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.
You have to play by their rules or you get the worst possible outcome.
Rule #1 - If they can do nasty things to you, NEVER EVER attach your name to things you do.
Rule #2 - Never EVER talk about what you have done to anyone that can attach it to you. Talk anonomously via a secure and untraceable comms channel and for very BRIEF moments. I.E. you are trying to get the information to WikiLeaks, you spend less than 60 seconds asking questions and then go OFFLINE and do not use that path or even made up handle again.
Rule #3 - Your computer is spying on you, Paranoia is key here even silly levels of paranoia. Better safe than sorry. USE a live CD on a laptop and spoof a MAC address just in case.
Rule #4 - I don't care what anyone else calls it, It's espionage in their eyes. The people running the game have guns, they can point them at you and scream traitor. Keep this in mine every single second of the day.
Bradley Manning was incredibly stupid. He was trying to get street cred in the Hax0r scene by bragging to a known Government Informant. Stupid him, epic stupid him.
I don't care what others tell you, the guys that don't get caught use the above formula. The ones that get lazy or sloppy get caught. Ask Mitnick how he got caught.... he became complacent and lazy.
If you cant live the lifestyle or walk the walk for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, then just dont do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.'"
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.
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?
If they (the State, in this case acting as Prosecutor) want to fuck you up the arse, there is NOTHING you can do to prevent it.
What you CAN do is not make their job easy. What you CAN do is make them spend money, because THAT is the limiting factor in their activities. What you CAN do is tell them to fuck off and that you will record what they say and obeying the maxim that for justice to be done it must be seen to be done, publish and be damned.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.)
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.'"
And by following those rules, you have given them exactly what they want. You have given in to fear and oppression.
As history teaches us, successful resistance comes not from anonymous cowards, it comes from people who stand up and say "I will not tolerate this anymore".
Arab spring, Gandhi, workers rights fights, USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
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
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.
USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
Which also would have failed if none of the people involved had been anonymous. There are times to agitate openly, and times when it's better to do so in secret. Whatever works, do it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Only those who get caught, get arrested and locked up in prison for the rest of their lives.
I'm not going to weigh the morality of what Manning did, but there were much better methods to get the information out, rather than bragging to a known informant
This signature is false.
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.