To my knowledge he never posted something like "I really did kill that guy." He may have still had secrets even though his online life was so loud.

Perhaps, but I doubt those secrets were secrets that "they don't want you to hear". He's never been in a position to get any governmental secrets and, AFAIK, he's not really known to have connections with anyone really important in government (ala Epstein).

It also makes little sense that the US government would kill him before extradition and not after when they have a lot more control over narrative and investigations. Killing him on foreign soil makes everything needlessly harder for the US.

>He's never been in a position to get any governmental secrets and, AFAIK,

Part of his career was at Booz Allen Hamilton, though not for too long. Also he was in a position where corporate or personal secrets may have been accessible, which could also explain why an extradition would lead to action.

You're talking Snowden, right?

I think the GP you replied to meant McAfee. (Snowden was never supposed to have killed anyone, was he?)

No, McAfee worked at Booz Allen Hamilton in the 80's.

Aha... So Snowden only found the clues McAfee planted way back when; McAfee was actually the real whistle-blower all along!

...or not.

TIL; thanks.

I wasn't saying he was, just providing a possible response to the question in the comment I replied to.

It seems like HN is becoming more like Reddit and downvotes now indicate disagreement instead of being used to hide things that don't add to the discussion.