Delegate Allocation Watch: Ken Cuccinelli beats out Paul Manafort in Virginia.
Ted Cruz ensures that another ten delegates in Virginia (out of thirteen) are ultimately loyal to *him*.Read More »
It appears that the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is somewhere in Britain. To be more precise, latest reports indicate that he is waiting to be arrested, in a house somewhere in south east England. Given the response rate of British police, he may be waiting for some time.
The media is buzzing, looking at the various possibilities for prosecution under a host of different violations. Privacy laws, endangerment and treason have all been mentioned. More than one influential figure has called for him to be ‘taken out’.
Much of the ‘revelations’ were nothing new to some of us. Personal remarks from politicians about foreign counterparts… well, unless you take those smiley, handshakey press photos at face value, it’s not hard to imagine. Darned embarrassing the next time they meet though.
Some of the more ‘sensitive’ items are not ‘hot press’ items either. Saudi Arabia possibly supporting a strike on Iran? Although not widely covered in the lame stream, this was revealed months ago when the Saudi authorities guaranteed a safe path through their airspace for the IAF. In fact, it was covered in this column.
The most dangerous aspect of these publications is the level of detail, giving dates, names and places. To name the sources of military information in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, is to paint a target on that person’s back. Forget laws and regulations. Common sense and respect for human life should be enough to prohibit someone from revealing life-threatening details.
Which brings us to the question of why WikiLeaks, whoever they are, are so determined to make such volatile information readily available. A spokesman for the organization in London, Kristinn Hrafnsson, denied any wrongdoing. They have also indicated their intention to release confidential information regarding large corporations.
I still hold the view that Assange is nothing more than a front-man for a far larger, more sinister network. The President is strangely quiet on the subject. The reason for his silence is a matter for conjecture that I will not enter into. What is certain though, is that he should be instructing intelligence agencies to track down all individuals and groups associated with WikiLeaks.
With all the talk of net neutrality and the fairness doctrine, both pet subjects for the Democrats with their predilection for control of all things media, they seem to overlook the real threats that exist. This is not just some bored teenage hacker, infiltrating some secure sites from his mom’s basement. It is an organized group whose aim is the destabilization of the western world.
This sort of tactic immediately throws a few names into the ring. If this is the case, could that also explain the silence of Barack Obama?
(Editor Dee is in for Skip today)