Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

I would caution commentators not to make false dichotomies here. It is not necessarily a choice between Assange committing a crime and Assange being framed. Both may be true. Neither may be true.

I understand that this fits a narrative, and perhaps it turns out he was framed. Or perhaps it turns out he is has criminal tendencies and the west used those tendencies to frame him. Or he's innocent. Or he's innocent and nobody framed him.

Simply because it fits easily into a narrative does not mean that the most likely scenario is the narrative. You could make a case that having a criminal trial would be a terrible thing for intelligence agencies. It'd just give him a bigger microphone and also put the agencies at risk of being discovered. In fact, if it is a setup, it's one of the most bone-headed setups I've ever seen. Better to just kill him. If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

View on HN

If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

- Joseph Goebbels

How would you prove there was no rape? Rape has always been the ideal smear, because typically nobody else is in the room. It's a classical. You can do nothing about it.

No there must be checks out there. From the top of my head and stuff I've noticed I would do the following;

Ask the victim to describe the assailants crotch area etc. and cross check.

DNA tests if the guy was stupid enough not to wear a condom (but this was Assagne).

Corresponding physical injuries or bruises as described by the victim on the assailants body (there's almost always a struggle in a rape).

Clothing with traces of the victim for example hair samples from a jacket, shoe or clothing unlikely to be rinsed(in case he claims that they have never met).

Trace biological evidence on the scene (can be faked though).

Interrogation. (even very smart people tend to slip up)

Standard investigations (alibis blah blah the entire detective book routine)

----

I think that the real problem is that it takes too long to verify for the 24 hour news cycle unlike a murder.

In all of these instances, you're assuming that this was some sort of back-alley rape that they're alleging... at best, you'd prove that some sort of sexual contact had taken place. It doesn't go to prove thought or intent, which is the whole point the parent was trying to make.

I sat on a jury in a case that involved allegations of rape. One constant refrain from the nurses who examine rape victims is that there is often little to no physical trauma even when there has been a struggle. Furthermore, except in cases where it's a totally random event, the victim ofte may know the person. Even in the case where someone meets a person in a club and goes home with them, there are still legitimate explanations for lots of the physical evidence. So then it all comes down to whether or not you believe the plantiff or not. Shows like CSI and NCIS make people think that all kinds of science can prove this stuff, but in reality, the evidence is never as clear cut as you would like to think.

I work with court-evidence daily; one thing I have learned is that while CSI makes this look really logical... it absolutely isn't.

All the above only really proves intercourse; proving the ''intent'' is the hardest part of law enforcement.

or lack of consent

Hitler and Goebbels forewarning us about the despicable means the US government uses to bring down whistle-blowers... Ummm...

I don't know whether Assange is framed or not. But bringing these two into the discussion seems a bit ridiculous. If Adolf and Joseph knew so much, maybe they could have won the war?! Or, at least, avoided declaring war on the US in 1941, when they had no reason to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

Nobody was compared to the Nazis here. Strangely enough, we have a case where the Nazis' writings make it into the discussion as pearls of wisdom.

Just to give a bit of context, Hitler and Goebbels considered the US a failed state, ruled by Jews and corrupted by Negro culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

Their criticism (including "big lie" accusations) comes from this point of view.

> If Adolf and Joseph knew so much, maybe they could have won the war?!

There's a common meme of saying the Nazis had bad judgement (they did get some major decisions wrong) and that as a consequence they were stupid. The second point is largely not true: Hitler, Goebbels, Goering etc were in fact quite intelligent -- they could hardly have taken over a country otherwise.

Just because someone's evil, don't assume they're stupid.

Hitler was smart enough and knew Germany's neighbors well enough to defeat them. However, as the war showed in a dramatic manner, he had a very poor understanding of the "Anglo" nations (e.g. he thought that the UK would make peace with him and that Roosevelt would never be able to put an effective army in the field). Any opinions he expressed about society and the system of government in Britain and the US should be considered false by default.

> If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards.

That's the strongest argument against this being a frame-up so far. On the other hand breaking in to the Democratic party's offices wasn't very smart either and that definitely happened, and I can think of a few more cases like that.

Government agencies are definitely not above doing really stupid things that turn in to PR disasters.

Which is the strongest counter-argument. :)

But really, trying to frame some guy that a hundred-million people think is some super-hero? It's crazy. They certainly may be doing it, but it's really beyond-stupid crazy.

I'd just shoot him. Easy enough to whack somebody, and without evidence people can spend their lifetimes pointing fingers at each other. Might even make a great series of books and a movie. But with real, live people making criminal allegations that aren't true? Lots of little loose ends dangling around. Too many.

In fact, I'd bet you that even if he was guilty and was not framed, there'll be a series of investigative articles and blogs "proving" he was framed anyway. The narrative is simply too hard to ignore.

Which -- if you think about it -- would give him a free hand to commit any crime he wants. After all, no matter what he was accused of, he was framed, right?

Welcome to the hall of mirrors.

So killing the guy who has a hundred million fans is a good idea?

When compared to false accusations, someone getting killed by a hitman who was hired by the government would far more likely create chaos amongst the public when the truth comes out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

A hundred million fans (or more if you count the rest of the world), a couple of thousand witnesses, plenty of time has passed and we're still waiting for the truth to come out.

Good point, but that was more than almost 50 years ago.

> but that was more than almost 50 years ago

That makes it a stronger point, not a weaker one.

Imagine the journalistic coup if you could conclusively prove who did it and why. The fact that to date nobody has in spite of the size of the prize means that such things can happen and can be kept secret.

Shooting him wouldn't do anything...

Mr. Assange might disagree with you.

A hundred-million people don't think he is a super hero. I doubt a hundred million know him by name. And the fact is, it won't be too hard to convert most of the people who do know of him and like him into disliking him.

This could be the first part of it. Combine it with the first solider to die which is linked to the information released, and any goodwill the public feels towards him is going bye-bye.

In the next year, he can probably look forward to going from a modern day Robin Hood to some weirdo, introverted, odd male hacker who is trying to disrupt our ordinary lives.

> I doubt a hundred million know him by name.

They do now.

> And the fact is, it won't be too hard to convert most of the people who do know of him and like him into disliking him.

That has probably happened in the last 48 hours.

It could just be some mid-level person, US spook say, who has done this, since they would not be worried about the longer term consequences or getting found out. Someone could easily take some of the leaks personally.

That's as good an explanation of how that could have happened. What bothers me is how fast this was leaked to the media. Normally the privacy of both the victims and the accused is well protected in Sweden, especially in rape cases.

A "US spook" is not a "mid-level person". Nor does a "US spook" have the authority to make the swedish government issue a warrant. Nor is a "US spook" above the law. It is within the means of an American intelligence agency, or military, of course, but the decision would come from and be authorized from the highest levels of command.

That being said, it would be an idiotic way of dealing with this situation. It smacks of amateurism, and while I may have qualms with what american intelligence agencies do, they are very good at what they do, and certainly not amateurs.

That might be true, but on the other hand considering Assange's paranoia it is difficult to accept that he would put himself in this position.

Just killing him would not discredit him and might even be seen as increasing his credibility. There is also the 'insurance' file that was released, which presumably would have the key released upon his capture or death, but probably not in this case.

Even accusing him of rape discredits or puts a cloud over him and what he is trying to accomplish. It probably does not reflect that badly on whatever wikileaks publishes, but will hamper his efforts to lobby for whistle-blower protections in different countries.

On the other hand if (and that's a very big if) there will be another whistle blower that details (assuming this was a set-up) how it was done with hard proof and that data is released through any outlet but wikileaks it will do damage to the relevant authorities beyond belief.

Just taking that risk is bordering on the insane.

The best way to get rid of 'inconvenient' people is to have them commit suicide leaving no note or to have them have tragic accidents.

At least they weren't as transparent to go straight to "nazi" or "pedophile". These sorts of accusations seem to stick around, even if the case is dropped.

If it were Barack Obama then yes, the rape accusation would be the end all be all of the whole thing. But this guy isn't exactly considered by most to be a standup guy to begin with. The accusation of rape just looks out of place and ridiculous.

"If this is discovered as a frame-job, it'd be a god-awful PR disaster. The risks don't merit the rewards."

Once I think I would have agreed. But that's a pre-Rovian way of thinking.

All that will really stick in the public mind is the fact that "Wikileaks" and "Rape" appeared together in a single headline. Everything else is a footnote.

If a false accusation can turn into a PR disaster, what about the killing? That'd be a PR apocalypse. And also, your target shouldn't be Assange as an individual, he should be quite expendable if there were other people motivated to replace him, which seems to be a very likely scenario, if he was assassinated.

You can't just shoot him. This is not communism, nor nazism, nor fasicm, this is democracy, where the rule of law is supreme. If he is shot, there would be no people arguing about pointing fingers, everyone would know who dun it, there would be little room for doubt.

Here in the UK they are reopening the inquiry into Dr. Kelly's death, and his death, whether a suicide or otherwise, came amides the dawning of the war in Iraq, so perhaps of a different magnitude, but, he was also a relatively little known person.

You can accuse him of rape though. Now that would leave you doubting. It is not so hard, pay some person a million, or ten million, and its a fairly good deal. It is tremendously hard to prove an untruth and they might get the result that they want. Otherwise, he would still be the alleged rapist, and fox news would probably just call him a criminal, and the trial can go on and on and during that time he might be kept in prison.

As for whether he is a criminal or being framed, both may be true indeed, but that neither may be true is not quite possible. If he innocent, he is being framed, either by the victim, or something way bigger than the victim.

"I understand that this fits a narrative" As doctors might say, if the symptom fits the illness no point looking at other things. It might in this case indeed be different as we are not diagnosing an illness, but common, what are the chances that the guy raped someone and molested someone? What are the chances that he did so now, only a week or so after some nutter called for him to be arrested even though then there were no allegations of committing any crime.

I hope however that you are right. Otherwise, our society would have arrived at that point where the little child cries, but the emperor has no clothes, and at least we all will stop pretending that our system is brilliant, that freedom of speech is indeed paramount, that in this country the rule of law rules for kings and peasants alike and instead will realise that we need to fight for such things and not take them for granted.

Dr. Kelly is just about the worst example to trot out to prove that such stuff is investigated properly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-inv...

And Dr. Kelly was very well known, especially because of the whole 'Sexing up' press coverage.

Surely that was Ardit20's whole point. "You can't kill Assange because it's too suspicious. Dr Kelly's death, for example, was suspicious".

Of course you can kill Assange in a way that is just as suspicious as this whole story. In fact that would be a lot more effective. Mugging in an alley gone wrong, fatal stab wound. Traffic accident. People die all the time, Assange is not immune to that.

A bullet to the head would be problematic.

His files are closed for 70 years! So it is not a good example, hence the added details about being the dawn of the war in Iraq and although he was on the news, not quite known in the way the wikileaks founder is.

This government appears to be thinking of reopening the files however. People have come out saying that there are doubts about the inquiry, that its conclusions are not plausable. My point was therefore that we live in a democracy where the death of someone, even where mighty powers are concerned, is not simply shrugged under the carpet.

Wow, isn't a "70-year gagging order" the most explicit cover-up possible? I doubt that secretly classifying post-mortem examination reports is standard.

There was a reason that the Hutton report was seen as a whitewash by a very large number of people both inside and outside of the government.

They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. A little encouragement and the means to enact the murder and you have an assassin who cannot be traced back to you. But, he's simply not important enough to be assassinated. While the media coverage of him may make it seem like he is the bane of the American government, they have much more important things to worry about. This approach was perfected by the CIA during the cold war, but it has been a long time since someone in the public eye was important or dangerous enough to warrant an assassination.

The other problem I have with this is that rape is an awful way to frame someone. You need to condition someone to stand up to extreme amounts of interrogation and cross-examination. A single slip-up in memorization of facts can cost the entire case. It is not nearly as simple as "pay someone 10 million and have them say he raped them", we're talking about world class psychiatrists and world class lawyers, the victim needs an incredible amount of practice to be able to convince them that they are telling the truth. The American government has the NSA at their disposal, they could frame him a million ways and make it stick, they would not use a random swedish woman.

That is not to say that the American government isn't happy about it, nor that they aren't encouraging this story, nor that Assange did it, but this certainly isn't the work of the American government.

>They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner.

That is a terrible idea from the perspective of the US government.

"You'll find a live saint much easier to handle than a dead one." Assange is in himself not that powerful, he represents an idea, and his followers are scarier than 4Chan, because they're a superset of 4Chan, and they don't just do what they do "for the lulz." They do so because they believe in it. Killing Assange would mobilize them like nothing before. It doesn't matter who did it. Accusing him of rape sows discord among moderates. They want to kill the movement, not Assange.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com