Профессор Джон Слобода в четверг категорически отверг утверждения обвинения о том, что Джулиан Ассанж «бесцеремонно» относился к благополучию информаторов правительства США при публикации журналов войны в Ираке. Профессор основал известную организацию «Иракский счет тела» и активно сотрудничал с WikiLeaks чтобы просматривать документы, а также помогать редактировать их перед публикацией.
Журналы войны в Ираке предложили «самый крупный отдельный вклад в знания о жертвах среди гражданского населения, которые до сих пор стали известны», добавив около «15 000 ранее неизвестных [civilian] смертельные случаи », — сказала профессор адвокату Флоренс Ивсон.
«Цель [of Mr Assange and WikiLeaks] был очень, очень строгим редактированием Журнала войны в Ираке, «чтобы» гарантировать, что никакая информация, которая может нанести ущерб живым людям, включая информаторов, [would be published]»
— Мохамед Эльмаази (Мелмаази) 17 сентября 2020 г.
«Они были чрезмерно отредактированы из соображений предосторожности», — сказал профессор Слобода, отметив, что позиция была «чрезмерно осторожной и при определенных обстоятельствах возможна неотредактированная». [later».
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
This evidence further corroborated the testimony of investigative journalist John Goetz who, as a then reporter with Der Speigal, worked with the media consortium that was granted access to the various classified documents before their publication.
During cross-examination, the witness was challenged as to how he was «vetted» by WikiLeaks before being given access to the tens of thousands of documents making up the Iraq War Logs.
«Who are you suggesting would have done this?», Professor Sloboda replied, having explained that he had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before gaining access to the documents.
«Did WikiLeaks or Julian Assange engage in a vetting procedure before handing over access to 400,000 classified docs to you?», Joel Smith, barrister for the prosecution, asked. » I don’t know» the professor responded.
When asked about «jigsaw protection» in relation to the need to guard against information which on its own can’t lead to identifying an individual but with other pieces could potentially identify a potential information the professor explained that in addition to names being redacted, occupations, and at time mosques names were also redacted. He could not answer if other buildings or vehicles were named.
Mr Smith’s suggestion that Mr Assange has a cavalier attitude towards the safety of informants came after the barrister revealed to Professor Sloboda allegations that the identities of two informants somehow missed the redaction process of the 400,000 documents that were published.
«According to information from people with expertise in military and diplomatic matters» Mr Smith said to the professor «by publishing these documents Mr Assange created a grave risk that such people would experience significant harm» he said.
If they were in heavily redacted logs published in 2010 this is the first I have heard of it», the professor replied adding that he has «no explanation of that at all»
«Might it be because Mr Assange took a cavalier attitude to the publication of these logs?», Mr Smith asked.
«No» the professor replied».
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
When Mr Smith asked what the possible alternative there could be the professor said «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…», he said that it was «simply conjecture» because he could not say any more without seeing the alleged instances referred to.
The extradition hearings are expected to last at least a further three weeks, during which time Sputnik shall continue to follow the proceedings on location and via a court approved video link.
