I am not saying that is what will happen in this case. However I’m reminded of the convoluted thought gymnastics of Logic/Philosophy 1
Deleted because I made an inappropriate comment in haste. But I also said, perhaps she means the individuals communicating the information in the cables were fabricating it. I can’t see how else you could arrive at this conclusion given the US certainly regards them as authentic
Next witness on video - Carey Shenkman
He is continuing from yesterday afternoon:
Cross examination by the Prosecution Junior counsel: you are not suggesting there is any law that precludes a publisher from being prosecuted under the Esp Act.
CS: agrees, yes the law allows that but there is also the US Constitution
there is a strong argument that the first Amendment would present a serious issue.
Prosec: is there a case that establishes that?
Carey: has never been tested
Prosec: was the door left open by the NYT case
Carey: that was not th issue argued before the Supreme Court
Prosec reads from Pentagon Papers decision saying the decision may have been different had they decided to prosecute, that a criminal prosecution may have been upheld, also that only one judge on the Supreme Court held strongly that the first amendment should prevail. Do you agre
They left it open for the press to be prosecuted.
Carey: quotes another case showing the opposite.
Prosecution asks him to say whether he accepts what the court said.
Carey: there are counter arguments. These issues are theoretical.
Carey : the NYT case prohibited the restrictio
restriction of the NYT. What is the end point of our conversation? Why are we litigating hypothetically?
Prosec: are you saying you aren’t qualified to comment on the ambit of the Esp Act - you are supposed to be an expert on that, are you saying you’re not qualified?
Carey: No
Prosec asks a question re whistleblowers & Carey making the point that the two are treated very differently.
Prosec: a number of courts have declared the Esp Act is not too broad. Do you make clear anywhere in your report that the Act has also been refined thru
Judicial interpretation.
Carey: primarily in spying situations & most scholars would say it has been broadened.
Prosec: the second judicially imposed requirement is that the disclosure would be damaging
.. ensuring the govt can’t abuse the statute.
this refinement prevents the statute from the effect of the first amendment
and precludes for arbitrary enforcement.
Do you see that?
Carey: what’s the question?
Prosec: why don’t you refer to this at all?
Carey: I refer to scholarship on this in my report. The passage you cite describes one element but there are other aspects of the law that affects a
The law can be applied to a third party, a member of the public & as you get further away from the whistleblower, the same penalties apply & that is what has concerned scholars
Prosec: the Executive doesn’t decides the scope of criminal law, the court does - says he has made a mistake in his statement.
Carey disagrees - you are talking about the response of the court, I am talking about the political decision to take action & the effect on press freedom
Carey talking very quickly & pointing out to her she is confused.
Arguing about the purpose behind Section 793 of the Esp Act.. she has to do some reading...
Shenkman knows his stuff & the issues are complex & nuanced, & he is doing his best to communicate all of this but again, the Prosecution requires simple answers to simple questions.
Prosec: these sections only apply to spying but the statutes .. he interrupts: lots of whistleblowers have been prosecuted under Obama
Prosec: but the intent of the Act was it was intended for spies.
Carey: tries to tell her what they may have intended is irrelevant.
He keeps trying to explain to her that the issues she is raising are irrelevant because those cases don’t involve a journalist.
Carey: do you think serious scholars would risk their carriers spouting nonsense? You are focussing on one point on which there is much dispute
Serious scholars would not be giving you the binary answer on complex issues, I appreciate the job you have to do but.. she cuts him off.
She asks another question & he tells her rather than wasting the courts time perhaps she shouldn’t be reading out slabs on what other people
And saying & ask him questions.
She points out it is her job to point out to the court where he fails to be objective.
Asks another question & he is talking about the deleterious effect of investigations of the press - its not just successful prosecutions that are needed to curb
The press.
Prosec: all the examples you give are of serious publications
Carey: not at all, they are outlets that had views in opposition to prevalent policy but were greatly respected - gives great examples but talking too quickly for me to tyyyyype
The first amendment & Esp Act don’t make any disctinction (between publishers serious, fringe, etc)
Referring to the Pentagon Papers being published in their entirety by Deakin/ Beacon .. a precursor
Saying that he thinks the decision not to prosecute the NYT in this case is political
She is asking about the allegation JA conspired a source, he says they have tried this befor
tried to allege conspiracy & it hasn’t worked. She reads out the count & asks him if he understands it is only about docs with names. Do you understand the nature of the allegations? Do you accept they bare no relation to the other cases you mention?
Carey pointing out points in
of concern in past cases.
She says it’s a frivolous assertion.
She asks whether the computer fraud act has limited application, & says she wants a yes or no.
He tries to address the password question but she won’t let him because she wants to read from Kromberg judge supports
Kromberg uses “hacking”. Asks him about an academic’s interpretation
Carey: it’s contradictory & controversial, & she is oversimplifying things.
He says : you can quote his words in 2010 or you can take his words in 2019 about this case.
Summers: taking him thru some examples in his statement.
Carey: the majority of these reports involved ongoing conflicts
Summers: some of the press outlets published Top Secret info
Carey: yes incl communication technology
Carey: there are no docs in this case that are top secret.
Summers asks what he his response is to the comment his reference to these cases is “frivolous”
Carey: takes them in his stride “for my own well being”.
Summers: asks him about the “incontrovertible” judgement the Prosec
Summers is giving him the opportunity to go thru the cases & points she made, giving him the opportunity to comment.
Carey: you can’t look at one opinion & conclude it is an uncontravertible principle of law - that’s not how the law works.
Now discussing journos can’t engage in criminal activity - do you agree that soliciting a govt employee to hand over classified info is criminal ?
Carey: no, many cases have involved this sort of “conspiracy”
It’s never produced an indictment - one of the concerns the impact it would have on news gathering.
Summers: te the case of Rosen, a district court judgement
Carey: there is no court below it, & the opinion in Rosen of the application of Sect 793 to the press was disregarded. No one prosecuted the press for receiving the material. Summers is demolishing the Prosecutions argumen
Keeps saying he is just trying to “work out how bright is Rosen’s star” as precedent
Summers: how foreseeable was it that a foreign publisher would be prosecuted?
Carey: Unimagined & there is ambiguity whether it is possible
Carey: common theme for context: they don’t support the administrations policies, are revealing misconduct or revealing information contrary to what the administration is revealing.
Carey finished
Judge asks them to consider whether the transcript that has been commissioned by a private party should be made available to the press. (Yeeeeeees!)
Fitzgerald asks that the Prosecution ensure their docs are provided in time for the witnesses to read them.
Also says the Defence
Will undertake to do same for the two prosecution witnesses, of which Kromberg is not one, that they would have liked to cross examine Mr Kromberg. (Wouldn’t we all. We have heard an awful lot from him). Very short break.
I apologise I have somehow missed the name of the Prosecution junior Counsel. Because you have not been able to see and hear her performance, I feel compelled to try to convey the defining characteristics. She speaks slowly, loudly, with an ever so slight Irish lilt in her
her delivery, which is at all times sneering and supercilious.
I find myself asking why we don’t get any of that from the Defence.
Statement of Dean Yates @DeanPTSD
Fitzgerald summarising:
Reuters Bureau chief in 2007 in Baghdad.
2 staff were killed by US forces possibly in a clash with militants, tried to obtain info from senior military, & for the return of the Namir’s camera, it was reported as a firefight, the returned camera showed
No evidence of a clash. In an effort to improve safety for our staff, I tried to clarify the rules of engagement. The General showed us photos of weapons collected from the firefight. He was shown the beginning of the tape in the lead up to the incident. Judge interrupts -
Irrelevant, get to the releases - saw what happened to Said & Namir judge interrupts again - what’s the relevance?
Fitzgerald describes how Said survived the first shots & ....(reading quickly in case she interrupts again)
I immediately realised the US military had lied to us -
This statement is so powerful but can’t type quickly enough & Fitzgerald has to motor thru it
Had it not been for Manning & Assange, the truth I’d what happened to them would not have been revealed, the truth about what the US was doing in Iraq.
Fitzgerald gone to talk to JA
Fitzgerald: there are 5 references in this to the importance of the rules of engagement which are the subject of one of the charges
Lewis: we have no questions of this witness, we accept his evidence.
Judge: comments on request from the press to release the transcript? They will consider over the weekend.
Shot of Gareth talking to JA.
Btw Prosecution said they have paid for half of it, so I gather the Defence & Prosecution have commissioned the transcript
, & Lewis said the request should come to them ie a matter of negotiation with them.
See you Monday
Here is the witness statement of @DeanPTSD

Here is the witness statement of Khaled el-Masri


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with 💧Mary Kostakidis

💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaryKostakidis

Nov 2
In contemplating the unfolding war in Ukraine, it helps to recall the lessons of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Small thread on how to start a proxy war and make it a success - famously recommended by Zbigniew Brzezinski
A fervent anti-communist, Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor hatched a plot to create a ‘Soviet Vietnam’ - to lure the Soviet Union into an unwinnable depleting war. Disparate Afghan war lords - collectively known as the Mujahideen - had been attempting to overthrow
successive regimes sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
There were two important prongs to the strategy for this proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union.
1 - on the ground: the CIA covertly funded, armed and trained the Mujahideen from a base over the border in Pakistan while
Read 14 tweets
Jun 7
Military buildup & AUKUS breast beating has nothing to do with protecting trade with China from China, it’s about the freedom to conduct military & intelligence activity in another country’s Exclusive Economic Zone - something China makes clear is not on arena.org.au/trade-routes-o…
The US “fears that if China’s position were to gain greater international acceptance, it would affect the United States’ ability to project naval and air power in other EEZs such as the Persian Gulf..” (1 of 2)
“That would force it to conduct operations from more than 200 miles offshore, significantly reducing the range of its sensors and missiles. It would be much harder to place its marines and their equipment in an amphibious tactical lodgement”.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 2
I have requested permission to observe 20 April #Assange hearing when the magistrate will issue the order to extradite him to the US. The order will then go to the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel for approval. Assange's defence will make submissions to Patel by May 18th.
They intend to appeal the original decision on the grounds of Press Freedom and Fair Trial.
The last hearing held in a higher court was a farce. Journalists outside London were not informed as to whether there would be a link until last minute, were informed we were approved after the start of the short hearing, during which we managed to merely access a black screen ..
Read 5 tweets
Oct 28, 2021
Day 2 of the US High Court #Assange Extradition Appeal in London.
Today the Defence will counter the arguments presented yesterday, & raise new reports from former US officials that the CIA considered kidnapping or murdering Assange. I’ll be covering proceedings on this thread.
They will also argue that if the Court decides to admit the US assurances & view them as comprehensive, then consideration will need to be given to which tribunal ought to assess their trustworthiness & will propose Baraitser as she has heard days of detailed evidence.
We heard yesterday that JA chose not to attend Court because of increased medication levels but subsequently @StellaMoris1 said that was not the case, that it was not his choice, that he was not permitted to attend, with no further information.
Read 108 tweets
Oct 27, 2021
The US High Court Extradition Appeal in London is scheduled to start in about an hour.
I’ll be monitoring on the videolink - along with other journalists - and will keep you posted on this thread.
The 5 grounds on which the HC has agreed the US can appeal are:

1. That the Extradition judge applied S91 of the Act improperly ie that extradition would Not be Oppressive or Unjust

2. The Judge should have given the US the opportunity to offer assurances
3. The judge ought to have disqualified the key Defence psychiatric expert Prof M. Kopelman because he misled the court by not revealing the identity of JA’s partner in his first report.

4. The judge erred in assessing evidence of suicide risk
Read 118 tweets
Aug 11, 2021
I’ll be following the UK High Court Appeal by the US

in the case of Julian #Assange

and **live tweeting**

Starts at 10.30am London time on 11 August - in just a few hours.

You can follow this thread, and quite a few others!
It appears this Court has allowed other observers besides journalists, unlike Judge Baraitser who barred human rights groups and parliamentarians form the Extradition hearing.
Amnesty International’s rep has been approved as was the Australian Parliamentary Assange supportgroup
This is not the US Appeal per se.
Tonight’s preliminary hearing
is to appeal the two (of 5) grounds on which the US was denied permission to appeal.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!