Where is your evidence that his assassination was even planned? Remember I was just speaking generally of CIA responsibility of planning for all possible contingencies. But as to the specific "proof" you just have, at root, a yahoo article referring to anonymous "senior officials".
For years this foreigner had been acquiring records from a variety of sources, including from his own espionage and hacking in the guise of various entities as a cover. Even what he acquired from others was due to his position of deep involvement in hacking and espionage community and ties to traitors in the US. He is not the New York Times. And be sure there are records that our government cannot even admit he obtained. CIA rightfully set its sights on him, even more for what he may pry into next and take it upon himself to release than what he has already. Foreigners are not to be the watchdog of our government.
[Right Wing Vegan #82] Where is your evidence that his assassination was even planned?
[woodpusher #78] While I do not see proof that the CIA/Pompeo considered plans to assassinate Assange, I would be surprised if the CIA did not consider such a course of action following the publication of the Vault 7 leak to the public.
Since when does a claim to not see proof that the CIA/Pompeo considered plans to assassinate Assange, require evidence that Assange's assassination was planned?
[Right Wing Vegan #79] There is a bit of a difference between a "journalist who reveals criminal behavior on the part of a government agency" and one that commits hacking and espionage primarily, and is a journalist secondarily. Such person is correctly categorized as a threat, and a foreigner besides, I'm not making any assumptions or giving him any power to determine what is a crime and needs to be divulged.CIA routinely considers all possible ways to deal with such threats, as it should. I would think it is not doing its job if it does not consider eliminating such threats even by assassination.
I will say furthermore that if there are Americans supporting such threats, aligning with members of foreign Libertarian party elements, as well as spy elements, and engaging in deceptive campaigns against patriotic leaders such as Pompeo because he stands in the way of international libertarian and socialist comspiracies, CIA should consider all possible actions against them as well.
My stated position was specifically to Julian Assange and the publication of Vault 7.
Your stated position appears to indicate that Assange is "one that commits hacking and espionage primarily, and is a journalist secondarily. Such person is correctly categorized as a threat." Such person is correctly categorized as a threat, and a foreigner besides."
Perhaps you were just talking about J. Random Dude, having nothing to do with Julian Assange.
As for Vault 7, I presented clear evidence that Julian Assange did not hack anything, and neither did Joshua Schulte, the actual perpetrator who leaked Vault 7.
It has never been a crime to publish leaked, classified information. It is done practically every day, most of it being deliberate leaks from the intelligence agencies.
Finally, you ascribe to the stated position that Americans, such as myself, supporting such "threats" as publishing leaked, classified information, should be up for CIA assassination if they support the First Amendment to the Constitution, over secret murders committed by intelligence cockroaches in the darkness.
The Pentagon Papers case.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep403713/
Headnote:
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 1873. Argued June 26, 1971-Decided June 30, 1971*
The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint." No. 1873, 444 F. 2d 544, reversed and remanded; No. 1885,- U. S. App. D. C. -, 446 F. 2d 1327, affirmed.
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its con- stitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judg- ment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.
So ordered.
Concurring opinion of Black, joined by Douglas
[excerpt]
Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.In seeking injunctions against these newspapers and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment.
[...]
The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
You appear to assert that exercising a constitutional right is a threat punishable by death without a trial. I dissent.