Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Courts Your Rights Online

Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning 184

Posted by samzenpus
from the questions-and-answers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning

Comments Filter:
  • by EasyTarget (43516) on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:02AM (#40662005) Journal

    I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.

    I'm sure the lawyer told him what the law is.. So that he can then make his own decision as to whether to comply with a restriction on his freedom.

    I, for one, am glad that he followed what the constitution, and the basic principles of any truly free society, tells him instead.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:15AM (#40662085) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by ErroneousBee (611028) <neil:neilhancock,co,uk> on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:19AM (#40662101) Homepage
    He is not transcribing recorded testimony, as in converting the recorders recording into another form.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:30AM (#40662161)

    Why despise Manning. Sure, he didn't do as he was told and leave all the things in secrecy, but if somebody requests something bad of you, sometimes you really shouldn't do as told. Requesting you keep your mouth shut when you find a whole lot of things that are wrong is wrong. Ignoring something bad is nearly as bad as doing something bad. If we all ignore the wrong things because its our job we are doomed.

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:35AM (#40662195) Homepage Journal

    Well, I think that reads like "we disagree with your lawyer on your right to make notes of the proceedings".

    because his lawyer(counsel) feels differently on the matter. that means his lawyer was advising that he could take notes. notice how the court didn't actually stop him from making notes, they just made an empty threat - which makes it a pretty fucked up court proceeding worth transcribing. it just means that they weren't comfortable with anyone outside the court actually knowing what's going on and how the tax dollars are at work(tm).

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:37AM (#40662205) Homepage
    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.
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:40AM (#40662235) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by cdrguru (88047) on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:56AM (#40662345) Homepage

    You are assuming Manning was completely aware of the content he was distributing. As in he reviewed it and found things that he felt should not be secret. I cannot imagine this course of action because the volume of material was just too great. What I'm sure he did was grab a huge pile of stuff he had no knowledge about and dumped it on someone else with the thought "there must be something juicy in here".

    If, however, he had picked out three or ten or even fifty documents and disclosed them he might have an argument for disclosing bad things that were improperly being kept secret. But millions of items? No, sorry, that was blind malicious behavior.

  • by Shinobi (19308) on Monday July 16, 2012 @11:04AM (#40662947)

    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.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Monday July 16, 2012 @11:17AM (#40663071)

    You're probably right, but on the flipside if it wasn't for Manning various families would still think their fathers/husbands were "missing" somewhere in Iraq. They would never have known that the U.S. military was covering-up the fact they killed those journalists and were hiding the evidence. I think any person who exposes a coverup of that magnitude deserves to be thanked. Just as we thank the people who exposed Watergate, Irangate, and the government guns being shipped to druglords in Mexico.

  • by BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) on Monday July 16, 2012 @01:24PM (#40664359)
    Right, especially given the description in 6(e)(1)

    Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device...

    Seeing as how subsection iv uses the same language:

    (iv) an operator of a recording device;

    Clearly the "recording device" in 6(e)(2)(B)(iv) mentioned is the same as the one in 6(e)(1). It should be pretty clear that (iv) was meant to apply to the person running the audio or video recorder when the proceedings are recorded instead of (or in addition to) using a court reporter.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...