How Would JFK Have Dealt with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange?

By Nicholas Stix

Over at Legal Insurrection, William A. Jacobson writes, in “WikiTerror In Zimbabwe,”

Heroes of the American Left, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, have destroyed the best hope for ridding Zimbabwe of madman Robert Mugabe by releasing U.S. State Department cables of communications between Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the leading opponent of Mugabe, and U.S. and E.U. officials, in which Tsvangirai secretly expressed support for sanctions against the brutal Mugabe regime as the only way to establish democracy in Zimbabwe.

As reported by Christopher Albon, the result of the leak of the cable has been to enable Mugabe to continue his reign of terror and to put the opposition leader's life at risk:

“The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009….”

Perhaps all the people raising money for Assange and Manning will raise money for Tsvangari, not that it would do much good when Mugabe's thugs come calling in the middle of the night.

The blood of the Zimbabwe people, and the terror they will endure, are on the hands of Manning, Assange, and their supporters.

Bradley Manning is the “Army intelligence analyst and angry gay” (Ann Coulter) who, when he found himself in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically" (his words), he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents to Assange, the anti-American proprietor of Wikileaks. Coulter called Manning, the “poster boy for ‘don't ask, don't tell,’” but of course, that was before the lame-duck Congress passed The Forced Homosexualization of the Military Act.

Manning is currently in a military prison at Quantico, Virginia.

Assange is currently in jail in Sweden, awaiting prosecution on charges of having raped two Swedish women. By Assange’s “victims” own admission, they’d had consensual sex with him, but a few days later, decided they’d like to press charges against him. Twenty years ago in America, date rape hoaxes were encapsulated in the phrase, “the morning after.” In today’s Sweden, it’s “the week after.”

Meanwhile, Assange has so far gotten away with raping hundreds of millions of loyal Americans.

It’s during times like these that I miss Jack Kennedy the most. If this happened on JFK’s watch, he would have dispatched assassins to “liquidate” Manning and Assange “with extreme prejudice.”

Instead, we have gay activist Glenn Greenwald and aging traitor, Daniel Ellsberg, make that Dr. Daniel Ellsberg—don’t want to forget the traitor’s title—depicting Manning variously as a victim of “inhumane treatment” and “torture,” and as a “hero.”

Meanwhile, the left is torn between lionizing Assange as a “hero” for destroying American diplomacy, or as a “rapist” for having merely consensual sex with women, since for feminists such as Feministe’s Jill Fillipovic (who, by the way, is a practicing liar), if a woman consents to have sex with a man, but the consent is insufficiently enthusiastic, and he neglects to formally request and receive repeated, Antioch-style consent anew at every step of the way, it’s still “rape.” Presumably, if the man is black, Hispanic, or Moslem, he can do as he wishes with the wench.

Logically, Fillipovic & Co. would denounce a JFK as a “rapist”… but then you remember that Fillipovic-style feminists do not truck with logic, which for them is “phallocentric.”

So, there you have it: Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and some of their allies.