Thread by @MaryKostakidis

Extradition September hearing Day 6 (day 8 had we not missed 2)

Joined the link.

First witness will be John Goetz who was with Der Spiegel and present at the dinner with JA and the Guardian journalists. The latter alleged JA said “They are informants, they deserve to die.”
Goetz signed an affidavit years ago saying that is not true.

Gareth Peirce JA’s solicitor speaking with Summers. We don’t have sound yet. Stella, Joseph, Jennifer in place. And James Lewis.

Kristinn, Judge

Lewis will need less than 2 hours with Goetz

Judge greets JA but we don’t get a glimpse.
Fitzgerald returning from speaking with JA.
Goetz on videolink

Goetz is senior, awarded inv. Reporter for public broadcaster in Germany.
Did stories on war in Afghanistan for Der Spiegel, one of which triggered a parliamentary investigation.
Sent to London to work with Guardian & NYT in 2010 - was in “the bunker”. Partnership was to research

The material but each publication would do their own stories. Very unusual to work with competitors - at the time, unique.
Worked thru Afghan war logs - eyewitness diary of the war as it was happening. I worked with Nick Davies on the cover story for Der Spiegel one task force373

It’s existence wasn’t known at the time.
JA kept reminding us we needed to be cautious around safety of the material - all this was new to me.
Of course there was sensitivity about mentioning names. JA was very concerned with the tech aspect of how to find the names in this

massive docs so we could redact them.
There were no written agreements about redactions. We interviewed JA about harm minimisation.
We agreed the NYT would contact the wHite House to discuss concerns about the publications. The WH was told 15,000 docs would not be published

Who published first? Der Spiegel. Wikileaks published later. I’m not sure about the other two but I think we all published before Wikileaks.
Summers: Did names get through the net? I have not seen an example of that.
WH was also told JA was open to any assistance they would giv

Redaction process developed. With Iraq files Wikileaks ended up redacting more than necessary (some docs had been released under FOI).
I got an email, from David Leigh saying publication of Iraq logs was delayed due to the amount of redaction Wikileaks was undertaking.

My El Nazri rendition investigation started in 2005 - few people believed him - he was a German citizen alleging he had been kidnapped, taken to Afghanistan & dumped in Albania. I managed to find the CIA kidnappers who sodomised him & took him to Afghanistan. Bad audio. German

arrest warrant prepared but not issued in the US. In the cables I saw the pressure the US put on the German govt not to issue the warrant in the jurisdiction they lived in.

Cables - 2 phases - the initial partners got everything then other partners were added for expertise across many countries & to help in redactions. Keeping them secure was an important part of the agreement with Wikileaks. By the time of the cables we had more understanding of th

that. There was a regular redaction process. We got a call from the State Dept incl Crowley - they gave us the numbers of the docs they were concerned about .. we looked at those docs carefully for names etc. we were very happy to get these numbers but they stopped because they

realised they were giving us an index to the more interesting stories.. they were not giving us names.
Summers: can you answer why there were unredacted cables?
Goetz: Yes
Summers: and comment on a book containing the code word to the unredacted cables
Goetz: David Leigh & Luke

Harding. There were significant problems between the group.
Lewis objecting
Summer: if there are questions to be put about this matter it is to this witness that it should be put (to judge)
Lewis: it’s not in his witnesses statement so no. Judge agrees. (WTF??? Why was it not?)

Lewis: do you accept Wikileaks published unredacted docs in 2010-11.
Goetz - they republished some material that had been published on Crypton. He is disagreeing with Lewis about the sequence.
Lewis refers to the Prosecution bundle that says W published a week before.

.. in accordance with W policy of maximising impact.
Goetz says alarm was expressed but were there names? Lewis says he’ll talk about that later.
Going to the full “Dump”:
Goetz - I was frustrated by it - W had put a lot of resources into a long roll out over a year, holding

up new stories.
Lewis- by Friday 22Sept, W published the entire cables docs
Goetz - they republished what was on Crypton. (Krypton?)
Lewis: Did Der Spiegel deplore the decision
Goetz: yes they signed that statement “deploring” the decision to publish but I was not there & it was

the chain of events that lead to the publication was not known.. that came out over the following months.
(My mistake, the date earlier was 2 Spt, not 22)
Lewis: were the unredacted 15,000 docs ever published?
Goetz: not that I know of
Lewis: JA Thoughtful, humorous & energetic?

Lewis quotes JA’s mother about her son having a great sense of humour, being mischievous, a great father (this was rattled off quickly so not sure) & asks Goetz if he can confirm this.
Goetz: ah.. no.
Break for a few mins for Summers to talk to JA.

2 Sept

I wasn’t very clear here. Lewis wanted to talk about the “Dump”. Goetz was making the point that W had a very careful & considered process in place that was slowing everything down

Summers: 2010-Aug 2011 when cables were being published in redacted form?. Did any sensitive names get thru?
Goetz - not as far as I know.
Summers: did the discussions involve JA?
Goetz: yes, and there was another year in the project.
Summers - were all the cables classified?

No. The ones labelled “strictly protect” was not about names, it referred to the whole cable, as far as I remember.
Summers: the cables released the week before the whole batch were released... were they classified?
Goetz: unclassified.
Summers: LA Times critical of that release

Goetz: that journo was fired for discussing his stories with the CIA.

Goetz: the issue of harm was dealt with in the Manning trial & Ive seen no evidence, only media reports about fear of harm.
Summers: 2 Sept classified unredacted cables
Goetz: Crypton published first, is an important website for journos, there were others but not as significant.

Goetz: up until 2 Sept the process was very careful, redacting names. There is no dispute about Crypton publishing first. There is no dispute about that.
I also knew the people involved at the time - Leigh, Domscheit- Berg etc

Summers: reads from evidence of El Nazri
Judge objects but Summers says it’s important for the public.
Lewis: we need to have an argument about admissibility.
(the judge keeps referring to the fact that witness statements are available to the public. Why aren’t they on a website?

Are they? Does anyone know?

A break. Disagreement about admissibility of El Nazri statement. Judge has asked Lewis to think about it. And she wants just a short summary. Summers wanted to read the statement.
I gather there are more of these, where the witness is not appearing but has provided a statement.

Jeez. Just saw I’ve been referring to Al Masri as El Nazri. You’ll have to forgive me I am very jet lagged & I haven’t even left home.

We have lost connection to the court

The last thing I saw was someone fiddling with the screen in the adjacent courtroom where journalists are. Perhaps they have also lost connection.

They are still trying to reconnect us (message from the Host)

Another five minutes were told. Likely we are missing the outcome of the admissibility argument/summary of the el Masri statement, unless the judge waits for us..

This is ridiculous. The Press still can’t see what is happening.

Now court is on an extended lunch break. An hour and a half.

It was reported that Lewis had a conversation with the judge, mic muted, then there was a break for JA’s lawyers to speak with him, then lunch break.
Has anyone seen more information than this about what has occurred while Press video link was down?

My pick from this morning’s session:

John Goetz of course gave lots of detail about the importance JA placed on the redaction of names, the amount of redacting & the year long program planned for the cables (scuppered by the publication of the password by Guardian journos)

But

But the exquisite moment, repeated several times, was his response to Lewis asking him about “the Dump”:

Lewis: ... when Wikileaks published the entire cables”

Goetz: (very very matter-of-fact)

No, they republished what Cryptome had published.

Arguing about inadmissibility.
Lewis arguing some of the statements are unacceptable in the el Masri statement. He is happy with el Masri’s “allegations” but not about statements such as the US sought to subvert international order. He was also concerned that by accepting the

the statement the court was accepting the el Masri allegations as fact.
Judge wants Defence & Prosecution to come to an agreement.
Waiting for next witness, Dan Ellsberg

Latika Bourke hasn’t turned her camera off so we are seeing more of her than the court.

We now have Ellsberg’s voice

Ellsberg asks that everyone speak slower than they would normally as he is hard of hearing. (Thank you Daniel!)

Fitzgerald going thru DE’s background, including working with McNamara, Pentagon Papers, NYT publication, ist ammendment, his prosecution under Esp Act (12 counts 117 years, dismissed with prejudice due to govt misconduct)

Significance of W revelations: clear to me like the Pentagon Papers, informed the public about the nature of the war, it’s likely success, changed public’s view of the war & impacted govt decisions. Impressed Manning was willing to face death to get the info to public

DE:Absurd to challenge the notion that Assange had no political opinions, I recognised our affinity - our opinion was there was a great lack of transparency & untruths, effectively no democracy.
Iraq war was wrongful like Vietnam & a war of aggression.
Afghan war logs were low

Level reports showed it as a Vietnamistan - endless stalemate.
Lower level field reports v high level Pentagon Papers, which is why they exposed war crimes. I would have been astonished to see such reports - earlier they would have been classified. What that shows I’d torture

shows is that torture became normalised.

Manning drew all the material from low level material - nothing regarded as sensitive would have been so accessible. I was shocked.
It was important the American public know about this. Refers to Collateral Murder : the longer video included included murder.. an unarmed man ..

I was glad the American public were able to see.
Fitzgerald wants to ask about Rules of Engagement, judge objects & Lewis says it’s ok... it was not in his statement.
DE: had we been told the people involved were punished, it was an aberration, it would have been reassuring.

What we were told was that the rules of engagement had not been violated.

Fitzgerald: were you able to put forward your intention at your trial?
DE: No. I wanted to testify. My lawyer asked Why did you publish the PP? The judge objected. His defence said he had never heard of a defendant not being allowed to give their motive. The judge said, well you

are hearing one now.
No one prosecuted under esp act since me either has been able to raise motive, Assange will not be able to, he will not get a fair trial.

Lewis: you copied the PP & released them to senators & NYT.
Do you know JA is not being prosecuted for publishing Collateral Murder?
DE: it’s important because publishing the Rules of Engagement showed the public how inadequate they are.

Lewis points out that JA is only being charged with publishing the docs with unredacted names.
DE: disagrees, that is not all he is charged with
Lewis: there was a bundle sent to you
DE’s son is getting it up on his computer

Judge is saying it won’t be necessary. They are going to read it, but Dan insists on seeing it.
Lewis quotes kromberg on restriction of publication charge to docs with names, not for Collateral Murder. When you published the PP you were very careful about what you gave to

the media, because you thought they might damage US interests
DE: I was afraid if I released those dos. I was worried the govt would use it as an excuse to terminate negotiations.
Lewis: Did the PP cause risk of harm?
DE: in one case yes.
I wanted to demonstrate a negative -

nowhere was there anything in the papers that showed we could have won that war. I didn’t want to be accused of redacting to remove any evidence to the contrary.

So O left in the name of someone who... ( ) was a friend

I

Lewis: attorney Abrahams rep NYT in PP case,
DE: mine was a criminal prosecution, equally unprecedented
Lewis quotes the attorney for NYT on the 4 volumes DE withheld so as not to damage diplomacy, very unlike Wikileaks. Do you agree?
DE: no. He never had one minute of discussio

n with me, he doesn’t understand my motives or Julian’s motives, & makes false statements about Julian. He withheld 15,000 docs & made many redactions, requested help from State Dpt to identify sensitive names. J had no interest in revealing names. They chose to preserve the

Possibility to prosecute JA rather than protect those people who might have been at risk. Not a single one was actually harmed, but I am shocked when I read it, shocked they didn’t take steps to protect them.
Lewis: is it the fault of the US govt?
DE: yes. I was told blood

would be on my hands. They were wrong.
Lewis asks him about Kromberg bundle. DE says he read it all last night (!)
Lewis: reads Kromberg about the names not redacted, losing some types of harm - losing jobs, disappearing, though they can’t say whether it was due to Wikileaks

Lewis: reading very quickly from Kromberg..An Ethiopian journalist was outed & had to leave the country, Chinese nationals ... Bin Laden gained, hundreds of Iraqis & Afghans at risk

DE interrupts him, will I have time to comment Sir, or are we running out of time?
Lewis: yes you will, continues to read, moving from Iran to China, Syrians at risk..
DE: Sir I have read all these
Lewis: how can you say it caused no harm, pure nonsense
DE: no, the govt is being

Highly cynical. We’re any of the threats carried out? We’re any jailed? Hurt?
Lewis: rules are you don’t get to ask questions.
Julian is trying to say something.. I can never defend my reputation.
Judge says it’s not allowed.
Lewis: jA said it was regrettable but we are not

Obligated to protect others’ sources. Was no danger caused by publishing the names?
DE: I presume he is not charged by comments he made to the press, but his actions. His actions show he did not purposely reveal names & took great precautions. In no case

I have been DISCONNECTED

Jeeeezus

They are not letting me back in yet

I am back in but just seeing other journos. Has it gone down for everyone?

This is ridiculous

Yep, we were all disconnected & stuck in limbo

Ellsberg a brilliant witness

Lewis: Katz asked what other copies of the database existed?
JA said DE had an encrypted copy to give to the NYT.
We’re you given it?
DE: Yes & eventually it was destroyed

Fitzgerald: going thru the Counts, contradicting Lewis. What do you understand to be behind the obtaining & receiving Guantanamo Briefs & Rules of engagement?
DE: public interest
DE: PP had thousands of names
In 40 years since PP I was subject to lots of defamatory statements

until Wikileaks - all of a sudden I was the good guy & they were the bad. Similarities between us: charges & surveillance - similar govt behaviours, we both challenged the legitimacy of the govt secrecy system.
Lewis refers to Kromberg quoted by Lewis who left out that

“Although there was no proof”. DE says he is surprised there is no proof but govt is proceeding in this case AS IF there is evidence of harm

5 minute break & another question for DE.
He is awesome for someone who is nearly 90 & has sat up reading Kromberg all night.

The prosecutors are conferring & Fitzgerald is consulting JA I expect. Dan Ellsberg’s son is at hand to help.

Fitzgerald: you’ve read Kromberg. He does not allege any deaths have occurred
DE: yes
Fitzgerald: are you aware of any assertions of deaths?
DE: no single evidence given, the danger was overplayed.
Judge thanks him, particularly since it is so early where he is. Huge grin fromDE

Just shown a glimpse of JA.
2 witnesses tomorrow, audio not great, can’t hear the names. Judge asks for a third. Maybe Stefania Maurizi.
Prosecution is asking she cease to report if she is to be a witness.
Maybe that’s why @SMaurizi has chosen not to be reporting recently

We just got the longest look at Julian. Gareth & another we’re speaking with him & Fitzgerald joined them. It was good to see him. We should be able to see more of the most important person in the room.