The sources and methods red herring is John Kiriakou’s name for what he presents as a standard and empty allegation in American leak prosecutions.
The pattern
Asked whether Julian Assange was a political prisoner or a criminal, Kiriakou began by denying the substance of the charge. “i don’t think that julian assange revealed any sources and methods i think that julian’s crime was embarrassing the powers that be in washington.”[1]
He then generalises the point into a procedural observation. “one of the red herrings that the federal government uses in every one of these cases is they say that sources and methods were revealed and that the lives of either american diplomats or our war fighters serving overseas were placed in danger.”[1]
The absence of proof
The test he applies is whether the allegation was ever substantiated, and his answer is that it never has been. “they did say that with julian but could never offer any proof just like they couldn’t offer proof with ed snowden or with chelsea manning.”[2]
From the repeated failure he draws a general rule about credibility rather than a case-by-case finding. “so i don’t believe that there was any damage to the national security uh i don’t think that we should take seriously american accusations that there was damage to the national security.”[2]
What he sets against the unproved damage is the specific, documented material recorded at the Stratfor cables on Venezuela — disclosures whose contents, on his reading, explain the prosecution better than any claim of endangerment does.[3]