WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
Daniel Domscheit-Berg took the time to write a 208 page book. There are many possible reasons.
He could have spent all that time directly on OpenLinks' website development, the leaks system, contractual arrangements with publishers, etc. Publishing the book is timed for maximum publicity and to simultaneously answer some questions. Of course, then there's money from book sales. How will that be spent? Just how open does he want to be?
Meanwhile, who leaked the chat room conversation and why, all while Julian didn't have the ability to answer directly and immediately?
Daniel says he was upset by the lack of transparency, among other things. It's ironic in the eyes of many that WikiLeaks needs to keep secrets. I find those people to be dimwitted. Daniel will be keeping secrets too. I'm not suggesting that he is one claiming that WikiLeaks didn't require secrecy though. He draws the line at a different place than does or did Julian Assange.
Ultimately, as a Christian, I must say that there are no secrets and that, that doesn't bother me because I trust the one who ultimately knows all. I believe in the righteousness of my God. The reason for secrecy and privacy now is due to the wickedness of many. Evil ideas have been introduced into the minds of humanity. People, individually and collectively, have not worked hard enough to overcome those evil inroads. They are tempted, fall, harden, and take it out on others thereby leading others astray with them.
Even George W. Bush, the war criminal, need not have every last bit of privacy removed while people get at the truth of his war crimes and crimes against humanity and move to hold him to account since he was, along with many others, responsible for gigantic evil that is still on-going. It is truly a shame people don't have a better sense of what should be taken public versus what should remain confidential and why.
I am a firm believer in pastoral counseling for instance. Someone asking for help with a problem that is at that point still private and that should remain so to protect people, especially the innocent, and to give people a real opportunity to see the error of their ways and to stop, turn, repent, and atone is a good thing. Where to draw the line is not always clear-cut. The secular law has views about counseling pedophiles for one. It puts restraints upon the work of religious people and institutions because it, the secular, usually if not always, discounts conversions and transformations and then mercy and forgiveness, etc.
Then, of course, there's a large group within the false liberal crowd that thinks pedophilia is not an evil. It all makes for some difficult judgment calls. The terrible internal mishandling of the rampant pedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church surely muddied the waters a great deal and served to weaken the acceptance of the moral authority of various religious groups who have done a much better job.
Anyway, Daniel Domscheit-Berg waited way too long to allay the rumors about Julian Assange and the Mossad, etc. Perhaps that was due to his relative young age, but 32 isn't exactly a babe. How much has bitterness and vindictiveness had to do with it if any?
Who knows Daniel Domscheit-Berg's heart?
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)