know anything in general, and the government would of course use as many tricks to stop him from mounting a defense as possible. He would probably end up like Manning.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday August 31 2015, @12:51PM
IF they wanted to try to try him in court, there's nothing he'll get convicted of.
You have a far greater faith in the general population than I do. Most people already see him as a traitor and yes he did leak classified information which isn't in dispute. The only question is will the jury decide that while he violate the law he deserves whistle blower protections, practice jury nullification, or will the convict him in which case he will be found dead from suicide about 3 days later in his cell. Most people in the US are closer to my mother than they are to myself. My mother is the kind of person who you receive 100 status updates and invites about stupid facebook games a day from, believes the line "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" and has stated "At least they are trying to do something" in regards to the TSA. To quote George Carlin:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone