The American Mainstream Media is once again being called on to do a marvelous job of ignoring the implications of the latest Wikileaks data dump and not ask any question which would lead Americans to think for themselves. Why shouldn't they play along? The American Media were accessories to Bush's War Crimes by their silence, so why shouldn't they, once again, help divert America's attention away from the presentation of more evidence of his war crimes?
All the media coverage of the leaks focuses attention on just one fellow, Julian Assange. If that fallaciously conjures up an impression of a lone hacker who rounds up some embarrassing information, then hits the "post" button on his computer and releases the material to the world -- that will make the task of branding the fellow as a crazy lone wolf nut so much easier. It takes days for people at the New York Times or Germany's Der Spiegel magazine to go through all the new available material. Yet, they would have us believe that this guy rounds up all that massive amount of material, puts it in order for a file, and then sits back and waits for the moment when he feels like posting it, all by himself.
Why the delay? Is the release of the material negotiable? If so; how so?
Doesn't it seem logical that, for that much work, there must be more than one fellow doing the clerk work? If that is true then one has to ask, is the "lone leaker" paying the others out of his own pocket? If that premise were valid then the good guys who hate to see all the negative publicity produced by the WikiLeaks could stop them by killing the fellow at the center of the operations. That hasn't happened yet. Are we supposed to believe that some specialists working for the USA can't put the hit on this guy?
It should be obvious to the least computer-savvy reporter writing about the latest document dump that it wasn't done on a personal computer bought at the local Radio Shack. Doesn't the massive quantity of electronic data indicate that it has to be assembled on a gigantic mainframe and wouldn't such a rig leave its electronic fingerprints on the files which would mean that American intelligence investigators could easily identify the specific machine which is the source for all the Wikileaks material?
Wouldn't it then be time for the US to call in their top hackers and sabotage Assange's machine? If the American computer security people could do that; yet haven't, who gets a pass?
This just in! A Google News search just revealed that the BBC is reporting a hack attack on the Wikileaks site.
Could it be that the people who are responsible for the Wikileaks material are very upset with what George W. Bush did? Who has the most to lose if Bush dies of old age and never even gets a ticket for his misdeeds? Wouldn't a failure to punish Bush make the International Court of Justice (AKA the World Court) look pathetic and impotent?
Could the Wikileaks revelations be part of an effort by the folks at the World Court in the Hague to make it impossible for the citizens of the USA to hold to the "he didn't know" defense, thus forcing the USA to either fully endorse Bush's war crimes and protect him from prosecution or turn him over to the World Court for a war crimes trial?
Doesn't Assange, who is reported to be an Australian citizen, live close to where the World Court is located?
Who has the power to collect all the diplomatic messages involved in the latest release? If some Commie spies collected the material, wouldn't they compromise themselves and their methods by releasing the new material? Does the World Court have the ability to collect (subpoena?) the material that was just released? Can any of the countries who signed up to be part of the World Court, decline a request for material for use in an ongoing investigation?
The USA opted out of the World Court when Bush was President. Wouldn't it be a grand coincidence if, by doing so, he also slowed down any future investigations into his conduct while in office?
Hypothetically, think of it in terms of Adolph Eichmann being caught in Germany rather than Argentina and then the Germans refused to turn him over to another country for a trial.
Doesn't the World Court accumulate evidence in anticipation of possible war crimes trials? If they have a bunch of evidence and no possibility of a trial, what do they do with the evidence? Just put it in a warehouse? Couldn't they leak the evidence so that the media would eventually just have to put two and two together and figure out "who done it," and then start crying for justice?
Wouldn't Germany be rather upset with it if they had to pay dearly when their country's leaders were put on trial for war crimes and then had to sit idly by and watch the country that beat them skate on their war crimes? Think they'd be more than just a little willing to prove the principles elaborated in the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials weren't all one-way streets? Think Germany would be more than a little anxious to see Americans in the defendants' docket? Or would they endorse some hypocrisy at their own expense?
Doesn't the Occam's Razor principle method of reasoning point to a World Court effort?