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

[Mick501]

On 18 September 2020 at 11:31 AM, Sujo said:

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

Agree in principle, but there would certainly be occasions where it isn't in the public interest to immediately publicise these things.  And you don't want to be publicly naming and shaming soldiers prior to some sort of enquiry and adverse finding.

[tokachinter]

On 9/19/2020 at 10:55 PM, Mick501 said:

Agree in principle, but there would certainly be occasions where it isn't in the public interest to immediately publicise these things.  And you don't want to be publicly naming and shaming soldiers prior to some sort of enquiry and adverse finding.

Agreed. Please read the several sworn witness testimonies from the hearing as to how 'anal' Julian was in redacting names 'so no one will be harmed'. All the while he was being pressured by his 'partners' in the war logs' release (The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel & one other I can't remember) to rush the release. He did an all-nighter in the offices of the Guardian to meet their next day deadline!  

[bendejo]

On 9/18/2020 at 12:54 AM, FlyingThai said:

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.

If Biden becomes POTUS it'll be bad news for Snowden, Susan Rice has got it in for him, and BAD!

 

 

[tokachinter]

Lots written about the possible harm caused to people by the release of the 'war logs'. How about the lives saved by their release? Case#1 Information released on the drone bombing of whole villages in the autonomous region of Pakistan, resulted in a protest from that Government, which resulted in a policy change by the U.S. military, which curtailed their usage there. 

[Mick501]

49 minutes ago, tokachinter said:

Agreed. Please read the several sworn witness testimonies from the hearing as to how 'anal' Julian was in redacting names 'so no one will be harmed'. All the while he was being pressured by his 'partners' in the war logs' release (The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel & one other I can't remember) to rush the release. He did an all-nighter in the offices of the Guardian to meet their next day deadline!  

Please link.  These are left wing publications, so one would expect isolated examples of redaction to be extrapolated across the 250000 documents.   I don't know how many people were working with Assange on this, but probably just one or two.  Would take years to redact every document.  If you can demonstrate that every document was redacted, I will admit I was wrong.

[Rancid]

Assange released the truth, and those that harbor lies to hide their malfeasance didn't like it. History is full of those condemned for telling the truth, sadly there are always those that benefit or profit from the lies.

 

Whatever fate befalls Assange those that prosecute him will not be treated well by history. What is happening is wrong in any definition of morality and justice, is the West now no better than the police state Nazis it fought so long ago.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Please link.  These are left wing publications, so one would expect isolated examples of redaction to be extrapolated across the 250000 documents.   I don't know how many people were working with Assange on this, but probably just one or two.  Would take years to redact every document.  If you can demonstrate that every document was redacted, I will admit I was wrong.

Der Spiegel is far from left wing, attempting to put this whole Assange saga into left and right is simply wrong.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

Assange released the truth, and those that harbor lies to hide their malfeasance didn't like it. History is full of those condemned for telling the truth, sadly there are always those that benefit or profit from the lies.

 

Whatever fate befalls Assange those that prosecute him will not be treated well by history. What is happening is wrong in any definition of morality and justice, is the West now no better than the police state Nazis it fought so long ago.

 

You have zero idea how history would 'treat' anyone. Or even if they'll make it to the status of footnote. In historical terms, most current affairs are dust in the wind.

 

That you try to make some pompous over-reaching conclusion statements, coupled with the expected tired moralizing, does not make your case - or even indicate that you have one.

 

Over-the-top Nazi references do not contribute to the sense that your grasp of history is built on solid foundations.

[Pilotman]

The "public interest" is not always in "the National interest".  People have got to get accustomed to the fact that they don't have an absolute right to know everything that the State does on their behalf, if they want the 'State' to keep them safe. Assange and his deluded cohort are a threat to democracy, the Military and to all those brave operatives who operate under cover to ensure our safety.  He is also a proven sexual predator, a bully and a coward. I hope that he is extradited to the US and that they lock him up forever.  

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

The "public interest" is not always in "the National interest".  People have got to get accustomed to the fact that they don't have an absolute right to know everything that the State does on their behalf, if they want the 'State' to keep them safe. Assange and his deluded cohort are a threat to democracy, the Military and to all those brave operatives who operate under cover to ensure our safety.  He is also a proven sexual predator, a bully and a coward. I hope that he is extradited to the US and that they lock him up forever.  

The is nothing proving he is sexual predator. He was only wanted for questioning for not using a condom during consensual sex.

 

The only thing that assange could have done wrong is to help someone hack or get the docs. Publishing the docs by itself is not a crime otherwise der spiege and the guardian etc would also be charged as they published them.

 

There was nothing brave in that video where they killed the journalists.

[Pilotman]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The is nothing proving he is sexual predator. He was only wanted for questioning for not using a condom during consensual sex.

 

The only thing that assange could have done wrong is to help someone hack or get the docs. Publishing the docs by itself is not a crime otherwise der spiege and the guardian etc would also be charged as they published them.

 

There was nothing brave in that video where they killed the journalists.

Believe what you will. as you are entitled to do. Fortunately in my view, the Authorities in various countries do not share your opinion. The man is screwed and will be crucified and I for one will not be shedding any tears for him.  

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Believe what you will. as you are entitled to do. Fortunately in my view, the Authorities in various countries do not share your opinion. The man is screwed and will be crucified and I for one will not be shedding any tears for him.  

Well if you believe it post a link to show he is a proven sexual predator.

 

I may be wrong bit i dont think he is charged with publishing, but with helping manning to get the docs. Thats where he may be in trouble, bit manning is refusing to play along with authorities on that issue.

 

You will also find that assanges own country, australia already stated he has done nothing wrong under aussie law so coyld not charge him. So thats his own country that doesnt agree with you.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Sujo

[Mick501]

54 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Der Spiegel is far from left wing, attempting to put this whole Assange saga into left and right is simply wrong.

O link proof that all documents were redacted.  Should be very easy to prove if it happened that way.  It is certainly part of the case against Assange that they were not.

[Mick501]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well if you believe it post a link to show he is a proven sexual predator.

 

I may be wrong bit i dont think he is charged with publishing, but with helping manning to get the docs. Thats where he may be in trouble, bit manning is refusing to play along with authorities on that issue.

 

You will also find that assanges own country, australia already stated he has done nothing wrong under aussie law so coyld not charge him. So thats his own country that doesnt agree with you.

The sexual claims were ridiculous.  

 

There will not be a single published government source in Australia saying the allegations  are not an offence were they committed in Australia.  They are, and likely would be in every Western country.  The allegations amount to data hacking. In fact, the national broadcaster (ABC) recently lost a high court challenge to prevent the information obtained on a search warrant in a similar case being used. 

 

Many people support Assange and hold personal views that he should be protected as a journalist.  Australian law offers no such protection.  Any claims to the contrary are wrong.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

O link proof that all documents were redacted.  Should be very easy to prove if it happened that way.  It is certainly part of the case against Assange that they were not.

Nothing at all to do with my post.

[Mick501]

I'm going back to the original post, which your post had nothing at all to do with.   Why did you even bother piping up?  Who knows what goes on in the heads of some of these leftie fanatics.

[Sujo]

46 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

The sexual claims were ridiculous.  

 

There will not be a single published government source in Australia saying the allegations  are not an offence were they committed in Australia.  They are, and likely would be in every Western country.  The allegations amount to data hacking. In fact, the national broadcaster (ABC) recently lost a high court challenge to prevent the information obtained on a search warrant in a similar case being used. 

 

Many people support Assange and hold personal views that he should be protected as a journalist.  Australian law offers no such protection.  Any claims to the contrary are wrong.

Which is not what i said.

 

The oz govt did indeed say he has broken no australian law and cannot be charged.

[Sujo]

Oz pm had to walk back her statement that what assange did was illegal after federal police could find no criminal offence.

 

Oz does not have freedom of speech in its constitution but does have it in legislation. The abc issue is not the same issue involving assange, even the federal police acknowledge that.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-laws-broken-police-tell-pm-20101217-190vj.html

Edited October 4, 2020 by Sujo

[Sujo]

The abc high court decision was nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Thats because the court had previously already confirmed it is an implied right.

 

What was argued was the validity of the warrant. Totally seperate matter.

[olfu]

_{Assange is political prisoner and its normal for all dictatorships to silence any dissent.}

_{...move along nothing to see here.}

[Sujo]

He should be on safe grounds with the publishing charges, thats just a throw enough mud charges to hope something sticks. Too many ramifications on press freedom.

 

His issue is if its proved he assisted manning in obtaining that info. Manning refuses to give evidence on that. But thats his real issue.

[tokachinter]

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Please link.  These are left wing publications, so one would expect isolated examples of redaction to be extrapolated across the 250000 documents.   I don't know how many people were working with Assange on this, but probably just one or two.  Would take years to redact every document.  If you can demonstrate that every document was redacted, I will admit I was wrong.

No need to admit you are wrong. I think 'misinformed' is more appropriate and who can blame you, as there has been a very successful smear campaign against Assange and Wikileaks! Likewise, there has been very little factual reporting on this very significant (for journalism) extradition hearing. I urge you to read the hearing transcripts and undertake your own research to find out what is going on.              Anyway, here is a link to the 390,000 documents (only the so-called Iraq War Logs, so nothing about Afghanistan there) https://wardiaries.wikileaks.org/  Open any random doc and you will likely see %%%% , which indicates redacted words that would have identified an informant or similar person at risk of reprisal if their identity became known.  The Wikileaks team used computer software to identify and redact not only individual names but locality names that could aid someone in identifying such individuals. I don't know how many staff then proofread these docs, though I do know the process took around six months. Even then, some names may have slipped through. By way of comparison you can go to the Cryptome website where you can still find the same docs in unredacted form! Finally, at Chelsea Manning's trial a U.S. Military General (name ?) admitted that they had no record of anyone harmed by the Wikileaks' release. Again, during the current hearing the U.S. Government Prosecutor, James Lewis QC was unable to detail a single instance of an informant being harmed due to the release.

[from the home of CC]

bye bye..

[Pilotman]

hate to state the obvious, but he is not in Australia, more the pity for him. He is in a jurisdictional that does think he committed a crime and he will likely be extradited to a jurisdiction that thinks he is what he is, a low life, ego driven, vain and dangerous criminal.  Shame for him. good for the rest of us. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Pilotman

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I'm going back to the original post, which your post had nothing at all to do with.   Why did you even bother piping up?  Who knows what goes on in the heads of some of these leftie fanatics.

So you make nonsense claims, and when called out 'go back to the original post'. The claims are still nonsense.

[herfiehandbag]

On 9/17/2020 at 10:55 AM, Caldera said:

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

He has been detained for the duration of the extradition hearings because last time he was granted bail he jumped bail and took shelter in the Ecuadorean Embassy.  Nothing flimsy at all about refusing him bail - entirely of his own making.

[Mick501]

17 hours ago, tokachinter said:

No need to admit you are wrong. I think 'misinformed' is more appropriate and who can blame you, as there has been a very successful smear campaign against Assange and Wikileaks! Likewise, there has been very little factual reporting on this very significant (for journalism) extradition hearing. I urge you to read the hearing transcripts and undertake your own research to find out what is going on.              Anyway, here is a link to the 390,000 documents (only the so-called Iraq War Logs, so nothing about Afghanistan there) https://wardiaries.wikileaks.org/  Open any random doc and you will likely see %%%% , which indicates redacted words that would have identified an informant or similar person at risk of reprisal if their identity became known.  The Wikileaks team used computer software to identify and redact not only individual names but locality names that could aid someone in identifying such individuals. I don't know how many staff then proofread these docs, though I do know the process took around six months. Even then, some names may have slipped through. By way of comparison you can go to the Cryptome website where you can still find the same docs in unredacted form! Finally, at Chelsea Manning's trial a U.S. Military General (name ?) admitted that they had no record of anyone harmed by the Wikileaks' release. Again, during the current hearing the U.S. Government Prosecutor, James Lewis QC was unable to detail a single instance of an informant being harmed due to the release.

Interesting information.  If true, it would seem to be a complete defence against allegations that he recklessly endangered people. Obviously very difficult to verify as 10 years has passed, and looking at the documents will not provide information as to when redaction occurred.  But will do more research as you suggest.  It would still leave the conspiracy to hack allegation as an open question, but if it is true would raise doubts about the integrity of the prosecution.

[Sujo]

17 hours ago, Pilotman said:

hate to state the obvious, but he is not in Australia, more the pity for him. He is in a jurisdictional that does think he committed a crime and he will likely be extradited to a jurisdiction that thinks he is what he is, a low life, ego driven, vain and dangerous criminal.  Shame for him. good for the rest of us. 

What anyone thinks of him is irrelevent. Only whether he broke the law.

 

You previously referred to him as a proven sexual predator. I asked you for a link proving it. Nothing.

 

He is also not a dangerous criminal, perhaps you could provide a link.

[tokachinter]

8 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Interesting information.  If true, it would seem to be a complete defence against allegations that he recklessly endangered people. Obviously very difficult to verify as 10 years has passed, and looking at the documents will not provide information as to when redaction occurred.  But will do more research as you suggest.  It would still leave the conspiracy to hack allegation as an open question, but if it is true would raise doubts about the integrity of the prosecution.

Here is one link that may help : https://assangecourt.report/september-16-morning On this day, German journalist, John Goetz gave sworn testimony about the redaction process. What might surprise is that Assange et al were in regular contact with the U.S. State Department who were telling them page numbers and references that they would like redacted and Wikileaks was complying !  Also, if you read through the court reports you will see that the conspiracy to hack allegation is on pretty shaky ground, mainly because Chelsea Manning already had access to all the released 'classified' documents due to her position. The Prosecution submitted a few lines of chat where she asked for advice from someone who may be Assange to assist in cracking a password that would lead to an intranet that she was not authorised to access. Turns out it is unhackable according to a former military IT specialist who gave evidence at the hearing.

[Mick501]

44 minutes ago, tokachinter said:

Here is one link that may help : https://assangecourt.report/september-16-morning On this day, German journalist, John Goetz gave sworn testimony about the redaction process. What might surprise is that Assange et al were in regular contact with the U.S. State Department who were telling them page numbers and references that they would like redacted and Wikileaks was complying !  Also, if you read through the court reports you will see that the conspiracy to hack allegation is on pretty shaky ground, mainly because Chelsea Manning already had access to all the released 'classified' documents due to her position. The Prosecution submitted a few lines of chat where she asked for advice from someone who may be Assange to assist in cracking a password that would lead to an intranet that she was not authorised to access. Turns out it is unhackable according to a former military IT specialist who gave evidence at the hearing.

Thanks for the link.  Not sure that journo contributes much towards exonerating Assange.  He describes the redaction process as robust, and yet after publication the State Department are asking for names to be removed.  Can't have been as robust as he likes to think.  The damage is already done as soon as they are published as no doubt interested parties would save everything immediately.  Even with a large team it would take the STate department months to trawl through everything.  They seem to be requesting take downs as they identify each issue.

 

 As for the claim that he does not know of anyone who was harmed, that's kind of laughable. Probably isn't possible to know an answer, but in my view, if there were names of sources published then that's reckless endangerment.  The onus should of course be on the prosecuting body to prove the existence and unredacted publication of such documents.

 

Agreed the computer hacking seems shaky.