WikiLeaks crosses the line: Treason is treason

I had written about WikiLeaks’ previously when they edited leak footage to paint American soldiers in Iraq as murderers. Suffice to say, I was disgusted with Julian Assange and his group of anti-war radicals. There is a difference between honestly protesting and pushing such hateful propaganda, especially when it smears those who put themselves in harms way for our benefit. I thought this was the worst thing these people could do, but it appears now that I am wrong.

As those who have been paying attention to the news knows, WikiLeaks released roughly 92,000 classified documents to undermine the war effort in Afghanistan. While much of the information was outdated, and much of it could be found in The Long War Journal, there was very sensitive information that was released that now put the lives of hundreds of Afghans in danger. This from CBS’s Tucker Reals.

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

“The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans,” a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. “The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reported on this yesterday, noting that these exposed informants will be replaced. While this will momentarily slow the war effort down, the real issue here is that there are now hundreds of Afghans, and their families, exposed as collaborators. By leaking this list of informant names, those at WikiLeaks might as well have executed these people themselves. Protesters have no sense of consequences, and in times of war, the consequences are great. This is we saw with the Vietnam War, and this is what we are seeing now, and it is much worse.

Endangering the lives of soldiers by releasing classified information is treason, but endangering the lives of those these soldiers have sworn to protect is far worse. The only good that has come out of this is that we now know Bradley Manning was (most likely) Assange’s source within the US military. I agree with Ed on this one, that if any of the sources are killed as a result of Manning leaking their names and locations, he should also be, at least, charged with accessory to murder. He has blood on his hands and will have to pay for his crimes.

As for Assange, the one who published the documents Manning leaked, he is now on the run. This publicity stunt has now backfired and the founder of WikiLeaks is now a wanted man. His supporters will say Assange is “fighting the power”, but those who have suffered most because of this are the powerless in Afghanistan. Once again, as Ed pointed out, these informants will be replaced, since, with a war effort underway, Afghans are needed to provide information to our forces. All this leaking has done put those and their families who have already provided information in grave danger, the people Assange says “people who are vulnerable”. The truth is, as Greg Gutfeld pointed out, the WikiLeaks founder does this for his benefit and his benefit alone.

In the end, there isn’t much else I can say as so much has already been said. What has been forgotten by far too many people is that Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are traitors and that their actions are treasonous. You can disagree with the actions of your government, you can protest them as well, but never do you conspire with those who are your country’s, not simply the government’s, enemies. This action in unforgiveable as it does so much damage and puts so many in danger, but it is more than that. His supporters should realize that these are the actions of a coward who isn’t even brave enough to stand behind them and face their consequences. If he really cared, why doesn’t plead his case in court, in front of a jury of his peers? He has done as all cowards of his kind do, run. Assange may run, but he cannot hide…

Traitors should be treated as such, but I feel these two deserve the worst. They crossed the line between activist and enemy of the state and now they will be punished, but even then it might not be enough. With so many now suffering because of the actions of those at WikiLeaks, they must be made an example of to warn others that even in a free society, such action cannot and will not be tolerated… Disgraceful…

UPDATE: More from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey on the evidence against Bradley Manning. While it isn’t one-hundred percent conclusive, it is fair enough to say that the evidence against him is “concrete”. As always, I recommend my modest readership to give this article a read.

UPDATE: It appears Julian Assange isn’t the man he would like others to believe he is. John Perazzo from FrontPageMag.com has an article up which I recommend to my modest readership. Would it surprise you that WikiLeaks’ founder has a criminal record?

…In September 1991, Assange hacked into the master terminal that the Canadian telecom company Nortel maintained in Melbourne. Soon thereafter, he was caught by federal investigators and was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related offenses. Facing a potential sentence of a decade behind bars, Assange pled guilty to 25 charges and 6 were dropped. At his final sentencing, the judge went easy on him: “There is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what’s the expression—surf through these various computers.” Thus Assange escaped with the lightest of penalties — the payment of a small fine…

Perazzo has done a good job documenting Assange’s history. The man seems no more than a childish hacker looking to justify his actions, both past and present, by pretending he is this man fighting for a “greater cause”. As for this nonsense about not editing documents, Brian Lilley at Eye on the Hill is reporting on a CBC story which states, according to the WikiLeaks documents, that four Canadian soldiers were killed by an American bomb in 2006, despite evidence to the contrary.

The CBC has truly lost its collective mind over the WikiLeaks release of the Afghan war logs. Despite denials from the families involved, despite denials from military officials and readily available eyewitness accounts, CBC continues to pretend that perhaps, just maybe the government is lying and four Canadian soldiers were killed by an American bomb.

…The CBC has chosen to believe a piece of raw data, collected illegally and posted on a website committed to ending the war because it fits with one of their main storylines of the Afghan war, the government is lying. Contrast that to their reaction to another big WikiLeaks information dump, the Climategate emails. At that time CBC wasn’t overly interested in running stories about emails and documents that hackers took without permission. When they finally did get around to running the story more than a week later it was to say that the data might have been tampered with….

CBC has always had a bias, and, as usual, they let it get in the way of the facts. As Lilley pointed out, the source of this information isn’t credible, and yet CBC has decided to pursue this story and dismiss all evidence to the contrary. At this point, I don’t think Canadians should have to subsidize a network which is willingly forwarding the agenda of a traitor, especially not one who doesn’t care about the consequences of his actions… Disgraceful…

UPDATE: Prosecutors might want to get ready to start laying charges of accessory to murder. This from Robert Winnett at the Telegraph.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

The warning came as the US military’s top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

“Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” he said…

What was it I said about actions having consequences? What really infuriates me about those like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning is that they truly believe the ends justifies the means, even when so many people are put in danger because of it. This is what we saw with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, traitors who’s actions put the lives of others at risk to further a political agenda, and because of their dedication to this agenda, they don’t care who they hurt. These are the worst of the worst…

Just because Assange and Manning don’t personally kill these people, it doesn’t mean they are any less guilty of murder. By publishing the names of the Afghan informants, they might as well have pulled the trigger themselves… Disgraceful…

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit is now covering the remarks by the Taliban about finding and killing Afghan informants. He does a make that completely slipped my mind; the Taliban will kill the informants and their families, but also Afghans who are even the slightest bit under suspicion. This means that the possible body count is on the rise. That several hundred just became several thousand and all Julian Assange can say is it is America’s fault for keeping records of their informants. I know, it sounds ridiculous to anyone who thinks about it for a few seconds.

An informant list is a precaution which not only identifies those giving the information, but provides names to those who might either need to evacuate them to safety, or track them down if they lead American forces into an ambush. Assange can say all he wants, but he was the one who released classified documents, documents which are, by their very nature, not safe to release to the general public. By doing that, he has taken full responsibility for the safety of those people, whether he will admit it or not… Disgraceful…

The Story of Cosmetics Critique: Fiction in, fiction out

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

It might seem odd to start a blog post with a C.S. Lewis quote, I feel this one in particular demands it. I have spoken about “Little Annie Lunatic”, Annie Leonard, before and it is because of the hard work of HowTheWorldWorks’ Lee Doren that I can once again discuss her lunacy. I have to applaud Doren for his work on this new video as the content of it is well outside his realm of expertise (as well as Leonard’s as she obviously has no clue what she is talking about). As he points out, “Little Annie Lunatic” is using irrational fear to push for new regulations to strangle the cosmetics industry. Why would she do this? As mentioned in the above quote, for the “good” of the people who use cosmetics.

Not being an expert on cosmetics, there isn’t much I can say about Doren’s research here. While my economic and historical knowledge allowed me to comment further on what was discussed previously, I will have to say that this subject isn’t within my scope of expertise. What I can say is that this woman is a “Luddite,” someone who is opposed to industrialization and technological (and in this case chemical) advancement. As Doren highlighted in this critique, Leonard’s entire argument is focused on irrational fear as she purposely misquotes research findings to further he own twisted agenda. Her political beliefs further twist her argument as she paints the leading cosmetic manufacturers as greedy businessmen who don’t care about the health of their customers. Seeing how unsafe products would scare off customers and ruin a business’ reputation, this argument is nonsensical.

“Little Annie Lunatic” also makes a very hard push for “organic” cosmetics, a product she tries to convince her viewers to purchase because they are apparently safer than the more popular brands. What about their chemical make up Leonard? Have those products been thoroughly tested? Just because something is “organic” it doesn’t mean it is safe to use. You wouldn’t rub poison ivy all over your body because it is organic would you? This is what her and people like her fail to realize, that just because it is organic, doesn’t mean it is safe. There are dozens of examples of this, like tobacco, but I think I made my point.

As we see again, “Little Annie Lunatic” wants to control industry. As she indicates in her video, she wishes to do this for the “good” of those who use cosmetics. All this talk about making the “safe and healthy choices” is all nonsense as the entire purpose for this video was to push for government regulation to strangle the cosmetics industry, as Doren points out. It would be one thing if she made an argument based on solid scientific findings, but, as with the last video, Leonard bombards her audience with ill-informed nonsense and outright lies to push a perverted agenda. Would anyone really want someone as ideologically twisted as this woman having any power over industry? No one rational I would imagine…

As C.S. Lewis stated, those like “Little Annie Lunatic” would “torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”. Because of this, I don’t think we have heard the last of this twisted “Luddite”. Disturbing…

CF-18 crash in Alberta; Why we need new jets

I was just browsing Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller when I found the Associated Press footage of the crash…

As the report via the BBC states, the accident occurred during practice when pilot Captain Brian Bews tried to execute a low altitude maneuver. As of now, he is recovering in hospital with undetermined injuries. The National Post also covered this story yesterday, but had more on what occurred with the fighter jet itself…

…It’s not clear whether the plane ran into trouble during mid-air manoeuvres, or on takeoff or landing, but Brown said the Department of National Defence’s Flight Safety Team is investigating.

Private pilot Nathaniel Lockheart was watching the practice runs when he noticed something was wrong.

“He came in right over us, probably only 100 to 200 feet high,” he said. “It looked like he lost power out of his right engine. Only one afterburner was on and it was burning red hot.

“He looked very close to stalling. I knew what was going to happen: he wasn’t going to make it out of this one.”

I am happy the pilot wasn’t killed and is now recovering, but this incident makes two points clear to me. The first point is that even with the second engine still burning, the plane, according to witnesses appeared as it was going to stall out. This is should help end this nonsensical discussion on whether or not two engines are better than one as the second engine did little, if anything, to keep the CF-18 Hornet from crashing. The second point is rather obvious; these fighter jets are reaching the point where they need to be replaced. Having entered service in 1982, the CF-18 fleet is has been flying for nearly thirty years. That is thirty years of wear and tear taking its toll on these fighters, and I would suspect that this is only the first of these kinds of incidents we will see until the fighter jet is retired. $9-billion might sound like a lot, but it is well worth it to have sixty-five the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets.

As the National Post editorial board stated, let’s not let this become another Sea King scandal. These fighters need to be replaced now, not once the Liberals get back in power… Mind-boggling…

Zo Rants: Shirley Sherrod’s Speech Gets Worse

Andrew Breitbart took a lot of criticism for releasing that clip of Shirley Sherrod’s speech at the NAACP conference, but I feel it was undeserved. While the full context wasn’t there, I believe, having examined much of the speech, that you could judge this woman by what we originally saw. Don’t believe me? The NAACP has the entire video on their site, give it a watch. While I could discuss this further, go into how I feel about all this talk about racism, I have a better idea. Here’s Alfonzo Rachel’s rant on this very subject. Enjoy!

If you enjoyed this video, gives his Youtube channel a look. Now for those questioning whether or not ‘Zo is being honest about Sherrod’s following comments, give these other clips a watch.

So Breitbard wants to bring back slavery? I would really like to know in what context these remarks are acceptable… Disgraceful.

UPDATE: Before anyone comments here about Shirley Sherrod being a “victim”, why not learn more about this woman’s past.

One has to wonder whether she will end up in Charlie Rangel’s position if her involvement in the Pigford case ever comes to light. The American Thinker’s Rosslyn Smith has more on this and it is a definitely MUST READ!

Maybe Barack Obama should have left her “under the bus.” Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: CNN’s Don Lemon makes the mistake of letting Bev Smith say something downright nonsensical. Instead of letting these statements go unchallenged, Lemon should have at least asked Smith to clarify what she said because it does sound fairly offensive. I am simply speechless as it is about one of the mind-boggling things I have ever heard.

So Shirley Sherrod was “chosen” to remind us of what is going on? Excuse me? Anthony Hill was murdered by a white co-worker, and while that definitely does sound like a hate crime, I don’t see how it relates to what happened to Sherrod. Is Smith saying that this was also a hate crime? Is she saying that this kind of racism is still a serious issue for the black community? Last time I checked, Barack Obama is President, and for that to happen, a huge percentage of white Americans had to vote for him (43 percent according to CNN exit polls). This is also assuming that the white Americans that didn’t vote for Obama were doing so because he was black. Once again, this is mind-boggling.

Lemon also makes the mistake of bringing Warren Ballentine, well known bigot who called Juan Williams and “porch monkey”, on to discuss this incident. Surely Lemon didn’t expect Ballentine to say something that wasn’t downright hateful…

How was Reverend Jeremiah Wright taken out of context? I would like to know the context in which “GOD DAMN AMERICA,” “THE US OF KKK A” and “THE GOVERNMENT LIED ABOUT INVENTING THE HIV VIRUS” aren’t downright offensive. It isn’t like these comments aren’t well documented Ballentine, Reverend Wright’s statements on whites and America are very well known by now.

Explain those comments Ballentine, tell us about the “context” of those hateful statements. An argument can be made about Sherrod’s original comments being taken out of context, but not these ones. Pathetic…

Irresponsible: Michael Coren Gives Radicals a Platform to Smear Police

Suffice to say, I have been critical of Michael Coren’s opinion of police action during the G20 summit. Despite the evidence to the contrary, Coren believes that the police were downright incompetent and that they let the criminals get away while arresting innocent civilians. This version of events doesn’t match up with what we know about what happened. While many protesters might not have smashed store fronts and loot businesses, they certainly at least condoned, if not encourage this kind of nonsense. So when Coren announced that he would have an episode dedicated to the G20 summit, discussing the events of that weekend with protest organizers and people who were detained, I knew it wasn’t going to be balanced. Sure enough, thanks to SDAMatt2, I can give my modest readership a taste of just how blatantly biased and downright irresponsible yesterday’s show was.

For those who didn’t pay attention to the protesters at the G20 summit, John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) was advocating for the use of violence to push a radical political message during the riots. While not only condoning, but encouraging what could easily be seen as terrorism (the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes) would be enough to have this man blacklisted from most everyone’s television show, Coren gives this man a platform to push his radicalism. While Michael does question the validity in attacking franchised stores to push a political agenda, he lets much of what Clarke says go. This might come as a surprise to Coren, but seeing how this man is partly responsible for the violence and destruction that occurred in Toronto, not challenging his radical beliefs, let alone inviting him on your show to discuss said radical beliefs, validate them. Unless you send a strong message to these politically twisted individuals that this kind of activism is wrong, they will continue doing it.

Suffice to say, things only got worse. This next video is not only offensive and downright stupid, but it is ten minutes of uninterrupted and unquestioned dribble from someone who has a very loose grip on reality. Meet G20 detainee Tommy Taylor.

Where to begin? Firstly, I don’t believe that the police didn’t tell them to disperse. It is more likely that this twit didn’t hear what was being said by police because he either wasn’t paying attention (looks like this guy goes through life not paying attention) or it was drowned out by all the yelling and screaming protesters. It could be that he did hear the police order, but for the sake of the story, purposely omitted that detail. “Little Tommy” has every reason to lie about the circumstances of his arrest, especially if he is trying to portray himself as the victim. Anyone paying attention could see something was wrong with this story right from the start.

Suffice to say, “Little Tommy’s” story of his detention was greatly exaggerated. Thanks to Tim at blogTO, we can see exactly what it looked like in the G20 Eastern Avenue Detention Centre. The first thing I noticed when looking at these pictures was how small the cages were. I don’t think it is even physically possible to put forty people into one of these cells. Next, I find it hard to believe those being detained were denied food and drink with all the empty paper cups, the half-eaten sandwiches and fruit strewn all over the floor. It is obvious looking at the pictures that they were given the basics to eat, so it is ridiculous for these twits to keep denying it. Then we have “Little Tommy’s” collapse while being detained. Assuming he isn’t making this up as well (his story thus far is mostly fiction), the only reason he would collapse, aside from any serious medical condition, is not getting enough air. With twenty people in those cells, I would imagine those pushed into a corner would have trouble breathing, a far more believable story than the one Taylor gave. I used to work at EB Games in Place D’Orleans and during our Boxing Day sale, a child puked and passed out in one of the far corners of the store. With sixty to seventy people inside such a confined space, it had gotten difficult to breath and after this incident, we were forced to keep the amount of shoppers in the story to a minimum. It is hard to believe even this much would go unchallenged by Coren, but “Little Tommy’s” story is far from finished.

How could Michael Coren, a man born Jewish, allow this twit to compare the Toronto detention centres to Auschwitz? Sure Taylor excuses this comparison by saying a police officer at the detention centre said it, something I find hard to believe, but he repeats this comment so many times that it is harder to believe he himself doesn’t think this comment is entirely valid. Those detained were fed, not beaten and executed like those at the concentration camp, so let’s stop with the Nazi references. “Little Tommy” then says that some police officers broke down crying as they were unable to handle seeing the protesters being so poorly treated, while other more sadistic cops were enjoying abusing their prisoners. Excuse me? If I were Michael Coren, after listening to the twit compare the detention centres to Auschwitz, upon hearing this nonsense, I would have cut his mic and demanded that he leave. If anyone needed proof that this episode was a purposeful smear against the Toronto police, here it is. Allowing these claims to go unchallenged is by far the most irresponsible thing Coren could have done. Through his inaction, he gives this false story credit, a story which will encourage others twits to take to the streets in violent protest. These violent radicals already blew up a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in Trois-Riviere, Quebec because of this nonsense, so all this does is give them more reason to do it again. Didn’t think of that one did you Michael?

As I have stated before, Michael Coren exposes his less-than-conservative views once in a while in the name of “balance”. There was, however, not even a pretense of balance in yesterday’s show. With the absence of anyone with contrary beliefs, let’s not pretend that such commentary was anything but biased. Allowing such dribble to largely go unchallenged is downright irresponsible. No one benefits from this continued anti-establishment violence and giving voice to those who not only condone, but encourage it, makes matters worse. This is not the way to “raise the level of discourse” Michael.

Next time you want an in depth discussion on an issue, bring both sides to the table. While you might not agree with what one side says, you will actually have a balanced and unbiased debate, something far different from the irresponsible mess you had with yesterday’s show. Disgraceful…