https://sputnikglobe.com/20200917/live-updates-wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-day-8-1080484942.html

Live Updates: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange's Extradition Hearing Day 8

Sputnik International

Assange is facing extradition to the US, where he was earlier indicted on 18 charges, mostly regarding violations under the Espionage Act. If convicted, he may... 17.09.2020, Sputnik International

2020-09-17T09:52+0000

https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e4/09/09/1080410736_0:0:2987:1689_1920x0_80_0_0_d1ef51b3747f47e3532acf37a36e4c4e.jpg

Sputnik International

feedback@sputniknews.com

+74956456601

MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“

252

2020

Sputnik International

feedback@sputniknews.com

+74956456601

MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“

252

News

en_EN

Sputnik International

feedback@sputniknews.com

+74956456601

MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“

252

1920

1080

true

1920

1440

true

https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e4/09/09/1080410736_0:0:2987:1879_1920x0_80_0_0_099d35c0893b3775eefad382aba55adc.jpg

1920

true

Sputnik International

feedback@sputniknews.com

+74956456601

MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“

252

Sputnik International

newsfeed, julian assange, wikileaks

A demonstrator protests outside of the Old Bailey court in central London on September 8, 2020, on the second day of the resumption of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's extradition hearing. - Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Monday failed to persuade a British judge to throw out new US allegations against him, as he resumed his fight to avoid extradition to the United States for leaking military secrets. Protesters gathered outside London's Old Bailey court as the 49-year-old Australian was brought in, brandishing placards reading Don't Extradite Assange and Stop this political trial. - Sputnik International

Live Updates: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange's Extradition Hearing Day 8

09:52 GMT 17.09.2020

Assange is facing extradition to the US, where he was earlier indicted on 18 charges, mostly regarding violations under the Espionage Act. If convicted, he may face up to 175 years in prison. The hearing on whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the US continues at the London Central Criminal Court on Thursday.

The eighth day of hearings into the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has started, with two defence witnesses due to be called: Professor John Sloboda, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, and Carey Shenkman, a lawyer specialising in human rights and constitutional law.

Assange, who was sent to the Belmarsh prison in April 2019 after his arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, is attending the trial from behind a glass panel, away from his defence team.

The hearing is expected to last at least three weeks, with high chances for the verdict to be appealed by the losing side.

The WikiLeaks founder has been indicted by the US Department of Justice on 18 charges, most of them regarding violations under the Espionage Act. He is facing extradition from the UK to the United States. If convicted of these charges, Assange may face up to 175 years in prison.

*Follow Sputnik's feed for the latest updates from the hearing.

Table of contents

16:51 GMT 17.09.2020

Rebecca Vincent of Reporters Without Borders on Assange's Extradition Hearing Day 8

15:40 GMT 17.09.2020

Court Adjourns Until 10 AM Friday

14:50 GMT 17.09.2020

Shenkman Explains What He Does as 'Constitutional Historian'

14:36 GMT 17.09.2020

What Was Shenkman's Contribution to UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention?

14:25 GMT 17.09.2020

Shenkman Says He Was on Legal Team Representing Assange

14:21 GMT 17.09.2020

What Kind of National 'Defence Information' Does the Espionage Act Include?

14:02 GMT 17.09.2020

What Was the Espionage Act 1917?

13:36 GMT 17.09.2020

Second Witness, Carey Shenkman, Begins to Testify

13:35 GMT 17.09.2020

What's Going On Outside the Old Bailey Court?

11:37 GMT 17.09.2020

Journalist Peter Oborne on Assange's Extradition Trial

11:34 GMT 17.09.2020

Craig Murray on Cross-Examination of Defence Witness

11:13 GMT 17.09.2020

Former Ecuadorian Embassy Counsel Comments on Sloboda's Testimony

10:12 GMT 17.09.2020

The Hearing Paused for Break

10:08 GMT 17.09.2020

Cross-Examination Continues

10:03 GMT 17.09.2020

Cross-Examination Begins

10:02 GMT 17.09.2020

'The Iraq War Logs Were Published in Appropriate Form', Sloboda Says

10:00 GMT 17.09.2020

Sloboda: There Was 'Considerable Pressure on Assange to Hurry-Up' From Media Partners

09:57 GMT 17.09.2020

09:56 GMT 17.09.2020

Judge Allows Sloboda to Read From His Statement

09:55 GMT 17.09.2020

Prof John Sloboda on Iraq War Logs

09:54 GMT 17.09.2020

Who Are Defence Witnesses Today?

New firstOld first

16:50 GMT 17.09.2020

Rebecca Vincent (@rebecca_vincent), of Reporters Without Borders, discusses difficulties with this afternoons hearing & notes that defence witness Mr Carey Shenkman "really held his ground that he belives that this is a political application of the Espionage Act"

via @SputnikInt pic.twitter.com/rprYTcAahs
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

15:39 GMT 17.09.2020

***There has been extensive back and forth regarding the specifics of US law in relation to the first amendment and news gathering.

Due to the time court has risen and the case is adjourned with the testimony to continue at 2pm and court will restart at 10am.****
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Final quote from Judge to Ms Dobbin when the latter seems to complain that she's done her best to ask Mr Shenkman clear questions requiring only short responses:

"I don’t think this witness has been other than as helpful as he can in answering the questions you have asked"
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

14:48 GMT 17.09.2020

Q. You describe yourself as constitutional historian… what’s the basis of that Mr Shenkman?
A. Spending the last decade reading a lot of books, giving a lot of talks, and writing a lot of pieces… and also my experience as a constitutional litigator
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Q. So your work as a lawyer over the past 6 years?

A. No... I have a manuscript of the most comprehensive treatment of the Espionage Act ever written… my co-author and I are the only two who have done this historical analysis… this is the first undertaking of its kind.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

14:35 GMT 17.09.2020

They are now discussing Mr Shenkman's contribution to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that determined Mr Assange was being "arbitrarily detained" by the UK, US & Sweden.
see here: https://t.co/JDQoGU0crS
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

“I don’t think it is controversial to argue that a particular state is not in line within its human rights obligations”
I didn’t make these up Mr Shenkman tells US prosecution lawyer Ms Dobbin tells, “this is an academic analysis that has been peer-reviewed”
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

It's important that when someone submits what they say is expert opinion the court "can test whether or not that opinion, notwithstanding that it is said to be academic, that it is nonetheless objective and balanced in what it says” prosecution lawyer Ms Dobbin, tells Mr Shenkman
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

14:22 GMT 17.09.2020

Clair Dobbin, barrister for the prosecution, is now asking Mr Shenkman whether he was on the legal team that represented Mr Assange. Mr Shenkman says yes, in a limited capacity.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

14:14 GMT 17.09.2020

Mr Shenkman's report states that:

"the first nearly 2,000 prosecutions under the [Espionage] Act of more than 2,500 defendants were made on account of their political speech."

These were "political prosecutions" Mr Shenkman tells court.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

In each of the 11 cases of press publishing classified information covered by Mr Shenkman in his report there was never an indictment. Mr Shenkman explains that there was fierce opposition from the press…
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

... & that the internal deliberations that have come out historically is “great ambivalence” within the justice department over the Espionage Act and that there was “no way to draw a line” between prosecuting one individual and another or one outlet and another outlet.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 was passed to say that nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall impinge upon the 1st Amendment but it doesn't affect the actual wording of the Espionage Act, Mr Shenkman says.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Mr Shenkmann notes the Pentagon Papers case whereby an injunction was sought against the NYT & WaPo was more focused on civil injunction matters rather than criminal liabilities. There is Obiter Dictum which implies that a criminal prosecution could happen but no further detail
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

14:00 GMT 17.09.2020

Mr Shenkman’s report explains that the Espuonage Act 1917 was passed within the context of World War I. There was intense resistance among the US population in joining the war and the law was passed to undermine legitimate criticism of the war and opposition to joining it.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

“Although the [Espionage Act 1917] allowed for the prosecution of spies, the conduct it proscribed went well beyond spying. Indeed, the Espionage Act would become the principal tool for what President Wilson dubbed his administration’s “firm hand of stern repression”...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

... against opposition to U.S. participation in the war. Wilson declared a no-tolerance policy for those who “inject the poison of disloyalty into our most critical affairs.” ”
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Mr Shenkman's report says The Espionage Act 1917 at the time was called “an instrument of tyranny” by one representative and a Senator characterised the law as “unconstitutional, un-American, unwise, and unnecessary” adding that “no one can foresee all the evils to flow from it.”
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Amended by the Sedition Act 1918 (which would later be repealed) the Espionage Act 1917 was called “the most repressive legislation in American history.”
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Espionage Act enforced widespread censorship stating:

“Every letter, writing, circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, publication, matter or thing, of any kind, containing any matter advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

... forcible resistance to any law of the United States, is hereby declared to be nonmailable.”
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Mr Shenkman's report states that:

"the first nearly 2,000 prosecutions under the [Espionage] Act of more than 2,500 defendants were made on account of their political speech."

These were "political prosecutions" Mr Shenkman tells court.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

13:35 GMT 17.09.2020

Court proceedings resume - witness Carey Shenkman appears on video link. #AssangeCase.
— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) September 17, 2020

Carey Shenkman has been sworn in via video link, he's a lawyer specialising in human rights & Constitutional law. He works with numerous organizations, including the Center for Constitutional Rights & ARTICLE 19 & is an advisor to Columbia’s Global Freedom of Expression Program
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

The sound from the witness Mr Shenkman is so poor the proceedings have yet to start. It improved and then it stops...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

The witness Mr Carey Shenkman is now having to hold his mobile phone to his head (for the next 2 1/2 hours?) as he testifies via video link.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

13:35 GMT 17.09.2020

In the vicinity of the Old Bailey there is always activity regardless whether hearings are ongoing inside. pic.twitter.com/H5AmkR4px9
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

11:35 GMT 17.09.2020

Future generations of journalists will not forgive us if we do not fight #Assange extradition | @OborneTweets https://t.co/kc9rGJRk8D
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 17, 2020

11:34 GMT 17.09.2020

Craig Murray, ex-diplomat & human rights activist, has been monitoring Mr Assange's extradition hearings. He says the US prosecution today sought to paint Mr Assange as "cavalier" towards the safety of informants though the defence witness rejected that assertion
via @SputnikInt pic.twitter.com/ME6w1ocHJI
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

11:11 GMT 17.09.2020

Fidel Narvaez was counsel for the Ecuadorian Embassy when Mr Assange was there with asylum. He notes that Prof Sloboda said WikiLeaks and Mr Assange "were the most concerned" about redacting names to protect those who might be harmed by the Iraq War Logs.

via @SputnikInt pic.twitter.com/Z6GaJU1KnM
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

10:11 GMT 17.09.2020

CROSS-EXAMINATION IS OVER SHORT BREAK TO BEFORE RE-EXAMINATION BY DEFENCE
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL 2PM
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

10:08 GMT 17.09.2020

Q. “So responsible journalism would be not naming cooperating sources” [says rhetorically]

A. “There was an awareness at WikiLeaks that previous Afghan War Logs had identified sources?”
Q. Can’t recall. I believe it was just a sense that there needed to be a better...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

... process for the next round

Q. Process Of redaction?
A. Yes

Q. Because the previous process of redaction was flawed?
A. Clearly, because it was not as it should have been. No.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

"Software was being constantly modified to include and exclude information as issues arose during the process" Prof Sloboda
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

"A human must go back through the logs to make sure there is no jigsaw risk" lawyer for the prosecutor says who asked Prof Sloboda how many documents were reviewed by human beings before the publication of the 400,000 docs. "I don't know" the professor responded.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Prosecutor says there are 2 examples of cooperating individuals who were named & according to info from people with expertise in military & diplomatic matters as well as those with expert knowledge by publishing these docs Mr Assange created a grave risk that such people would
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

... experience significant harm.
A. "If they were in heavily redacted logs published in 2010 this is the first I a have heard of it" "I have no explanation of that at all"

Q. Might it be because Mr Assange "took a cavalier attitude" to the publication of these logs & informants?
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

A. "No"

Q. "What’s the alternative?"

A. "I imagine the alternative that some element of the redaction for some unknown reason and without seeing the particular logs referred to.. the redaction programme allowed those names to remain in the documents… simply conjecture"
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

10:03 GMT 17.09.2020

[non-verbatim cross]

Q. Your expertise was in the collation of statistics and cross referencing against what was already known?
A. Collation of documents not statistics..

A. We understood… that such logs would contain these very documentary reports of civilians being killed
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

...
Q. You approached Mr Assange and he decided you could be given access
A. Yes, on same basis of disclosure as media partners

Q. Vetting process that you underwent before gaining access?
A. My memory is that we paid a visit to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

...asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement after a discussion with the then Chief
A. I don’t remember a vetting procedure
Q. So you were handed 400,000 classified documents before being vetted?
A. Who are you suggesting would have done this?
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Q. Did WikiLeaks or Julian Assange engage in a vetting procedure before handing over access to 400,000 classified docs to you?

A. I don’t know.
Q. What do you know about source protection?

A. Not an expert
Q. What do you know about Jigsaw protection?
...
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

A. Havne't heard before. .. I magine it would relate to piece together identity from various forms of information

Prosecutor says "Precisely"

A. "A risk we certainly discussed which is one of the reasons why additional information… was redacted such as occupation.."
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

Q. Sectarian violence in Iraq 2006 "Underlines does it not the danger that any individual that any cooperating individual would be put in if they were to be identified"?

A. Yes.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

10:00 GMT 17.09.2020

“We were not involved in any way with Mr Assange’s or WikiLeaks release of other data sets, I can only attest to here in this court that the Iraq War Logs published in 2010 October [...] were published in a wholly appropriate highly redacted form” Prof Sloboda tells the Court
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

09:58 GMT 17.09.2020

This was a "painstaking" process and there was considerable pressure on Mr Assange to "hurry-up" by media partners "pressure which was consistently rejected" by Mr Assange, Prof Sloboda says.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

“They were over-redacted for caution. But the position taken was to be over-cautious and in certain circumstances possibly un-redact”, Prof Sloboda
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

09:56 GMT 17.09.2020

Prof Sloboda also notes that he and Iraq Body Count reached out to WikiLeaks. “[Mr Assange] was absolutely welcoming of [our high level of rigour]... he immediately suggested we join a media consortium which had pre-publication access to the logs…”, Mr Sloboda said.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

"The aim [of Mr Assange and WikiLeaks] was a very, very stringent redaction of the Iraq War Logs" in order to "ensure that no information that could be damaging to living individuals, including informants, [would be published]"
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

System WikiLeaks used with Iraq Body Count "over-redacted" on a certain level because of how the system worked so we then needed to "un-redact", as "it was conceivable in some cases that the mere mention of the occupation" of some [place] "could result in their identification"
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

09:55 GMT 17.09.2020

"He's welcome to read from his statement" if it assists him the judge says after an apparent objection from a prosecution lawyer who notes that Prof Sloboda is looking to his left as answering questions to defence lawyer Florence Iveson.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

09:54 GMT 17.09.2020

Iraq War Logs offered “The largest single contribution to knowledge about civilian casualties that has so far come to light” adding about “15,000 hitherto unknown [civilian] deaths” - Prof John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count tells defence lawyer Ms Iveson.
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020

09:53 GMT 17.09.2020

#JulianAssange hearings Part 2 - Day 8 (Thread)

Court to sit at 10:00 am.

Next 2 defence witnesses due to be called:

1) Prof John Sloboda (co-founder Iraq Body Count, morning)
2) Carey Shenkmam (lawyer spec. in human rights & constitutional law, afternoon)

via @SputnikInt pic.twitter.com/eFHvFxIXrY
— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 17, 2020