Boy I hope your wrong, but your logic is sound!

This makes more sense than any of the other BS theories I've seen on here.

I'd like to see them explain how they thought they could get away with US operatives capturing an Australian citizen, wanted by Sweden, held by South Americans under amnesty, in the UK. It's a PR nightmare. Just wish these pussies would get out with it that they took him.

You mean international relations nightmare. Who cares about PR

Australia is a 5EYES country, guaranteed they don't care about Assange's safety.

He did say way back in like 2010 that he knew they would never let him go

And this was Assange thinking he could outsmart them.

If he's gone then he was clearly wrong.

So, what does that mean? Does that mean that any info he was holding to protect himself will never be able to be released or that it will never be able to be recovered?

Also the recent leaks released by fake wikileaks, which are probably edited, might surface in their original unedited form at some point, I'd think.

Are there any other leaks sources that are still trustworthy (uncompromised)?

An anonymous 4Chan poster claimed that the DDoS on the East Coast on 10/21 effectively prevented the dead man's switch from activating.

Rumor going round is partial key holders are meeting up to release the deadman switch in person.

It means it's time to build Wikileaks 2.0 with a new team, new technology.

How do you garner trust for a new organization? Won't everyone assume it is a honeypot?

If they killed Assange they will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. But nothing will happen, except a phone call their children are missing. And nothing will happen to them either, except the poison they will put into thanksgiving turkey when a phrase on the news comes on...

Live by secrets die by secrets

MaybeSatire

heartbreaking if true..

They have him but I don't think he's dead yet

[deleted]

we have no confirmation he is alive

[deleted]

Get it homie! At least we know country folks hate the damn Feds.

that's like being Christian but you know atheism is correct

[deleted]

you don't think wikileaks would be telling everyone he's dead?

cmon of course they wouldn't since they are compromised

[deleted]

wake me when you post proof of life

optimism/pessimism is not a defining trait for every belief a person holds

What about the recent interview with John Pilger? Pretty hard to give an interview on current events when you're dead ;-P

No establishing shots of both Assange and the interviewer. Questions and answers are inorganic. Also Face2face technology and voice replication software from Adobe could create a fake interview. Jihadi John was a British agent and his videos were faked.

There is documentary evidence that Assange is alive (the video I linked). You are claiming that this video has been faked. The onus is on your to prove that. Evidence please?

I never said it was faked, only that it could. Face2face and the Adobe app would facilitate this. Direct that energy to something useful.

Sure, but you "could" be a CIA shill spreading disinformation. If I claimed that, the onus would be on me to prove it was the case. Saying that it "could" be true proves nothing.

Right. And you could be Ronald McFuckinDonald for all I know. There are possibilities, there are probabilities and there is certainty. Is it possible to do this with current technology? Yes. Is it probable that this technology could be used to fake an interview? Yes. Is it a certainty? I have no fucking clue.

Take some time to let that sink in.

The technology is very impressive. I saw it used to bring Grand Moff Tarkin to the screen for Rogue One despite Peter Cushing being dead for years. I'll admit that I hadn't heard about this in advance, and didn't notice on the first watch until someone pointed it out. However, one it was pointed out, the difference between the simulated Tarkin and a real person became very obvious. Not the case with Assange in that interview, even on multiple very careful viewings.

As mentioned above, the claim that the video uses a faked Assange also needs a credible motive to explain why a well-respected journalist like John Pilger would cooperate with such fakery. He's clearly no friend on the Drumpf regime, as indicated by his new doco 'The Coming War With China'.

weak. the only thing that video doesn't prove is that he is still in the embassy. the video clearly shows a living assange answering the questions.

https://youtu.be/MMa2oT1wMIs

fair point, HOWEVER:

1) "The Interview"

So let's be clear - here is the interview in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4

2) Theory vs. IRL

frankly, "The Interview" looks incredibly fluid and authentic -- no "silver faces" etc. (as your tech demo offers)

while your demo is a "THEORETICAL" game changer, it's clear that the technology is still not real-time video realistic (in terms of delivering truly authentic facial reconstruction) -- assange's interview looks NOTHING like the tech demo you linked.

assange doesn't look waxy (or silver)

3) Willful Participation

In-order for the theoretical facial duplication process to work, Julian would need to voluntarily sit in front of a screen for quite some time to "train" the simulator.

4) Voice

assange's voice is dynamic and unmistakable

5) Topics of Discussion

the subject of the interview remains totally damning to US interests -- something that would have been avoided if TPTB were actually in control of the interview.

6) Publisher

The interview was conducted by http://dartmouthfilms.com/

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger

it's certainly "possible" (though highly doubtful) that BOTH dartmouthfilms AND John Pilger are US puppets, given their respect long history's of being highly critical of US/Aussie political spectrum

BOTTOM LINE: Context Matters

You are right to question everything! koodos. and in about 5 - 10 years, we won't be able to tell any differences -- which is a CRAZY consideration.

but no ;) in this case, given the state of the beta tech (and the room full of context), i firmly believe that assange is alive -- intentionally laying low (and enjoying the dramatic publicity)

/time will tell

Sure...

Wow! You are right.

I see no such morphing. Even if there was, the more likely explanation is software bugs or imperfect copying. This reminds me of the "evidence" for reptilians that consist of weird glitches that are also more likely evidence of software bugs or imperfect copying. You are reaching, and your confirmation bias is clear.

When you resort to attacking the messenger, it only makes it clear that you can't defend your claim with anything but bluster.

fake as hell they didn't even show them together

Were there current events in it? Assange didn't mention his internet having been out, despite being directly asked about it.

He answered that question. For the video to be fake, John Pilger would have to have willingly participated. Given his long record of criticizing a wide range of governments and corporations, and standing up for the underdog, that seems unlikely at best. If you can point to any evidence of Pilger being part of any kind of elite conspiracy, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Agreed. If Assange had been abducted, the word would have spread like wildfire. We would have known by now. Weak theory indeed.

For the love of god the President can't pardon someone unless charges have been brought or they've been convicted. Why don't people get this?

It's like people who keep parroting that Obama is somehow going to pardon Hillary. Obama can't. Why? Because she hasn't been indicted.

For the love of god the President can't pardon someone unless charges have been brought or they've been convicted

I see that statement a lot. But Ford pardoned Nixon, and I'm pretty sure no charges had yet been brought. I admit I definitely don't know how it works. But I think it works like this: the President can issue any kind of pardon he wants, to anyone he wants. It's possible that the pardon might not be legally effective, but as a practical matter the Clinton supporters would be screaming "See! She's innocent!"

I'm betting Obama does a Ford-Nixon style pardon, because I have a hunch he has some exposure. The Congressional counter-move should be to investigate it anyway, to torpedo the claims that "Clinton didn't do anything." She did plenty. And I doubt Obama will have the courage to pardon the whole Clinton circle.

Your right. This lifemuser246 guy is just a loud imbecile.

Congress accused Nixon of obstruction of justice and was in the process of impeachment before he resigned. He had lied under oath and was caught redhanded. He was looking down the barrel of prosecution. His VP and then president pardoned him for any crimes Nixon committed related to the Watergate scandal.

Obama can't come out and pardon Hillary and say that he's pardoning her for any crimes she committed relating to her email server. The FBI found no cause to prosecute her. Congress had hearings and nothing happened. She's feigned innocence for years and the FBI gave her a pass but she's suddenly going to admit to being guilty? No way.

Then you get into the aspects of the Clinton Foundation. Obama couldn't blanket pardon her for every crime she may have ever done. Doesn't work that way.

He had lied under oath and was caught redhanded.

That no longer matters.

....... Lol

I really really want you to be right.

The only way it would happen is if Attorney General Lynch came out next month and publicly stated the Justice Department was going to prosecute Hillary Clinton for crimes related to the email server. Then Obama could pardon Hillary at the last minute.

Wrong.

Trump, is that you?

Your terrible at making any kind of sense.

The only way it would happen is if Attorney General Lynch came out next month and publicly stated the Justice Department was going to prosecute Hillary Clinton for crimes related to the email server.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5dpkqk/to_address_the_pardoning_of_hillaryclapperassange/

The president can do what he wants with his pardons. Show me otherwise. I bet you that you cant.

Devolve into childishness, nice. Lol

I Am only echoing your rhetoric

Trump, is that you?

Wrong.

Got me good man. To once again echo your rhetoric.

Prove it

My bet is that Obama just throws out a blanket pardon, that says it covers anything she may have done. And then let the courts deal with it. Between Hillarys' multi-million dollar legal team and that, probably no prosecutor would take it to court.

There's no such thing as a blanket pardon....

It is a constitutional gray area. I'll give you that much. Under the authority of Quid vs. Pro Quo, you should agree that it's not settled black letter law that the executive has no (or even limited) preemptive pardon powers. I'd say that after the executive tried that and the matter made it to the supreme court, that indeed we would have finally have that answer.

I like your posts. I sadly agree with most of what you have said. I tend to follow only controversial commenters.

you should agree that it's not settled black letter law that the executive has no (or even limited) preemptive pardon powers.

The exact opposite is actually settled and the executive has the explicit ability to pardon preemptively.

Ex parte Garland 265

"...the pardoning power "may be exercised at any time after [the commission of the offense], either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

How about unstated offenses -- a blanket pardon for "any and all criminal offenses of any type occurring anywhere"? It seems that the language implicitly requires a specified "offense". Of course, I am not now nor have I ever been a supreme court justice. So reasonable minds might differ.

lets look at Nixon's pardon.

''I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.''

We can see that Ford pardoned Nixon for all offenses...he....has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

This should answer your question.

Was Ford's pardon challenged? No. If it were challenged then it would have been resolved by the Supreme Court. So, respectfully, No. It doesn't answer my question. What Ford did was simply an act. An act doesn't become black letter law until such point as it is upheld by a court. Then and only then does it become black letter law.

It is the only thing we can go on tho. If it was done before it could be done again.

Fords justification for his pardon comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

which suggests "...that a pardon carried an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carried an imputation of confession."

So I agree that it is not necessarily the letter of the law, yet the precedence has still been made and stands until challenged.

If it happens we will get clarification. If not then thats how it goes. My post expands on this and brings forth evidence that the presidential power of a pardon is unlimited except in 3 explicitly stated exceptions.

I understand your point of view, professor. It is coherent based on the historical acts that we have so far. But, if Congress were of a mind to push the issue, they would be the only party that would have standing to bring the issue before the judiciary.

How many times in any century or even in the entire life of this Republic have we ever had the opportunity to see all three wheels of the constitutional machinery operating simultaneously as they would to resolve such a matter?

Only conlaw junkies can really appreciate this.

It is coherent based on the historical acts that we have so far.

This is how the law works

Congress were of a mind to push the issue.

On what grounds?

Only con-law junkies can really appreciate this.

Agreed, Ive just been listening to people argue for weeks about if Clinton could be pardoned before indictment, for non specified crimes. While there are tons of people saying its not possible. No one has made an argument that she could not be. The burden of proof here is on proving that it was in fact an unconstitutional act. This, according to my knowledge, is not possible. If it is possible, I as a "con law junkie" would love to have the argument in my bag of tricks. Still have not seen any evidence to support that any restrictions not explicitly laid out by the constitution or the courts are imposed on this executive privilege.

Also if you could link the language your referring to here.

It seems that the language implicitly requires a specified "offense".

That would be of some help in my making a case for the legality of a blanket pardon.

I would have linked to the same authority that you had cited. Ford mentioned specifically identified actions of Nixon that were the basis of his offenses.

You are making a case for the legality of a blanket pardon? Professor Koh? ...No. Please don't tell me. And I won't tell you. And we didn't see a thing.

I would have linked to the same authority that you had cited.

This is a very non specific way to say "I have no idea".

Ford mentioned specifically identified actions of Nixon that were the basis of his offenses.

Please do share.

You said that a specified offense is implicit in the language. Again Link what your talking about because I know of nothing that would imply this anywhere.

You could make your argument with some esoteric British common law. This would be easily defeated. The fact of the matter is their is no legal way,(to my knowledge) that is not entirely false, or conjecture to defend anything your saying.

Professor Koh

Good name drop bro, not really fitting in this circumstance tho.

Again you can tell me congress, the judiciary, whomever would fuck a donkey to stop the aliens from landing. Your argument is hearsay still.

Please don't tell me. And I won't tell you. And we didn't see a thing.

I assume that this is an attempt to get me to dismiss the argument. Why would I do this when you've presented 0 reason for me too. I mean this shit isn't even that difficult.

You have failed to provide any proof that is not your opinion, or that of another redditor which lends any credibility to your argument.

So prove it, or shut the fuck up :)

The best thing about not being in law school is being able to ignore abusive professors -- even to hang up on them. Of course, if you are a normal individual, professors aren't abusing you at 3 am.

"Wah, I made a statement that I think is true but have no logical reasoning behind it and someone pointed that out"

You are the problem with society.

Sorry professor, I have work to do in real life now. I don't think you will get very much further looking to English common law. Good day.

go make your cheeseburgers and live in your bubble. I expect more from someone who posts to the_donald often. Your everything that sub claims to despise. If you dont like being proven wrong you should try /r/politics. I hear they have no regard for logic also.

mic drop

What is it exactly that you want me to prove or disprove that you can't assign to your teaching assistants? You haven't provided any citations to any actual legal authority either that i can glean from your comments.
Finally, I have thicker skin than a rhinoceros with reactive armor. It's from years in the business. Your invective is weak tea indeed. Save the wear and tear on your fingers and keyboard.

Your original opinion. That a blanket pardon would be unconstitutional.

Also its rather funny you think calling me a professor is an insult?

I guarantee you I am not one.

Just a man that hates people who attempt to spread opinion as fact, and cannot even mention one specific source to support it.

You haven't provided any citations to any actual legal authority

Ex parte garland is not a legal authority? News to me that US supreme court decisions are not considered authoritative on the subject.

Again your attempt at dismissing your original claim to distract from your inability to formulate any argument with evidence to support it has failed.

How in the world is the term "Professor" possibly an insult? But if you are not a professor, then you certainly should not be called one. You have not denied being a professor until just now. I took you for a professor since you seem to be a bit overly fragile while also seem to have some knowledge of the law. It was an honest mistaken conclusion.

I don't see that Garland adds anything at all to the issue of "blanket pardons". The issue in that case was whether an attorney practitioner in the federal bar could refuse to take a new oath to practice in the federal courts. The fact that he was given a conditional pardon was not relevant to the holding of this case since the decision is based that new condition being ex post facto. From the decision: "This view is strengthened by a consideration of the effect of the pardon produced by the petitioner".

I'm telling you that you won't find anything in black letter law that stands for the proposition that the president can issue a blanket unspecified pardon without some level of specificity as to the acts of the pardon subject or particular subject crimes of the pardon subject.

You can't logically fault me for failing to disprove a negative. Therefore the burden is on you to show the existence (or at least provide some persuasive authority) of the legal efficacy of a presidential "blanket pardon". Beyond that you are conflating "Russell's teapot" with an argument from ignorance.

There are other resources such as CRS articles and the handful of federal cases in this area. But none of them really get to the gist of what we are trying to resolve. Carlesi v. New York, a 1914 case serves to remind that there are real limitations to the presidential pardon authority. It doesn't function to keep the state from using the previously pardoned offense as a multiplier.

Finally a coherent argument. That is all I wanted.

I applaud you sir.

And thanks, I might actually learn something from this.

Your invoice is in the mail.

The funny part is, Ive actually told you how to defeat me and provided you with everything you would need to win in this argument but you are unable to even recognize that.

Theres a few reasons for this.

• Your not intelligent enough to form a logical argument.

• You have 0 fucking clue what your talking about and are just trolling.

Good for you for having a thick skin, It seems like you traded your brain for it.

He was looking down the barrel of prosecution

IE not yet prosecuted

president pardoned him for any crimes Nixon committed related to the Watergate scandal.

Wrong he pardoned him for

do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.''

see no mention of watergate

Obama can't come out and pardon Hillary and say that he's pardoning her for any crimes she committed relating to her email server.

He could if he wanted to, or he could just use any crimes committed between date a - date b.

Obama couldn't blanket pardon her for every crime she may have ever done.

He could try. It would go to court. We would find out if he could. The way the constitution reads would heavily favor the presidents powers.

Nixon's statement right after the pardon:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.

Watergate, watergate, watergate.

He could if he wanted to.....

No, he couldn't. You're conflating two things. There's a stark difference between a situation (Nixon) where evidence has mounted and prosecution is imminent and a situation (Clinton) where no evidence has been brought and where no prosecution is imminent.

Like I've written before in this thread yesterday, the Attorney General could come out next month and say she's going to prosecute Hillary. Then Obama could pardon Hillary.

This is flat wrong.

No, it's not.

Nixon.

I already addressed that via another comment.

How hard do you think it is for the president to recommend charges be laid for someone?

Ah yes, within the next 60 days the FBI will investigate and Attorney General Lynch will indict James Clapper, former head of the DNI.

Lol 😂

For what though? For killing Assange? You can't just pardon someone for a random act (jaywalking) and then that pardon cover every other illegal act (killing Assange) they've ever made.

Yes your examples are ridiculous of course which is why no one is saying that. There's really only two questions.

1. Will Obama pardon hillary? In order to do this he would have to recommend FBI lay charges against her for the email stuff. If those charges are laid before Jan he can easily pardon her.

2. Will trump pardon assange? Not much of a question now that he's dead. But theoretically president would recommend charges of espionage and then pardon.

No one else is high enough on the importance list to get pardoned.

What are you talking? This thread is about Clapper and a pardon.

People who resign don't get charged. No pardon needed

you are mistaken.

but anyway the US has an indictment for Assange's arrest. So it needs to be dropped

Saying I'm mistaken doesn't make me mistaken. Prove it. I've already addressed a slew of others here and no one has yet to prove me wrong.

You have been proven wrong numerous times in this thread. Perhaps delete them or edit them to save some dignity?

No, I haven't. Link? Lol

Wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5dpkqk/to_address_the_pardoning_of_hillaryclapperassange/ Here ya go fucker

What's your point?

Link?

I gave it to you. Please respond with an counterargument that proves your original point. Which was

For the love of god the President can't pardon someone unless charges have been brought or they've been convicted.

Just incase you forgot.

I did already, in that thread. Lol

what thread? Ive given you links and quotes with citation. Your just saying uh Im right look at my stuff. Link me a coherent argument with citations.

NVM Im sorry you meant my thread. My mistake.

I responded to your counter argument which is nothing but a straw man and attempt to distract from your original point. You brought no legal evidence that supports your theory that the president cannot legally pardon prior to charges being press, nor have you defended your statement that a president cannot make a blanket pardon.

Writing your own opinions with a statement Nixon made to the press to preface those opinions does not constitute a legal argument.

I'm not so sure this is true. Didn't Carter pardon all of the draft dodgers independent of their conviction or formal charge?

If you are a draft dodger then you committed a crime.....

You have not committed a crime until you are proven guilty in a court of law.

Seeing how none of these draft dodgers were tried or prosecuted this would be a preemptive pardon.

It's a crime. Lol

What does that have anything to do with Clapper possibly being pardoned? Huh? Lol

For the love of God. Do research before you post nonsense. Your entire post is incorrect. You fail civics class. Try again.

No, I'm not. Maybe read my further comments here. You can't prove me wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=wmlr

Now none of these things has ever been challenged by the court. According to the current interpretation of Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The presidents ability to pardon is absolute. The only thing the president cannot pardon is impeachment proceedings.

So yes I can prove your wrong because what your saying cant happen already has occurred. saying your not wrong doesn't not prove your right.

You're conflating two things. There's a stark difference between a situation (Nixon) where evidence has mounted and prosecution is imminent and a situation (Clinton) where no evidence has been brought and where no prosecution is imminent.

Like I've written before in this thread yesterday, the Attorney General could come out next month and say she's going to prosecute Hillary. Then Obama could pardon Hillary.

Congress accused Nixon of obstruction of justice and was in the process of impeachment before he resigned. He had lied under oath and was caught redhanded. He was looking down the barrel of prosecution. His VP and then president pardoned him for any crimes Nixon committed related to the Watergate scandal. Obama can't come out and pardon Hillary and say that he's pardoning her for any crimes she committed relating to her email server. The FBI found no cause to prosecute her. Congress had hearings and nothing happened. She's feigned innocence for years and the FBI gave her a pass but she's suddenly going to admit to being guilty? No way. Then you get into the aspects of the Clinton Foundation. Obama couldn't blanket pardon her for every crime she may have ever done. Doesn't work that way.

Oh and this comment is partially correct in the fact that her accepting the pardon would be an admittance of guilt. This is still possible. Saying that it is not is incorrect. The odds of a pardon being slim, and it being impossible are completely different statements.

Further evidence of which the pardon power of the president is unlimited.

Ex parte Garland 247

""...in which the Supreme Court stated: The Constitution provides that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment" . . . . The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated .... This power of the President is not subject to legislative control . . . [and] cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions...."

Even more from Ex parte Garland 265 "...the pardoning power "may be exercised at any time after [the commission of the offense], either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

Here is an excerpt from the Nixon pardon.

''I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.''

Note Nixon was never prosecuted, only investigated.

This could easily read.

''I, Barak H. Obama, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Hillary R. Clinton for all offenses against the United States which she, Hillary R. Clinton, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013.''

Literally the same thing with different names and dates.

Prove me wrong bitch.

You quote something which doesn't give the president unlimited power. The president can't pardon someone for state crimes, for instance. Federal crimes only.

You may want to research further.

false but yeah Obama will be pardoning like crazy on his last day

It's not.

I'll give it to you. It is a gray area that someone could take to the Supreme Court but given the precedents set in the past Obama might just be able to get by with it.

--Lifemuser246

I wonder why anybody close to him hasn't mentioned anything.

All high level civilians leave the same day as Obama!

If this is true, then why have wikileaks not gone public about it?

I would think that if he was abducted by US black ops...the alarm bells would have been ringing around the world. This could not be kept secret. We would have known by now if he was gone.

I think spreading the idea that Assange is dead is very irresponsible without any proof whatsoever. Wikileaks is an incredibly important organization and people who study conspiracies should be much more careful about the harm they can do.

Clapper's resignation has been planned for over a year already and everyone knew it was coming.

they have drugs that will make you tell the truth... so... your theory is not likely.

Then why would they need torture?

Because they enjoy it. But honestly that is a great question, there are people in the intelligence field that will tell you torture doesn't work, most tortured will just tell you anything you want at a certain point just to end the torture, and it's even a known tactic to get people to admit guilt to things you know they didn't do. Add in the fact that Anyone with some super secret juicy details, like a spook, would have been trained to resist torture techniques, even normal soldiers are trained not to divulge any info.

So why torture? because they can.

Actually the torture is to make you do want they want. If you ever read a song of ice and fire and saw what happens to Theon / Reek, then you know why they torture.

I have, and if you read it, you'll see that it only works to an extent... in the books. Plus Theon had some.. horribly unspeakable things done to him, and in the end he still turns on Ramsey.

But that's just a book, I am sure torture can be used to force a subject to do what you want, but I am also sure there are limits, and everyone is subjective to how they'll react/how much they'll take, etc.

It's the basis behind mkultra really. It's Stockholm syndrome

Torture is part of the "Shock and Awe" approach to suppressing democratic dissent against the US empire, both in the areas they are militarily occupying (in the middle east and elsewhere), in other countries, and in their own territories.

only part of this I find unlikely is assange being tortured but then resisting and dying without talking. torture always works

but it could be he had a deadmans switch kind of thing where it was encrypted in some sort of way that he himself didn't know how to decrypt it so torturing him would do no good.

torture always works??? WTF torture does not always work in fact it rarely works. Most of the time you get people spouting out shit just to make it stop. CIA has a report on this very topic stating clearly it does not work.

yeah well assange would spout out fake codes to make it stop, the cia torturers try them and they don't work, go back to torturing and tell him it keeps up till you really tell us. no way out there and yeah it always works. but the problem is CIA was torturing innocents into saying they did 9/11.

if i keep a gigantic crypto secret on a piece of paper in a kinder surprise egg up my ass and eat the paper the second the building gets breached, you are not going to be able to torture information out of me, however many teeth you pull, however many tendrils you needle-nose fish out through an incision in my balls. it's just not happening.

you say that but it all changes the second torture starts

i don't think you understand my point, let's try again:

it works AGAINST my best interest to ever memorize the sequence. I might remember a few digits or characters here and there just from repetition, but it simply is not there to extract from me. you will literally kill me from torture before you obtain useful information because I have none.

that's what I was wondering if there was some kind of deadmans switch where it was encrypted in ways that he himself didn't know how to encrypt, if he doesn't know then they could torture forever without getting it. but in your case my question is, who else would know? everyone involved in wikileaks is getting killed right now.

honestly, I can only speculate with the rest of us man. if there's another person with a copy of that key or something and it isn't destroyed, it'll probably get rooted out like you said.

HOWEVER... that might not have been the conversation they had.

the conversation in Guantanamo or wherever might have gone something like this:

"How does the deadman's switch operate? When does it trigger?"

and they worked him over with pliers and ~insert creative instrument here~ until they figured out a good day to mount a gigantic DDoS attack against exactly which DNS providers and services would ensure that the deadman's switch would fail out and die with a whimper to the tune of "unable to resolve hostname, aborting"

kind of like what happened in an unprecedented degree not long after Assange went missing

right

His ass should have and put in the slammer fucking years ago.

that's what I was wondering if there was some kind of deadmans switch where it was encrypted in ways that he himself didn't know how to encrypt, if he doesn't know then they could torture forever without getting it. but in your case my question is, who else would know? everyone involved in wikileaks is getting killed right now.

honestly, I can only speculate with the rest of us man. if there's another person with a copy of that key or something and it isn't destroyed, it'll probably get rooted out like you said.

HOWEVER... that might not have been the conversation they had.

the conversation in Guantanamo or wherever might have gone something like this:

"How does the deadman's switch operate? When does it trigger?"

and they worked him over with pliers and ~insert creative instrument here~ until they figured out a good day to mount a gigantic DDoS attack against exactly which DNS providers and services would ensure that the deadman's switch would fail out and die with a whimper to the tune of "unable to resolve hostname, aborting"

kind of like what happened in an unprecedented degree not long after Assange went missing

The best thing about not being in law school is being able to ignore abusive professors -- even to hang up on them. Of course, if you are a normal individual, professors aren't abusing you at 3 am.