Revelations by a large number of former US officials, reported by Yahoo! News, that the CIA planned to abduct and render Julian Assange to the United States — and contemplated murdering him — raise more uncomfortable questions for the Australian government and its policy of trying to pretend Assange doesn’t exist.
Yahoo’s investigation relies on accounts from eight former officials about the plan to kidnap Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, among dozens of other sources about the Trump administration’s determination to go after Assange and WikiLeaks. The Trump administration went where even the whistleblower-hating Obama administration refused to go and launched a prosecution for espionage and conspiracy, but until now it was widely thought its plans were limited to legal extradition.
It is now clear the CIA — under Republican Mike Pompeo, who would go on to be Trump’s secretary of state — developed plans to abduct Assange and illegally render him to the US via a third country. There was discussion “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration of murdering him. There was also scenario planning about what violent measures US and UK agents might take to thwart a hypothetical Russian attempt to help Assange escape to Russia.
The most obvious question for the Australian government is whether the CIA discussed with Australian intelligence officials its plans to abduct or murder an Australian citizen, or whether Trump administration figures — some of whom were alarmed by the CIA’s planning — alerted the Turnbull government at a political level.
It would say much about how unimportant Australia was, and how little we have spoken up for Assange, if the entire process was conducted without anyone bothering to raise it with the Australian government.
The extent of Australian knowledge of the plans for Assange is likely never to be clarified because Australia’s intelligence agencies are able to operate behind a bipartisan wall of secrecy far stronger than that which applies to US agencies, where independent congressional oversight, a better-protected media, a stronger whistleblower culture and better disclosure laws mean much more scrutiny for intelligence agencies.
In Australia there’s virtually none, with limited parliamentary oversight, brutal gag laws for intelligence officials, vexatious prosecutions and police raids on journalists willing to try to pierce the secrecy.
But there’s another angle that is also important. What sparked the CIA’s fury at WikiLeaks and set it to planning to kidnap or murder Assange was that WikiLeaks in 2017 revealed a trove of CIA software exploits, known as “Vault 7”, which had been stolen from the intelligence agency.
That release was followed, within months, by news that the National Security Agency had had some of its own trove of software exploits stolen, which led to Microsoft publicly criticising intelligence agencies for failing to alert companies to exploitable software faults.
The two cases illustrated how Western intelligence agencies were a key threat to our cybersecurity by intentionally leaving security weaknesses in commonly used systems so they could exploit them — leading to other states, or organised crime, to exploit them as well, in some cases using the very software tools bought or developed by intelligence agencies. A former US intelligence official at that time told Crikey that about 10% of known flaws discovered by Western intelligence agencies were not passed on to the product manufacturers to fix, but instead left in place to be exploited.
It’s generally accepted that since that embarrassment, the likes of the NSA have been more diligent in informing major companies about exploitable flaws. However, the dual missions of intelligence agencies — to safeguard Western interests while accessing information from other countries, including allies — continues to ensure that not all exploitable flaws will be passed on to the people who can fix them.
That includes our own cybersecurity agencies, such as the Australian Signals Directorate, which has the same dual mission that saw the NSA leaving glaring flaws in widely used software ripe for abuse.
Despite the huffing and puffing on cybersecurity from the government, it is likely to remain the biggest threat to cybersecurity in the country.
An educated guess is that the USA discussed nothing with Australia concerning one of our citizens who had incurred their wrath.Least of all a plan to abduct/murder the perpetrator. Does a master consult a servant?
Successive Oz governments of both colours have acted disgracefully (ie: done SFA) in regard to Julian Assange.
Nah. They did their job as good little lackeys back in 2010 when Gillard claimed Assange was “guilty of illegality”. That’s not SFA, Zut.
True. I overlooked the reference (of the very worst kind) given to Assange by PM Gillard & Attorney-General Robert McClelland.
A major stain on Gillard’s legacy, but no Oz leader since Whitlam has been game to take on the CIA, and likely none will in the future – Albo certainly does not have the courage.
Given the involvement of the CIA in Whitlam’s removal, why would any Australian leader dare cross them
A sense of Honour?
Yeah, I know, an outmoded concept.
So in its willingness to kidnap and murder other people’s citizens in other countries the Americans differ from the Russians how? And in the secrecy and unaccountability of their secret police the Australians differ from the Russians how? Not a lot in both cases. One thing they both do, is prove how important Wikileaks is to everyone else.
I don’t see why you drag the Russians into this, though of course the Russian enthusiasm for murder is clear (often undertaken in a manner that leaves no doubt of the state’s involvement, never mind the rote denials, as a way both to silence critics and intimidate everyone else). The relationship between AU and the USA is quite different; our government keeps insisting the USA is our best mate and maintains an attitude of grovelling subservience. Sure enough, it would be bad if the AU government was complicit or wilfully ignoring a plot by any country to murder an AU citizen, but when the other country is the USA it adds a certain unique piquancy.
Israel also seems happy to assassinate and render opponents like Mortecai Vanunu
And ‘our’ ABC routinely describes such murders, especially when carried out in other countries (often using false passports from useful idiot allies), as ‘targetted assassinations” – what would be a definition of an ‘untargetted’ assassination?
Murder? Brigandage? Terrorism?
I see your point and your angle. My focus was the blanket hypocrisy of two boastful liberal democracies that aren’t so much liberal at all. The Russians continually defend themselves by saying the West are as bad as them, these examples help make their case. As to your focus, agree as well. It’s quite conceivable that Australia would not just not defend a citizen from unlawful attack but that they would collude in it for reasons of state. And quite clearly Australia’s biggest reason of state is seen as keeping America happy.
Yep. But we’re much better than China because Democracy.
Lovely touch of tongue in cheek there, Kathy
It seems clear now that whatever form of democracy this is is no longer fit for purpose.
Someone smarter than me had better come up with something. On the edge of the waterfall we are in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle. How did we get here?
By drifting lazily down Schitt Creek for several decades.
Well we ended up here by being the USA’s lackey and not standing up for our own citizens…
True, the form of governance called democracy is far better than the Chinese version of governance. Warts and all. But many here can’t see any difference, I wonder why.
The Chinese System works for China and that is what matters. It also has the benefit of being popular with Chinese citizens, efficient and actually focused on improving their Lot in life.
All that matters? Wonderful.
It also has the benefit of being popular with Chinese citizens,
Oh yes we can see that. Abject drivel.
How would you know? You speak Mandarin? Have you spent any serious time there? Have family there? The usual White is Right drivel.
Having met quite a few Chinese students, much as they love their families and friends, once they adjust to Australia and it’s freedoms they often prefer living in the West as it allows them to do the things they want to without being watched constantly
What “freedoms”? We can do exactly the same things in China that we do here without hindrance.
Neither I nor my family feel “oppressed” in China and as to being “watched”, it’s not an issue (never noticed any surveillance actually) . More surveillance in the UK than in China IME.
For your general fund of information:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
actually focused on improving their Lot in life.
Give or take their gift of covid 19 to their nation and the rest of the world
Debunked already Sport.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/china/report-china/
Everything you need to know about human rights in China 2020
But according to you, the Chinese are grateful.
I never said they were grateful, I said their Government was popular:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
All that anyone needs to know about Human Rights in the US 2020:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/
Their government is “popular”, but they don’t have any alternatives to compare it with, it’s the only one they get, and any decenters are sent to jail, and tortured and sentenced to years of hard labour, and well the idea behind this is to break them so that they will be good, compliant citizens..
How many people travel from China to the West each year and quite happily return? Around M155 each year actually. The citizens of China are far smarter than you give them credit for and well and truly understand what Western Government’s do compared to the Chinese Government and that is why they prefer their Government. I actually asked my wife some years ago about who was the Mayor of her City and equivalent of the Premier of her Province. Her response was that she didn’t know and didn’t care as long as they do a good job. She also said that if they are not competent in their role they will be replaced with someone who is. My Son and Daughter-In-Law also feel the same as do most everyone we know.
The mistake you, like others, make, is to look at China with a Western view. They are a different civilization not just a culture and have different standards and beliefs stemming largely from Buddhism and Confucius. They consider that their Government is competent, that if someone is good at their job they should be allowed to remain in that job until they cease to perform and that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections is wasteful (and results in nothing ever getting done) . Despite popular belief, you can criticise the Government in China without recourse. You can, shock horror, complain about things that you don’t like and, shock horror, if the Government gets enough complaints they will actually do something about rectifying it.
Is the Chinese Government tougher on their citizens than our Government? Absolutely but with B1. 4 people, you have a completely different set of circumstances that require different solutions. Chinese citizens are aware of this and quite happily accept same with open eyes.
Popular, not grateful:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/
Hong Kong is a prime example of what happens when a super power like China tries to take back a democratic country/state, and enforce it’s beliefs and is communist system, and as we’ve seen it hasn’t worked and probably never will, without excessive security force involvement
Small point – HK was never democratic.
Prior to 1997 it was run by the UK as a colonial possession, with all the freedoms usually associated with a military base.
“Hong Kong is a prime example of what happens when a super power like China tries to take back a democratic country/state”. Utter drivel (having actually been in HK during the Riots in 2019).
1. Firstly, Hong Kong is not, and never has been, a Democracy under either the UK or China. The Chief Executive is an appointed position (both under the UK and China). Only 50% of Legco are actually elected by Voters with the balance being “elected” by Special Interest Groups such as business, unions etc. You can’t take back a democratic country/state when you are not a Democracy in the first place. China has the absolute right to determine the political system in China, not Foreign Powers. Additionally, HK is a SAR/Province of China, not a sovereign nation.
2. The Riots in 2019 were appalling and unjustifiable. Rioters do not have the right to occupy airports, universities etc, to vandalize public transport, buildings etc, to takeover city streets, to assault and murder other citizens and prevent them from going about their lawful business.
The following is an excerpt from an Article written by Grenville Cross. He is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
“On June 9, 2019, when the protest movement in Hong Kong and its armed wing declared war on society, ostensibly over the special administrative region government’s fugitive-surrender bill, the US saw its chance.
Although the proposals would have facilitated the return of criminal fugitives to 177 jurisdictions, subject to court oversight, and were entirely reasonable, the US, to inflame tensions, demonised them, and provided every encouragement to the protesters.
Indeed, on August 6, 2019, at the height of the violence in Hong Kong, the US consul-general’s political counselor Julie Eadeh met covertly with protest leaders, including Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung at a local hotel, presumably to share US views on the insurrection and provide ongoing advice.
Again, after Brian Leung Kai-ping, one of the rioters who trashed the Legislative Council complex on July 1, 2019, causing damage estimated at HK$50 million (A$8.86 million), fled the city, he was not only welcomed to the US, but also invited to Congress as an honoured guest.
Instead of denouncing the rioters who were bringing death and destruction to Hong Kong streets, the then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo endorsed the protest movement’s demands, supported its anti-police agenda, and sought to blame the government for the insurrection.
Even when the protest movement targeted the rule of law by firebombing the courts and threatening the judges, Pompeo and his cronies continued to lionize the protest leaders, and to whitewash their excesses. It was, by any yardstick, partisanship of the worst sort, and represented a new low in US foreign policy.
Even when anti-China legislators, linked to the protest movement, sabotaged the work of the Legislative Council, preventing the passage of legislation for nearly seven months in 2019-20, the US condemned the initiatives taken to get things back on track.
Even though it would never have tolerated obstructionism of this type at home, it expected the authorities to allow it in Hong Kong, although the name of its game was, of course, mischief-making.
But with the exclusion of legislators bent on mayhem, and their replacement with responsible citizens committed to the well-being of Hong Kong and the national good, the city now has the prospect of effective governance.
Working through front organizations, the US provided multifaceted support to the protest movement and its allies throughout the insurrection.
They included various US-based entities, including the National Endowment for Democracy, always generous with its cash when opponents of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region government came knocking; and the US Agency for Global Media.
It has also now come to light that various other US-backed groups were complicit in the uprising, including the Oslo Freedom Foundation, the Albert Einstein Institute, and the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, which, despite their fancy names, all had sinister agendas.
Although many of them operated in the shadows, this cannot be said of the US Strategic Competition Act of 2021, which allocated $10 million for the promotion of “democracy in Hong Kong”, a euphemism for stirring up trouble.
Once, however, the National Security Law for Hong Kong was enacted, it provided the HKSAR government with the tools it required to save the city’s way of life and capitalist system, and put an end to undercover operations by foreign powers.”
Nice. comprehensive line in typical sophistry there.
The point, though, is that Kong Kong citizens wanted a freer life than that obtained under the anti-democratic, authoritarian mainland government and were not only denied it, but were brutally treated by that government which continually lied to them about it’s intentions.
Freedom should be a matter of human rights, not for some group of arseholes to ignore.
Indeed we are; but the likes of some will not have it. Thank heavens for Amnesty International, a voice of truth in the China good, Australia bad binary system.
Amnesty International on China 2020:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/china/report-china/
A couple about your Septic mates here:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/united-states
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/
Oh goodie, dueling links.
Isn’t it funny how all our hairy-chested Australian Cold Warriors on China, all the white Tarzans who go Aw Eee Aw when China is the offender, suddenly become jungle invertebrates when the perpetrator of gross human rights abuses and crimes is the US?
I think most people believe that because Guantanamo Bay is on Cuban soil, that it’s the Cubans behaving badly, not the Americans.
Not even septics could be that dumb.
Wanna bet?
Sadly I agree – I recall shortly after the Twin Towers when a well known, long term resident of Houston who ran the local Kwiky-Krap 24/7 was murdered by some rednecks who thought that his turban indicated muslim.
One had known him for a couple of years.
I wonder what the reaction would be to something like this – not least the spying – if it was the Chinese doing it?
I thought that was pretty much the point of Keane’s article. If another country was plotting to kill a AU citizen our government would be stamping its foot and putting on a display of outrage; it might even be sincere. (It is sincere about some things some of the time, despite appearances, isn’t it?) But when it’s the USA our humiliation is complete, the best our government can manage is an impotent silence, if it’s not actually helping the USA.
Not to mention the media’d be donning their patriotic indignation clobber.
But because it’s another trip to “Madam Sam’s House of Bondage and Humiliation” – for Oz – it’s “Break out the nappies and gimp masks, and don’t forget the rubber sheets!”.
Ah yes the media’s role in all of this should not be neglected. Sit back and strap in one-eyed Keating neo liberal devotees for another non-glowing Keating account of selling out our nation.
‘At around the same time, Paul Keating brought in cross-media ownership rules and you may have heard the terms he used—the queen of the screen and the prince of print. You could be one or other but not both. His idea was that we create diversity by allowing dominance within one medium but not dominance across lots of mediums.
‘The one limit on that rule was that television license holders were not allowed to reach more than 75 per cent of the national viewing audience. He decided that you could build up one asset in very, very high concentration but you couldn’t branch over into another.’
The new regulations led to a round of buying and selling. Flamboyant West Australian entrepreneur Alan Bond bought media assets—including the Channel Nine television stations in Sydney and Melbourne—from Kerry Packer, then one of Australia’s media moguls, for more than $1 billion. The stated aim of these rules was to create greater media diversity in order to give Australians access to a wider range of ideas and voices, but was that the outcome?”
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-history-of-media-ownership-in-australia/6831206
Unrestrained hysterical floods of crocodile tears.
I think we’d sell them off another port or power supply asset, or maybe even sign up another FTA with ISDS provisions, all of which have occurred since the Chinese spying incidents of which we are informed.
Shock alarm, incredulity: “China has stolen the blueprints for the new ASIO building along with other sensitive intelligence information from Australian companies. Both Des Ball and Paul Monk are experts in their field and their vital espionage and security knowledge is being buried under a mountain of money as companies and ex pollies rush to China to make lots of money.”
Never stopped the latest sell offs and FTA’s though, so it would be business as usual.
The usual drivel. Time to bring some actual facts into the discussion. Darwin Port was not sold. The NT Government entered into a 99 year Operational Lease with a private Chinese Company.
As to Foreign Ownership, China is well down the list at 6th:
https://www.austrade.gov.au/news/economic-analysis/who-invests-in-australia-analysing-2020-s-4-trillion-record-for-foreign-investment
As Shanghai Sam, or David Combe re the Other Enemy.
Just as well Julian was “locked up” in the Ecuadorean Embassy or a U.K. jail. Perhaps the Americans were going to outsource the job to MBS who has been rumoured to have connections to persons experienced in such matters. Given the debacle of the exit from Afghanistan it is debatable whether or not the USA has the capability to successfully participate in such an arrangement anyway.
The USA these days carries out most of its assassinations with missiles fired from drones, with little concern about collateral damage, so I don’t think the Ecuadorian embassy was all that safe for Assange if the mission got the green light.