Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Oh whoops, I had intially seen it as quoted towards me, but my quote of yours shows it as fixed. The quoted text is still my words however, not covenant's.

edit: Looks fixed now.

But yeah, it's unfortunate that they put all their chips behind a wannabe two-bit dictator.

[sluissa]

Yes, I didn't include the important part in the original quote.  The drone thing is the conspiracy theory.  Probably spread because of the projectionist nature of right wingers.  Having put all their chips behind a two bit wanna be authoritarian they desperately need to pretend that Clinton is a worse authoritarian.

Conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Okay, sure.

Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks

Sounds about right.

[Frumple]

... not really. Nonlegal and unlawful are different sorts of things. What m linked actually clarified that.

[Wolfhunter107]

Also, if you look at the text of the email, you can see that there's no reference to drone strikes:

From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM
To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject:
Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks

Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff — Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Director of Policy Planning
U.S. Department of State

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's kind of impossible to tell. They're never, no matter how insulated and safe they feel, going to describe their solutions as "illegal" even if they were to talk about it. "Nonlegal" is exactly the kind of ambiguity that would be employed. And technically, drone assassinating him would be a nonlegal solution in that it doesn't involve legal action.

Anyway, I trust Snopes' verdict as per usual, which is that there isn't enough evidence to prove it but neither is there exclusive proof of a hoax.

[smjjames]

Even if they WANTED to do a drone strike on Assanage, the fallout from the UK and any other fallout wouldn't be worth it.

It'd also be a drone strike on a freaking embassy. I don't think Assanage goes outside of that embassy much because the only thing stopping the UK from grabbing him is that the embassy granted him asylum.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If there was such a plan, it would probably be along the lines of "allow Assange to leave the embassy, strike him later".

[smjjames]

It'd also set up a pretty horrible precedent methinks. We'd show that we're okay with drone striking people who don't pose an existentional threat and we just dislike and/or find annoying, and those people who would be even MORE willing to do such a thing than we are, would say 'Look, the US does it too! Who are they to say that we are bad people when we do it!'

[sluissa]

It'd also set up a pretty horrible precedent methinks. We'd show that we're okay with drone striking people who don't pose an existentional threat and we just dislike and/or find annoying, and those people who would be even MORE willing to do such a thing than we are, would say 'Look, the US does it too! Who are they to say that we are bad people when we do it!'

The question isn't whether or not it's a smart idea for the US to do, but whether a bitter old woman could have said it. I've known my share of bitter old women. They can say some dumb, mean shit.

[alway]

Can't really blame him for being anti-Clinton considering she wants to drone him, though.

How many times will you post conspiracy theories that are false with no remorse?

You bear a small but real personal responsibility for the decline in civility of american political discourse when you spread lies and slander of this nature.  If you were a good person you would be deeply, deeply ashamed right now.

This. You talk about how us libruls won't listen to anything you say just because you like Trump, and yet seem to think it's perfectly okay to make baseless allegations of attempted murder against liberal politicians for no other reason than it suits your agenda. And yet boo hoo, nobody takes you seriously. Gee, I wonder why. Do some thinking and a simple google search for yourself instead of making us talk to an autoscrolling conservative political meme post.

[Rolepgeek]

Can't really blame him for being anti-Clinton considering she wants to drone him, though.

How many times will you post conspiracy theories that are false with no remorse?

You bear a small but real personal responsibility for the decline in civility of american political discourse when you spread lies and slander of this nature.  If you were a good person you would be deeply, deeply ashamed right now.

This. You talk about how us libruls won't listen to anything you say just because you like Trump, and yet seem to think it's perfectly okay to make baseless allegations of attempted murder against liberal politicians for no other reason than it suits your agenda. And yet boo hoo, nobody takes you seriously. Gee, I wonder why. Do some thinking and a simple google search for yourself instead of making us talk to an autoscrolling conservative political meme post.

Everything about this was surreal.

[Baffler]

Are people suprised a State Department employee talking about classified meetings would want to speak anonymously? I don't know that Wikileaks has a reputation for inventing things from whole cloth.

[smjjames]

Can't really blame him for being anti-Clinton considering she wants to drone him, though.

How many times will you post conspiracy theories that are false with no remorse?

You bear a small but real personal responsibility for the decline in civility of american political discourse when you spread lies and slander of this nature.  If you were a good person you would be deeply, deeply ashamed right now.

This. You talk about how us libruls won't listen to anything you say just because you like Trump, and yet seem to think it's perfectly okay to make baseless allegations of attempted murder against liberal politicians for no other reason than it suits your agenda. And yet boo hoo, nobody takes you seriously. Gee, I wonder why. Do some thinking and a simple google search for yourself instead of making us talk to an autoscrolling conservative political meme post.

Everything about this was surreal.

Since when was Assanage a politician?

[alway]

You mean this wikileaks that doesn't make things up, or a different one?
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/08/11/wikileaks-tweet-shows-assange-will-lie-to-further-his-cause/
Maybe this wikileaks?
http://gizmodo.com/julian-assange-lied-about-a-wikileaks-data-dump-on-nati-1785091653
Maybe this one, that reposts brietbart links?
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785657941621739521

[Frumple]

Are people suprised a State Department employee talking about classified meetings would want to speak anonymously? I don't know that Wikileaks has a reputation for inventing things from whole cloth.

They've kinda' been trying to garner one for the past while, actually. Shit's been off with that lot since at least the start of this campaign cycle.

In other news, the trump/russia connection would appear to be getting more questionable.