Day 7: Julian Assange's extradition hearing thread. We're expecting testimony from John Goetz, Der Spiegel journalist who worked with WikiLeaks in 2010, and Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower. #AssangeCase
Yesterday's report on testimony from defense attorneys Eric Lewis and Thomas Durkin, testifying about Trump's politicized prosecution and the conditions Assange would face in the US: assangedefense.org/live-blog-entr…
If Goetz's testimony does not take too long, either the defense will read other statements in court or will get to spend some time with Julian.
Goetz worked for Der Spiegel and was reporting on Iraq & Afghanistan, traveled to London in June 2010 to meet with Assange, NYT, The Guardian, the partners working on the Afghan War Diaries
Goetz: It was unheard of that you'd work with a competing media outlet. Now it's far more common but at the time it was very unique
What did the Afghan war logs?
A fascinating first-hand eyewitness diary of what was happening in the Afghan war - that means some of it was inaccurate because people didn't know what they were seeing but nonetheless interesting to get that perspective
A fascinating first-hand eyewitness diary of what was happening in the Afghan war - that means some of it was inaccurate because people didn't know what they were seeing but nonetheless interesting to get that perspective
Goetz talking about assassination team in Afghanistan similar to Operation Phoenix. You could read through the war logs and follow their activity
I remember being annoyed at the time by constant reminders from Assange to be secure, keep using encrypted apps and an encrypted phone. At the time I thought it was paranoid and crazy but it became regular journalistic practice
Assange's sensitivity about the material. He was very concerned with the technical aspect of trying to find the names in this massive collection of documents. First time anyone was dealing with this many-- I mean 10s of 1000s of documents
He was very concerned about technical ways of finding these names, so that we could redact them, so they wouldn't be published, so they wouldn't be harmed
The rest of the team also concerned about these types of redactions. Interviewed Assange about harm minimization before the publication, published the results where he describes the harm minimization process designed to protect innocents from being harmed
Partners agreed to talk to the White House ahead of time, sent New York Times because they already had a team in Washington, we sent a delegation
Eric Schmidt emailed Goetz right after the email, White House asking for redactions, they passed on that WikiLeaks would not publish 15,000 documents and asked for any technical advice on redacting
Those 15,000 were not published but the rest of the Afghan war logs were and stories were published about them
Who published first?
There was a technical glitch and my memory is that Der Spiegel published first and WikiLeaks published later. Not sure about Guardian and NYT but I think we all published before WikiLeaks, they were maybe an hour or hour and a half later
There was a technical glitch and my memory is that Der Spiegel published first and WikiLeaks published later. Not sure about Guardian and NYT but I think we all published before WikiLeaks, they were maybe an hour or hour and a half later
Is it right that names got through the harm minimization net and were not redacted?
Not to my knowledge, I don't know of that, I'd need to see an example
Not to my knowledge, I don't know of that, I'd need to see an example
Well the logs are still public, aware of any names that got through the net?
No I'm not
No I'm not
Now talking about Iraq War Logs -- Goetz not as involved as he was on Afghan
Able to tell us if the harm minimization process changed or stayed the same?
Developed over time - with the Iraq War Logs, WikiLeaks kind of overshot and ended up redacting more than the Defense Department themselves did
Developed over time - with the Iraq War Logs, WikiLeaks kind of overshot and ended up redacting more than the Defense Department themselves did
Turns out there were some Iraq War Logs that had already been released under FOIA and comparing them the WikiLeaks versions were more redacted
Got an email at the time from David Leigh that the Iraq publication would be delayed, because WikiLeaks was taking so long to redact
Talking about Goetz's investigation into Khalid el-Masri, who he'd been investigating since 2005-6. el-Masri had been kidnapped in Macedonia, rendered to Afghanistan and tortured. The high European Court confirmed this but that wasn't known as true back in 2005
Goetz found the CIA kidnappers who'd forced el-Masri onto the plane and sodomized him and sent him to military unit in Afghanistan. Tracked them down in the US and talked to them
And after we broadcast our story about it the Munich state prosecutor issued a warrant for the arrest of the 13 CIA members who'd kidnapped him, the first time that had been done
Mark Summers for the defense: so presumably the perpetrators of this war crime were brought to justice?
Goetz: well the arrest warrant it turns out was never actually issued to the US. And when I saw the State Department cables, I saw that the US had pressured Germany to make the arrest warrant in a jurisdiction where the perpetrators didn't live
What kind of pressure? Don't have the quote but the US had said something like there would be serious repercussions if this isn't done
Process of publication for the State Dept cables: 2 phases, initial partners who had access to everything, then WL had worked with media in various countries to find out what was newsworthy there, we didn't all know e.g. what was newsworthy in Tunisia
After initial publishing, media partners expanded to local media. Important part of agreement with WL was always keeping material very secure, secure methods of communication, at the time felt exaggerated but probably by time of the cables I had more understanding of that
How robust would you describe the redaction? Well I don't know of anyone being harmed by them
OK up until 2011, was there a process of redaction taking place?
Of course, media partners would read through and flag things for redaction and send to WikiLeaks
Of course, media partners would read through and flag things for redaction and send to WikiLeaks
We got a phone call, conference call from the State Dept, PJ Crowley and others, they began to give us numbers of documents that they were concerned about, we were writing down the document numbers and were quickly looking them up
and in many ways quite interested to know which documents they were concerned about. Of course we looked at those documents for a name that needed to be redacted or anything like that
Was there redaction on the docs the State Dept mentioned?
Yeah of course there were, we passed them on to WL. It was interesting on the call they started to give us document numbers, then realized they were kind of telling us what was interesting and didn't want to
Yeah of course there were, we passed them on to WL. It was interesting on the call they started to give us document numbers, then realized they were kind of telling us what was interesting and didn't want to
They were not pointing out names in this though, they were pointing out what was politically sensitive
Able to talk about 2011 cables without redactions being published if asked? Yes
Defense: At the heart of this is a book by 2 Guardian authors--
Prosecution objects, says this isn't in the witness statement
Summers for defense: it clearly is (reads from statement where it's mentioned)
Prosecution objects, says this isn't in the witness statement
Summers for defense: it clearly is (reads from statement where it's mentioned)
Book by David Leigh & Luke Harding where the password was mentioned
Media partners, did it stay together as a cohesive group or were there problems?
Conflicts beginning with end of Afghan docs but stayed together as media partners
Conflicts beginning with end of Afghan docs but stayed together as media partners
Prosec objection over questions about password leading to unredacted cables
Summers: I just want the court to be aware if there are questions about how this happened, this is the witness to ask them to
Summers: I just want the court to be aware if there are questions about how this happened, this is the witness to ask them to
End of defense questioning. James Lewis cross-examining for the prosecution
Prosec: am I right you're saying there were redactions made to protect informants and names?
Goetz: yes
But do you accept that in late Aug early Sep 2011 that unredacted cables were published by WikiLeaks?
Goetz: yes
But do you accept that in late Aug early Sep 2011 that unredacted cables were published by WikiLeaks?
Well a process started in February, and WikiLeaks published what was already published on Cryptome
Unredacted cables, some marked protect, were published on the internet by WL in August?
I don't think you have the timing right. Series of events started with the password in February, I could explain it, series of mirroring online and a number of websites published the material
I don't think you have the timing right. Series of events started with the password in February, I could explain it, series of mirroring online and a number of websites published the material
Mainly on Cryptome, known as a leak site.
Prosec: maybe I could help you with the chronology, a number of unredacted cables published before they were on Cryptome
Prosec: maybe I could help you with the chronology, a number of unredacted cables published before they were on Cryptome
Prosec: on our about 29 Aug WikiLeaks published more than half of cablegate material - statement noted the decision was taken in accordance with WL commitment to maximize political [unheard]
So that's a week or so before Cryptome published on first of Sept?
So that's a week or so before Cryptome published on first of Sept?
Julian speaks from doc to correct prosecution, it's "political impact" not "political input"
Prosec says he misread
Prosec says he misread
Prior to Cryptome's release, password published in David Leigh's book, do you accept WL published unredacted cables with names of sources?
Goetz: well if you read statement they expressed alarm about these releases. But I don't know if names were in there, do you have an example
Goetz: well if you read statement they expressed alarm about these releases. But I don't know if names were in there, do you have an example
So you're talking about an 'unforeseeable event' - published before Cryptome by WL?
Well they weren't published before, small section published by partners before, then published more after Cryptome
Well they weren't published before, small section published by partners before, then published more after Cryptome
Prosec: not talking about the collaboration, before late August 2011. One period of collaboration and redactions, then late Aug early Sept, govt's position is they were dumped
Goetz: I'm a real live witness to it, WL invested a lot of time money and staff to another year of rollout on this, they were going to spend another year on local stories around the world
But what I observed is the org had a major effort to continue the rollout & continue to have control over the documents, and I was in contact with the person in charge of media contacts at the time and know she was spending her time doing that instead of working on bigger stories
Prosec: whatever the intent, we know by early Sept, WL published the full unredacted cables?
Well they republished what was on Cryptome
Well they republished what was on Cryptome
Prosec: Reads from the media statement - so am I right that Der Speifel deplored decision by WL to publish unredacted?
Sure, Der Spiegel signed on to that statement. I should note I wasn't working with Der Spiegel at the time
Sure, Der Spiegel signed on to that statement. I should note I wasn't working with Der Spiegel at the time
and what happened with the password from the David Leigh book and so on was not known at the time of that statement, they signed on to that statement without knowing the chain of events
You were sent an email that WL redact 15,000 docs?
From Eric Schmitt at NYT, our main contact for the operation, delegation went to the White House, and this email was the report we got right after they came back
From Eric Schmitt at NYT, our main contact for the operation, delegation went to the White House, and this email was the report we got right after they came back
Do you know if those names were redacted or not?
Yes, as Eric Schmitt says in the email, they passed on to the White House that WL would not publish the 15,000 docs and entertain suggestions from White House to redact
Yes, as Eric Schmitt says in the email, they passed on to the White House that WL would not publish the 15,000 docs and entertain suggestions from White House to redact
I recall being told by Schmitt that that was viewed by derision in the White House
Prosec: but am I right that those docs were published unredacted in early September?
No this is about Afghanistan
No this is about Afghanistan
Prosec: am I not right that the unredacted documents were published in full?
Goetz: this email is about the Afghan war docs, the unredacted in early Sept were the State Dept cables
Goetz: this email is about the Afghan war docs, the unredacted in early Sept were the State Dept cables
Prosec : forget the date, has WL ever published these 15,000 unredacted?
Not that I know of. I would be interested to know if they are, I know there was internal conflict and some people left WL
Not that I know of. I would be interested to know if they are, I know there was internal conflict and some people left WL
Prosec: evidence from others that they found Julian Assange thoughtful humorous and energetic. Would you agree?
Yes
His mother described him as having a wonderful sense of humor, agree?
Sure, I guess, I never thought that much of it but sure he had one
Yes
His mother described him as having a wonderful sense of humor, agree?
Sure, I guess, I never thought that much of it but sure he had one
His mother described him as fun, funny, witty, adventurous, extraordinarily selfless father, do you agree?
I haven't seen him with children, I can't testify about that
I haven't seen him with children, I can't testify about that
End of cross-examination. Mark Summers to talk with Julian for 10 minute recess, back after that
Court back in session. Mark Summers re-examination of John Goetz for the defense
End of 2010 to Aug 2011, cables published in redacted form. Aware of any cables getting into the public domain containing sensitive names despite that redaction process?
No it was a very rigorous redaction process and as far as I know no names came out
No it was a very rigorous redaction process and as far as I know no names came out
And the rigorous redaction process included conversations at which you were present?
Yes
And David Leigh was present?
Yes
Yes
And David Leigh was present?
Yes
Help us specifically with the cables, were they all classified or some unclassified?
Goetz: Some were not classified
Goetz: Some were not classified
And you've been told some contained the heading 'strictly protect', what did that imply when you saw it on a cable?
That it was of particular importance that that stayed secure, it wasn't about names it was about the political nature of the document
That it was of particular importance that that stayed secure, it wasn't about names it was about the political nature of the document
Prosecution rises to object, says it was the names that were marked strictly protect, not the cables
Defense asked Goetz, were the names marked strictly protect or a marking that applied to the cable?
My memory is that it referred to the cable
Defense asked Goetz, were the names marked strictly protect or a marking that applied to the cable?
My memory is that it referred to the cable
Goetz: As an example thinking of one of a young German who went to an embassy, my memory isn't that it was the name, but it was 10 years ago
Last week of August -- are you aware of the cables released at that time by Wikileaks were they classified or unclassified?
As far as I understand it was unclassified documents
As far as I understand it was unclassified documents
Defense to judge, 'we have evidence on this ma'am'
Prosecution interrupts: 'so do we'
Prosecution interrupts: 'so do we'
Know journalist Ken Dilanian?
Know of him
Reputable journalist?
Believe he was fired for talking to the CIA before reporting
Know of him
Reputable journalist?
Believe he was fired for talking to the CIA before reporting
Are you in position to comment on the release of cables containing sensitive names?
Goetz: as far as I know this issue of harm was central in the Chelsea Manning trial, and I don't know of any instance of harm that was caused by the release
Goetz: as far as I know this issue of harm was central in the Chelsea Manning trial, and I don't know of any instance of harm that was caused by the release
There may have been fear about what would happen, but what they were worried about didn't happen
Again the release of documents in August 2011 were unclassified or classified?
Unclassified
Unclassified
Article in September following WikiLeaks' republication
Confirms earlier process of redactions
Recounts chain of events from password in book
'Even this article recognized that Cryptome published the cables first'
Confirms earlier process of redactions
Recounts chain of events from password in book
'Even this article recognized that Cryptome published the cables first'
Goetz: Yeah Cryptome published first, I don't think there's any dispute about that
Goetz: I also knew the various people who were involved at the time, I know WL made efforts to stop this Die Freitag article from being published because it made people aware of how to get the unredacted cables
Defense wants to read out witness statement on el-Masri
Prosec objects, says it's not accepted as evidence. Mr el-Masri has nothing to do with the charges but defense wishes to get the prejudice in, not a proper use of court's time
Prosec objects, says it's not accepted as evidence. Mr el-Masri has nothing to do with the charges but defense wishes to get the prejudice in, not a proper use of court's time
FYI we can share that we expect Jennifer Robinson's testimony today, expected to testify about an offer of a pardon #AssangeCase
Defense and prosecution arguing over whether el-Masri statement can be read in, whether it's relevant or not, whether it's admissable
Prosecution: if you want to waste half an hour Mr Summers can read it
The prosecution is still attempting to suppress a statement on el-Masri -- he is a victim of CIA rendition & torture.
Background here: aclu.org/blog/national-…
Background here: aclu.org/blog/national-…
Recess now for an hour.
Apparently court resumed but the press cannot see the resumed proceedings, videolink not working
Apparently court has resumed again but press video feed is still down:
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1306199229770203139
We understand that the press following remotely has missed discussion over the admission of el-Masri's statement. The prosecution does not want to accept for the record that el-Masri was tortured but the U.S. government. #AssangeCase
More background: El-Masri v. Macedonia
Extraordinary Renditions: The Right to the Truth
justiceinitiative.org/litigation/el-…
Extraordinary Renditions: The Right to the Truth
justiceinitiative.org/litigation/el-…
Once again it appears court is back in session but the remote-viewing press' video feed is down, cannot see proceedings:
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1306219550044827649
A reminder relevent to John Goetz's testimony this morning, from Chelsea Manning's 2013 court-martial: 'The U.S. Can't Connect a Single Death to Manning's Leaks' theatlantic.com/national/archi…
Remote press is still missing this important debate on a statement from Khalid el-Masri, kidnapped and tortured by the CIA:
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1306220379837526017
Press videofeed is back now.
Conversation on el-Masri's statement has ended just before the press got back in, apparently will be addressed again later this afternoon. Now attempting to connect to Daniel Ellsberg for his remote testimony. #AssangeCase
From BoingBoing, Dec. 2010:
"El-Masri's futile efforts at receiving justice in the U.S. are well-known, but cables recently leaked by Wikileaks reveal that the U.S. also warned German authorities not to allow a local investigation into his kidnapping."
"El-Masri's futile efforts at receiving justice in the U.S. are well-known, but cables recently leaked by Wikileaks reveal that the U.S. also warned German authorities not to allow a local investigation into his kidnapping."
Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, is being sworn in now by remote video
Ed Fitzgerald (defense) taking Ellsberg through his biography. Involved in a study on the Vietnam war, made copies of it because he believed that it showed that the USG had started and continued the war knowing it couldn't be won, and that Johnson & his admin lied to the public
Ellsberg now talking about the WikiLeaks war log releases, saw similarities with the Pentagon Papers, the US lying about its war, "the first time in 40 years" someone else had published information of this kind
Ellsberg: I was very impressed that the source of these documents, Chelsea Manning, was willing to risk her liberty and even her life to make this information public. It was the first time in 40 years I saw someone else doing that and felt kinship toward her
Now Ellsberg asked to comment on Assange's political opinions: Amazing to me that someone could think he has no political opinions, as absurd as suggesting I had no political opinion
Ellsberg talking about Assange's view on transparency, accountability
Ellsberg on Assange's view toward the wars: The Iraq war was clear even to the layman as a crime. Both wars we both felt were wrong but the Iraq war was very clearly an aggressive war as defined by the UN
To anyone who had been in the Vietnam war, the Afghan war was recognizable as a rerun, 'Vietnamistan', that meant that the prospect was the same, that we would end up in a stalemate as we did in Vietnam and as we are in now in Afghanistan
You characterized the Afghan war logs as low-level reports, is that right? Yes in contrast to the Pentagon Papers which were high-level decision making, the Iraq and Afghan war logs were on the field reports. But they showed clear patterns of war crimes
I would've been astonished to see similar reports in Vietnam, they would've been higher classified
What these show is how war crimes had been normalized, that's a shocking fact of their low classification -- all of my pages that I released were Top Secret, none of these were Top Secret
My docs were 'Ex-dis' meaning executive distribution, there's also 'lim-dis' for limited distribution and 'no-dis' for no distribution. Was startling to me that documents showing war crimes and torture were no longer regarded as sensitive
Importance of the Apache video, that type of conduct being provided to the American public?
Ellsberg: Yes and I was also caught by the title that Julian Assange gave to that release, controversial to many at the time, that name is Collateral Murder
Ellsberg: Yes and I was also caught by the title that Julian Assange gave to that release, controversial to many at the time, that name is Collateral Murder
There was no question to me that what I was witnessing at the time was murder. In fact the problematic word in the title was 'Collateral', implying that it was unintended. This was murder, and a war crime. So I was very glad that the American public was confronted with this war
Defense: do you see it as relevant to view the rules of engagement alongside that video of murder?
Ellsberg: yes - had we been told that that incident was aberrant, and was punished, that these people who laughed as they shot children and those rescuing them were punished
Ellsberg: yes - had we been told that that incident was aberrant, and was punished, that these people who laughed as they shot children and those rescuing them were punished
that would have been reassuring, that this was not allowed.
At your trial, were you allowed to explain your motivation?
No, absolutely not. I had withheld, in the nearly 2 years between the revelations, discussion to what led me to that in the hopes that I could testify under oath, with sufficient credibility and solemnity
No, absolutely not. I had withheld, in the nearly 2 years between the revelations, discussion to what led me to that in the hopes that I could testify under oath, with sufficient credibility and solemnity
When my lawyer asked me why I copied the Pentagon Papers, the prosecution objected, so he rephrased and every time they objected and the judge upheld it.
Lawyer shocked to learn he could not give his reasoning
Lawyer shocked to learn he could not give his reasoning
So the Espionage Act has been prosecuted every way since then, a strict liability offense, not allowed to explain motivation
The Espionage Act does not allow for whistleblowing, to allow you to say you were informing the polity. So I did not get a fair trial, no one since has gotten a fair trial under those charges, and Julian Assange could not get a fair trial under those charges if he were tried
just as is happening with Espionage Act cases being argued right now
End of defense questioning, now cross-examination
You worked for RAND corp, released to others in govt and then to newspapers? Yes
Do you know that Assange is not being tried for publishing the Colalteral Murder video?
I do know that, but the Rules of Engagement that were released alongside it are relevant to it
I do know that, but the Rules of Engagement that were released alongside it are relevant to it
Do you know that he's not being charged for publishing the rules of engagement?
Yes, but not having spoken with him I imagine he would want to discuss the both of them to give context
Yes, but not having spoken with him I imagine he would want to discuss the both of them to give context
James Lewis: he is *only* being charged for publishing the small number of documents where names of sources or informants were disclosed
Ellsberg: that seems to me misleading, he may be charged with publishing those only but the other charges deal with all the other documents
Ellsberg: that seems to me misleading, he may be charged with publishing those only but the other charges deal with all the other documents
Prosec: insofar as publishing on the internet, he is only charged with 3 counts, limited to where the unredacted names of informants was published
Ellsberg: but he is not only charged with those 3 counts, there are 15 other counts, so I'm not clear what point you're making
Ellsberg: but he is not only charged with those 3 counts, there are 15 other counts, so I'm not clear what point you're making
Prosec: I just want you to be absolutely clear, the Collateral Murder video plays no part in these proceedings. Do you understand that?
Yes
Yes
And it's right that when you published Pentagon Papers you were careful with what you gave to the media?
Yes I withheld 4 volumes that I gave to Congress not to media
Yes I withheld 4 volumes that I gave to Congress not to media
And you said you didn't want to get in the way of diplomacy - you didn't want to harm the United States?
Actually there were negotiations to end the war, I was afraid that the government might use the release for terminating those negotiations
Actually there were negotiations to end the war, I was afraid that the government might use the release for terminating those negotiations
I remember saying, I want to get in the way of the war, I don't want to get in the way of negotiations
Did the Pentagon Papers release result in harm?
In one case, yes
James Lewis: But in general you were careful?
I didn't want to give the impression they were edited
In one case, yes
James Lewis: But in general you were careful?
I didn't want to give the impression they were edited
Ellsberg: I wanted above all to demonstrate that nowhere in the files I was releasing to the public or to the Senate, nowhere was there adequate justification for the killing we were doing
and I was afraid if I redacted it would be inferred I'd left out the good reason for pursuing the war
So there was one name, Lucien, actually I knew him, I knew his identity was well known in South Vietnam -- chose to leave it in to show that I hadn't redacted a single word, so they couldn't make inferences, wanted to show I was not editing what was being put out
(Correction to earlier tweet -- question previously was did the pentagon papers name names, and that was 1, not did they cause harm)
Aware of Floyd Abrams article, how the WikiLeaks are different from the Pentagon Papers? his involvement?
He was essential in defending right to publish but did not view the Pentagon Papers as a defendant, not sure how much of them he's actually read
He was essential in defending right to publish but did not view the Pentagon Papers as a defendant, not sure how much of them he's actually read
It wasn't made aware in the press there are actually 2 Pentagon Papers cases, my criminal trial and then the trial on publishing
Prosec: want to see if you agree with him on differences between Pentagon Papers and WL releases, contrasting Ellsberg saying 'I didn't want to get in the way of diplomacy', Assange clearly does. He's saying complete difference between WL publishing and your publishing
Do you agree with that?
No I don't agree at all. With all respect to Mr Abrams I believe he is mistaken. In all his defense in court of right to publish, he never had conversations with me. My wife and I actually were eluding FBI because still providing docs to media
No I don't agree at all. With all respect to Mr Abrams I believe he is mistaken. In all his defense in court of right to publish, he never had conversations with me. My wife and I actually were eluding FBI because still providing docs to media
I would say he does not understand my motives very well. And I'd say people who criticize Ed Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, they don't want to criticize me - it is entirely misleading. He doesn't understand my motives or Julian's
People like that say Julian and Chelsea just dumped everything with no regard. Julian withheld 15,000 docs, engaged in heavy redactions, spoke to USG on redactions and they refused to redact a single one
The govt knew they could not get to the informants named but still did not respond to the newspapers and Julian, who identified specific parts to remove.
He had no interest in revealing names and took every effort to remove, though may not have succeeded in each case with no cooperation from the govt
Seems to me the government had every intention of letting this happen and later charging Mr Assange with these 3 charges you list, seems to me they did not lift a finger to help people who might be at risk
It seems to me their responsibility, I am actually rather shocked by this, by Mr Kromberg's declaration
Prosec: so this is all the government's fault, is that right?
Yes, it seems to me they bear responsibility. Fortunately, it was not as dangerous as they feared. I was told blood would be on my hands. They were wrong.
Yes, it seems to me they bear responsibility. Fortunately, it was not as dangerous as they feared. I was told blood would be on my hands. They were wrong.
Prosec reading through Kromberg's declaration to see if Ellsberg still agrees no one was harmed
Says docs named religious leaders, human rights activists. The US went to find sources, some could not be found. All the individuals who had to flee their homelands suffered actual harm, some quantifiable such as losing employment or having assets frozen, some unquantifiable
References Ethiopian journalist had to flee - was interrogated after WL releases, was told to reveal sources, rather than revealing he fled the country
Lewis rapidly reading through Kromberg statement about sources named, docs found in Bin Laden compound, Taliban stating it was reviewing WL cables, etc
Ellsberg interrupts: will I have time to comment or are we running out of time?
Ellsberg interrupts: will I have time to comment or are we running out of time?
Ellsberg interrupts again after lengthy readthrough - I've read these sir can I just comment?
Prosec: - so isn't it nonsense that there is no harm?
No and I will explain
Prosec: - so isn't it nonsense that there is no harm?
No and I will explain
Ellsberg: I find the governemnt recounting of these allegations to be cynical. Am I right in that none of these people actually suffered physical harm?
James Lewis: the rules are that you do not get to ask questions
James Lewis: the rules are that you do not get to ask questions
Ellsberg wants to answer the question -- judge says you will get a chance to answer on re-examination
Assange speaks up from the dock to protest (can't hear), judge says you cannot shout out from the dock, not allowed by the rules of this court
Assange speaks up from the dock to protest (can't hear), judge says you cannot shout out from the dock, not allowed by the rules of this court
Prosecution: at Frontline in 2011 Assange called it regrettable that sources were named but said he was not obligated - some of these informants were engaged in traitorous actions and that is information the public should know
James Lewis: so is your position that there was absolutely no danger by publishing the unredacted names of these informants?
Ellsberg: I presume that Mr Assange is not being charged for comments he may have made to the Frontline press, but for his actions.
Ellsberg: I presume that Mr Assange is not being charged for comments he may have made to the Frontline press, but for his actions.
The actions as I understand them are absolutely antithetical to the notion that he revealed names,in fact he took actions to redact and requested help from the government. If that were the case though we would be hearing of 100s of deaths and my feeling would have been different
I understand the anxiety that these people named might be harmed. And that anxiety is caused by the refusal to help WL redact.
But aside from that, people having to leave the country, must be put in the context of Mr Assange trying to end a war that has caused 37 million refugees and over a million deaths
James Lewis: I'll ask again since you didn't answer. Binary answer. Are you saying no one was placed in grave danger?
It appears not, as there was no harm, as shown by the Defense department
You must answer the question, not make a speech
It appears not, as there was no harm, as shown by the Defense department
You must answer the question, not make a speech
Are you saying no one was placed in grave danger?
Not purposefully, not by WikiLeaks
Not purposefully, not by WikiLeaks
James Lewis: what about the disappeared people, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, common sense tells us that they were murdered
Ellsberg: I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to me at all obvious that this small percentage of the many people murdered in these wars can be attributed to WL
Ellsberg: I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to me at all obvious that this small percentage of the many people murdered in these wars can be attributed to WL
James Lewis reading from book, Julian Assange's war on secrecy - Assange said Ellsberg was given an encrypted backup copy. What did you do with it?
Was hard to get into, saw it was at Secret level, eventually that copy was destroyed with hammers
Never published?
No
Was hard to get into, saw it was at Secret level, eventually that copy was destroyed with hammers
Never published?
No
End of cross-examination, now defense re-examination
Ed Fitzgerald for defense reviewing that the charges deal with all the cables, not just the selection of unredacted cables from the 3 publication charges - what do you understand about charges on *obtaining* and *receiving*, what is behind the prosecution's theory?
Judge stops the question - he's not a lawyer why is he asked this
Defense: he had this put to him, I want to know what he thinks is the purpose behind the other counts
can you rephrase
Defense: he had this put to him, I want to know what he thinks is the purpose behind the other counts
can you rephrase
The other charges deal w/ obtaining. you've commented on the public interest of the materials that Assange was handed by Manning, do you regard those things that he received & obtained as having the public interest you've referred to?
Absolutely, that seems to me self-evident
Absolutely, that seems to me self-evident
Your decision to withhold docs had nothing to do with naming names, it was about not disrupting peace negotiations?
That's right, the Pentagon Papers included hundreds of names, none were redacted, as I said including 1 clandestine CIA agent who I knew was known already
That's right, the Pentagon Papers included hundreds of names, none were redacted, as I said including 1 clandestine CIA agent who I knew was known already
You denounce the myth between the good Pentagon Papers and the bad WikiLeaks docs, is that right?
Yes. I was harshly criticized at the time, and then ignored for a long time, and then when WL/Manning came up, I was referred to positively
Yes. I was harshly criticized at the time, and then ignored for a long time, and then when WL/Manning came up, I was referred to positively
to draw some contrast between us. I totally disagree with the 'good Ellsberg / bad Assange' theory, and same thing with Ed Snowden
Except for the computer aspects which didnt exist back then, I see no difference between the charges against me and the charges against Assange
Nor do I see difference between the actions taken against me with the government breaking into my psych's office and as I understand Assange's conversations were wiretapped as well
Defense: Kromberg statement includes 'that although the US cannot prove deaths caused' - is that your ?understanding?
Yes, and I was surprised as the lack of evidence
Yes, and I was surprised as the lack of evidence
I am still capable of being fooled by the government apparently. Just as I thought there must be WMDs as the govt said there was and turned out not to be, here I was prepared to believe there was blood on his hands and there is no evidence.
I'd expect the Taliban to say we killed x number of people based on these documents, but they haven't. If so that would change these proceedings. But the government is proceeding as if this is the case, I see no evidence that it is
Defense: he does not allege that any deaths occurred as a result of the WikiLeaks revelations?
That's right
And at the Manning trial, was made clear by Gen. Carr--
Judge interrupts, he's not an expert on that
That's right
And at the Manning trial, was made clear by Gen. Carr--
Judge interrupts, he's not an expert on that
Aware of any evidence of deaths?
No, I followed the Manning case closely, I know some were held in closed proceedings, but it came out later that no deaths were caused. I understand the anxieties of those named but it turns out they were overstated, very surprising to me.
No, I followed the Manning case closely, I know some were held in closed proceedings, but it came out later that no deaths were caused. I understand the anxieties of those named but it turns out they were overstated, very surprising to me.
End of Daniel Ellsberg's testimony. #AssangeCase
Appears this is the end of today's testimony, trying to work out tomorrow's witness schedule.
Prosecution objected to Stefania Mauritzi continuing to listen in on and report on these proceedings as she will testify at some point. (Stefania tweeted earlier today that she wasn't following today
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/1306145915758092288)
Court is adjourned for today, back tomorrow 10am London time. #AssangeCase
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
