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

[tokachinter]

14 hours ago, Mick501 said:

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.

Thanks for keeping an open mind on the subject. As I understood it, there was continual communication with the State Department during the redaction process, not after it. I agree with you that it is impossible for him to know if any informants were harmed. Remember though these were military logs of actions taken/observed months and years before their eventual release. Eg. It is plausible that an Iraqi terrorist upon reading a name that didn't get redacted, recalled seeing the named acquaintance speaking with U.S. soldiers, put two and two together and then decided to attack him - plausible but improbable. Equally, that person could have come to harm for any number of other reasons (being an informer in a war zone) and so it would be difficult to attribute his death/disappearance to Wikileaks' online data release.  The point is that the Prosecutors in both Manning's and Assange's hearings were unable to identify or even quantify anyone who was harmed, thus rendering their argument null and void.      

[Mick501]

4 hours ago, tokachinter said:

Thanks for keeping an open mind on the subject. As I understood it, there was continual communication with the State Department during the redaction process, not after it. I agree with you that it is impossible for him to know if any informants were harmed. Remember though these were military logs of actions taken/observed months and years before their eventual release. Eg. It is plausible that an Iraqi terrorist upon reading a name that didn't get redacted, recalled seeing the named acquaintance speaking with U.S. soldiers, put two and two together and then decided to attack him - plausible but improbable. Equally, that person could have come to harm for any number of other reasons (being an informer in a war zone) and so it would be difficult to attribute his death/disappearance to Wikileaks' online data release.  The point is that the Prosecutors in both Manning's and Assange's hearings were unable to identify or even quantify anyone who was harmed, thus rendering their argument null and void.      

Largely agreed.  I'm not sure of the specific elements of the offence of reckless endangerment.   Just from the title it seems like it would normally be used after someone has been hurt or killed, but is also open for acts so reckless that such an outcome is likely.  Burden is squarely on the shoulders of the US government to show this to be the case.  

 

It it is only an extradition hearing so they've probably only released sufficient information to attempt satisfy the British courts that there would be an offence, had the actions occurred towards the British government (part of granting an extradition would require this to be proved).  They possibly would not want to draw atention to specific documents at this stage if they do not have to, as there potentially may still be people at risk, or for other reasons.  But you have certainly made me re-think on this one.

[Mick501]

On 4 October 2020 at 4:48 PM, Sujo said:

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

The point for extradition is that it must be considered an offence "had" the alleged offences occurred in the country from whom extradition is sought.  It was never suggested he broke laws in Australia.  His conduct was directed towards the US.  Commonwealth Criminal Code s474 crestes offences for hacking and similar conduct, so it most certainly would be an offence in Australia, had his actions been directed towards Australia (assuming the allegations are true, which is another issue entirely).

 

article you linked hasn't got any relevance to the actual discussion.

[Mick501]

On 6 October 2020 at 12:04 PM, tokachinter said:

Thanks for keeping an open mind on the subject. As I understood it, there was continual communication with the State Department during the redaction process, not after it. I agree with you that it is impossible for him to know if any informants were harmed. Remember though these were military logs of actions taken/observed months and years before their eventual release. Eg. It is plausible that an Iraqi terrorist upon reading a name that didn't get redacted, recalled seeing the named acquaintance speaking with U.S. soldiers, put two and two together and then decided to attack him - plausible but improbable. Equally, that person could have come to harm for any number of other reasons (being an informer in a war zone) and so it would be difficult to attribute his death/disappearance to Wikileaks' online data release.  The point is that the Prosecutors in both Manning's and Assange's hearings were unable to identify or even quantify anyone who was harmed, thus rendering their argument null and void.      

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

 

 

this is an article published much closer to the date of Wikileaks releasing material, with various sources critical that it was unredacted and reckless.  

 

Surprising that this point is still in conflict.  Seems like it should be a question that can be easily demonstrated one way or the other.  I'm assuming the court in England only needs to be satisfied on the balance of probability that the conduct would constitute an offence had it occurred towards England.  We probably will only hear the full case of the prosecution if/when he is extradited and goes to trial in the US, where it needs to be proved to a much higher standard.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Mick501

[tokachinter]

14 hours ago, Mick501 said:

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

 

 

this is an article published much closer to the date of Wikileaks releasing material, with various sources critical that it was unredacted and reckless.  

 

Surprising that this point is still in conflict.  Seems like it should be a question that can be easily demonstrated one way or the other.  I'm assuming the court in England only needs to be satisfied on the balance of probability that the conduct would constitute an offence had it occurred towards England.  We probably will only hear the full case of the prosecution if/when he is extradited and goes to trial in the US, where it needs to be proved to a much higher standard.

Hi Mick, Thanks for the link to the Guardian article. While largely factual, it was written as a defence of two of its journalists who published a book (unauthorised by Wikileaks), which disclosed a password to Wikileaks' trove of unredacted files that were placed on a temporary website due to internet attacks on Wikileaks' server (not sure how they claim it was inadvertent?!). The Guardian twists the story to say it was a temporary password. They neglect to say that one of the journalists continually begged Assange for the password, then used it as tool for revenge after he refused to cooperate with them over the biographical book. In short, it was all about a book deal (=money)!

Also, please note the timeline; Wikileaks and media partners, including the Guardian had been releasing redacted files since December 2010, the book was published in February 2011, the password in it was used by website Cryptome and others over the ensuing six months to release all the unredacted files on to the Internet. According to Assange, he acted in the interests of informants, by then in September 2011, releasing the trove on Wikileaks' own website. His reasoning was that, with the cat already out of the bag, the best course of action was to spread the info further so that informants themselves might learn that they had been outed and take appropriate action. Several sworn testimonies, aside from the German journalist's that I linked before testified that Assange was rigorous in the redacting process out of concern for informants' safety. P.S. I have no doubt that U.S. Government Prosecutors would add extra charges if Assange was extradited there. The 1917 Espionage Act is that wide reaching that anyone in possession of 'classified' information (N.B. not just 'secret' or 'top secret') is liable for prosecution. So far, journalists and publishers have been protected against it by the First Amendment, but who knows in the future?         

[Mick501]

3 hours ago, tokachinter said:

Hi Mick, Thanks for the link to the Guardian article. While largely factual, it was written as a defence of two of its journalists who published a book (unauthorised by Wikileaks), which disclosed a password to Wikileaks' trove of unredacted files that were placed on a temporary website due to internet attacks on Wikileaks' server (not sure how they claim it was inadvertent?!). The Guardian twists the story to say it was a temporary password. They neglect to say that one of the journalists continually begged Assange for the password, then used it as tool for revenge after he refused to cooperate with them over the biographical book. In short, it was all about a book deal (=money)!

Also, please note the timeline; Wikileaks and media partners, including the Guardian had been releasing redacted files since December 2010, the book was published in February 2011, the password in it was used by website Cryptome and others over the ensuing six months to release all the unredacted files on to the Internet. According to Assange, he acted in the interests of informants, by then in September 2011, releasing the trove on Wikileaks' own website. His reasoning was that, with the cat already out of the bag, the best course of action was to spread the info further so that informants themselves might learn that they had been outed and take appropriate action. Several sworn testimonies, aside from the German journalist's that I linked before testified that Assange was rigorous in the redacting process out of concern for informants' safety. P.S. I have no doubt that U.S. Government Prosecutors would add extra charges if Assange was extradited there. The 1917 Espionage Act is that wide reaching that anyone in possession of 'classified' information (N.B. not just 'secret' or 'top secret') is liable for prosecution. So far, journalists and publishers have been protected against it by the First Amendment, but who knows in the future?         

Think this needs to go down as a point in dispute.  Lots of he said, she said, when it seems that clarity should be quite straight forward.  It would be as simple as the prosecution producing one or more unredacted documents to prove their case.  Their current goal is to secure extradition, not to run a trial, so they would try to keep that process as straight forward as possible without swamping the court with information they consider unnecessary.  

 

If if he does go back to the US he would obviously claim protection by the shield law. Whether he can be classed as a journalist is another matter for debate. 

[Sujo]

23 hours ago, Mick501 said:

The point for extradition is that it must be considered an offence "had" the alleged offences occurred in the country from whom extradition is sought.  It was never suggested he broke laws in Australia.  His conduct was directed towards the US.  Commonwealth Criminal Code s474 crestes offences for hacking and similar conduct, so it most certainly would be an offence in Australia, had his actions been directed towards Australia (assuming the allegations are true, which is another issue entirely).

 

article you linked hasn't got any relevance to the actual discussion.

It was a reply to a post which stated its an offence in all western democracies. Not on point to what assange is facing in the UK

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

It was a reply to a post which stated its an offence in all western democracies. Not on point to what assange is facing in the UK

Hacking is an offence in all western democracies.  Fortunately (or maybe not) failure to grasp basic concepts that have been repeatedly explained, is not.