Wikileaks Source Outed To Stroke Hacker's Own Ego

Binary Boy writes "Bradley Manning, the US Army private arrested recently by the Pentagon for providing classified documents — including the widely seen Apache helicopter video — may have been duped by wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo, according to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. Lamo told Manning he could provide protection under both journalist shield laws, and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition, and instead immediately turned him in to authorities in an act of apparent shameless self-promotion." The article also goes into Wired's role in the whole situation, the strange, sometimes sensationalist media coverage, and the odd similarity between this case and proposed scenarios in a US Intelligence report from earlier this year aimed at undermining Wikileaks.

Comments

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[X0563511]

Er, no he didn't.

You could try reading the fucking summary at least:

"Lamo told Manning he could provide protection" ... "instead immediately turned him in to authorities in an act of apparent shameless self-promotion."

Fucking douchebag (both you and Lamo).

Re:I don't care

[Low Ranked Craig]

I watched the video twice and it doesn't really need any explanation. When watching the video it is important to to not analyze it with hindsight. We know NOW that there were kids in the van, and this is pointed out on the video. However watching the video without that knowledge and it is extremely unlikely that it would be known that children were in the van, given the context of the situation. We also know (now) that one of the guys had a camera with a big lens on it. It's also clear from the video that other guys had weapons (AK-47, and what looked like RPGs, or a really big tripod) Context is very important, such as what's going on on the surrounding areas (not on the video), what had been taking place in that area in the preceding days (not on the video). The guy in the video was a bit callous but his point stands - who takes kids to a place where a massive firefight just took place (as in still dust in the ait and the helicopters still circling the area)?

When I watched the video what I saw was a bunch of guys in an area where a big firefight had taken place a day or two before, and there was a column of US vehicles (Bradleys, I think) moving into the area. If I'm a helicopter pilot whose job it is to protect that column, and I see dudes in the path of that column with assault rifles and RPGs, I'm going to take them out. Period end of story.

If you're brave enough (or stupid enough) to be a reporter and hanging around with guys with guns and RPGs who are in all likelihood getting ready to ambush a column or US armor, well, I'm sorry but it sucks to be you. Then before the dust has settled a van pulls up and starts pulling the wounded and their weapons into the van (a common tactic of the insurgents), and they brought children, well, again that is really sad, but I'd have to ask the parents WTF?

I think part of the problem here is that most people don't really understand these situations, or what they know if them was learned from TV and movies. The reality is that in a war zone, you eliminate the threat. That's how it works. If you understand how this is in reality, and you understand the context of the situation, this is really a non-story.

Short version: Guys with rifles and RPGs in an area known for insurgent activity hanging around with a column of military vehicles approaching and the guys in the helicopters took out the insurgents, then parents bring kids to a gun fight and the kids are severely injured. Lessons learned: don't hang around with insurgents and don't take your kids to a fire fight.