1 December 2010: In the realm of criminal investigation, there are instances where a crime has been committed but the criminal, in an attempt to confuse investigators and redirect the investigation away from themselves or conceal their true intent, will alter the crime scene. That’s called “staging,” and is often indicated when investigators encounter details that initially appear baffling when viewed in the larger context of the crime scene.
Based on my professional analysis of the available facts surrounding the WikiLeaks controversy, “staging” is exactly what has taken place.
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks 39 year-old founder Julian Assange dumped about a quarter of a million classified State Department documents on the internet. This was reportedly accomplished through the efforts of 22-year-old Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning. The most cursory investigation will find that Manning did not act alone, and that WikiLeaks, which first published restricted documents in 2006, has been under government surveillance, if not some level of control since then.
Given the “chaos” allegedly created by the document dump, including the reported threat to matters of national security and even the personal security of our operational assets, several indicators exist that point to the WikiLeaks data dump as being astaged event.
Consider that while the WikiLeaks documents were being dumped, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in a coordinated effort with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency were tasked with seizing over 80 websites for copyright infringement. If there was a genuine administrative concern over the publication of sensitive documents, it would hardly seem
reasonable to direct intelligence assets in that manner.
Since the government had knowledge of the document “theft” for several months, had time to investigate and identify digital fingerprints of those involved as well as the documents themselves, it is reasonable to question why no direct governmental action was taken when there was ample opportunity to do so.
In criminal matters, it is also important to address motive. In this case, the question “who benefits” must be asked. After careful review of many of the released documents, it can be reasonably established that the primary beneficiaries of this exposure are the progressives, globalists and members of the power elite. The documents appear to assault our democratic process and ultimately, our national sovereignty.
When all of the factors behind the WikiLeaks data dump are analyzed, I suspect that it this event will serve as a catalyst for this administration to advance their known objectives to regulate the internet. With Cass Sunstein as the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs , the organized chaos created by WikiLeaks will certainly provide the requisite fodder to control the type of information available through the internet.
Amid the controversy involving the data dump, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is also accused of rape and has made it onto Interpol’s wanted list. Considering the obvious staging of the data damp, it is of little surprise to also learn that Assange is the current globalists’ version of “six degrees of Kevin Bacon.” In this case, it is many degrees fewer, and it’s not actor Kevin Bacon, but George Soros who serves as the trivia link. Soros linked attorney Mark Stephens, who does pro bono work for the Open Society Institute, appears to be representing Assange as he remains in hiding in the UK.
Indeed, a thorough forensic analysis of the digital DNA of this leak is in order.
Replies