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

First rule of breaking the law

[Wonko the Sane]

If you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.

Indeed. This guy "outed" himself by bragging online to other people.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Kind of difficult to follow that advice when the lawbreaking in question consists solely of not keeping your mouth shut.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[peacefinder]

Which is an important caution to keep in mind when committing this particular variety of crime. :-)

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:First rule of breaking the law

[X0563511]

Wow, actually I'm the douchebag here. Durr!

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[commodore64_love]

Precisely. I don't go round bragging about the various politicians and CEOs that have "disappeared" over the years. Ooops

I shouldna told ya that.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[nephilimsd]

You could have at least checked the "Post anonymously" box first.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[DrugCheese]

But he's not breaking the law. He swore an oath to protect the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

blah blah blah nazi blah blah blah blindly following orders

The fact that his employer is the enemy of the constitution should bear no moral weight.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Manning could have just dropped off the package (containing video media) anonymously to the local media or some such in the middle of the night. I would have advised wearing latex gloves in the process. Either way, if you want to be a whistleblower, do so without it being traced back to you.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[geekoid]

Don't talk about what you did after the fact.

One of the real stories is how this guy leaked information, but didn't actually understand how to interpret. So he put his own ignorant spin on the thing to make it fit into his world view.'

He probably need to read fewer issues of 2600.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[couchslug]

"Kind of difficult to follow that advice when the lawbreaking in question consists solely of not keeping your mouth shut."

Kind of EASY to follow when you are both computer-literate and trained in security. If idiot boy had been leaking data out of principle instead
of being an attention whore, he'd have stayed anonymous and ensured an ongoing flow of data rather than wanting recognition from the Leet.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Wonko the Sane]

Regardless of if his actions are justified or not he was stupid to open his mouth to a "journalists" or anyone else.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Shakrai]

Maybe when a stranger at the other end of a keyboard tells you that he is a journalist and priest you should check up on his credentials before you admit to him that you committed a felony?

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Bai jie]

He shamelessly wanted those mod points.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Xacid]

Pretty much my sentiments. He pretty much set himself up for this.

And I can't blame Adrian for a second. 250k documents indiscriminately fired off IS a security risk that can get people killed. I could understand the video, but Manning was as much wanting notoriety as the article claims Adrian supposedly was. Why else carelessly brag about such a major operation?

Manning was a loose cannon and a liability even for Adrian. Had Manning been caught WITHOUT Adrian's help and those chat logs would have been found Adrian would have been just as liable as Manning - probably both locked up, labeled as terrorists, and never see the light of a courtroom. By Lamo reporting Manning he accomplished two main things 1) removed liability from himself, but also 2) brought even more light to the documents released. Who would have even looked for the leaked cables without stumbling upon them first? In essence he not only helped himself, but with the media attention also helped Manning's cause. If Manning's documents actually prove anything then none of this will have been in vain. If they unearth nothing then Manning leaked a bunch of garbage for nothing and is not only reckless but very, very stupid.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[clarkkent09]

So your point is that the US government is an enemy of the constitution and not releasing classified military information is somehow the equivalent of Nazi Nuremberg defense? I

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[DrugCheese]

Oh yes I agree. Although I'm sure he's not a stupid person, it was a very stupid action.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Ethanol-fueled]

Yeah, but which snitch are you talking about? Manning or Lamo?

Personally, I'm rooting for Manning even if he is a complacent self-righteous twat, simply because it takes massive balls to sucessfully leak a bunch of damning TOP SECRET information much less get caught doing it.

Lamo is the worst kind of snitch, the pussy snitch. The kid who tattle-taled on his classmate for cheating on the test. The E-1 who runs to OSI or CID when they see somebody from another unit drinking underage. The corporate lackey who sits in front of the timeclock and reports any late-comers to the boss. The pussy snitches deserve to be tossed in a Los Angeles prison -- those on the inside know how to handle pussy snitches.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Kythe]

That seems to be the point. Either that, or it's an exercise in mental and moral gymnastics.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[DrugCheese]

Yes, thank you for spelling out my point for laymen.

The informants, Manning, information up to this point has been correct. So why assume the rest isn't? If said 'classified' information is truly unconstitutional, you know it, and you go along with the flow then I say yes you are responsible. To what degree? Probably very little, group think is a powerful phenomenon.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. This man did something.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[MrShaggy]

The First Part is the Manning has a self-destructive personality. He might have to constantly set himself up for failure.

So the whole thing could be explained that way.

---

Second.

This whole thing smacks me of the South Park, 'having your cake and eating it too'

Obama is a 'very smart guy'.

He is conscious of the fact that things like Wiki leaks, are and openness are to be Lauded.

I think he also realizes that if he mentions this sort of thing in public that he will not make into his 2nd term.

He would be branded a traitor by the right claiming that was willing to give up national security, as well as 'Amercian Troops' right on 'American Soil' as it were.

Whether Mr Obama is doing this on his own is having help, who knows.

But the Ploy is Brilliant.
I think Obama is trying to 'discredit it'. Officially while helping it at the same time.

Thus allowing him to have his cake and eat it too.

By going after the 'founders' he keeps the site at the top of every ones radar.

By putting someone in jail. If he is a plant, then he might not actually be in jail. He is keeping the central/right side happy.

The fact that Iceland has moved forward with Shield laws for W.Leaks, keeps the left happy since the founders can move there away from any attempts of 'arrest' from the U.S

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[hitmark]

question is, is it a crime, when it exposes other crimes?

sadly, the world is not black and white.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[iowannaski]

Who would have even looked for the leaked cables without stumbling upon them first?

Is bringing attention to the cables a good thing or "a security risk that can get people killed?" You are simultaneously praising Lamo for informing on a whistle blower and bringing attention to leaked documents in question. As for the question of who would have looked for the leaked cables, I have a solid confidence the the U.S. government's ability to comprehensively monitor Wikileaks for potentially embarrassing material.

In essence he not only helped himself, but with the media attention also helped Manning's cause.

The positive impact of the media exposure given to Manning's cause by Lamo is easily outweighed by the evidence he turned over to the government.

If Manning's documents actually prove anything then none of this will have been in vain. If they unearth nothing then Manning leaked a bunch of garbage for nothing and is not only reckless but very, very stupid.

If Manning's documents prove anything, the many years he is about to spend in prison will have been in vain.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[chimpo13]

If you read the story, Greenwald writes about several accounts of newspapers sitting on stories to help President Bush. The NY Times sitting on the illegal wiretapping of the US for a year until after the election at the request of Bush was one. Then there's the stuff the Washington Post held onto: the CIA black sites. And the mention of creepy David Finkel for the Post holding onto the same "Collateral Murder" video.

Plus we now have Obama cracking down on leaks with prison terms. Not going after the illegal stuff that caused the leak, but the leakers themselves.

Basically, wikileaks is the best option. I wish Manning had been quiet but he's 22 and wasn't thinking the whole thing through.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Hognoxious]

when a stranger at the other end of a keyboard tells you that he is a journalist and priest you should check up on his credentials

Just to clarify - if you find that he really is what he claims, does that mean you should trust him more - or less?

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The parent is "Offtopic"? Really?

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[peacefinder]

Crime is what legislators, prosecutors, lawyers, juries, and judges decide it is.* My guess is that Manning will be convicted of something and sent to jail**, regardless of how much of a public service he may have done.

[*: This is a description, not a judgement. There are rare instances in which we are lucky enough to have that process align well with Right and Wrong, but I am by no means claiming such luck is commonplace.]
[**: And if he does not end up in jail, the notion that this is all an anti-wikileaks disinformation operation will look a lot more likely to be correct.]

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[sumdumass]

It is still a crime when it exposes another crime just the same as a crime doesn't negate another crime.

In other words, if you break and enter a building in order to obtain evidence that someone murdered someone, neither crime disappears unless you are the cops hiding certain facts that your supervisor doesn't want known. there might be some instances where the crime becomes un-prosecutable because of the way evidence was gathered making it unusable, but it doesn't disappear or get negated.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[DaleSwanson]

It's common to use the "Pentagon" as a nickname for the DoD. The DoD certainly arrests service members for violating the UCMJ (and releasing classified information violates it).

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[abirdman]

The government doesn't have to "comprehensively monitor" Wikileaks... Wikileaks publishes the stuff openly. That's why the government is so irritated by it.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[MichaelSmith]

Take care with photocopiers. Don't use the one at work for example because they may leave a trail.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[WNight]

IdiotBoy == You. RTFA

The leaker did leak out of conscience. And he stopped collecting data only after losing his position due to other issues.

He seemed to want attention from the press, for the leaked data though not glory (he expected to remain anonymous).

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[WNight]

He was ordered to use known irrelevant data to frame innocent Iraqis as dissidents. Presumably from stories of Abu Ghraib, to have them rounded up into camps and prisons where many were tortured and died.

We hung Nazis for that sort of thing, yeah... He did what we'd want a "good" Nazi to do. Hopefully we expect as much of good Americans.

This leak is apparently just the tip of the war crimes he's witnessed. With documentation from him they might be able to finally prove the situation in detainee camps (we won't even treat them like POWs) is knowingly inhumane and inflicted on innocents.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[couchslug]

He didn't have to contact Lamo, or anyone else, in a manner that left a trail. He knew how not to leave a trail. The attention would have been easy to obtain without a trail, so the trail was a choice. Maintaining one's position is also a choice. Don't have "other issues". Soldiers are expected to have self-mastery.

I understand the flood of love /. generally has for this guy, but at least learn from his fuckups.

If YOU wanted to blow the whistle on (insert entity) which could impose negative consequences, would you make such silly mistakes?

"Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught."

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[lawpoop]

"Mr. Obama"? Oh come on. He's not an evil mastermind, just a charming politician who won a national election. This kind of thing would be done by the CIA or another spy/counter-intelligence organization, not a dopey president.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[CrimsonAvenger]

Maybe when a stranger at the other end of a keyboard tells you that he is a journalist and priest you should check up on his credentials before you admit to him that you committed a felony?

Even better idea. Don't admit that you committed a felony. Period. Not to a priest, not to a journalist, not to anyone else....

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[RabbitWho]

Exactly, those people are heroes. And telling the truth when everyone else is afraid to is what makes them heroes.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[sixsixtysix]

if the us government does something wrong and hides it behind a classified label, then yes, it is an enemy of the constitution. truth > security, 110% of the time.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[slick7]

It's common to use the "Pentagon" as a nickname for the DoD. The DoD certainly arrests service members for violating the UCMJ (and releasing classified information violates it).

The UCMJ is neither uniform nor just. The only difference between the Boy Scouts and the military is that the Boy Scouts are run by adults.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[slick7]

Take care with photocopiers. Don't use the one at work for example because they may leave a trail.

All photocopiers leave trails.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Xacid]

I wasn't so much praising either side as much as I was trying to say it just seemed like the only sane option available to Lamo.

To those claiming that Lamo is a snitch just to be a media whore - you can't really say. Either he indirectly helped or harmed Manning all in the same blade stroke.

My *personal* thoughts? Manning seemed to do this for the acknowledgment, why else open your mouth on such a severe volume of data leakage? Why else seek the approval of a guy like Lamo for your actions? Manning was dangerous - and very much ought to be regarded as a spy in my opinion. He wasn't trying to expose some specific injustice (except for the video) - he was blatantly hemorrhaging data using trusted credentials on a trusted network. Had he been of Middle Eastern decent and not just a young white guy this case would have already been over and buried in the eyes of the government.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Xacid]

Unless the government *is* wikileaks. ;) Afterall - it would be the best honeypot out there if you really thought about it. /tfh.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[mcornelius]

If you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.

and

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."

Read the fucking comment. He didn't say “unless you really trust the person you're telling;” he said “if you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.” If he had kept his damn mouth shut, Lamo would not have had the ability to turn him in; a dozen other things may have happened in between the computers they were chatting from, intercepting the communication in an area where decrypting Internet traffic is a high priority for the US government.

Also, while Lamo's contribution has been widely reported, there has been no indication about that being the only line of evidence against him. Manning had already lost access to any TS materials (it's mentioned in the chat), was working in a supply role, not MI, because of disciplinary reasons, meaning that any access to Secret materials he had, if observed, were likely to raise suspicion. Now, in Iraq and Kuwait, there certainly can be a more lackadaisical view of Secret than there should be, but his activity had already attracted suspicion and the ire of the chain of command.

How about you pull your head out of your ass and read the fucking article (or at least the summary) before accusing others of not doing so? Either this communication “outed” him (by misplacing trust in Lamo, compromised connection, a compromised environment (shoulder-surfing because there isn't that much privacy in that environment), or any of a dozen other reasons), or it didn't “out” him (the evidence used to arrest him came from something else entirely). It is known that Lamo's chat is not the only evidence against him, but it certainly did not help.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[WNight]

I didn't say it was smart, I was telling you that he didn't jeopardize his sources for this - he'd already lost them. And it's unlikely he did this for personal gain as he tried to arrange to remain unnamed.

He had stated a goal of making sure more people saw the documents and debated them. It's pretty likely he was just trying to stir up more attention for the abuses he was blowing the whistle on.

Apparently he found Lamo via a twitter search but Lamo was semi-famous, anti-establishment, and had spoken of donating to wikileaks and his interest in the organization. On the surface he would seem like a good person to contact.

And yes, his mistakes are very clear. I'm pretty sure that between that and how the article showed that "real" journalists are in the pocket of the government anyways that nobody here would bother asking for confidentiality and simply arrange to remain anonymous.

But Bradley Manning's success is also clear. He turned his superiors in for crimes against humanity despite great personal cost to himself. If there were more of him there wouldn't have been Nazis.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[X0563511]

How about you pull YOUR head out of your ass and read this comment which was a whole THREE INCHES or less from the one you just replied to? Would have saved you some time and aggravation.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[austinhook]

Absurd not to blame Adrian. If he was afraid of the relationship all he had to do was to break off the chat as soon as it headed towards things he didn't want to be part of. Looks like he is working for the "man". He is probably blackmailed by threats of further prosecutions for his original transgressions or further ones that they know about, and promised to hold off if he produced results for them. Possibly they got hold of his initial chats with Manning, and gave him an ultimatum. Could be he will still be charged for some transgression somewhere. All he cares about now is saving his own skin. Quite a yellow streak in the boy.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[DrugCheese]

The fact that his employer is the enemy of the constitution should bear no moral weight.

Moral weight? But we're talking about the law here, not ethics.

What he did may have been right, or it may have been wrong. It may also have been legal, or it may have been illegal. The two things don't have anything to do with each other, beyond the idea that laws *generally* ought to have *some* ethical justification.

That's why I tried to say that morality doesn't even need to come into this. Yes he swore an oath to obey orders, after he swore to protect the constitution.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[mcornelius]

I did read it; as it was an ad hominem attack in its entirety, I ignored it.

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[Xacid]

And you mean to tell me you'd risk going to prison for a guy like Manning?

Re:First rule of breaking the law

[X0563511]

Against myself? Are you confused?

So....

[CdBee]

So we can suppose this is an operation to make people doubt the safety of going to Wikileaks?

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

Re:So....

[westlake]

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

That is a game any number can play. But the pros are likely to win.

Re:So....

[Monkeedude1212]

What I don't get, is how Adrian Lamo found out Manning was the guy who did it?

I mean, how do you dupe someone into giving you that kind of information if you don't know they have it?

So, it sounds like Manning was "boasting" about it - which one of the articles even uses that words, which is entirely his own stupidity and not some "operation" preformed by anyone, at all.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

That is a game any number can play. But the pros are likely to win.

That's odd you feel that way, considering the amateurs outnumber the pros 1000 to 1.

Re:So....

[gringofrijolero]

Impossible

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, because their track record is SO GOOD against outnumbered, outgunned dudes out in the middle of nowhere.

Re:So....

[Concerned Onlooker]

Who do you think you are? Sharon Angle?

Re:So....

[erroneus]

That, of course, ignores the fact that others are playing games that put our freedom and safety at risk at every turn.

There are people who seek to justify war and killing at every opportunity. Some seek to enrich themselves through the military industrial complex. Others by taking the resources of foreign lands. Meanwhile these actions make every citizen and resident of the U.S. less safe because the rest of the planet is gradually loosing appreciation for the U.S. and are taking it out on the people of the U.S.

The winning move is definitely not "not to play." In fact, it is the most assured way to lose... we are all losing while the players are winning.

Re:So....

[jonnat]

If only we could get Lamo to draw a picture of Muhammad...

Re:So....

[blackraven14250]

Only 1 out of the 1000 amateurs is willing to play.

Re:So....

[westlake]

That's odd you feel that way, considering the amateurs outnumber the pros 1000 to 1.

The amateur lacks organization, discipline, training and resources. It's the pro who goes into the field with a thousand men at his back.

Re:So....

[Warped-Reality]

So your friend is a complete douchebag?

Re:So....

[5pp000]

So we can suppose this is an operation to make people doubt the safety of going to Wikileaks?

The problem with this idea is that it at least appears to be the case that Manning got caught solely because he stupidly bragged about his actions to a stranger. Maybe somehow that isn't what actually happened -- but it's what seems to have happened, and for PR purposes, that is all that matters.

The salient point I would take from this, if I were in position to leak any secrets, is that there is absolutely no indication Manning would have been caught if he hadn't confessed to Lamo.

Re:So....

[AlltheCoolNamesGone]

It had nothing to do with having a conscience. He did it for notoriety. Which is petty.

Re:So....

[tsm_sf]

If we have to have a standing army at least let the soldiers have a conscience and be guided by it. Blind obedience is for nationalists.

Re:So....

[rhizome]

He spelled "appetite" wrong, ya doof.

Wannabe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not like the guy, but it seems like he has done some legitimate hacking and cracking in his day.

Re:Wannabe?

[Concerned Onlooker]

"... has done some legitimate hacking and cracking..."

I'm not sure you made this joke intentionally, but there it is.

Re:Wannabe?

[WillDraven]

While we all tend to make a big deal about the difference between hacking and cracking, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are mutually exclusive activities.

Despite what we all like to think it is possible to be both a clever tinkerer and a morally absent jerk.

Re:Wannabe?

[Cwix]

gp was trying to point out the irony of "legitimate hacking" How do you legitimately hack something?

Manning must not have been able to operate Google

[Trepidity]

He actually believed that Lamo was an ordained minister, and that his chat with him constituted a confession?

I don't care

[decipher_saint]

All I care about is why that footage hasn't really been all that well explained by the military.

I want to see and hear both sides on this obviously, but pointing out the motivation as hubris at this point is sort of the smaller part of a bigger picture.

Re:I don't care

[MrEricSir]

That's what's bugging me here as well. Who cares how the footage was released? The important thing is WHY we have soldiers killing unarmed civilians.

The military guys seem to have a very elitist attitude about the whole thing, like us little people don't need to know how this could have happened. As though it's none of our business somehow.

Re:I don't care

[decipher_saint]

They say there are important bits of the video missing, great! I'm willing to believe that, show it to me!

But so far? Nada.

Re:I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%, but with the story backlog, and subsequent questionable informants surrounding this case and how it progresses to the present, provides pretty solid evidence of active Counter-Intelligence being performed against entities around WIki-Leaks, facilitated by the US Government/Military.

The military not coming clean about a leaked video is only half the damage being perpetrated here against citizens both foreign and domestic.

Re:I don't care

[DigiShaman]

The military guys seem to have a very elitist attitude about the whole thing

No, they are genuinely scared about it. Not from the enemy, but buy their own citizens.

It's one thing to be hated by a country you're fighting in. It's quite another to be hated/disowned by the country your FROM. Review the Vietnam protests for example.

Re:I don't care

[mysidia]

Yes... just remember it's secret for national security reasons... the familiar cry of the oppressor.

At least in the US, we are not at the stage yet where the military can openly admit that they are beginning an ongoing operation whose objective is to slaughter civillians en masse, and not expect to get an overwhelmingly negative response frmo the public....

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.

Re:I don't care

[harlows_monkeys]

All I care about is why that footage hasn't really been all that well explained by the military

On places where it was heavily discussed, such as Reddit, there were quite a few posts from people who've been in similar situations that explained it pretty well. The following is from memory, so I might have some things mixed up. This was near where an intense ground fight had just happened. The cameraman on the ground didn't have a gun, but on the small screen in the helicopter, when viewed by someone who is used to seeing guns and doesn't expect to see a camera, it looks very similar to a RPG, which can take down a helicopter. Others that the cameraman appeared to be with did have guns. Everything about the encounter looked, based on the information the people in the copters had, just like numerous prior encounters where the people on the ground would have in fact been enemies involved in the nearby firefight or reinforcements coming to that fight. But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents.

Same goes for blasting the people who came to get the wounded. In the numerous prior encounters with insurgents, they've learned that when you see someone rush out to a wounded insurgent, its not medical personal or people trying to help get the wounded guy to a hospital. It's other insurgents, trying to get the wounded guy's weapons.

Re:I don't care

[guruevi]

It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns. I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID. Could there be some spreading of misinformation going on from the powers-that-be that don't want this video out?

This whole thing stinks badly. There have been mistakes before and the footage has usually been released, people accepted it, people apologized, people got punished and moved on. There seems to be a media blackout around this event and a lot of nationalistic propaganda being spread around the subject.

Re:I don't care

[Apatharch]

At least in the US, we are not at the stage yet where the military can openly admit that they are beginning an ongoing operation whose objective is to slaughter civillians en masse, and not expect to get an overwhelmingly negative response frmo the public....

That's because they can just label them "terrorists" instead of "civilians".

Re:I don't care

[grcumb]

That's what's bugging me here as well. Who cares how the footage was released?

I do. I care a lot. Why does someone have to face a lifetime in prison just to allow us to discuss 'WHY we have soldiers killing unarmed civilians'?

The fact that it took someone breaking the law to show a commonplace incident in the so-called War on Terror can be viewed as a sad commentary on the state of censorship in our time, or (if you're an optimist) an affirmation that, despite a culture of secrecy, information really does want to be free.

In either case, Greenwald's conjecture is that Manning really was genuinely motivated by his conscience and that his 'confessor' Lamo rewarded his honesty with lies, venality and betrayal. I find his case as presented compelling but not conclusive.

Greenwald's larger point about wikileaks, however, is irrefutable:

The reason this story matters so much -- aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term -- is the unique and incomparably valuable function WikiLeaks is fulfilling. Even before the Apache helicopter leak, I wrote at length about why they are so vital, and won't repeat all of that here. Suffice to say, there are very few entities, if there are any, which pose as much of a threat to the ability of governmental and corporate elites to shroud their corrupt conduct behind an extreme wall of secrecy.

As others will no doubt suggest, whistle blowers should understand the consequences of their actions, accepting the sometimes inevitable retribution that follows in order to serve the public good. That does not, however, excuse what Greenwald characterises as 'despicable' behaviour by Lamo. If this account proves true, then Lamo really is a sick, sorry individual.

I find this whole story compelling precisely because it demonstrates the stakes involved in something as simple as telling the truth. Secrecy and Transparency are equally costly and dangerous as we wander too far towards either end of the continuum. Stories like Manning's allow us the opportunity to gauge where we are in that continuum.

Re:I don't care

[Idiomatick]

And individuals have a moral obligation to stop things they feel are wrong. Even if they are grunts. I think in these situations there should be a court which determines whether he was being ethical in his actions. Not simply whether or not he was breaking military rules.

Otherwise it simply discourages leaks and whistle blowers. Which may be good from a military POV. But we should be working towards what is good from a countries POV.

Re:I don't care

[Idiomatick]

Maybe they shouldn't be in shitty wars no one wants. TBH militaries of the world NOT wanting to go to wars everyone disagrees with is a fucking good thing.

Re:I don't care

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns

I *SERIOUSLY* doubt that.

According to Spiegel the gun ownership rate in Iraq is 39 guns for every 100 people. When you factor in kids as presumably unarmed, I think saying that "Everybody has guns" is probably close to the truth.

Re:I don't care

[Idiomatick]

IT ISNT A FUCKING WAR ZONE and you show why. This should be a police operation. With people on the ground building things up and keeping CRIME low. I'm not even questioning the motivations of being in Iraq atm. But you CANNOT wage war on NO ONE. There is no enemy military, no bases, no lines of battle, nothing. Treat it like a country with a lot of well armed murders. Would you declare war on murderers and have heli's shooting people that may have guns w/ out provocation? Of course not, that would be retarded nd only make the problem worse!

BTW you are blaming people that were albeit foolishly trying to rescue a dieing man for getting shot by a helicopter that came there from a different country to help them. Foolish maybe but talk about blaming the victim.

Re:I don't care

[Sprouticus]

you cant assume they were just going for weapons. It was not like the helo could not tail them. The unit in quesiton was NOT under fire, there was no reason not to loiter until you could confirm the intentions. I have seen other videos where they did just that. Loiter on scene until the got confirmation, then take them out.

I am not saying I dont understand the itchy trigger finger or how people can overreact in hot combat. I'm just saying that I dont see evidence of the kind of urgency that would make a quick reation like this understandable. This was calculated and intentional. Was it criminal. Maybe. Should it have been released when it occured so as to not appear like you were covering stuff up DEFINATELY.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

From what I understand, the gunner mistook a camera for an rpg (from a few kilometers away) they fired because a convoy was nearby. I would have done the same thing. He who hesitates dies. The camera crew prob would have been 100% safer if they had told the military that they were going to be there, they neglected to do so.
What would you have done?
Wait? That leads to the possibility of the convoy being attacked. You don't win wars that way. Hell good luck staying alive that way.

Re:I don't care

[kklein]

Thank you. I hate the Iraq war, but I, too, didn't see anything wrong in that video.

Re:I don't care

[satcomjimmy]

Thank you Craig, you saved me a lot of typing. Those that want to cry about the video, cry to wikileaks for editing it in such a way to be incredibly inflammatory. Glad you got to pour over the video for hours on end in your home office with hot tea and video enhancing software before deducing that there were clearly visible children in the van. I'm sure it was just as easy to see from a moving chopper hovering over a battle. To all those that don't want your idealistic senses to be bruised, don't watch video of anything from a warzone. Or better yet, balance it out with the videos of roadside IEDs blowing up your fellow country men and women who are over there in a voluntary military. Off Topic: If you skip the propaganda edit and watch the full length video below it you will get to see the wholesale destruction of a building full of armed men by the same apache crews lighting off some hellfire missiles.

Re:I don't care

[DigiShaman]

When the commander in chief tell you to jump, you ask "how high". In other words, when serving the military, you don't decide whether or not to engage in warfare. If you can't handle active duty, don't join the military. It's a service, not welfare.

Secondly, these soldiers didn't even take the time to properly identify their target, and then some. They committed actions of great dishonor. They should be shunned (and punished) by their fellow citizens. Soldiers should also be praised when they serve their country well. Clearly, they did not in this incident.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

Jackpot.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

They have AKs.. they ARNT ALLOWED RPGS.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

What about the people with 3 or 4 guns. See my sig for further instructions.

Re:I don't care

[ravenspear]

It's legal for any citizen to own an AK47 in Iraq. Their gun laws are much more open.

Re:I don't care

[Low Ranked Craig]

So, the best you can do is brag about your lower UID as if that makes you superior, accuse me of astroturfing, suggest that that the whole thing stinks badly and that there "seems" to be a media blackout, and not even attempt to counter any of my actual points?

Re:I don't care

[AHuxley]

Yes they are haunted by that 'if only they knew' feeling.
Its like the prison pictures or the rendition flights, its not the act they care about, its the exposure back home.
The myth is exposed.

Re:I don't care

[Skillet5151]

it looks very similar to a RPG, which can take down a helicopter

"A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), or rocket launcher, is any hand-held, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon capable of firing an unguided rocket equipped with an explosive warhead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade

Chances of taking down that gunship with an unguided projectile considering the range are um....zero. That doesn't mean that the engagement was necessarily unreasonable but a lot of people seem to be rehashing this silly implication that the presence of an RPG means the gunship crew were under threat and felt the need to defend themselves.

Sorry, carry on.

Re:I don't care

[the_bard17]

To a point, I agree. I'm willing to state that the first "fire fight" is warranted. I can see where someone onlooking would interpret the video as a group of armed men on the ground preparing an ambush. When someone's got to make a call on that point, I'd rather they err on the side of caution and protect our men on the ground.

I'm not willing to call the second "fire fight" warranted, however. The video clearly shows the wounded reporter without a weapon, and the van's occupants attempting to "rescue" him. There are no weapons in sight. Nobody's recovering weapons. Nobody's recovering bodies... you've got what's clearly an unarmed and wounded man being helped by more unarmed people. Firing on that van was not warranted and cannot be covered under any rules of engagement I'm comfortable with OUR military operating under.

Yes, shit happens. It's war. Bad things happen in war. But when we do bad shit, we should own up to it. Stand up and say "Yes, we made a mistake. This is why we made it. This is why we won't make it again."

We should not declare it "classified" and attempt to sweep it under the rug, away from the world and away from our own citizens. That is wrong, and just as reprehensible as the act of firing on the van.

Re:I don't care

[Low Ranked Craig]

No. A camera with a long lens is not 4 feet long. This is not the guy with the camera behing the building, it is the guy with one end of the RPG on the ground leaning on the other end and the other guys with the rifles. Watch the whole video.

Re:I don't care

[Low Ranked Craig]

BTW you are blaming people that were albeit foolishly trying to rescue a dieing man for getting shot by a helicopter that came there from a different country to help them. Foolish maybe but talk about blaming the victim.

The victims were the children. I don't blame the children, I blame the parents.

Re:I don't care

[Low Ranked Craig]

it's easy to talk like this if it isn't happening in your neighborhood.

If there was a shootout in my neighborhood I'd get on the floor with my shotgun, and I'd stay there. I sure wouldn't be taking the kids over to help wounded. Hell, I wouldn't take my dog with me. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't go myself.

Look, I'm not saying what happend is a good thing, I think it's a horrible thing as a matter of fact. But when I watch it I don't see the big conspiracy that a lot of people seem to see. I see a bunch of kids in there early 20's at most, doing what they were trained to do in that extremely high pressure situation. I feel sorry for everyone involved, most of all the kids with stupid parents, but two teardrops in a bucket and all that. My feelings on the matter don't mean shit.

Re:I don't care

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

See the words "close to the truth" for further instructions.

Re:I don't care

[darkmeridian]

The airmen did kill unarmed civilians but you have to realize that these civilians were journalists hanging out with armed men. The journalists were carrying cameras but there were men holding RPGs and AK-47s in that crowd they were hanging out with. It wasn't cut and dry, but it wasn't as if the chopper pilots went out to kill innocents. In fact, removed from the video was a clip that showed the chopper crew not engaging hostiles shooting at US ground forces because there were civilians in the crossfire. What I disagree with was shooting at an ambulance removing wounded men from the battlefield even though I don't believe it is contrary to the laws of war to shoot medics. (Red Cross/Crescent transports cannot be targeted, but battlefield medics/evacs perhaps can be if they're armed.)

The founder of Wikileaks went on The Colbert Report and basically admitted that he has a political goal (of pacifism), and is not concerned if he has to be deceptive to advance that goal. (Colbert said that 90% of the public downloaded the short version and wasn't it deceptive for Wikileaks to have that edited version be the dominant release. The wikileaks guy said, yeah, so what?) You have to watch the watcher.

Re:I don't care

[Kythe]

It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns. I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID. Could there be some spreading of misinformation going on from the powers-that-be that don't want this video out?

Does it make you feel better if you hear it from me? Not saying I necessarily agree that the incident was justified -- just that I don't think it's necessarily cut-and-dry.

Re:I don't care

[MindlessAutomata]

You're right, commander Dhalka226, we mere plebes, whom exist to obey and do as you wish, whom shall view you as a God, have no right to know these things, for we the people are beneath you and exist only to serve "the machine."

Re:I don't care

[MindlessAutomata]

Sounds a lot like the mafia.

Re:I don't care

[rhizome]

It's classified; that's the whole point.

Maybe it shouldn't have been. Maybe it was all just a massive cover-up.

The only coverup is that what is depicted in the video is SOP. The military doesn't want anybody to find out that their Rules of Engagement are so vague and permissive that the wrong people are getting killed left and right every day. If I get a second, I'll try to find one of the hundred or more articles about a drone killing some "Third In Command of Al Qaeda!!!11" along with 13 (or 30) people who happened to be nearby.

Re:I don't care

[russ1337]

I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID. Could there be some spreading of misinformation going on from the powers-that-be that don't want this video out?

I've also noticed the same. Slashdot appears to be receiving an increase in 'well articulated party line' comments. I find these comments out of place here, and where they existed before they were from trolls with bad grammar and weak arguments.

As you say, the new UID's, but also AC's...

keep your eyes peeled. Be vigilant. Report suspicious behavior...

oh wait...

Re:I don't care

[PsychoSlashDot]

When the commander in chief tell you to jump, you ask "how high". In other words, when serving the military, you don't decide whether or not to engage in warfare. If you can't handle active duty, don't join the military. It's a service, not welfare.

No.

The moment "I was following orders" stopped being a valid excuse for actions taken it immediately became the responsibility of each and every soldier to evaluate the moral and legal ramifications of every order he or she is given. It instant you make military individually liable for what they do you entitle and mandate them to weigh, judge, and potentially disobey your orders. You can't have it both ways.

Re:I don't care

[snowgirl]

I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID.

Your UID isn't that new either... so should I dismiss your point as well?

Re:I don't care

[WilliamBaughman]

The airmen did kill unarmed civilians but you have to realize that these civilians were journalists hanging out with armed men. The journalists were carrying cameras but there were men holding RPGs and AK-47s in that crowd they were hanging out with.

I don't think that's the case. It is my understanding that those civilians weren't killed because they were hanging out with armed men, they were killed because their camera were mistaken for weapons.

From http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100406:

The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

Its no where near close to the truth. Lets just say that 1 quarter of thos people own two guns. That gives them 50% of the guns. That means, 21% of the people might have a gun. even if you give it some leeway and say that 30% of the pop was kids, that leaves 49% of the adults without a gun. Did you fail math? Thats no where near "Everybody has guns"
Refer back to the sig, your obviously making up facts to support your claim.

Re:I don't care

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Lets just say that 1 quarter of thos people own two guns.

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Re:I don't care

[Tiger4]

More like you wouldn't understand. Or any kind of explanation would just be twisted into something it wasn't, but people with an agenda to sensationalize the news or slur the military.

Why play in a rigged game? especially when it ISN'T the only game in town. They can release their own news in their own way on their own schedule.

Re:I don't care

[Sovetskysoyuz]

When the commander in chief tell you to jump, you ask "how high". In other words, when serving the military, you don't decide whether or not to engage in warfare. If you can't handle active duty, don't join the military. It's a service, not welfare.

No.

The moment "I was following orders" stopped being a valid excuse for actions taken it immediately became the responsibility of each and every soldier to evaluate the moral and legal ramifications of every order he or she is given. It instant you make military individually liable for what they do you entitle and mandate them to weigh, judge, and potentially disobey your orders. You can't have it both ways.

This weighing and judging tends not to extend to "I will not serve overseas". While a soldier is expected to refuse an unlawful order, merely being ordered to go overseas is not unlawful. To quote Hinzman v. Canada:

“An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper.”

Re:I don't care

[Alex Belits]

Apparently American politicians learned this from Microsoft astroturfing campaigns. Or the other way around.

Re:I don't care

[sumdumass]

I was with you until you started chastising the men for not taking the time to identify their target.

The problem is that there wasn't time if what they thought turned out to be true. They were circling the target, asked on the radio about any friendlies/units in the area, they were talking all the steps possible until they saw the camera which has a silhouette partially resembling a weapon capable of taking them down, the person holding it crouched by a corner to be shielded while the camera/weapon was being aimed in their direction, and at this point, time is simply not there if you expect real soldiers in real combat situation to ever come home alive.

In other words, if you can't take the specifics of the situation into account from the perspective of the heli crew, then you really shouldn't be discussing this at all. You are no different then the blathering idiot boss who's entire sales improvement plan consists of "sell more stuff" leaving your job on the line if you don't. I've been in situations where I was shot at (I wasn't the target), I know what facing the reality of death is. If I'm ever in a situation where I'm trying to determine of the guy holding the gun is friendly or not, as soon as it looks like it's pointed at me is when I decide I need to do something. If you want to sit there waiting for him to shoot or to get a better look at the guy, you will be more likely then not getting shot at. It's no different here. If the camera had been a RPG, if the guys had been insurgents, waiting any more time to identify them could have meant their lives. You can't fault someone for acting on that, even when it turns out to be a big ass horrible and tragic mistake. Fault the politicians who put them in that position but do no sit there and complain that when a person weighs their life against another and picks their, then they should have done something more.

Re:I don't care

[sumdumass]

This is slashdot. A place where a few friends with some mod points and a conspiracy is all that is needed to negate any ration argument. You can be saying 2+2=5, and people will argue it's 5 or can be five and resort to some weak arguement. And yes, I'm I actually did participate in a discussion here where someone attempted to show how 2+2 could equal 5.

Re:I don't care

[sumdumass]

well, lets also say that the Iraqi family unit is generally 4 people, a mother father and two children or maybe some elderly relatives. Now the 21% of the population can easily be one gun per household and just like a household in the US, When I ask if you have a TV, you don't say no, it's your dads, you say yes.

So what I'm getting here is, if one exists in the household, then it can easily be everyone or close to everyone. This is because when it's not being used, it's available for use by anyone in the house should they take the opportunity.

Re:I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, that's hardly a fully truthful representation of events. Firstly, yes, they thought they saw an RPG, which they would have been *well* outside the effective range of (and that's effective range for hitting large armoured targets, not attack helicopers). So it was, strictly speaking, a potential danger. Legally that probably justifies immediate lethal force. But in reality, it would have been perfectly safe for them to continue evaluating the situation.

Secondly, it's not like they opened fire while the camera was being aimed round the corner at them. They saw the camera being aimed, decided it was an RPG, then continued their orbit for nearly another 180 degrees before getting permission and opening fire. At which point they should have seen a group of not certainly armed people strolling along in a big dense group looking like they hadn't a care in the world. This is when a levelheaded person should think "these guys don't look like militants who've just spotted an Apache and decided to take it down with an RPG".

It's difficult to be levelheaded in combat. But the decisions they made were really bad ones, even considering it from their perspective.

Re:I don't care

[Cwix]

Ive been to Iraq, Trust me most of those people cant afford a weapon. You totally discount that some of those people own more then one weapon. Your a idiot then.

Re:I don't care

[martyros]

The explanation is simple: the group wasn't unarmed. If you look carefully at the video, one of the guys is carrying something that looks exactly like an RPG. Here's a close-up. It's definitely not a camera. So it's a shame that the two photographers were killed, but they were walking around in broad daylight in a warzone with someone slinging a weapon over their shoulder.

Re:I don't care

[martyros]

The short answer is, that the group, as a whole, was not unarmed. If you look carefully, one of the guys has something that looks exactly like an RPG. It's definitely not a camera. It's a shame that he journalists were killed, but they were walking around in a warzone with people carrying weapons.

What's difficult for me to understand is why everyone who saw the first video hasn't seen the video clip with the RPG in it as well.

Re:I don't care

[martyros]

If you look at this video, you'll see one of them carrying something that looks exactly like an RPG. It is definitely not a camera.

Re:I don't care

[martyros]

It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns.

Does everyone have RPGs? Are they legal to own in Iraq? If you look at this clip of the video, you'll see a guy carrying something that looks exactly like an RPG. It's definitely not a camera.

Re:I don't care

[drkim]

While it is tragic that any is getting killed; if you watch the video carefully: there are two guys armed with rifles in the group (aside from the alleged journalists) and a guy with a RPG in the group (pointing it at the chopper).

I would guess that everyone in the group knew these guys were bad guys, and may have also been bad guys.

However, one big reason unarmed civilians are getting killed is because this enemy refuses to wear uniforms and markings. Even the Nazi's, for all the evil they did, managed to wear uniforms, so allied troops knew who to shoot.

Re:I don't care

[Jedi Alec]

Exactly! And everyone knows only the 'merkins have the right to bear arms.

Exporting democracy is one thing, but god forbid the towelheads were to actually have freedom, right?

Re:I don't care

[Lehk228]

the range they were flying at was longer than the range of any rockets the insurgents would have.

Re:I don't care

[Lehk228]

it's close enough to "everybody" that you can't justify mass murder with "but some people in the group had AK's"

Re:I don't care

[moortak]

I don't know if you are right, but it is really kind of sad that we even have to ask.

Re:I don't care

[moortak]

So after seven years of laying on your floor would your atrophied muscles allow you to get back up when the war finally does end.

Re:I don't care

[brizzadizza]

Watch the video you asshole. That's not "clearly" an RPG, it could just as easily have been an extended camera tripod or some other professional camera equipment. You're a twit.

Re:I don't care

[NotBornYesterday]

I'd like to see the full footage myself, and I'd also like to hear the government's explanation. That said, I don't think we'll ever get it, and I can understand why the government doesn't seem interested is transparency here. What I've found is that very few people have open minds about it. Most have already reached conclusions that they are reluctant to reconsider their condemnation of the gunship crew. No matter what the government releases or doesn't release, these people will bend it to fit their narrative. Right or wrong, I don't see much upside for the government here. Furthermore, the Obama presidency has been even more closed than the Bush presidency was, judging by the denial of FOIA requests.

I think the footage explains itself pretty well. Ground troops reported taking fire from a group of insurgents in the area. Helo crew responded, found a group of people, some of whom were armed, approaching the troops on the ground. When it appeared that people in the group were getting ready to fire, the helo crew requested clearance to fire, received it, and fired. They later also attacked the van, believing it to be more insurgents.* The first indication that the helo crew realizes that they might have engaged the wrong target comes when members of the squad on the ground refers to the group of insurgents having been "on the roof", and the helo crew responds, saying something to the effect of 'be advised, the group we fired on was on the ground, was at ground level'. Not long after that transmission, American ground forces arrive and discover the wounded kids in the van. At that point, it becomes obvious that the helo crew had caused civilian casualties, albeit unknowingly.

With that being said, I'm willing to reconsider my position, if contradictory information comes to light. I doubt that could be said about many people either here, or at HuffPo, or Salon, etc.

* Insurgents have been known to alter the scene of a firefight, removing weapons, bodies, and/or intel on the bodies in order to make it appear as though US forces opened fire on civilians. Clearly there were real civilians killed in this encounter.

Re:I don't care

[NotBornYesterday]

Because it doesn't fit with the prewritten narrative of "teh evil gummint". The intent of the edited, leaked, and then edited again video was to create the impression that the US military was indiscriminately hunting down unarmed civilians. Among those who are predisposed to believe this, the video succeeded.

I find it ironic that people who have the luxury of examining the footage over and over in the safety of their homes miss details like that (which the gunship crew in more adverse circumstances obviously didn't miss), and yet still feel comfortable condemning the actions of the crew

Re:I don't care

[martyros]

I'm in a good mood, so I'll feed the troll. It could not be an extended camera tripod. My wife is a professional photographer. I'm familiar with a lot of camera equipment, and that looked like nothing I've ever seen, either from her kit, her friends' kits, or what she used in school. I was also in the military, and so I'm familiar with a lot of military equipment. US military doesn't use RPGs, but it looks and hangs (and he was carrying it) exactly like a weapon.

My wife is a pro photographer, and also grew up on an Army base. When I showed my wife the video, her reaction was the same: "Ah, no way -- that's definitely an RPG."

Not to mention, a trained soldier who had seen dozens of RPGs identified it as an RPG.

Those are the credentials for our judgements. What are your credentials then?

Re:I don't care

[NotBornYesterday]

Come on, that's hardly a fully truthful representation of events

Yes it is. It just doesn't agree with what you want to believe.

Firstly, yes, they thought they saw an RPG

As others have pointed out, they did see one. See for yourself. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

The misidentification of the camerman came later.

Prior to that, US troops on the ground reported taking fire from this direction, and it was believed that it was from this group of people. There was at least one individual in the group with an AK-47, and at least one other with a RPG . While an Iraqi civilian might be carrying an AK-47, it is doubtful that a civilian would be carrying a RPG. Concluding that these guys were insurgents is reasonable based on the info the helo crew had at the time.

Re:I don't care

[sumdumass]

SO you know they were more then 3000 ft away at all times? It didn't look like it in the video but then again, it was zoomed in and grainy. And that's if the timer on the RPG shell hasn't been tampered with in order to extend or delay the self detonation. The RPG will travel more then 1000 yards, it just the limit on the timers for the warhead to go off that limit the range.

But hey, it doesn't really matter. As I said before, they saw the RPG and they saw the RPG being aimed. That is what was going through their minds at the time, not this Sunday morning armchair quarterbacking that seems to insist that the heli crew knew there were armed civilians with items looking similar to RPGs in the area that would be pointing those similar items at the helicopter. At the point when it appeared the weapons were aimed at them or another unit, it went from a casual meeting to a live or die instinctual reaction regardless of how far away they were or not. You simply do_not_ go into a battle zone thinking their weapons will bounce off like a mosquito and live to brag about it. The situation went from a what's this, to a They are threatening us before any What's this could be answered. Had that not occurred, I could side with you, but seeing how it did occur, however mistaken it may have been, they took the right actions. I don't care if you don't like that, I doubt you would have done much different given what was known at the time and not what is known now. Let someone shoot at you with the intent to kill you a couple of times, survive and tell me you won't get all instinctively defensive when you see someone pointing a gun at you again. And no, finding out afterwords that it wasn't a gun will not change how you reacted at the time it was happening.

Re:I don't care

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You totally discount

Apparently you not only believe you are entitled to your own facts, but you also have difficulty with the concept of "close to."

Re:I don't care

[VTI9600]

I think in these situations there should be a court which determines whether he was being ethical in his actions. Not simply whether or not he was breaking military rules.

I think I threw up a little in my mouth as I read this. I'm supremely thankful that, in our society, judges are expected to interpret and apply the law, not write it from the bench. Allowing a person to unilaterally decide what is or isn't ethical without going through a democratic process or any other type of review opens the door to a world of totalitarian nightmare scenarios. I would personally like judges to behave like computers, with the text of the law as their program code. Allowing special exeptions to the law for any one person or organization at someone's whim is corruption, plain and simple.

Otherwise it simply discourages leaks and whistle blowers.

Leakers such as Manning rightfully ought to be discouraged, because their actions help no one but can potentially cause tremendous harm. Along with the video, he claims to have indiscriminately leaked hundreds of thousands of other classified documents to Assange. Did he even bother to read any of them? Probably not. He just thought "Army bad! Army bad! I'm a l33t haxor and I'll prove it by betraying the trust that was placed in me!"

Whistle blowers that benefit society are often the ones you never hear about, because they don't go straight to the newspapers with their findings. They instead seek out the appropriate investigative or regulatory authority to hear their case. And, believe it or not, there are laws in place to protect those that do it the right way. What if some judge decided to ignore those laws on a whim? I'll bet you wouldn't feel so great about that.

Re:I don't care

[Idiomatick]

You are right, and I agree with the application of law of course. But I think that if a court finds that he was leaking information about the military doing something illegal he should get whistleblower status and not get punished. That way people giving away intel and such would be punished as to be expected. But militaries would working fucking hard to avoid cover ups or committing/allowing crimes since they know they'll get told on. Ethical was the wrong word entirely and I apologize for that.

I believe going public with information is a better system than a regulatory authority in many/most cases. Situational to be sure. In this case the us military outright lied/denied anything to do with the Reuters reporters and ignored requests for information and so on. Oversight isn't functioning in this case and it should go public for 'the people' to decide. (though I don't think this really made mainstream media anyways)

Re:I don't care

[lennier]

Would you declare war on murderers and have heli's shooting people that may have guns w/ out provocation? Of course not, that would be retarded nd only make the problem worse!.

But - but it's what Batman would do! Tim Burton's Batman at least.

Frost: "Are you really saying that Batman can do something retarded?"
Wayne: "I'm saying that when Batman does something, it's not retarded!"

Re:I don't care

[walshy007]

Even the Nazi's, for all the evil they did, managed to wear uniforms, so allied troops knew who to shoot.

When facing an enemy with an order of magnitude more firepower and resources than you, the uniforms always get dropped, it's suicide not to.

The americans have done it before also, when fighting the english. As did the french when occupied by the germans.

When the enemy has your country by the balls, and enough firepower to level it all, you don't walk outside in a uniform that identifies you don't like them.

Re:I don't care

[drkim]

Absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, it is also a tactic that gets civilians killed.

It is also a tactic that has "bonus" P.R. value:
Every time some of your non-uniformed soldiers get killed, you can publicize more "innocent" civilians deaths.

Re:I don't care

[Elbowgeek]

Hope you don't mind a bit of an extreme solution here, but I think the coalition forces should actively attempt to disarm the entire nation. Simply set forth a decree that anyone caught in possession of a firearm will be given one chance to give it up, and if not, be shot on sight. Have a gun amnesty for a period of time, after which the decree goes into effect.

I know that goes against every international law every written, but the gun culture there has to be seriously tackled, and that's the only real way of getting the ball rolling.

Re:I don't care

[jmcvetta]

That does not, however, excuse what Greenwald characterises as 'despicable' behaviour by Lamo.

That, or Lamo has been p0wned by the NSA/CIA/etc for years. It was a serious misjudgment for Manning to confide in a hacker already known to have been compromised.

Re:I don't care

[babblefrog]

I'm confused. By "there", are you talking about the US?

Re:I don't care

[Elbowgeek]

By "there," I mean "anywhere but here."

Good Grief.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Honestly, if you're going to leak government docs to Wikileaks, you should't go around tooting your horn about it to random "hackers" you find on-line. This guy may have been caught in the end anyway, but he didn't do himself any favors by not KEEPING HIS MOUTH SHUT about it.

Shocking...

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

that he would betray the confidence of someone who trusted him.

Persona non grata

[RayMarron]

Whatever the reason, nobody is ever going to trust Lamo with a secret again.

Re:Persona non grata

[DesScorp]

Thankfully, no one will ever trust Bradley Manning with a secret again, either.

Re:Persona non grata

[Idiomatick]

Shooting Reuters reporters and a van of civilians is a secret that should be kept now?

Re:Persona non grata

[microbox]

Shooting Reuters reporters and a van of civilians is a secret that should be kept now?

Damn straight! We should be able to keep anything secret that makes us look bad. We are, after all, totally awesome and in the right about everything. And it's all just lies and spin anyway. Why do you hate america? What's wrong with you?

(just trying to see things from the others' perspective.)

Re:Persona non grata

[Idiomatick]

GP said Bradley Manning... the guy that leaked the video.

More information at infoworld.com

[Anonymous Coward]

href=http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/wikileaks-part-ii-adrian-lamo-responds-580-0?page=0,1

and

href=http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/spies-wikileaks-and-hackers-oh-my-443

Highlight of the reply from Lamo:

You have a number of questions that could be answered by contacting me. I politely request that you consider doing so via my publicly-available contact details in the future - and if you did & I was somehow unreachable, I retract this & apologize.

I would suggest that Manning is neither a whistleblower nor a spy (although he may be guilty of espionage, which is a different animal in some circles.) I was aware that KLP had little interest in keeping my identity secret.

Whether I was right is not for me to globally judge (though I believe I did the right thing, which is also a different animal. Yes, I'm splitting that hair mighty thin.)

Poulsen knows I've been around the block a couple dozen times, and I've been a bona-fide confidential source, albeit never for Poulsen. I don't feel taken advantage of. If I was pressured, it was up to me to exercise my right & ability to resist.

I object to your characterization of Asperger's as a "disability" - it's more-often described as a "syndrome" or "condition" in psychiatric circles, and in a less pejorative fashion to boot.

I know Poulsen isn't my friend. We don't socialize. We don't go clubbing. He's the most highly ethical journalist I know. If I were unaware that he considers me a source, not a friend, I'd be taken advantage of. I am however quite aware of this.

The government - and this is important - never asked me to be a source for them in the Manning case, in terms of eliciting information in furtherance of prosecution. This request would be improper, and I would decline in the interests of justice.

I have no reason to lead me to believe that Assange is on the run from anything larger than his own PR machine. It's perverse that this story has increasingly drifted from focusing on Manning to focusing on Assange.

I hope this clarifies things for you from my end. I've been entirely candid with you, and hope you'll update with a clarification from my end.

"Salon" impresses me

[spydabyte]

Unlike the summary posted above, the article is very unbiased. I'm surprised how sensational slashdot has become on issues like this. This isn't about some hacker wanting street cred, it's about an agent of the government getting a criminal to talk. Salon even stops slander found in other articles that is just journalism upon journalism leads to US Government vs. WikiLeaks, which at this point looks completely ridiculous.

I for one congratulate Salon for this very well balanced article.

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[DeadCatX2]

Did you read the same article I read? It is not unbiased (most of Glenn Greenwald's work is slightly biased, quite often with a pinch of venomous rhetoric, usually towards those who deserve it)

Greenwald believes Manning is probably a heroic whistle blower, not a criminal.

The reason this story matters so much -- aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term

He also believes Lamo was doing it for the attention.

Making Lamo's conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention. Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known hacker of the Tor Project who has known Lamo for years, said that Lamo's "only concern" has always been "getting publicity for Adrian." Indeed, Lamo's modus operandi as a hacker was primitive hacking aimed at high-profile companies that he'd then use Poulsen to publicize. As Appelbaum put it: "if this situation really fell into Adrian's lap, his first and only thought would have been: how can I turn this to my advantage? He basically destroyed a 22-year-old's life in order to get his name mentioned on the Wired.com blog."

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[twoallbeefpatties]

He also qualifies both of those beliefs with quotes from Manning. From the quotes of Lamo's chat with Manning, it seems he believed that he actually was acting in the role of a whistleblower. He mentions his moral issues with what's going on:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing "insurgent" literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

Maliki: i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees... i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against...

And he was leaking it to WikiLeaks because he believed that was where it would do the most public good:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank? ...it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information... try and get some edge - if its out in the open... it should be a public good.

In regards to his belief that Lamo was doing it for the attention:

On May 20 -- a month ago -- Poulsen, out of nowhere, despite Lamo's not having been in the news for years, wrote a long, detailed Wired article describing serious mental health problems Lamo was experiencing... Lamo called the police, who concluded that he was experiencing such acute psychiatric distress that they had him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for three days. That 72-hour "involuntary psychiatric hold" was then extended by a court for six more days, after which he was released to his parents' home. Lamo claimed he was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed. In that article, Poulsen also summarized Lamo's extensive hacking history. Lamo told me that, while he was in the mental hospital, he called Poulsen to tell him what happened, and then told Poulsen he could write about it for a Wired article. So starved was Lamo for some media attention that he was willing to encourage Poulsen to write about his claimed psychiatric problems if it meant an article in Wired that mentioned his name.

It was just over two weeks after writing about Lamo's Asperger's, depression and hacking history that Poulsen, along with Kim Zetter, reported that PFC Manning had been detained, after, they said, he had "contacted former hacker Adrian Lamo late last month over instant messenger and e-mail." Lamo told me that Manning first emailed him on May 20 and, according to highly edited chat logs released by Wired, had his first online chat with Manning on May 21; in other words, Manning first contacted Lamo the very day that Poulsen's Wired article on Lamo's involuntary commitment appeared (the Wired article is time-stamped 5:46 p.m. on May 20).

Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[jonnat]

Whether Manning committed a crime or not is not the main issue. Most whistle-blowers are either committing a crime or breaking a contract. That's why they must be protected from prosecution.

The main issue is that we, as citizens, should always strive to get more information about our government's and corporations' actions and Lamo's self-serving betrayal will likely have a negative effect on that goal.

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[Timothy Brownawell]

No, I believe entrapment is when they convince you to commit an actual crime (which they then proceed to arrest you for). This was entirely after-the-fact.

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Hm... wouldn't we normally call it entrapment if...

DUDE! Are you not paying attention? It's *ALL* a set-up by the Pentagon to make Wikileaks unattractive to potential leakers. This Army guy is in on it, he'll probably get a fucking Achievement Medal and a trip to Officer's Candidate School out of it.

I mean, turn in your tin-foil hat dude!

Re:"Salon" impresses me

[rhizome]

No. What you describe is not only allowed, but encouraged in law enforcement for questioning people. Entrapment is when they induce you to commit a crime you would not normally have done.

Re:Manning must not have been able to operate Goog

[CallMyCards]

He also believed, the guy on the other end when was saying that he's a journalist *and* a minister. Really, why not a *doctor* also, third one's charm, they say.

Lamo does not care

[betterunixthanunix]

Considering that he was found guilty once, I don't think Lamo wants to be carrying secrets for other people anymore. If I were him, I would be staying on the straight and narrow for a while.

details?

[AffidavitDonda]

Could you provide some details? We will protect you under both journalist shield laws and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition...

Re:details?

[commodore64_love]

"Oh good. I can trust you then. Heh heh heh heh." - George Duh Bush

Re:details?

[commodore64_love]

-1 Troll? Jeez. Would it have been funnier if I wrote:

"Oh good. I can..... just a minute my teleprompter froze up..... uh, I can, you know, trust you... uh... with my... with the... uh, secret communique." - Barak Øbama

Re:details?

[davester666]

Tell us more about your so-called "clergy-lay confidentiality tradition". Does it involve boys at all?

Re:details?

[sumdumass]

I think the troll mod came from someone who thinks you making fun of the private who got busted, not the dictator in charge. Perhaps the idiot is a hero to them?

Where's Q when you need him?

[Vinegar Joe]

If you want to play James Bond, you have to expect to run into Blofeld every now and then.

Ya well

[Sycraft-fu]

It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.

There's a real difference in personality type and action between people with different motivations for breaking a trust and revealing confidential data.

In the case of conscience, it is because you really believe this is important to the public good. You believe that the world needs this information to be public. That was the case with The Pentagon Papers. The reason Ellsberg leaked the documents was he felt that he had to. He had tried to contact Senators and have them deal with it, but they wouldn't. He was out of options more or less, and felt the only way to deal with it was public disclosure, that the public's need to know outweighed the oath he'd taken to keep classified information secret.

However this was not a case like that, it was a case of ego. Manning was pissed off (in part because apparently he'd been broken up with) and decided to act out on it, in this case by leaking documents. He may have felt they should be public, but his motivation was ego. Well guess what? When ego is involved, people like to brag. They can't help but run their mouth to show how awesome they are.

Personally I don't feel a lot of sympathy for him for that reason. Were this a case of a deep personal belief, I can respect that, however he was just being spiteful more or less. Also, if he is telling the truth about leaking a quarter million diplomatic cables it is clear he doesn't care. There is no way he read all of those and decided they all needed to be public, he's just leaking information indiscriminately.

Whatever the case, it isn't likely to go well for him. Given that this was done in the course of his duties as military personnel, he will most likely be tried by court marshal as per the UCMJ. Means he's not likely to find a sympathetic civilian jury.

Re:Ya well

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However this was not a case like that, it was a case of ego.

However, the one person who has suggested that it was a case of ego and not patriotism is Lamo himself and if these allegations about Lamo are correct, then that really casts doubt on the whole idea.

Re:Ya well

[Timothy Brownawell]

However, the one person who has suggested that it was a case of ego and not patriotism is Lamo himself and if these allegations about Lamo are correct, then that really casts doubt on the whole idea.

As in, maybe he's assuming that everyone else is just like him?

That article makes no sense.

[paxcoder]

Lamo told Manning he could provide protection under both journalist shield laws, and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition

What? Since when is this guy a priest journalist?
I don't get it

Re:That article makes no sense.

[retchdog]

nearly anyone, if not anyone, can be ordained at Universal Life for free and with no special requirements. I don't know if this would actually hold up, but yeah, it'd probably be enough to convince an aspie.

Lamo Outed a Felon

[MarkvW]

Big wow.

Lamo caught a felon. Who cares if his motives reveal him to be just a lowlife?

Re:Lamo Outed a Felon

[baka_toroi]

You must be one of those who think the law is the moral compass one should be guided by.

Re:Lamo Outed a Felon

[malbosher]

lamos a rat and so are you. cowards like to justify each others actions.

Re:Lamo Outed a Felon

[MarkvW]

So what? Your elementary school reasoning underwhelms me.

That's the point

[twoallbeefpatties]

Read the article - that's part of what Glennwald is asking. He's asking, why would a 22-year-old Private with access to high-security information get onto AIM and spill his guts about an issue that could get him thrown into jail for a long time with some guy that he's never met before? Something is funny about the whole notation.

Re:That's the point

[SunSpot505]

I don't have mod points, please someone mod this up, and thank you for actually reading the article.

This is deeply disturbing, and people poking fun and making snarky comments about this situation either didn't read the article, or have little concept of the issues at stake here.

But then, maybe slashdot is just full of self promoting semi-technical douchewads just like Lamo. Oops, hope I didn't strike a nerve there.

Re:That's the point

[Spykk]

Something is funny about the whole notation.

I think you used that word incorrigibly.

Re:That's the point

[Xacid]

Yet it's the stranger's fault... Oh you angsty teenager, you, OP.

Re:That's the point

[snowgirl]

What I find even more odd, is that this Private is supposed to have spilled his guts to Lamo over unencrypted AIM... AFTER contacting Lamo via PGP-encrypted e-mails?!

Re:That's the point

[lawpoop]

Maybe he's a run-of-the-mill stupid, naive, thinks-he-knows-everything 22-year-old how royally fucked up in the traditional way, being at that age where you have too much power and too little wisdom?

Re:That's the point

[WarlockD]

What I thought was more intresting was he wasn't caught telling him on AIM. You would thing all text/chat would be logged for key words going out of Iraq unless the Army didn't want that generaly to be known.

If he DID spill the beans to me on AIM, the first thing I would do is contact the FBI in a heart beat. Something like this over an unencrypted channel is stupid:P

Thought its odd that he didn't "open the encrypted email" and sent them straight to the FBI. Whats the freaking point of having your key out there if you don't bother to read it?

jabs between Poulsen and Greenwald on Twitter

[amanicdroid]

ggreenwald: Good Gawker post on Wired's concealment of the Lamo-Manning chat logs: [is.gd] kpoulsen: @ggreenwald I'm supposed to take journalistic ethics lessons from Gawker? Pass ggreenwald: @kpoulsen No - you should explain whether the claims Adrian made about his chat that don't appear in your published logs are in them ggreenwald: @kpoulsen And you should release the parts you're concealing that don't reveal harmful national security secrets or very personal issues

Re:jabs between Poulsen and Greenwald on Twitter

[amanicdroid]

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16501545943

https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/16503238009

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16503504650

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16503582811

Adrian Lamo was a known quantity

[Ninja Programmer]

Unfortunately it seems Julian Asange and Pvt. Manning did not know Adrian Lamo's history. He's already on an FBI watch list, and his previous encounters with hacker activities basically turned him into an "outed hacker". Such people can make careers as counter-intrusion consultants (Phiber Optik, Kevin Mitcnick) or as Journalists/radio personalities (Bernie S, Kevin Poulsen). But they *cannot* go back to grey or black hat hacking, and anything along those lines. They are being watched too carefully. On his interview on the "Off the Hook" radio show, Adrian Lamo was unusually regretful and capitulant when he got "caught" intruding into people's systems. He made no attempt to defend his actions. This should have been the first clue that this guy was basically a state actor or something of that nature. Given how effective WikiLeaks has been, it is shocking to me that they were so lax in security as to allow someone like Adrian Lamo anywhere near their crown jewels. Now Manning is going to be a fall guy, and iterpol/the FBI has a ridiculous premise for subpoenaing Julian Asange. This whole cock up sucks so much ass. Why did Julian Asange feel the need to go public? Why did they trust some outed hacker? Along with cryptome.org, Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.

Re:Adrian Lamo was a known quantity

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't follow the story. Wikileaks has no relation to Lamo at all. They didn't give him any access to anything. Wikileaks had no idea who submitted the videos. Manning told Lamo he submitted the videos. Wikileaks wasn't involved. Assange didn't go public with anything. The "scandal" is that Lamo may have lied to Manning and told him that their conversation was confidential and then gone and used it anyway.

Re:Adrian Lamo was a known quantity

[dangitman]

Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.

Wait, what? Wikileaks is important for free speech and open societies, so you hope it goes down in flames? That doesn't really compute, unless you hate free speech and open societies and consider them the enemy.

Re:Adrian Lamo was a known quantity

[Lehk228]

the idea of wikileaks is more important that he actualsite, now that it has existed, if it is shut down dozens will pop up in it's place

Citation?

[twoallbeefpatties]

It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.

TFA has excerpts from the chat in which Manning had told Lamo that he wanted this material out in the public domain to spur debate, that he was having some moral issues with how the military was doing business. What's your source that he was doing this for revenge?

Now with tags!

[amanicdroid]

ggreenwald: Good Gawker post on Wired's concealment of the Lamo-Manning chat logs: [is.gd]

kpoulsen: @ggreenwald I'm supposed to take journalistic ethics lessons from Gawker? Pass

ggreenwald: @kpoulsen No - you should explain whether the claims Adrian made about his chat that don't appear in your published logs are in them

ggreenwald: @kpoulsen And you should release the parts you're concealing that don't reveal harmful national security secrets or very personal issues

Binary Boy appears to be an idiot

[harlows_monkeys]

wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo

Even a cursory glance at Lamo's history will show he's not a "wannabe" hacker. He was and is a quite accomplished and successful (except for getting caught) hacker.

Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[Hurricane78]

I mean, really: Protip:
1. Go to some Internet café and upload everything to a "free homepage", "online hard drive" or similar service.
2. Go to another Internet café and post the link to a couple of forums that Wikileaks people frequent, saying that you just found it on that homepage trough a random google search.
3. Watch how after you leave the computer at the Internet cafés, they get wiped and overwritten with a disk image.
4. Watch dozens of customers use the same PC in the next hours/days, making it impossible to know by the fingerprints or by asking the people there, who actually did the upload or posts.
5. WIN!

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[lawpoop]

I don't know what internet cafes you're referencing, but the ones I've seen in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru are a mish-mash of computers and nobody's doing any disk imaging. It wouldn't be hard at all to grab any number of passwords from keyloggers.

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Drive around looking for an open WIFI network
2. Upload
3. Drive more
4. Spread info
5. Watch as the military tracks it back to one of the few people who have access to this info
6. Military goes over their logs on their base computers, find out it was copied this day and this soldier was working that day.
7. Still get busted

I think we are all still waiting on what is going to be on this released info and all this revolves around the Apache killing the innocent civilians.
People are probably looking for more juicy stuff in the released stuff, although everyone is grasping straws right now.

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[0olong]

And don't forget to configure your wireless card to always randomize its MAC address ("macchanger -A") before associating with a wireless network. People have been busted before simply because they forgot this seemingly trivial detail. If you want to be extra cautious, you'll use linux and script the whole procedure beforehand. That way you can keep your laptop/handheld in your bag/pocket and just walk/drive/cycle through any (preferably busy) street to accomplish your mission.

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[Lehk228]

if you are going to draw the ire of powerful people, the cost of a throwaway 802.11b card is well worth not spending time in a syrian prison

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[Hurricane78]

Then their clients must be pretty nice ones. Around here, such a system would be wrecked in the blink of an eye. The imaging does not happen because of security concerns. It happens because the users leave it in an unworkable state, and that means money loss.

Maybe you should think about adding a script to their systems that wrecks them at a random moment between 1-3 days after you have been there. And then sell them a imaging solution. You could make money, while doing good for their clients. ;)

Re:Why did he need "Limo" in the first place?

[Hurricane78]

You just added two assumptions that were not made in my comment. Hence your arguments are invalid to invalidating my arguments. But even with those assumptions added, and then obviously also considering them, you don’t get busted:

1. The assumption that there are open WiFis:
There are no open WiFis around here anymore. Even WEP ones are pretty rare by now.
I could not get into a single one here. And I used even techniques that usually can get into WEP in very short times.
(Don’t worry. I am long past my cracker days. It’s nice to know you can, but don’t have to.)

2. The assumption that person got the data from a logged military system:
Well, my friend, you got to be pretty dumb to know that they are military computers, and still do that yourself! I did not talk about military.
I worked in a company where the local admin passwords were stored in a text file on a windows share on a server. Obscure but still easy to find. I could log in to about half the systems around me, and have full access to everything.
So if I wanted to copy something from our main server, where everything was logged, I would just have logged in to another system, and created a script that would have done this to the system of someone I did not like. Which then would have done the actual transfer from the server to a free file share on the net. After that, both scripts would wipe all evidence of themselves from both systems.
If you don’t have access, you can still stick a keylogger on those systems and remove it later. (Without leaving fingerprints and with it being a colleague, so that it would be normal to leave a hair or some dust from you there.)
This then would also work for military offices.
(Again, don’t worry. I don’t think it makes sense to wreck the company that’s paying for your life and that trusts you. If I hate a company that much, what am I doing, still working there in the first place?)

Re:Oh dear

[dangitman]

The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.

Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.

Re:Adrian Lamo? for serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, I was disconnecting modems for the lulz while this guy was learning 2 times 2 is 4.

It was the right thing to do...

[mathimus1863]

If you read about Lamo's reaction to story (Wired had an excellent article about it), you'd find it has nothing to do with "ego." And it has nothing to do with being a "snitch." He said himself that he agonized over the decision for a long time because normally he wouldn't turn someone in. And he supports Wikileaks. But in this case, Manning was completely reckless, vacuuming up any and every piece of classified information he could find, and "throwing it up in the air." This is a legitimate threat to national security. Manning wasn't identifying abuses anymore, he wanted to create anarchy. He said it himself in one of his chats.

Releasing embassy cables could reveal names of operatives, and details of secret operations that really should be kept secret. Just because it's secret doesn't mean it's unethical or some abuse of power. There's plenty of people out there collecting information for our government about real threats in the world, and those people put their lives at risk for a good cause (most of them). They haven't done anything wrong. Yet they might find themselves in a Chinese prison never to be seen again once their name is released, and for no reason than some out-of-control monkey who wanted to create "anarchy." I would've done the same.

Re:It was the right thing to do...

[Sprouticus]

horse shit. I trust wikileaks to make the judgement on those sorts of things far better than the government.

Re:It was the right thing to do...

[Swave An deBwoner]

horse shit. I trust wikileaks to make the judgement on those sorts of things far better than the government.

When Khatchadourian asked Assange if "he would refrain from releasing information that might get someone killed," Assange responded that there might be instances when the members of WikiLeaks got "blood on our hands."

http://www.newyorker.com/services/presscenter/2010/06/07/100607pr_press_releases

Re:It was the right thing to do...

[SunSpot505]

But Manning might not have done anything wrong either, and Lamo himself admitted that he had not seen any proof of wrong doing, other than the fact that Manning claimed to have released these documents.

Further, claiming it's the "right thing to do" is all the easier when you're guaranteed a front page story in a premier tech magazine. Manning claimed he was doing the right thing too, by exposing hypocrisy and unnecessary violence in a volatile situation, but he didn't give his information to wired, he gave it to a third party to release as they saw fit, not promote himself.

So basically, it's ok to be an informant if it soothes your ego to "keep spies from getting killed" (or gets you into a Wired article), but it's not ok if you attempt to keep civilians from getting killed (or it gets you into a Wikileaks article). Now I understand.

Re:Oh dear

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.

But we Americans lay claim to being pure, upstanding people.

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

Discrepancy

[dragonhunter21]

Summary: "may have been duped by wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo"
FTA: "convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo"
2+2=5?

Thank you for your service

[Sprouticus]

If this guy goes to prison, I will be the 1st one in line to thank him for his service to the country. As a Vet and citizen I want people who sacrifice for their country in ANY fashion to know they are appreciated.

Re:Thank you for your service

[harrytuttle777]

Hell Yea. Sometimes the best service that you can do for your country is calling into question those who are using the military industrial complex to service their own needs rather then the needs of their country. National security should not be used as a pretense to cover up politically unpopular 'mistakes'

-Not all the enemies of freedom are overseas. Some of them are right here close to home, tightly nestled in a warm blanket political influence and corporate nepotism.

Re:Thank you for your service

[sixsixtysix]

what if something really bad is covered-up and classified? the truth always trumps security.

Re:Thank you for your service

[Sprouticus]

Rules and reg dont mean shit when you are following your conscience. Whether this guy was stupid is up for debate, he obviously fell in love with his 15 min of fame. But the my understanding of the reasons he did it were noble.

Like it or not, sometimes you have to break the rules to do the right thing. Sometimes the ENTIRE chain of command is in on it. When that happens, it is perfectly acceptable to do this type of thing. Morally he did the right thing, and as I said, I appreciate this actions.

Looking at the response of the brass to this incident, I would say his assessment of their culpabiity and lack of regard for the rule of law is reasonable.

As for my service, you are correct I did not serve in either combat arms or intel. Like most people with half a brain in the military, I was used in another function. In my case, I was an ELT on a sub.

As I stated in another part of the thread, the actions were questionable given the evidence we have been presented with at this time. If there is more we dont know, Im perfectly willing to listen. And dont give me national security as an excuse, the cat is out of the bag and down the street on this one...

Re:Thank you for your service

[Sprouticus]

Just because most of the people in this country are too stupid to see that they have given away power to the wrong people does not make service to the country bad.

I know in my heart that I served for the right reasons. I wanted to give back to the people who came before me. To both of my Grandfathers who served in WWI, to my cousin who just finished his 30 years and started before me. To my family because I believe that despite the shitty government we have now (and have for 40+ years) that we can still make this country a place I want my son to live in for the rest of his life.

His actions

[Sycraft-fu]

I will admit, I do not know what his motivations are, but then we'll never know. He could say one thing and simply be lying. However the way he has acted leads me to believe ego was the driving force. As I said, the biggest would be running his mouth like he did. He wanted credit for what he'd done, but of course that would get him in trouble. So he was bragging to those he believed he was safe in telling.

Then there's the events preceding the leak. By his own statements his girlfriend had broken up with him, he'd be demoted for assaulting another solider, and he felt like his family wasn't supporting him. That is not a mindset that to me sounds like ground work for a rational decision. Sounds to me like he was angry, and the military was the target that bore the brunt of his anger. He may claim it was a moral decision, but people are able to rationalize all kinds of things. To me it sounds like ego.

Finally there's the 260,000 diplomatic cables he claims to have released, but that have not yet been seen. Now there's one of two ways this goes:

1) He really did leak a quarter million pieces of classified correspondence. In this case, it is a purse ego move as there's no way he could have looked at them all and decided they were relevant. He was just shotgun releasing everything he could, since his ego told him that he was the good guy and whatever he does was right since it gets back at those that hurt him.

2) He made it all up, in an attempt to appear more competent, more powerful, etc than he really was. That is pure ego, making things up for the purpose of appearance.

So all in all, to me it looks like the guy was driven by his ego, not his conscience, to do what he did.

Re:His actions

[Sycraft-fu]

You conspiracy nuts are funny. "Anyone who says something I disagree with must be working for the government!" No, sorry, not the case. I just happen to be perfectly capable of looking at things and coming to my own conclusions. I work at a university, doing tech support, not for any government agency.

If you seriously thing the government gives a shit about what people on Slashdot think, the to the point of "infiltrating" it, you are WAY too paranoid.

Re:I don't care (but I do)

[Minix]

You say, "But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents." and imply that this means most of the people viewer therefore lack a real ability to assess the video.

What you say is true, but it is incomplete.

The US military intentionally and openly prevent the publication of such videos, they 'embed' journalists instead of allowing them to investigate, *precisely* so the populace lacks any ability to form a contextual framework within which to assess 'operation crusade' or whatever the military expedition in the middle east is now called.

I've heard lots of old hawks bleating that Vietnam was lost at home, that the population's objections to an unjust war made it unwinnable. The people at home aren't allowed to see what is being done in their name, because they might not like it, and might wish to exercise their democratic rights to stop doing it.

So it seems to me that what is needed is more of these videos, more wikileaks, more transparency, and more democracy. Not. Less.

Re:Oh dear

[Swave An deBwoner]

the american society is in serious breakdown. Unfortunately, it will drag down most of western society. The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.

Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

Greenwald's suspicion is probably true

[Burz]

The author thinks it may be a setup by the Pentagon to discredit Wikileaks.

I think that the govt has establish a relationship with Lamo in the past. Similarly, just after the Apache helicopter video became news, the govt came down hard on Manning, scared the wits out of him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Now all of a sudden we are hearing about vast amounts of state secrets that nasty ol' Wikileaks took from Manning's tender but misguided hands.

(sniff) 'How could those rats do this to my Homeland?!!!' (sob...)

Only thing is Assange says he has never seen or heard about this supposed cache of stolen communications, and I tend to think that the govt is telling Manning to make this (damaging to Wikileaks) claim as part of a deal.

Not A Secret, Anymore

[BobandMax]

My grandmother told me that anything two or more people know is not a secret.

Stupid? Naive? Not The First Time We've Seen It

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex, I'll pick Occam's Razor for $100. It has occurred to me that PFC Manning was just that stupid.

I've seen an example of this sort of thing on Slashdot, where someone representing himself as an Army NCO mouthed off regarding a technical capability of his systems. It took a couple of tries reminding him of his OPSEC responsibilities before he purchased a clue, deleting his personal information from his /. profile. Too late, though, as I pulled his POC from Google cache, and within about 5 minutes strung together his specialty, his unit, its facility in the FRG, its most recent deployment to the ME, his photo from a unit newsletter, his friends and family on MySpace, and likely stateside address from Zabasearch.

Lamo's twitter page

[toxygen01]

is http://twitter.com/6

he use to comment on people's comments and questions

National Security

[guyminuslife]

You have to wonder, if this is a breach of "national security", then is the security we're talking about safety from Iraqis, or the military's security in the knowledge that they have no real popular referendum on their actions?

You don't say?

[shiftless]

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.

What the hell did you expect him to say? "Hey, I'm planning to turn you over to the authorities as soon as you email me that video. And can you please hurry? The Justice Department said they want somebody arrested within 12 hours, and that a bonus is involved." I mean seriously--what the fuck? Regardless of his motives, the private in question allegedly willingly showed classified materials to someone who was not authorized to see them. Period. Do you expect the military to have a "we'll take it on a case by case basis" when it comes to the UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED MATERIALS?

Who submitted this article? I'd click "back" to check but I'm too fucking lazy.

Inconsistency in the story

[1 inch punch]

>>Lamo says that Manning thereafter sent him additional emails encrypted to his current PGP key, but that Lamo never bothered to decrypt them. Instead, Lamo claims he turned over all those Manning emails to the FBI without ever reading a single one of them. Thus, the actual initial communications between Manning and Lamo -- what preceded and led to their chat -- are completely unknown.

The only way that the FBI could've read the emails without having Lamo himself first decrypt them, is to allow the FBI access to his secret key and password. You be the judge on the plausibility of that happening.

Re:Inconsistency in the story

[Lehk228]

with lamo working for the cops, i would be guessing that they do have a copy of all his private keys and if he were to start using one they didn't have a copy of he would get leaned on pretty hard

Re:Oh dear

[microbox]

Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.

Bullies always justify their behaviour.

Lamo

[jdc18]

Lamo, just killed any credibility he had. I wouldnt want to be him right now. What goes around comes around.

lol no

[Weezul]

Governments are *very* good at force escalation. Gandhi and MLK won by denying them legitimacy once they employed force. By comparison, the Palestinians have never gained their own state precisely because they've refused to forswear violence.

You need not be completely non-violent of course, but you must convincingly reject violence. Indeed, Gandhi and MLK both faced competition from violent groups with the same goals, but they and their lieutenants rejected violence so absolutely that government could not blame them for any violence. Arafat never seriously even sought that status.

I doubt online rights would suffer if Lameo got shot by one lone crazy with guns and NRA membership, but your public encouraging of said hypothetical gun nut makes rights activists look bad, and any concerted effort towards would be even worse.

If you feel like doing some good, how about helping convince slashdot, boing boing, etc. to impose a 1 year moratorium on wired.com links. Lameo is just a moron who tricked Manning. Wired has seriously violated journalistic integrity.

Believing Manning IS whistleblower is naive.

[dragisha]

Just think a bit about it.

I've read every TFA rolling around.

Lots of contradictions in Lamo/Wired story about how their communication come to be.

All this c*ap about one analyst somewhere having access to whole 260,000 of diplomatic cables... What is he? Root of whole bunch of .gov machines? You /.ers of all people, you believe in this???

And again, one whistleblower being naive enough to confess to some net person?

I can't believe so much people are buying stories like these.

The fact that he talked about it on AIM...

[elucido]

Wouldn't the NSA and FBI have the ability to see the entire conversation?
Lets face it, the kid was impetuous and stupid. He's also very young and it's to be expected. The fact is what he did was illegal and the fact that it's illegal AND he talked about it on the government monitored internet is what makes him so dumb.

It's like if Bin Laden would go on AIM and go to Jihad.com and chat.

The kid talked about it on AIM!

[elucido]

Obviously he doesn't know enough to know that the NSA can read that? He's an idiot.

You have an interesting theory...

[elucido]

What I don't understand is why this kid could be so smart as to have the technical skill to pull off that kind of operation but then be so dumb as to communicate in plaintext over AOL.

This is as stupid as just emailing a confession. The kid wasn't even smart enough to know about PGP.

I dont think it will have that affect

[elucido]

First of all it wasn't Wikileaks that caused this kid to be captured. It was this kid behaving in a dumb impetuous fashion that caused him to be captured. Typical hacker kid who pulls off an exploit and then brags about it to his friends. It's always the situation that individuals who brag get caught.

On top of that he was messing with the US gov, this means all the alphabet agencies were hunting him and he goes and tells Adrian Lamo? The entire situation is ridiculous and comical in my opinion.

What isn't comical is the fact that if there really are all these thousands of classified documents and if American lives really are at stake here, thats not funny at all. I don't know the details of the situation, but if the goal was to discredit Wikileaks it may actually have the opposite effect.

Re:I dont think it will have that affect

[CdBee]

and if American lives really are at stake here

Democratic accountability might go both ways. If American lives are put at risk because of reports of the actions of the American government, that seems.... balanced? not fair, war's never fair, but reciprocal, perhaps.. In the end you WILL reap what you sow.

Re:I dont think it will have that affect

[elucido]

and if American lives really are at stake here

Democratic accountability might go both ways. If American lives are put at risk because of reports of the actions of the American government, that seems.... balanced? not fair, war's never fair, but reciprocal, perhaps.. In the end you WILL reap what you sow.

It's much more complicated than that. The people who's lives are at stake were just following orders. Just as it would have been illegal if Adrian wouldn't have reported the situation, it's also illegal for a soldier to not follow orders. In fact for a soldier it's much worse because it could equate to treason or mutiny.

I don't think soldiers are responsible for their actions and if their lives are put at risk that would be remarkably unfair. I do think some of the policy decisions have been wrong so I'm in no position to tell anyone whether or not what happened in this case was ethical or unethical because we do not yet know the consequences of these actions. But if the consequences of these actions result in the increased loss of American lives then the consequences are unacceptable.

Honestly from the look of things so far it seems like a tragic situation for everybody involved. It looks as if this kid ruined his own life and now will end up in gitmo or the supermax prison. It looks like Adrian has put his own security at risk by becoming the government witness.

It looks like Wikileaks will actually gain credibility from this situation. It will gain credibility because if anyone is serious about hacking the government or doing these types of whistleblower activities, they now know that Wikileaks is for real and not some sort of honeypot. I think the media attention will attract even more whistleblowers to Wikileaks, and I don't think the majority of them will be stupid about it like that kid.

At the gov is trying to stop Wikileaks by declaring it a terrorist organization. That gives Wikileaks street cred it would not have if this kid were not arrested. Wikileaks is now officially official.

Re:I dont think it will have that affect

[CdBee]

A series of trials in Germany in 1945 established incontrovertibly that soldiers are responsible for their actions carried out under command from a superior officer, and that an order which defies the commonly understood laws of humane conduct is not a valid order and no defence

Moving beyond generalities - of course war is unfair and the one certainty is that the prime movers in any conflict escape with their lives - for example British former PM Tony Blair has probably killed more people he's never met than any PM since WW2 but will we ever see him in a dock?

In war, as with Wikileaks - only terrorism can bring truth down on the shoulders of the truly guilty. The formal system of armies and battles, like the formal system of reporters and censors, is set up to protect the people whose business it is to make war. The professional murderers.

What a douche bag.

[crhylove]

People like that need to be drug into the street and killed immediately. Pathetic.

Re:Manning must not have been able to operate Goog

[kackle]

>He actually believed that Lamo was an ordained minister,

Lmao!

Re:lol no

[CdBee]

Who said I was encouraging gun nuts? If you read my post you'll see no suggestion of any action nor any suggestion of the tools of choice. The 'something' that might happen in revenge could be as innocuous as a custard pie in the face

(I'm British - custard pies are more respected as the weapon of choice than guns over here). However I will take issue with your assertion that governments are best at force-escalation.

If the war that Bradley Manning has lost his liberty to truly expose has shown us anything it is that even when governments try to escalate they will always be outmanouevred by the irregular forces. Insurgents, freedom fighters, terrorists - call them what you will, they can plumb depths of savagery governments can't even peer into.

Against a motivated force of irregulars government will eventually always lose because weapons can't kill an idea.

Re:lol no

[Weezul]

Yes, ideas can survive almost any conventional military attack, but waiting for your enemy to get bored and go home isn't exactly substantive progress towards your political ends.

Iraqi 'irregulars' will win precisely when the U.S. goes home, but all their efforts spent keeping the American body count high may not make the departure date any sooner.

America achieved their revolutionary goals definitively largely because England was over committed elsewhere, the French gave significant aid, and they already had massive influence within the existing power structure.

Afganistan and Vietnam has significant aid but still ended up just waiting the USSR and US out because they were not over committed elsewhere.

Afaik, the communist revolutions like China, Russia, Cuba, etc. largely ate the existing decadent power structure from the inside, same for many European revolutions.

The Palestinians will never achieve their political goals through violence because the Israelis are also fighting for survival. I'll grant they'll never drive the Israelis into the sea using peaceful means either, but they could establish stable states.

Gandhi and MLK achieved radical political change quite rapidly using non-violent means.

Contradicting yourself aren't you?

[SmallFurryCreature]

You say medics can be shot, if armed. COMBAT medics, if armed. These weren't combat medics and they were not armed as can be VERY clearly seen.

And an AK47 is no threat to a armored helicopter.

Did you WATCH the video? or just takes Fox news word for what it showed?

WATCH IT, and LISTEN to the pilots. They KNOW the people on the ground are unarmed.

People like them used to shoot blackies because it was fun. These are the kind of guys that guarded concentration camps. LISTEN to them talk.