I expect to be vindicated: "Bloggers claim WikiLeaks struck deal with Israel over diplomatic cables leaks"


WIKILEAKS SERIES Information


Remy Ourdon, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks project for Le Monde - one of the five international newspapers that were given advance copies of the cables by Assange - counters that it is incorrect to claim there are no cables of interest about Israel.

"Not everything has come out yet," he tells Haaretz. "There are tens of thousands of cables and many surprises still coming. There is almost no country which does not have some cables emanating from it."

Moreover, stresses Ourdon, contrary to the conspiracy theorists' charges, Assange is not in control of which cables WikiLeaks publishes - that is determined solely by what the person who obtained the cables was able to access and pass along.

Other observers offer an alternative explanation for the lack - so far - of many insightful cables out of Israel. For example, Ed Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem (1993-1997 ) suggests, on facebook, that it might have something to do with the level of information being offered out of the country.

"The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has been so out of the loop for the last six years that their reporting is about what you read in the Israeli press (probably where they get most of their information ). .

"There's a channel U.S. embassies use for very sensitive information and I don't think WikiLeaks has those cables. As for Tel Aviv, the last two ambassadors have not been risk-takers and have had a very low profile. I doubt they have been willing to rock the boat, and may not have had much, if any, inside information."

What would be more interesting, Abington persists, is the reporting from the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. "Where is that reporting?" he asks.

"Stay tuned," says Ourdon.

via Bloggers claim WikiLeaks struck deal with Israel over diplomatic cables leaks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.
    • There was/is a mountain of material in the pipeline. There are many volunteers vetting it. Work continued while Julian was in the slammer.

      It is true that Julian is the final decision maker at WikiLeaks, but he'll have to take steps, or already has, to provide for continuity. He more than hinted at that upon his release.

      He's suggested that things were already arranged such that decapitation of WikiLeaks would not have stopped the process. I believe him, because were I in his shoes, that's how I'd have handled it.

      He's not just surrounded by teenagers. He has the ear of some very powerful people with deep pockets. That's only grown exponentially now -- his plan/dream all along of course. They've had his ear as well. Now it will be all the more.

      It's going to turn into a Board of Directors, etc., with some real infrastructure -- a permanent headquarters....

      Let's hope they stay true to the original ideal -- the one where the Zionists don't get to veto what's leaked.

      We shall see.

      I want the answers to the questions I posed. Notice that Haaretz failed to post answers to my tough questions.

    • I submitted the following comment over on the Haaretz article:

      Subject:

      Syria Truth, syriatruth.info, OpenLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, have refused to answer any of my direct questions

      Comment text:

      See my series: Google: "Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks". I hope Haaretz can get some real answers. Let me know, please.