WikiLeaks acted in public interest, 'Pentagon Papers' leaker tells Assange hearing

By Michael Holden

 

FILE PHOTO: WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson speaks to reporters outside the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court ahead of a hearing to decide whether Julian Assange should be extradited to the United States, in London, Britain September 8, 2020. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The man who leaked the "Pentagon Papers" about the Vietnam War defended Julian Assange at his London extradition hearing on Wednesday, saying WikiLeaks had acted in the public interest and warning Assange would not get a fair trial in the United States.

 

Australian-born Assange, 49, is fighting to stop being sent to the United States, where he is charged with conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law over the release of confidential cables by WikiLeaks in 2010-2011.

 

Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked documents known as the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other papers, told the court that WikiLeaks' disclosures had shown Americans how they had been misled about U.S action in Iraq and Afghanistan just as his leaks, which also revealed previously secret information, did about the Vietnam War.

 

Ellsberg cited a U.S. military video, which WikiLeaks published in 2010 under the title "Collateral Murder", showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.

 

"I was acutely aware that what was depicted in that video deserved the term murder, a war crime," he told London's Old Bailey court via videolink. "I was very glad that the American public was confronted with this reality of our war."

 

James Lewis, the lawyer representing the U.S. authorities, said Assange was not wanted for publishing the 2007 video but for disclosing a small number of documents with the unredacted names of sources or informants.

 

Lewis said many of these had suffered harm or threats because they had been named. He said some had disappeared, although he conceded that there was no evidence this was directly linked to the WikiLeaks' publication.

 

"How can you possibly say ... that there is no evidence that Mr Assange's publication of WikiLeaks put anyone in danger. That's just pure nonsense," Lewis said.

 

Ellsberg, who was himself charged with breaking the espionage law in a case that was later dismissed, said there was no evidence of physical harm or deaths because of the leaks. The exchange with Lewis led to an outburst from Assange in the courtroom, with the judge warning him to remain silent.

 

REDACTIONS

Earlier, John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany's Der Spiegel magazine on the first publication of the documents in 2010, said Assange was careful to ensure that the names of informants in hundreds of thousands of leaked secret U.S. government documents were never published.

 

He said the U.S. State Department had been involved in a conference call suggesting redactions, and WikiLeaks had agreed to hold back about 15,000 documents for publication.

 

"There was sensitivity and it was one of the things that was talked about all the time," Goetz told the court. Assange was concerned that the media should take measures "so no one would be harmed", he said.

 

The State Department did not immediately respond when asked to comment on Goetz’s testimony.

 

Goetz said WikiLeaks was frustrated when a password that allowed access to the full, unredacted material was published in a book by Guardian reporters in February 2011.

 

Assange's lawyers argue that he would not receive a fair trial in the United States and that the charges are politically motivated. They have also said he would be a suicide risk if sent to the United States, where they say he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.

 

In 2012, Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden where he was accused of sex crimes, which he denied and which were later dropped. After seven years, he was dragged from the embassy by British police in 2019 and then jailed for skipping bail related to the Swedish case.

 

He has remained in prison ever since, after the United States made its extradition request.

 

(Additional reporting by Andrew MacAskill and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Nick Tattersall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-17

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Agree that part of that information could and should have been released. But names etc, no, should not have been done.

Lives and intelligence operations were put in danger, there was no need for that.

Edited September 17, 20205 yr by stevenl

After all , all the infos that ' leaked ' , were true .

Only it was not meant to be known by the public .

Assange and the ' whistle blowers ' were punished for telling the truth .

They should be rewarded for this .

Redact the names and spill the beans JA, imop

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Lewis said many of these had suffered harm or threats because they had been named. He said some had disappeared, although he conceded that there was no evidence this was directly linked to the WikiLeaks' publication

 

No evidence those people disappeared because of the publication Mr Lewis, but plenty of evidence that the publication happened because people had disappeared or killed by the hands of the US government

1 hour ago, Susco said:

 

No evidence those people disappeared because of the publication Mr Lewis, but plenty of evidence that the publication happened because people had disappeared or killed by the hands of the US government

Since you have no source ,can I ask you to be more detailed and answer the five W's?

"killed by the hands of the US Gov"

Edited September 17, 20205 yr by riclag

23 minutes ago, riclag said:

Since you have no source ,can I ask you to be more detailed and answer the five W's?

"killed by the hands of the US Gov"

Ellsberg cited a U.S. military video, which WikiLeaks published in 2010 under the title "Collateral Murder", showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.

 

Please let me know if you still can't get your head around, who the US military is part of, who funds the military and it's materials, and who instructs the military

3 minutes ago, Susco said:

Ellsberg cited a U.S. military video, which WikiLeaks published in 2010 under the title "Collateral Murder", showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.

 

Please let me know if you still can't get your head around, who the US military is part of, who funds the military and it's materials, and who instructs the military

I never said I was confused or doubted you did I! I just wish people who make claims as facts would use sources!

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

I never said I was confused or doubted you did I! I just wish people who make claims as facts would use sources!

I wish people read the OP, as the source was there from the beginning, unless you doubt that the video is real

20 minutes ago, riclag said:

I never said I was confused or doubted you did I! I just wish people who make claims as facts would use sources!

Source is the OP, this was already explained there.

He's been incarcerated for long enough on the flimsiest of charges. Time to let him go.

8 minutes ago, Caldera said:

He's been incarcerated for long enough on the flimsiest of charges. Time to let him go.

 

He's been incarcerated for about a year and a half now. While you might think it unjust, it's not hard to disagree, or at least, not blow it out of proportion. If adding Assange's own contribution to this state of things, feeling sorry for him is not mandated.

Only a fool would argue that releasing 250000 classified documents  would not potentially endanger lives.   There are simply far too many documents to know what is in them, and the wholesale release was, at best, reckless endangerment of lives.  It will never be known whether people actually died or were tortured as a result, but it is more likely than not.  It is known that terrorist organisations had teams poring over the leaked data.

 

Julian Assange has only ever acted in his own interest, with "public interest" a convenient justification.  It remains to be seen the exact roll he played in the stealing of the documents, which would constitute a crime in any country.  It's been alleged he was also complicit in that crime with Manning.  It is not in the public interest to put people's lives at risk.

37 minutes ago, Susco said:

I wish people read the OP, as the source was there from the beginning, unless you doubt that the video is real

That's a great Idea "the video"  ! Where is  the link! I'm just sayin!

 

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

That's a great Idea "the video"  ! Where is  the link! I'm just sayin!

 

You think I am your personal search engine?

 

Why you not ask the admin who posted the article?

 

Ban him for posting facts without a source.

 

Now go back to your Trump cave, you are on ignore

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

That's a great Idea "the video"  ! Where is  the link! I'm just sayin!

 

Don't be lazy man, look it up for yourself!   ????

13 minutes ago, TPI said:

Don't be lazy man, look it up for yourself!   ????

I did ! Thats what I found!

https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/en/index.html

 

I had to go digging  for it. Enough said

 

 

Edited September 17, 20205 yr by riclag

175 years in jail is really out of proportion to the supposed crime committed of information already leaked by other people. The UK doesn't impose sentences that long a 10 year sentence maybe would be the maximum sentence and Assange spent about 7 years locked up in the Embassy room. The USA is being vindictive. 

1 minute ago, JusticeGB said:

175 years in jail is really out of proportion to the supposed crime committed of information already leaked by other people. The UK doesn't impose sentences that long a 10 year sentence maybe would be the maximum sentence and Assange spent about 7 years locked up in the Embassy room. The USA is being vindictive. 

 

Assange wasn't "locked up" in that embassy room, and it was his own choice anyway.

38 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

175 years in jail is really out of proportion to the supposed crime committed of information already leaked by other people. The UK doesn't impose sentences that long a 10 year sentence maybe would be the maximum sentence and Assange spent about 7 years locked up in the Embassy room. The USA is being vindictive. 

Assange’s sojourn in the Ecuadorian embassy was completely of his own volition.

listen to the podcast of JOE ROGAN with snowden ...

Assange was a dub. First by the russians and then by glenn greenwald and his band of miscreants.

Edited September 17, 20205 yr by lou norman
missing word

3 hours ago, Bender Rodriguez said:

listen to the podcast of JOE ROGAN with snowden ...

 

Why?

17 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Only a fool would argue that releasing 250000 classified documents  would not potentially endanger lives.   There are simply far too many documents to know what is in them, and the wholesale release was, at best, reckless endangerment of lives.  It will never be known whether people actually died or were tortured as a result, but it is more likely than not.  It is known that terrorist organisations had teams poring over the leaked data.

 

Julian Assange has only ever acted in his own interest, with "public interest" a convenient justification.  It remains to be seen the exact roll he played in the stealing of the documents, which would constitute a crime in any country.  It's been alleged he was also complicit in that crime with Manning.  It is not in the public interest to put people's lives at risk.

If government has secrets from people its dictatorship not democracy.

47 minutes ago, olfu said:

If government has secrets from people its dictatorship not democracy.

Of course government has secrets, it can't function with everything out in the open.

5 hours ago, olfu said:

If government has secrets from people its dictatorship not democracy.

Wrong.  All governments have secrets.  They are an essential factor of national security.

48 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Wrong.  All governments have secrets.  They are an essential factor of national security.

Yes, but they should not keep secret the crimes committed. Once there are crimes it should be made public.

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes, but they should not keep secret the crimes committed. Once there are crimes it should be made public.

 

Ideally, perhaps. Realistically, such revelations could have negative consequences as well (apart from the political ones), and as such deemed issues of national security. I think it's hard to make generalizations on this, at least the sort that can be reasonably applied.

On 9/17/2020 at 11:23 AM, Mick501 said:

Only a fool would argue that releasing 250000 classified documents  would not potentially endanger lives.   There are simply far too many documents to know what is in them, and the wholesale release was, at best, reckless endangerment of lives.  It will never be known whether people actually died or were tortured as a result, but it is more likely than not.  It is known that terrorist organisations had teams poring over the leaked data.

 

Julian Assange has only ever acted in his own interest, with "public interest" a convenient justification.  It remains to be seen the exact roll he played in the stealing of the documents, which would constitute a crime in any country.  It's been alleged he was also complicit in that crime with Manning.  It is not in the public interest to put people's lives at risk.

Assange doesn’t have any qualification when it comes to classified material assessment. So no matter what he released it’s reckless as he was judge, jury and executioner when it came to these materials.

 

While I believe Edward Snowden deserves a full pardon I’m not so sure about Assange.

Generally, documents marked "Secret" are seemed to protect a person, "Top Secret" is more about national security.

 

Releasing these sort of documents without review is simply reckless and stupid