Assange, Manning had reason to believe leaks would injure U.S. -prosecutors

By Mark Hosenball

 

FILE PHOTO: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves the Westminster Magistrates Court in the police van, after he was arrested in London, Britain April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning had reason to believe that leaking U.S. military reports "would cause injury" to the country, federal prosecutors alleged in a newly unsealed court filing on Monday.

 

In the affidavit submitted to federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, prosecutors said U.S. military reports from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq included information about the "identity and significance of local supporters of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan."

 

FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks to reporters outside the U.S. federal courthouse shortly before appearing before a federal judge and being taken into custody as he held her in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. March 8, 2019. REUTERS/Ford Fischer/News2Share/File Photo

 

When U.S. forces raided the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was hiding out, for example, they found a letter that showed the Al Qaeda leader was interested in copies of Pentagon documents published on WikiLeaks, the prosecutors said.

 

According to prosecutors, leaked reports on the Afghan war included information on militants' improvised explosive device designs and attacks, including details of U.S. and coalition countermeasures against such home-made explosive devices and their limitations.

 

The prosecution's affidavit is dated Dec. 21, 2017, but was made public on Monday. It follows the unsealing last week of a U.S. indictment charging Assange with conspiring with Manning to gain access to a government computer as part of one of the largest compromises of classified information in U.S. history.

 

Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange in Washington, said: "Encouraging sources to provide information, and using methods to protect their identity, are common practices by all journalists. There is no new information in the affidavit that was unavailable to the Department of Justice when it decided in the Obama administration that pursuing criminal charges against Mr. Assange would be contrary to the First Amendment."

 

British police arrested Assange at Washington's request after Ecuador revoked his seven-year asylum on Thursday. He was dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and is being held in prison while he faces extradition to the United States.

 

The U.S. indictment, originally issued in secret by an Alexandria, Virginia-based grand jury in March 2018, said Assange in March 2010 engaged in a conspiracy to help Manning crack a password for a classified U.S. government network.

 

In the unsealed affidavit, prosecutors said Manning also had access to other U.S. government databases, including one relating to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and a State Department database containing military cables.

 

(Reporting by Mark Hosenball, editing by G Crosse)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-16

I admit to not following this situation with a great amount of detail, but I think these people had the right intention of forcing a better level of transparency in gov't.  Whistle blowers of corruption and ombudsman entities are important, but if they were careless in revealing info that could have negatively affected US citizens or its strategic operations abroad, then a price should be paid. I only hope that some good will come from all this mess. 

Snowden, Assange, Manning and their ilks are nothing but  a bunch of tratores who thought that the world is ready for this kind of extreme action "to save the world from itself" not realising that the elite and the powers that be will not let them do so and will hound them as far as necessary...

Sometimes the truth causes damage to reputation. The only defense is not to do the sort of things that cause damage to your reputation.

Manning tried going the route of whistle blower protection and was instead imprisoned. The damage she saw happening was to the citizens, and the government has punished her for it.

Kinda sounds like they are guilty of aiding and abbeting the enemy

32 minutes ago, Tug said:

Kinda sounds like they are guilty of aiding and abbeting the enemy

That's certainly what the authorities want people to believe.....

There is one thing to be a whistleblower, and thats a good thing. The world would be  much sorrier place without them

 

However Manning and Assange released thousands of totally unredacted documents, putting at risk the lives of agents and civilian informants.

 

That's not a whistleblower or a journalist, that is a traitor  

Edited April 16, 20197 yr by GinBoy2

There is one thing to be a whistleblower, and thats a good thing. The world would be  much sorrier place without them
 
However Manning and Assange released thousands of totally unredacted documents, putting at risk the lives of agents and civilian informants.
 
That's not a whistleblower or a journalist, that is a traitor  

This to me is where I have issues with his actions.. I agree.. I think the idea of a “whistle-blower” is a good thing.. I support laws that protect good-faith whistleblowers... but.. my supports isn’t unlimited. I think there can be cases where whistleblower actions can have real life risks to individuals.. and I think it’s fair to also acknowledge this is issue as well.

I do support Assange and his actions as a collective? I think the fact that it brought to light some government actions that I think are improper - is good... but I can’t also overlook the larger situation and that to me has clearly raised concerns for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

That's certainly what the authorities want people to believe.....

The ‘authorities’ are in the process of putting it to trial in an open court before a jury.

 

Just like any other allegation of serious crimes.

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ‘authorities’ are in the process of putting it to trial in an open court before a jury.

 

Just like any other allegation of serious crimes.

The whole thing never would have happened if the US had fessed up to gunning down the unarmed civilians and a journalist from the helicopter. The US absolutely insisted they were armed extremists while the witnesses on the ground testified they were unarmed civilians. The video from the helicopter clearly and unequivocally showed that they were unarmed, and when people came to there assistance, they were gunned down as well. Instead of admitting to there mistake, they lied, and lied, and continued to lie until the video was leaked. Liar, liar, pants on fire I say. You reap what you sow. From WMD's and lying on the justification for war to this.  From Vietnam through to present day the US military and government has a proven track record of lying continuously. (as do other governments) So I say, a whistleblower and publisher.

It would be interesting to see what the Reuters  and other journalists think of this; oops we'll never find out as they were gunned down by whooping cowboys in a helicopter.  As for the rest of the material, I don't know because I did not study it.

3 hours ago, Proboscis said:

Sometimes the truth causes damage to reputation. The only defense is not to do the sort of things that cause damage to your reputation.

Agree but what they released could get people seriously killed.

"included information about the "identity and significance of local supporters of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.""

Expose US killings of civilians in shooting gallery, but take a bit of time to make sure you don't get other civilians killed by Al Qaeda might be prudent.

And Why doesn't wikileaks go after Putin and GRU? Hmm

2 hours ago, Ulic said:

The whole thing never would have happened if the US had fessed up to gunning down the unarmed civilians and a journalist from the helicopter. The US absolutely insisted they were armed extremists while the witnesses on the ground testified they were unarmed civilians. The video from the helicopter clearly and unequivocally showed that they were unarmed, and when people came to there assistance, they were gunned down as well. Instead of admitting to there mistake, they lied, and lied, and continued to lie until the video was leaked. Liar, liar, pants on fire I say. You reap what you sow. From WMD's and lying on the justification for war to this.  From Vietnam through to present day the US military and government has a proven track record of lying continuously. (as do other governments) So I say, a whistleblower and publisher.

Had the whistle blowing be limited to this event and other similar criminal events without exposing legitimate action and individuals I doubt there would be such long term drama and perhaps some advantageous outcome. Not unlike the revelation of the gross reality of the Vietnam war re' the impact of the  napalming of civilians.

The wholesale release of information is  likely to  have  created undeserved victims of retaliation. 

Two wrongs do not make either right.

 

5 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

There is one thing to be a whistleblower, and thats a good thing. The world would be  much sorrier place without them

 

However Manning and Assange released thousands of totally unredacted documents, putting at risk the lives of agents and civilian informants.

 

That's not a whistleblower or a journalist, that is a traitor  

Manning may have betrayed her country.... Assange did not, so therefore, is not a traitor.

 

Assange has maintained that no one was harmed by wiki leaks publications, and has challenged the US to prove otherwise.... the pentagon has said the documents were simple reports from military and civilian sources

 

a good portion of the documents contained information potentially damaging to US military reputation.... not ongoing activity, but past activity.... activity including murder and torture of civilian and military adversaries, under reporting battlefield casualties ( esp civilian) and disturbingly, a recording of US personnel commenting and laughing at the result of a drone strike that killed civilians (including foreign journalists) ..... perhaps in this lies the genesis of the current US policy to not allow its personnel to face international war crime charges

 

Assange is, like it or not, a highly regarded and awarded international journalist

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

 

If Assange doesn't say un-nice things about DT he could very well get a presidential pardon, like the rest of the cabal.

 

 

Prefer the version that states that Assange will be accused of leaking the details of the last episode of Game of Thrones

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Had the whistle blowing be limited to this event and other similar criminal events without exposing legitimate action and individuals I doubt there would be such long term drama and perhaps some advantageous outcome. Not unlike the revelation of the gross reality of the Vietnam war re' the impact of the  napalming of civilians.

The wholesale release of information is  likely to  have  created undeserved victims of retaliation. 

Two wrongs do not make either right.

 

There were no "legitimate action and individuals" in these illegitimate wars.

They exposed war crimes and embarrassing diplomatic messages, that showed their (US government and military ) contempt for other national leaders and individual non combatant Lives .

 

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

If Assange doesn't say un-nice things about DT he could very well get a presidential pardon, like the rest of the cabal.

Assange should take up golf - indiscretions will quickly be forgotten ???? 

So in reply to those that still seem to think this was all OK, and Assange is some kind of avenging 'journalist'

 

A link to the British Guardian newspaper, hardly a beacon of right wing propaganda, criticizing the unredacted releases.

 

A brief paragraph, from real journalists.

 

WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger.

The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.

"We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," the organisations said in a joint statement.

 

the full article is here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

Edited April 16, 20197 yr by GinBoy2

If they were attempting to get information from government computers, they will likely do time

6 hours ago, rocketman777 said:

There were no "legitimate action and individuals" in these illegitimate wars.

They exposed war crimes and embarrassing diplomatic messages, that showed their (US government and military ) contempt for other national leaders and individual non combatant Lives .

 

It seems you have interpreted my comment as  being in favour  of the basis of "these" illegitimate wars of  aggression and the  totality of.

Indeed I  am  not! 

I refer to "individuals" who as conscripted pawns to the process are identified scapegoats for the decisions of the  back room boffins or the  actrocities of the  rambo element in the field of action who usually escape  natural justice.

In that sense the Wiki leaks  revelations could have been more effective if had been more  selective at least initially. 

9 hours ago, farcanell said:

Manning may have betrayed her country.... Assange did not, so therefore, is not a traitor.

No he is a spy...

 

Bang him up until the Russians do a trade for him... ???? 

Edited April 16, 20197 yr by Basil B

10 hours ago, CGW said:

Assange should take up golf - indiscretions will quickly be forgotten ???? 

He doesn't have to.  He just has to let the orange guy win, he'll probably get an ambassadorship.