Informants named in WikiLeaks files disappeared, Assange hearing told

[turbinetree]

Source: The Guardian

Secret sources who had supplied information to the US government “disappeared” after they were put at risk of death or torture by WikiLeaks’s release of classified documents, the first day of Julian Assange’s extradition hearing has been told.

James Lewis QC opened the US case for the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder from the UK at Woolwich crown court. Lewis referred to a range of sources in states including Iraq, Afghanistan and China.

“The US is aware of sources, whose unredacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by WikiLeaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can’t prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by WikiLeaks,” he told the court in south-east London.

By disseminating material in an unredacted form, Lewis said Assange knowingly put human rights activists, dissidents, journalists and their families at risk of serious harm in states run by oppressive regimes.

Assange, 48, is wanted in the US to face 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the Espionage Act. They relate to the publication a decade ago of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and files covering areas including US activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Australian, who could face a 175-year prison sentence if found guilty, is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/24/julian-assange-hearing-journalism-is-no-excuse-for-breaking-law

[rzemanfl]

1. Yet the orange anus offered this MFer a pardon. n/t

[jberryhill]

2. How could this be? We were assured this was not the case....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022944450

[PSPS]

3. That skirts the issue somewhat

There are two items at play here. One is the leaking and the other is how the leak is treated.

The leaking isn't really part of Assange's case and, even if the information were hacked by Assange himself, that doesn't seem to be within the scope of his argument.

Here it seems like he's dragging out the often-misunderstood "first amendment" defense. This is doomed to fail because, unlike any legitimate news organization, Assange did nothing to vet or redact sensitive information prior to its "publication" on Wikileaks. Instead, it was released in its entirety without any concern for either its accuracy or the fallout from its full disclosure. In other words, Assange was not acting as a news organization at all.

[jberryhill]

4. That thread picks up the issue

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022944450#post295

While the accusation of compromise of informants was made in 2010, there have been no verified instances of anyone harmed as a result.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

6. We will NEVER know the full extent of the damage he caused.

Or how many innocent people were hurt or worse.

I hope he rots from the inside out in some dark, cold, putrid, vermin-infested prison cell.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. K&R