[shadowgovt]

The saddest thing about Assange's story is that when one lives in the realm of the paranoid for too long, the paranoia eats them.

The US and A isn't in the business of assassinating visible targets. There's plenty of people who believe they are, but there's plenty of evidence they aren't. If they were, Manning wouldn't still be breathing.

[rootusrootus]

The US definitely wouldn't risk any blowback by killing someone as low value as Assange. What would be the point? Easier just to chuck him in jail forever, and the political consequences are minimal to nonexistent.

[tremon]

Are you asserting that Osama bin Laden wasn't a visible target?

[shadowgovt]

I should probably clarify: assassination of high-visibility undisclosed targets. Osama bin Laden was tagged as an enemy combatant quite publicly, and I'm not aware of anyone disagreeing with the US's tactical call to kill him during Operation Neptune Spear rather than take him alive.

Some Congresspeople have made ill-advised claims around Assange, but to my knowledge he is not tagged as an enemy combatant in a war on terror and there would be quite a lot of surprise if the US sent in a SEAL team to shoot him.

[whymauri]

Just to clarify, you're saying that the US is not currently in the business of assassinating high-visibility targets.

Just clarifying, because there's a history of state-sanctioned assassination attempts and plots during the Cold War.

[whymauri]

Confused by downvotes. It is a historical fact that there were assassinations plots during the Cold War. It was investigated and declassified by Congress. For starters, look at the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate Committee from 1975, that investigated intelligence malpractice.

There should be nothing remotely controversial about these events existing.

Second, by asking a clarifying question I am not implying that the "US is not currently in the business of assassinating high-visibility targets" because I have no way of knowing this. I just want to clarify this person's point-of-view.

[tremon]

there would be quite a lot of surprise if the US sent in a SEAL team to shoot him.

Of course there would be a lot of surprise, that would be an open act of war. The US's preferred method would be a drone strike operated from within the US borders, just as Russia's preferred method is with some radioactive poison.

[dingoegret]

It is in the business of assassinating visible targets. By probability and behavioral record. Unless you have special evidence to contrary.

[shadowgovt]

As I said, Manning is still alive, and she's spent an inordinate amount of time under US custody. She's under US custody right now. If the government had "assassination of visible targets" as standard black-ops policy, why is she not dead?

Conspiracy theories suffer on lack of consistency.

[cwkoss]

It is plausible that if US govt was't able to contrive her current imprisonment via contempt of court charges, she would be dead.

Kind of amusing that a user named "shadowgovt" is vehemently arguing that the government is less malicious than many members of the public suspect.

[shadowgovt]

Theories of grand evil government conspiracies are comforting because they let us believe someone's in charge, that the evils of the world were intended and causal. Intentions can be controlled.

The reality is much more boring and much less comforting. Hence, my handle. ;)

https://youtu.be/OI6Qdoq679I