Slashdot Mirror
Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "A year ago, free information advocate and Bradley Manning supporter David House was subpoenaed to testify in the grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks that's taking place in Alexandria, Virginia. Now he's released a transcript of his interrogation that he produced by taking handwritten notes on a legal pad and handing pages to his lawyer during their consultations. Though House pled the fifth and didn't tell the prosecutors much, the notes show the prosecution attorneys focusing their questions on Boston-area hackers as well as Tor developer and WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum."
Bob Wiechering: Mr. House, I notice you are taking notes. Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury. We have brought this to the attention of your counsel, and although he feels differently on the matter, we assert that you must stop taking notes at this time.
David House: Let me consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
David House: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
It would seem that the rule in question now puts him in contempt of court? It appears to explicitly mention what is happening here. I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.
My work here is dung.
We get it: powerful, corrupt people are annoyed that stuff about them is being revealed to the world, and they want to go through the justice theatre to silence those who leak information.
If you play them at their game, they win.
And how exactly is an investigative journalist supposed to get a transcript of the court hearing? Sleep with the judge?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Investigative journalism is the right way to make public information that you think the should be known.
Nobody invited a journalist to visit and record the proceedings, so this is the only way for the public's interest to be served. Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"being a smart ass" - that is a favorite phrase used by all uniformed thugs with badges any time their victims try to protect their rights by invoking the law.
I think he did this just to get his name clear .....i'd be willing to bet he has probably been the gorilla in the room at their hacker club or collective whatever the kids call it these days.
A group of leaders who are corrupt and stick-to-the-rules, versus House? I think I've seen this somewhere before....
Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
However, if the prosecutor is the public one, and the defendant agrees to an open court, then you might have a case.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Actually, grand juries are on circumstance where secrecy makes sense. Grand juries don't convict people, they are responsible for deciding if there's sufficient evidence of a crime to go ahead with the prosecution. Keeping such hearing secret means that people are more willing to give information they might not want to give in open court if it is personally embarrassing or if it has a negative aspect to people they don't want to piss off. It also means that a prosecutor can't just use the threat of bringing someone in front of a jury where they'll air all the person's dirty laundry. Overall, the secrecy of grand juries helps the little guy.
The only thing a REAL American distrusts the government on is taxes. Only commies don't unquestioningly trust the government on every matter except raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations. Otherwise you should not ask any questions and let the government do anything it wants in secret. Only citizens should not be allowed any secrecy or privacy.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
If s/he catches you, s/he can cite you for contempt.
But isn't a grand jury hearing supposed to be in secret anyway? And merely one of the first steps in the prosecution of an alleged crime? I mean it's practically like demanding a transcript of the prosecutor's preparation for a case.
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
Marriage is a legal institution and the details aren't a secret in some states. Why should the details of the divorce be? If there is no public interest in marriage, why does it even exist as a legal institution at all?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
. . . Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
But . . . we arent a democracy . . . .
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
I'm more curious as to what Jacob Appelbaum's legal recourse in this is. Clearly he is being targeted by the government for persecution/prosecution. But how can he prove it when all he has is (presumably) illegal evidence? Just another example of how insidious these secret courts/investigations/etc. really are. A citizen is being targeted for persecution for presumably legal activities, and for anyone to even REVEAL that he's being targeted is illegal.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
..maybe divorce court proceedings shouldn't include gory details. why do you need proof of infidelity etc crap for getting a divorce? it should just need the person saying that he/she wants it - it's not a slavery contract.
court proceedings possibly meaningful on national political level should of course be public, public like the sessions to discuss the laws to be made should be.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
You're missing the difference between a civil suit and a criminal one.
In a civil suit, two civilian (hence "civil") parties are in dispute and require the court's assistance in reaching a resolution. A divorce is a good example. (I will add as a footnote that, at least here in Canada, ALL court proceedings are a matter of public record, divorces included. Therefore if you seek the court's assistance in resolving your divorce it will become a matter of public record. Whether or not that ought to be the case is something I won't get into since it would take me into a long editorializing rant full of my personal opinions and that's quite OT).
In a criminal suit it's the government (presumably the "public") against a citizen who has committed a crime.
In a free and open society all criminal suits ought to be a matter of public record and be open because it's one of the best tools we have for keeping the government honest and fair. That's why we have jury trials and public records and transcriptions etc. It's also a powerful tool to aid in proving someone's innocence after they were falsely convicted (by proving mistrials etc.)
in keeping with the process of natural justice, then yes, why not? It's part and parcel of the whole level playing field thing, full disclosure and all that. If disclosure is partial, then there is no justice.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
And it is very powerful tool for discrimination, as after you have a criminal case, even without conviction, it will in the public record forever, for any future employer to find out, and to put your resume in the garbage bin.
In most states in the US there is such a thing as "no fault divorce". The problem is, if one person wants to screw over the other and get as much money and assets as possible "no fault" doesn't really accomplish that goal. What you need is dirt and plenty of it to threaten to drag out - or even actually drag out - to make the other person look as bad as possible. The reward for doing this is perhaps getting enough as a settlement to never have to work again, ever.
Sure, it would be nice if people could just walk away, but after devoting years of their life to a failed relationship a lot of times someone wants something out of it. Or just wants to make the other person suffer as much as possible.
This doesn't really work if there are no assets or cash because there isn't anything to go after. Unless there are children. Then things get really nasty because unless you want your child to be raised by someone you hate you have to prove in court they are unfit. So, plenty of time the "child molester" card gets brought up as in "if you contest my having full custody you will be shown in court to be a child molester." Often this is enough to make the husband go away. But there is always the defense of showing the drug habits of the wife and how much she sleeps around and how this makes her unfit.
End result is of course that in many cases both parents end up proving they should never have had children in the first place and the world would be better off if the children were sent to a foreign country and told their parents died.
..maybe divorce court proceedings shouldn't include gory details. why do you need proof of infidelity etc crap for getting a divorce? it should just need the person saying that he/she wants it - it's not a slavery contract.
I think the details are not for the divorce itself, but to decide related matters such as alimony/palimony and custody of children. If one spouse has cheated, causing the divorce, I think they are less likely to receive alimony or custody. IANAL so this may be completely wrong.
Indeed. At least the defendant should have a say in whether the records should be open or not.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
If the court proceeding is a matter of public record, and you were found innocent, it's the employer's problem if they want to lose out on your services because of irrational biases and fear. Besides, do you really want to work at such a place ?
Not to mention, with that kind of stain associated with someone who was simply accused of a crime, it's more incentive for the public to hold their government accountable, and provide severe repercussions for falsely convicting and accusing someone.
How to go about "fixing" the system would take us into a huge debate. I just don't see the point you bring up as a valid point against having open trials. Government is supposed to be by and for the people. Thus everything government does, and everything people do involving government, needs to be open since it affects every individual citizen.
For what it's worth, I do think people who are falsely accused, tried and found innocent or convicted and later exonerated ought to be taken care of for their trouble. You can't get a piece of your life back once it's been lost, and if government is "by the people" then the people should pay a price when they take an innocent person's freedom and wealth. The purely social implications, though ? It's individuals who make and form a society, not government. So if you want to change something there (like ending unfair discrimination) then your battle is on a totally different front. It's not fair to point the finger at government or look to government as a tool to solve that problem, and doing so will create all sorts of other injustices (I could name countless examples but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader to avoid being flamebait).
But . . . we arent a democracy . . . .
On one hand, I agree with you. We are a corporatocracy masquerading as a republic. However, that republic often pays lip service to the idea of democracy. I do think that before we go trying to spread it to other nations, we should try it here...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since he didn't answer anything.
Which is awesome, needless to say - here is clearly someone who doesn't take crap from anyone, and gives not an inch more to authority than he is legally obligated.
Overall, the secrecy of grand juries helps the little guy.
That might be true, I'm not an expert and I haven't built any statistics on the subject. But in this case we're dealing with a political issue and we need to know what is being said on our behalf.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.
From http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html
No brain, no pain.
IANAL either, but imagine a proceeding in which anything that the prosecution writes down or records is considered evidence while anything that the defense writes down is considered contempt of court.
If the prosecution revealed secrets to Mr House, he is not under any obligation to keep them. If Mr. House is found to be breaking the law at the level of the Supreme Court by taking notes at his own interrogation, then the US has just passed into the domain of a fascist state. Similarly, the prosecution has no right to coerce Mr. House to keep the interrogation secret as it would set a precedent for future abuse.
I predict that there will be no charges over the transcript, and if there are, they will be thrown out of court. Great work, House. You have wisely set an example for all who are placed into a similar situation.
1) Get an attorney
2) Exercise your 5th amendment rights. Don't respond to any questions.
3) Record everything
4) Make the record public
For those who want the opinion of an actual attorney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
"Marriage is a legal institution and the details aren't a secret in some states. Why should the details of the divorce be?"
Because it's your personal life, no crimes were committed, it and doesn't have anything to do with anyone other than your spouse and you.
"If there is no public interest in marriage, why does it even exist as a legal institution at all?"
Good point, and exactly why married people shouldn't receive any benefits not afforded to an unmarried individual. The government shouldn't be incentivizing lifestyle choices. Besides, "marriage" is historically a religious institution. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the government is involved in it at all or why things like "marriage certificates" even exist. The government shouldn't be involved in marrying people or keeping them from being married. The whole thing is stupid.
This is a fascinating way of looking at it. It's very consistent, too.
There is a very strong movement within about half of US's voters, to expand the role of government to further manage marriage. And even if that expansion does not succeed, their rhetoric constantly and consistently speaks of marriage as a public institution, and where third parties and the public at large, have a compelling interest in other people's marriage. Their position is that marriage is not merely a relationship between two people; that it's a special relationship between two people and everyone one else too.
Many of us blow these them off as crackpots, but "many" is only about half; many (also about half!) vote for this point of view. You might not share the opinion, but it IS mainstream opinion that marriage is public, and is something that needs government's hand.
That means it's not necessarily insane that divorce details be public.
Keep in mind, though, that the anti-privatization-of-marriage faction is really arguing for tighter regulation; transparency itself, hasn't been one of their talking points. It may be that part of the reason they want more government involvement would even be to increase secrecy. If, for example, we use government to take away gay's freedom to marry one another, that could be a means, to the end of silencing gays who talk about their marriages. That's not crazy either, as the movement to expand government's role in marriage did happen in concert with gays becoming more open, sharing more with the public.
"which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a REPUBLIC." - FTFY
The situation of democracy being pushed on us is such rediculous BS. None of the founders had a positive view of democracy and for good reason. Now we have teachers, politicians and world leaders saying "be like America.. a true democracy!"... the only problem is we are not one. We are a republic. Democracies are doomed to fail and result in MOB RULE which leads to an oligarchy. I am not sure where or why democracy is making a resurgence, but I for one do not welcome democracy as I know the outcome of such governments. What boggles me even more is our own politicians and leaders continue to reffer to our nation as a democracy. I mean to be elected to office shouldn't you at least know what kind of government we are?
I suggest all people who either don't understand governments to review this short you tube video clearly describing the benefits,problems, and pitfalls of each type of government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
Just a few of the recent american leaders who like to use "democracy" over "republic" when speaking in public.
Nanci Pelosi - "Our founders established a democracy – not a plutocracy." - Addressing People of the American Way (um Nancy, we are not a democracy and there is no such thing as a plutocracy)
Barrack Obama - "Tonight is answer to those who still question the power of our democracy." - Addressing Nation (sigh, president doesn't even know)
Hillary Clinton - "And after we won our independence, it was activists who helped establish our democracy." - Addressing Convention (cmon, really? They despised democracies...)
Bill Clinton - "...to balance the budget, renew our democracy, and finish the job of welfare reform..." - State of the Union (Apparently the state of the union was not particularly good on this day...)
All in all, i understand why people keep making the mistake as our own leaders don't know what type of government they are a part of. However, please in the future, consider the reality of our nations government type before posting. For fun, ask any non-history (and even some history teachers) what type of government we are and see how our children are being misled daily by teachers who also do not understand the facts. Its really quite a sad state.
"which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a REPUBLIC." - FTFY
Fucked that for me? Thanks. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Go troll elsewhere.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So according to this quote, apparently WikiLeaks is now forcing people to be whistleblowers?
No, by outsourcing the blowing of a whistle to wikileaks you allow them to determine whether to blow it.
The quote's point was that you should blow it yourself.
So if you give information to WikiLeaks, you no longer have it yourself and can't release it?
On the other hand, if the hearings were more public, perhaps prosecutors would be reigned in a bit and be forced to confine prosecution to cases where there was clearly a violation of the law and where prosecution is properly in the public interest.
If I had mod points, I'd give you one. I totally agree that marriage is something that the state should not be involved in.
This wasn't a court, it was a grand jury. They are secret to protect the innocent from having their names tainted. The process may sometimes be abused for the purpose of hassling people, but calling it a "secret court proceeding" is still wrong. Civilian court proceedings are public and handled by judges and juries.
Ideally, in any lawsuit, including divorce, the court shouldn't go offtopic or subjective, and should only concentrate on the matter at hand. Unfortunately, most judges don't really value the privacy of the parties involved. Thus, I have to agree with you, until lawyers will be forbidden to dig up your whole life in an unrelated case, sometimes having the trial behind closed doors is the better alternative.
BINGO!!! Mod this one up pls! Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
He's (arguably) transcribing the questions as they are asked and noting his own responses. He is not transcribing anything from a recording. This restriction is clearly intended to prevent a person who prepares a transcript from the recording at a later date from being able to reveal anything. Which is entirely reasonable, although I suspect that in most cases it's more a matter of someone comparing the transcript made at the time with what was on the tape. (At least that's how it worked when I have given testimony. And FWIW, it's been my experience that in relatively relaxed settings like depositions stenographers appreciate it when you spell any unusual technical terms you're using.)
Also look at the subsequent section regarding secrecy, where the person giving the testimony is conspicuous by their absence.
Yes,and if prosecutors are afraid that misconduct with the grand jury will come to light, they'll stop gaming the system to get unjust indictments.
There is a saying that even one shit is enough to make you look dirty.... Or translated, it is enough even if one stupid HR, or developer (future co-worker) to throw a shit at you. And we all know that every company has its black sheep. or shitty sheep, or whatever.
Actually, grand juries are on circumstance where secrecy makes sense. Grand juries don't convict people, they are responsible for deciding if there's sufficient evidence of a crime to go ahead with the prosecution. Keeping such hearing secret means that people are more willing to give information they might not want to give in open court if it is personally embarrassing or if it has a negative aspect to people they don't want to piss off. It also means that a prosecutor can't just use the threat of bringing someone in front of a jury where they'll air all the person's dirty laundry. Overall, the secrecy of grand juries helps the little guy.
This doesn't apply to this case though. Here the person making the disclosure is the witness. He decided after the fact to reveal what he was asked about.