Facts, myths, WikiLeaks/Guardian; IDF drones kill innocent; Utterly evil flechettes

Glenn Greenwald does his usual thorough analysis. I don't often disagree with him, and I don't this time either.

A series of unintentional though negligent acts by multiple parties — WikiLeaks, The Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh, and Open Leaks' Daniel Domscheit-Berg — has resulted in the publication of all 251,287 diplomatic cables, in unredacted form, leaked last year to WikiLeaks (allegedly by Bradley Manning).  Der Spiegel (in English) has the best and most comprehensive step-by-step account of how this occurred.

via Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com.

Glenn's article points to: "WikiLeaks: IDF uses drones to assassinate Gaza militants - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News."

One of the incidences of civilians deaths that they two discussed was the IDF attack on a group of Hamas members who were standing next to a mosque in Gaza. 16 Palestinians were killed in that attack, most of whom were inside the mosque at the time.

That Haaretz article points to: "cable 10TELAVIV417, IDF MAG MANDELBLIT ON IDF INVESTIGATIONS INTO," which includes this horrendous statement:

flechettes in urban areas, but that it was not criminal.
After gathering almost 20 testimonies, Mandelblit said he
understood the exact situation, which involved preparations
to launch a rocket from a relatively open area almost a
kilometer away from the soldiers. The soldiers did not see
the condolence tent for the Adayan family. The choice of
weapons was limited as machine guns would not be efficient at
that distance and tank shells could have gone through houses
if they missed the group involved in the rocket launch. The
choice of tank-fired flechettes appeared to be the only
appropriate choice, but Mandelblit was referring it to
Ashkenazi along with another case on flechette use (the Azam
case, which was not in the Goldstone Report) to determine
whether flechettes were indeed the only option and whether
they were appropriate for future urban warfare given that the
only uses of flechettes in the three weeks of fighting
produced these two problematic cases with civilian
casualties. (Note: Israeli flechettes are modified versions
of the U.S.-made M494 APERS-T rounds, provided to Israel in
the 1970s, that disperse 5,000 small flechette darts over a
300m long and 94m wide area at a set distance, according to
Janes. End note.)

"5,000 small flechette darts over a 300m long and 94m wide area" Who's the demon who conjured up such darkness?

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.