Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning 184
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."
Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [cornell.edu] 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.
Re:This is just... boring (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This is just... boring (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Interesting)
I admire Assange. I despise Manning. House? He's on the positive end of that scale.
That seems fairly weird. Manning (allegedly) is the one whose conscience was in play. Manning decided his government was doing evil things and decided they needed to be outed. Assange designed the program that Manning (allegedly) used to do that. Manning (allegedly) did what Assange advocates, yet you admire the latter and despise the former?
Where did you find that moral code of yours? In a box of CrackerJacks?
Very one-sided transcript (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury
They also claim we're not allowed to camera-record, audio-record, or pen-and-paper record our conversations with police/government officials. (And have arrested people for doing it and/or taking their property and erased them.) But the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2011 that the Constitution is a higher law, and it clearly states the People have the inalienable right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press to record/discuss what the cops & government officials are doing to them.
Constitutional Right (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Mod parent UP! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought secrecy was required afterwards, too, the reason being that people being investigated shouldn't be smeared by questions asked, should charges not be brought.
You and I both know that's not really why grand juries are held in secret.