Thread by @couragefound

Defense: Allegation that Assange put people knowingly at risk, which the Prosecution argues justifies separate treatment under the First Amendment, is “obviously false” based on publicly available information - and that is part of the abuse of process of these proceedings.

One can accurately describe the Prosecution allegations as “lies, lies and more lies”.

Defence now outlining chronology of Manning accessing the material disclosed to WikiLeaks. “The cables had clear public interest”, showing the US spying on US diplomats, previously denied US drone strikes in Yemen, CIA involvement in drones strikes, & used in human rights courts

It was clear Manning took the view it was necessary, in her view, to share the material.

SIPRNet was available to thousands of people within US and Chelsea Manning talks about the level of sensitivity and why, as set out in her evidence in her criminal prosecution in the US, she didn’t think this material would do harm to the US.

As is clear, Manning had access to this material already. The US government already knew that that database required no account to access, log in or password to access.

US govt claims Manning tried to anonymize via hash password cracking — but using the terminal to log into the NETCentric database using a different user account would & could have made absolutely no difference to Ms Manning’s anonymity. Usage is tracked by IP address not logins

Defence explaining how WikiLeaks was designed to be a “wiki” – from its “About” page – shares same theory as Wikipedia that allows democratic access to allow anyone to be an author. The Most Wanted List was a collaborative document – & it changed, w/ contributions from the public

The Most Wanted List had absolutely nothing to do with the Cables. The notion that they were uploaded to wikileaks as a result of Manning had seen the list (even if that was a sound assumption to make), is unsustainable.

Defence: “Based on nothing”, there is an allegation from the USG that JA had solicited the release of the cables. But it is palpably false: the Most Wanted List did not include the cables.

Allegation of course is that Assange knew there were sensitive names in the document and knowingly put those lives at risk. Ms Manning’s take on all of this was that these were non-sensitive documents from the beginning.

She explains that genuinely sensitive material are noted not for distribution. All materials on SIPRNet were “deemed appropriate for release to a wide number of individuals.” 1000s had access. Manning: “made sense to me” given the vast majority of cables were not classified

What the US knows is that neither JA nor WikiLeaks – having received these materials in April 2010 - rushed to publish them. What the world knows instead is that WL entered into a partnership with a series of MSM orgs in order to understand & deal responsibly w/ these materials

Defence refers to the USG extradition request which only sees fit to tell the judge that “some cables” were redacted from November and then unredacted material in September 2011. Defence will set out the true position, which everyone knows, about the redaction process.

Despite US claiming WikiLeaks & JA were reckless as to harm, USG knows they redacted & participated in this process. As we see from John Goetz evidence, redaction process involved US State Dept feeding in suggestions for redactions to the media partnership, which WL implemented.

Knowing the US was itself involved in the redaction process, can it be said that the USG request for extradition is a fair and accurate representation of the facts?

John Goetz (testimony will show): “We requested WikiLeaks not publish the name, and the name was not published”.

The USG knows that WikiLeaks was responsibly managing the material. WikiLeaks had clearly stipulated procedures in their agreements with media partners with guidelines for data handling & directions from Wikileaks about redacting the names of sensitive sources and people at risk

So the notion from the USG that JA knowingly put lives at risk is a provably false allegations and the USG knew it when making this request. The bare allegation made in the request was that the unredacted release was knowingly reckless.

The evidence will show, far from being a reckless, unredacted release, the world knows, every reporter knows and the USG knows is what actually occurred is that one of the media partners published a book in 2011 which published the password to the unredacted materials in a book..

..which enabled the world to publish those unredacted materials and they circulated on the internet on other websites, none of whom have been prosecuted, some of which are US based, all of which published first and some still remain.

The notion that Assange deliberately put lives at risk by dumping unredacted cables is knowingly inaccurate.

Immediately after the controlled publications began, WL came under a “cyberattack”, in particular in relation to Cablegate region of the WikiLeaks’ site. The website was recovered briefly and then went offline and later resulted in DDNS terminating WikiLeaks service on their site

The response to which, to prevent the denial of access to the redacted cables site, was to mirror the site in a number of locations to prevent a cyberattack from disabling the publication of the redacted materials.

The mirror was to ensure the continued publication of the redacted materials. Contained in it was the encrypted file of the unredacted materials. The next thing that happened was that David Leigh, published this book in February 2011.

On p 135 you can see the title to the chapter is the password. If there was any doubt about it, the index at p 322 tells you that that is the password.

Defence needs to point it out to Prosecution, who laughs incredulously.

It took some time after the publication of the password to put 2 and 2 together. On 25 August 2011, the German publication Der Freitag started reporting that the password was public and it had access to the encrypted file because it had been mirrored.

That day, Assange and Sarah Harrison telephoned the US State Department warning them about what was about to happen. There is a transcript – they talk in terms of an emergency about to happen; they have intelligence they are about to be put on the web unredacted, not by WikiLeaks

They say this is the emergency line, this is a matter of “great urgency”, “we need to communicate with [Clinton’s] staff right now”. They were told to call back in a few hours.

They also tried to get a hold of the US ambassador in the UK. JA and Harrison were trying to explain that the “cables were about to be dumped online by someone else” and ask about harm minimisation process and whether it is complete or can be escalated.

Mr Assange says “we don’t understand why you don’t see the urgency of this…unless we do something about it people’s lives are being put at risk”

“The cat was forever out of the bag”. Professor Grothoff (whose given testimony) then emails Wikileaks who sprang into action and released a statement within 20 minutes and within an hour they were on other websites, including Cryptome.

Defence makes clear that the existence of the encrypted unredacted file was available online through a mirror site after cyberattacks on WL website in Dec. 2010, but was inaccessible without a password. The password is then published by David Leigh in his book in February 2011.

Der Freitag discovered the fact that David Leigh had published the password to the file in his book and was able to access the unredacted cables. JA had called Freitag asking them not to publish and warning of the risk to sources. Freitag publishes anyway.

It is then published online by Cryptome, a website in the US. As Prof Grothoff says, “the cat is out of the bag”.

Defence takes us back to the USG request. USG says WikiLeaks recklessly published the unredacted data and put lives at risk in relation to the publication of the unredacted cables.

The true picture – you [judge] will have to determine in due course whether it is fair, proper & accurate that the USG knowing this chronology, to allege in documents submitted to you that JA knowingly put lives at risk by deciding to publish the full unredacted cache of cables.

'It is difficult to think of a more stark example of an extradition request so clearly misrepresents the facts and so squarely raises your jurisdiction to dismiss it as an abuse of process. The allegations made are knowingly wrong.'

Defence is now addressing Guantanamo Files. Manning came across these while looking into another Iraqi investigation about individuals she was worried who might also end up in Guantanamo...

...and says that she found the files “disturbing” and went on to download them and sent them to Wikileaks. Defence points out they were not on the Most Wanted List.

Defence explains that we know that Manning had existing access to the Guantanamo detainee reports and did not require a username, user account or password for Manning to be able to access this material.

Insofar as it was tracked, this was through the IP address of the person accessing it. Defense takes judge's point as to whether Manning knew about the IP trail, but she must have known she didn't need a user account to do it or a password or a username.

“So what is she doing, on the government’s case and the allegation it makes to you, trying to decrypt her way into another user account to gain “anonymous access” to these briefs?” There is no logical reason why anyone would do that.

Defence explains what the magistrate has not been told on the US case is that access to the material for Manning did not require a username or password. This is not explained by the USG request.

The US simply makes a bare allegation that the decryption conversation was to gain access to these materials. “Wrong, wrong, wrong”.

Defence now turns to the Rules of Engagement, which were copied by her on 15 February and uploaded to WikiLeaks on 21 February – all long before the hashcode conversation in March and you know that she already had access to the material so didn't need help accessing it.

Defence clarifies for the court that Manning using a hashcode may well constitute unauthorised access but that it doesn’t relate to any of the materials to which this case and the indictment.

Manning already had access to this material, nor was it to anonymise her access to the material published by WikiLeaks. Manning was obviously trying to gain unauthorised access to something for some ends...

...but the evidence in the court martial showed that she was concerned about uploading software to play videogames and music. But the USG takes that and tries to transpose it to the access of the materials given to WikiLeaks.

It doesn’t work: and the USG is knowingly misrepresenting the hash value activity to the materials disclosed to WikiLeaks.

“Is the US government request a fair and accurate and proper description of the known facts? The answer is clearly no.” - Mark Summers QC

Defence now turns to the Iraq Rules of Engagement for 2007-2009, part of one of the things listed in the Most Wanted List. What we know from the request is that Ms Manning uploaded part of it.

The list asks for 2007, 2008 and 2009. She doesn’t upload 2008 and 2009, but she does upload 2006 – which they don’t want – but it includes 2007. She doesn’t access anything from Afghanistan.

Based on that – some of what they do want, some of what they don’t want, the USG claims Assange was soliciting.

You [judge] will have to ask yourself whether there is a much more obvious, realistic, accurate and fair understanding of why Manning uploaded the 2007 Rules of Engagement. Bearing in mind, there is no evidence that Chelsea Manning ever saw the Most Wanted List.

Defence points out the context in which Chelsea Manning chose to disclose the Rules of Engaegment in. 2007. Bearing in mind, that Manning had given WikiLeaks the Collateral Murder video – a “ genuinely chilling” video of “obvious public interest”...

...which shows Reuters journalists being killed by US forces in Iraq, where FOIA requests for the video had been refused – and knowing all of this, Manning decided that her conscience required her to make public this horrific video. That is her testimony in the earlier US case.

Defence explains how Manning explains in the evidence she gave in the US case against us that she searched for the applicable Rules of Engagement at the time of the video...

...so that the world could assess the US assertions that that engagement by that helicopter gunship had complied with the US's own then-current rules of engagement.

This is relevant to the USG case that Assange had solicited material, showing that Manning was motivated herself to select the material she then chose to disclose: she had chosen the Collateral Murder, and rules of engagement were selected by Manning.

What a fair and proper extradition request would have told you was that the rules of engagement were downloaded to explain the video, not that it was dictated by the Most Wanted List.

It is misleading for the USG to allege that Manning was acting in response to the Most Wanted List. It is through this allegation that the US impugns Mr Assange into the underlying data disclosure by Manning.

What the US doesn’t explain is that The Rules of Engagement were disclosed in the context of the Collateral Murder video to explain that it was a war crime.

Defence explains how the identification of access of the materials Manning was accessing was by IP address, and that users were not required to have a password account to access the material that was ultimately downloaded and shared with WikiLeaks.

This was uncontested evidence in the US proceedings. Manning accessed the material without a username, so there was no need for her to log in as anyone else and that would not have protected her identity.

Defence moves to the Iraq and Afghan materials which were accessed from CIDNE (I and A) which were accessible to Manning via the SIPRNet, like thousands of others people, and accessed them – again – using interlink.

They were copied at some point before 8 January 2010 and uploaded on 3 February 2010 to WikiLeaks.

These materials disclosed the covering up of civilian casualties, targeted killings, including deaths of women and children, US complicity in Iraqi mistreatment of detainees and so on. Ms Manning took the view that her conscience required her to disclose this material.

Is it fair & accurate to describe these as having been solicited by JA? No, because they are not on it. Is it fair accurate to ascribe the hash value decrypting conversation to these materials? You now know that these were uploaded long before that conversation took place

Could she have used that process to access it anonymously? Nothing in that conversation could conceivably afford anonymous access to interlink. It is logically impossible – but you wouldn't know that from the extradition request.

Defence takes the court to the evidence in chief of Joshua Ehresman from July 2013. He is referring to the Sigacts – “there is nothing top secret?" “no sir”. “not names sir”

He talks about the becoming dated, historical records -- "and after the SigActs were posted online did you continue to use SigActs?" “yes, sir because they are historical”. “Did it change the way you used it after it was disclosed by Wikileaks?" “No sir”

Defence goes to Captain Lim evidence talking about the CIDNE and Sigacts databases in the Manning proceedings. He agrees it is a historical document because it is what happened in the past.

Names would only be included in the document by error. He explains that the only way for name to end up in the documents is if someone had arrested another person’s source.

You might think this is the sort of thing that you should have been told, given you've been told that JA deliberately put lives at risk. You have a set of data inherently unlikely to contain the sort of information that is alleged,he had been told by Manning it had been sanitised

In June 2010, WikiLeaks set up a media partnership to properly consider and responsibly publish these materials. It should be called “belt and braces” approach to safety. Turning to Goetz evidence.

Defence points out that WikiLeaks delayed publication of 15,000 documents. Der Speigel and Guardian published before WikiLeaks.

On Iraq, WikIeaks had asked for more time to publish. In fact, that WikiLeaks wanted more time bothered some members of the cooperation. Process for redaction of Iraq data changed and replaced all names with blanks or X.

Goetz evidence is that *WikiLeaks* was criticised for releasing less information than the Pentagon did in response to FOIA requests.

Back to Chelsea Manning & access: Defence then explains that the evidence in the Manning case is littered with references to soldiers making unauthorised access to be able to watch movies and play games.

Defence wanted all of the computers in the room kept for analysis because there was evidence in the case from all of the people who are listed there who have testified to the practice of members of its unit having on their computers unauthorised access to movies and games.

Captain Lim, Captain Fulton – who actually requested Ms Manning put the software on Fulton's computer – and other prosecution witnesses. The evidence of this unauthorised and elicit practice was covered in the media.

Defence: we know from the evidence in the Manning trial that she was seen as the person to turn to for technical assistance in cracking passwords for access to film and music.

Magistrate: her colleagues saw her as a technical expert? Have you adduced the evidence to support that?

Defence gives several examples from Manning trial, colleagues asking her for computer help

Defence now turns to case law on abuse of process:

"Is the indictment a fair & accurate description of the facts? If you feed the facts you establish into the dual criminality analysis & determine the acts alleged do not amount to a crime, then the extradition request must fail"

Defence explains the case law on abuse says that we look at the core facts and see whether the facts established meet the dual criminality test (to extradite to the US for a US crime, the offence must also be a crime in the UK)

We say evidence which comes from the Prosecution's own witnesses, evidence that the USG has agreed in different proceedings (Manning’s trial) is all evidence that is beyond legitimate dispute. It shows you the true facts, which are a very long way from what is in the USG request.

Is it material? Of course it is, if you feed the true facts, the false password cracking, the false accusation of solicitation and false allegation of deliberate recklessness, and feed it into the dual criminality machine, you do not get a crime under US law...

...and most importantly, you don’t get a crime under UK law. And that is why the abuse jurisdiction is engaged here.

Prosecution does not accept that the court’s jurisdiction is engaged. Says states the UK has established relations w/ shouldn’t have to respond to abuse allegations. Says defence cannot put forward innuendo/speculation & ask the court to find that as a fact

Prosecution questions why it is relevant or abusive that he was granted diplomatic status on the same day that the US later issued the indictment. UK say the grant of asylum was a device and would never have protected him from facing UK legal process.

US gov: The claim about ratcheting up the charges to defeat the Swedish request is defeated by the facts that the grand jury found and indicted him.

US gov on defense claim that there was a previous decision of the Obama admin not to prosecute: "All they rely on is a hearsay comment in the Wash. Post that it is unlikely Assange would be charged. If he knew they weren’t indicting him, why didn’t he leave the embassy then?"

Prosecution complains about the defence calling the US govt arguments “lies, lies and more lies”, says this allegation should not lightly be made. Prosecution claims it is about a series of misstatements of how the indictment is formulated.

Assange lawyer Gareth Pierce spoke with Julian, she explains to the court that Julian is finding it hard to concentrate and that it is very difficult for him to follow or communicate with his legal team.

Prosecution alleges the solicitation basis is Assange's alleged “curious eyes run dry” comment to Manning, combined with the fact that WikiLeaks seeks bulk databases is sufficient to constitute solicitation. [This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent for the media]

Prosecution describes Manning’s testimony as the "self-serving statement of a co-conspirator.”