Slashdot Mirror
Is Wired Hiding Key Evidence On Bradley Manning?
Hugh Pickens writes "Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon that for more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed but refuses to publish the key evidence in the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source. 'In late May, Adrian Lamo — at the same time he was working with the FBI as a government informant against Manning — gave Poulsen what he purported to be the full chat logs between Manning and Lamo in which the Army Private allegedly confessed to having been the source for the various cables, documents and video which WikiLeaks released throughout this year,' writes Greenwald. Wired has only published about 25% of the logs writes Greenwald and Poulsen's concealment of the chat logs is actively blinding journalists who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do. 'Whether by design or effect, Kevin Poulsen and Wired have played a critical role in concealing the truth from the public about the Manning arrest,' concludes Greenwald. 'This has long ago left the realm of mere journalistic failure and stands as one of the most egregious examples of active truth-hiding by a "journalist" I've ever seen.'"
Publishing evidence is what got Wikileaks in trouble in the first place. I doubt Wired will reveal anything without a subpoena.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
So, if someone decides to leak the chat logs will Wikileaks publish them?
So what exactly is /. intimating is in these logs that Wired and the shadowy conspiracy in which they are complicit wants withheld from the public?
I don't know enough details to decide if Wired is protecting a source (my first instinct) or if they are really holding back the press. I firmly believe that citizens deserve more privacy while governments need to be more open, and Manning sure has the deck stacked against him!
From TFA: (1) For the last six months, Adrian Lamo has been allowed to run around making increasingly sensationalistic claims about what Manning told him; journalists then prominently print Lamo's assertions, but Poulsen's refusal to release the logs or even verify Lamo's statements prevents anyone from knowing whether Lamo's claims about what Manning said are actually true. (2) There are new, previously undisclosed facts about the long relationship between Wired/Poulsen and a key figure in Manning's arrest -- facts that Poulsen inexcusably concealed. (3) Subsequent events gut Poulsen's rationale for concealing the logs and, in some cases, prove that his claims are false. Sounds kinda like Assange has a lot in common with #2, and #3.
Glenn Greenwald writes
Whats Greenwald's angle? Anyone know?
I read what he's writing, all very good agitprop, but the unreleased info could be used for many different purposes depending on what it is, maybe Greenwald already knows. Or his buddy told him to support it. If it happens to match a pre-existing agenda of his. So in that scenario, if we know his agenda, we know what the unreleased contents are..
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
This is beginning to sound like a "domino effect" of anyone who has any info relating to those events...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :)
Greenwald has a sock puppet past, so it is a bit hard to take his great moral indignation too seriously. Google Greenwald sock puppet to see the posts on the topic.
... if he doesn't publish it, then we'll have proof of what many of us have strongly suspected: he's a hypocrite.
with attacking all the other people who don't see his vast conspiracy theories and how everyone is against you. They're watching you right now! Pull the drapes! Maybe Wired just isn't following the new norm of shooting their mouth off without all the facts and are, you know, checking the sources and considering what the repercussions might be.
Wired not publishing all of the information it has? OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOEZ! Wikileaks does the same shit, not to mention blackmail as well.
Anyone want to start a pool on when Anonymous will DDoS Wired for not supporting Wikileaks?
This is all hearsay and wouldn't be accepted in any reputable courtroom anyway.
For all we know Lamo is guilty and could be just trying to shove the blame on someone else.
Lamo: I did it. I met Manning on disgruntled-army-boys.net and thought he would be a good scapegoat.
Poulsen: Interesting...
Ok, totally baffled here. We don't know what, if any, sort of information Poulsen has about a possible link between Manning and Wikileaks. If he does possess such information, then what he has is information about a confidential source relationship. Greenwald is suggesting that the failure to release this information somehow is a failure of journalistic integrity on the part of Poulsen? I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism. Perhaps he's upset that Poulsen doesn't work for Wikipedia and should therefore divulge any information he has. I find it hard to believe that professional journalists would make it a habit of outing each other's sources in such a manner. What is this guy smoking?
It's been an open secret for some time that Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are both federal informants and have been since they were released from prison. That was part of the deal that they made with the government when arrested to avoid the hell that Kevin Mitnick went through when arrested. Even if it weren't an open secret, their actions in regards to Bradley Manning and Wikileaks expose them.
The chat log between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning will likely never see the light of day.
He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.
Good journalism often edits out info. There are often details or info that does not add to an article. Redundant, off topic or tangential material can make an article worse and dilute or confuse the point of the article. Consider that a total dump of all info and data is what hostile parties due when they want to hide meaningful information in response to a court order to provide info or data. Journalism is often about sifting through this mess to find the meaningful info, not merely repeating the total dump.
But all I want's a Pepsi.
Seriously, just because you can publish something, it doesn't mean you should. Sometimes it makes sense to sit on a story.
Not that I'd expect the wikileaks crew to get that.
1. The Declaration of Independence isn't law.
2. Manning was a solder and may have broken his oath.
Members of the military are under CIVILAN command. The only right that applies is if he was given an illegal order. Keeping those cables secret violates no laws or in any way the UCMJ.
If Manning is the source he committed criminal acts. Obeying orders is not an option for a member of the military of a free nation. They must be under the control of the civillian government.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Oh, hey, then all the government needs to do is uphold their part of the bargain is charge him with a crime, and give him a trial. I doubt he signed anything saying that if he was accused of leaking secrets, he could be held without trial and tortured. But, given who he works for and their previous history of torturing people they don't like, he should have known what they would do to him, eh?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The discussions with Manning involved doing layout work for Wired.
This is merely my suspicion, but I feel that the entirety of the content of those logs would reveal that Manning was caught in a sting by the DOJ. That the story of Manning finding someone, anyone to brag to was false and that Lamo sought direct contact to solicit the confession. This is the most-likely scenario, as I suspect it:
1) DOJ contacts Wired via Rasch informing him of this 'lead' about one of the biggest cyber-crimes of all time. Chances are the military knows that Manning has leaked something, but they can't prove it. They need a confession before they can attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
2) Poulsen hires Lamo for the job. Note the non-story Poulsen wrote about Lamo in May. This was likely a cover to hide their extended contact at that time.
3) Lamo contacts Manning using information given to him by the DOJ and violates his civil rights in order to solicit a confession that otherwise would not hold up in court.
4) Manning is arrested and those logs are secured from the public's eyes under the guise of 'national security'.
That's how I see it. It just makes more sense than the story we're being told. Please do poke holes in it if you can, because where I sit right now, Wired is a fairly disgusting entity deserving some charges being brought of their own.
Before being granted access to classified information an individual must meet three criteria:
1) Hold a current security clearance
2) Possess a valid need to know
3) Have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)
Private Manning, if he's done what most suspect he's done, has violated the terms of the NDA he signed. He is therefore subject to the requisite prosecution under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for violating the NDA.
If he hasn't been to trial yet, it's only because the case is still being built against him. The military will not prosecute him if they are unable to make a convincing case of his guilt. As soon as they have that case, Manning will then have his day in court.
The Declaration of Independence is the spirit of the Constitution of the United States you fucking commie.
Manning most certainly did break his oath, if not the law. However, it is not the job of the press to hand evidence to convict him of those things to the government.
I have no doubt that most of the WikiLeaks stuff that got out was just ordinary security breech. SOME of it however, is probably illegal black ops stuff. That leaves some gray areas as far as Manning goes, it is NOT his duty to execute illegal orders, and it could be argued that it is his duty to expose illegal acts by diplomats and US Government officials even if he is ordered not to.
Only a fucking commie would think otherwise.
thanks for pointing this out... i suspect not too many /. readers understand military service, the UCMJ, and enlistment oaths...
if Manning is guilty, he is in deep doo-doo and is looking at a long stretch in Leavenworth (i doubt he'll would get the death penalty)...
Together with pictures of the WMD's in iraq. They guy is being set up. Put in isolation for months and soon he will sign a 'confession' that Assange put him up to it. If there is one thing we can learn from wikileaks, than it is that the US government easily falls under the terrorists-label. They can not, and should not, be trusted. Ask that german guy who was kidnapped and tortured by the cia if you believe different.
And until then, they are free to torture him to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out of him? I think not.
When did acting like the villains out of a WWII or Cold War spy flick become publicly acceptable for the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world?
For he's a wanker, he's a wanker, la la la la la lar. Fuck off yourself nazi cunt faggot.
This chart was compiled by FDL and readers. Covers the whole timeline of what happened when and by who.
All posts released under the GNU Free Documentation License
It could be argued except that he isn't a judge.
Also the vast majority of wikileaks are not illegal acts. So they can just convict on those.
if he did it. He is still innocent until proven guilty.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It will make little difference because they don't care, understand or want to understand.
The danger of a military that feels it is above the civilian government is outside the understanding of most US citizens.
Also thanks for also using the the wording if Manning is guilty as I have.
They also don't understand that he still has to go to court.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Hey reporter-dudes, track him down!
IANAL, so the below opinion represents a non-legal reading of the various treaties, obligations and rulings. A judge may well reach a different conclusion. In fact, were Judge Pickles involved (different country so he can't and he retired anyway), any judgement might be possible. The guy was living proof of the razor-edge between genius and utter insanity. However, I feel that even if my reading is legally incorrect, the cited texts should still be taken into consideration.
The Supreme Court has long decided that the Declaration of Independence is just so much scrap paper with no legal backing whatsoever. The argument needs to be stronger.
Now, under US law, all International Treaties that the US has signed up to have the weight of US law. Maybe that will offer some possibilities.
Article 29 of the Second Hague Convention: An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Well, there's no claim that he used false pretenses to access the material or that he did so clandestinely. Nor is there any claim that he communicated it to the hostile party.
Article 31 states: A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.
So if he, after giving the information to Wikileaks, acted correctly under the commanding officer and committed no offence at the time of his arrest would not qualify as a spy as he had "rejoined the army to which he belongs".
Nurenberg Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Nurenberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
Taken together, this would mean that if Manning's silence would be a crime under international law, then it would be a criminal act even if it was (a) legal in the US and (b) ordered by his superiors. Thus, we now have to establish if his silence was a criminal act.
Principle IV also states:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Under (ii), silence would be partitipation in a common plan or conspiracy, provided the acts he was aware of were indeed illegal.
Article 5 of the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded on the Field of Battle (Red Cross Convention) states: Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected, and shall remain free. The generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity, and of the neutrality which will be the consequence of it.
Thus, bombing civilians rendering aid, regardless of who they are aiding, is an illegal act. Which would make Manning's silence an illegal act under Principle IV above.
So, from this we can reasonably conclude that Manning (a) is not a spy or guilty of espionage (regardless of any US law to the contrary, since international law supercedes it), and (b) would have been guilty of a war crime had he not released the information.
This does NOT make him innocent of any crime. It merely makes him innocent of the crime that is popularly attached to him. There may well be legal grounds for disciplining him for his method of non-silence, but legally he was obliged under international law to be non-silent.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As soon as they have that case, Manning will then have his day in court.
Many many, many many many years from now. Probably several presidents down the line, actually. But hey! No need to rush things.... This is a Democratic Republic, after all.
He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.
Well, shit, we should throw him in jail and throw away the key. he broke a contract!!!! That's worse then, maybe, killing civs and covering it up. I know I think that.
Wake the fuck up. Dude did what his conscious had him do. And he did right. Now it's up to us to help him out.
Where's my Free Bradley Manning tshirts at?
Be seeing you...
And until then, they are free to torture him to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out out of him?
According to Manning's lawyer he isn't being tortured and the guards at the facility where he is being held are treating him professionally.
Greenwald doesn't really say much about how Manning is being held and gets some of that wrong. Some of the stuff he complains about, like not being allowed to exercise in his cell, are standard rules in military prisons. Sure, I wouldn't want to be put in Manning's position, but Greenwald overstates the isolation Manning is subjected to and selectively quotes a couple of articles dealing with real isolation to prove how this is damaging to Manning.
Slashdot says they are working on 4chan now, so perhaps when they are done with that. Oh wait.
Mm.. would be rather too ironic if the only verifiable 'blood on their hands' would be from the execution of the American boy.
"concealment of the chat logs is actively blinding journalists who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do"
Have the rules of evidence changed? Is there now a requirement on the judicial system that all evidence be turned over to journalists to investigate and report on their interpretation of what Manning did or did not do. This seems more like a requirement placed on them by their parent organizations who need such stories and speculation to generate income.
If I were Manning, I would want evidence presented under the rules of evidence without prejudicial interpretations by the press.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
you do realize the declaration of independence has no legal standing on anything at all?
Wired has a copy of a transcript as provided to them. Evidence introduced at trial must be from an identical transcript, or the differences must be explained.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Can that contract compel him to commit criminal acts? No. Unlawful contracts are unlawful.
Consider that cable about US Treasury funds ultimately being used to buy children for sex. If you have knowledge of that crime, Nuremberg tells us that you damned well better NOT follow orders, and you better to the right thing...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Also, one can't unsubscribe Wired or comment negativly at their site as an error message i/o login occures when they don't like what you're saying... Nice!
Would you rather him be fed bread & water only? That's also a punishment under the UCMJ. Perfectly legal too.
Uniform code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.
Service members may be uniformed, but the UCMJ is 'uniform'.
Sheesh.
And it is not so much an NDA as it is a security clearance with the attendant lawful requirements. If Pvt. Manning did remove classified material from secure areas without clearance to do so, he's guilty of that crime. Disclosing it to unauthorized third parties is another offense. In fact, it's possible that his bringing storage media into a secure area is an offense, and if he himself views the material, well, pile on another offense.
He'll probably get an Article 15 hearing for conduct unbecoming, and spend some time cleaning cells, but escape an article 133 hearing since he's not an officer, and presumed to not be responsible for acting as a gentleman. If nothing else, he could be tried under Article 134, but there are plenty of other alternatives in the UCMJ. You gotta love the UCMJ. No, I do not have the personal experience of a court-martial, I was just awake during that class.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hi, I'm Mark.
It's been a few years since I read my books, but didn't Poulsen get busted as a hacker? So he's busted as any credbile source? If I were him I would stay so far away from Wikileaks or anything like it.
Actually, no, its not standard treatment. Its very unusual treatment, especially for someone who is not deemed to pose a physical threat to anyone.
If the torture allegations are true, report them to the Inspector General.
What do you have to lose? If the allegations are untrue you face being tried for making false allegations. Wonder why Glenn Greenwald doesn't do so?
To what jury are you referring? Manning isn't going to see a typical court proceeding. The Fifth Ammendment to the Constitution negates his right to due process, trial by jury, etc. I certainly would like to see his case go to a public trial, but that's not in the cards here.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I still give Manning my praise, and will fight for his freedom since he is obviously willing to fight for mine. And I'm not talking about his stint in the Middle East or wherever he was stationed... thats fighting for big business. I'm talking about fighting his own employer and government in order to bring crimes to light and justice to those who would otherwise never obtain it. All the while his people chastise and disown him and side with the Man like the good Orwellian puppets they were educated to be. It really does sicken me that the general population of the US is so willing to give up everything they've ever achieved, but thus is life in America and as long as I have booze and something warm to stick my dick in, why should I care?
Illegal != Evil, Legal != Good, and for Fuck's sake think for yourself.
That said it is incumbent on every human to "not just follow orders". If something is immoral in one's opinion, then something has to be done. What is done is up to each person, and the consequences one is willing to endure. At the time when this happened, he could have just had a homosexual relationship if he no longer wanted to follow orders. I have no understanding of what this guy did given the consequences that are necessary for his action. Because the situation involves national secrets, I can't see how the US can let him go. He, after all, is not the POTUS or one of the agents who can get away with treason. This is just not one of the things one does in a time of war.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
From your link:
Son, he's been held in that condition for about seven months now and hasn't yet even had a pre-trial hearing. I don't care if you are fucking John Yoo behind that Anonymous mask of yours. There's no way you can effectively argue that isn't psychological torture being performed there.
When armchair generals decided that a field reports that gave them deniable status outweighed the Constitution.
A contract which mandates criminal behaviour is unenforceable, and the oath of office each and every soldier takes trumps any and all obligations to the CoC as well. Under the Nuremberg protocols Pvt. Manning did not have the option to simply look away and follow orders, either. In a fair trial these defenses would be quite powerful. Which is why he is very unlikely to ever receive one.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
OH KNOCK IT OFF, What Manning did was uphold the Declaration of Independence.... the part that says its the right and duty of Americans to keep their government in check. We need information to do that.
Great point! Manning took an oath to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
*DrugCheese rants*
There are a couple of good excuses, actually, both of which are squarely on point to his case. One is the oath of office, the other is the Nuremberg principles.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
That's right. Fly that flag. You are so different. So special. So much a free-thinker and an individual. Just like all the other "rebels."
3) Have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)
This may be true for SCI, but to my knowledge, it's not a requirement for anything classified TS or below.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If you can't get worked up over being put in solitary for seven months, being forced to answer every five minutes if you are ok, being woken up every five minutes if your guards decide they can't tell if you are alright on their own, or being denied the ability to exercise outside of pacing for an hour a day for seven months straight, then you either are young enough to be anyone's naive neo-con's child or you really are John Yoo and have no fucking clue what torture is about.
That, or I really did need to link to the article for you, as you obviously hadn't read it and apparently still haven't.
He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.
The same can be said for the officers bound by the military code of conduct who supervised Bradley Manning (and apparently gave him illegal orders to look for innocent Iraqi opposition party members to be tortured), and to the very many politicians under the Bush regime who broke the law (in regards to the "War on Terror"). So far only the people who have exposed wrong-doing by the American government have been punished.
Here are just two examples of (many, many, many...) people how got exempted for punishment for their immoral and unethical conduct:
Richard Armitage
Oliver North
etcetera and so on....
In America (and just about everywhere), it is (almost) always the good guys who are punished by The Law, and the evil-doers who are allowed to break the law without punishment.
this is more than 25% am I missing something here
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
Thank you, a very insightful and educational post. Wish I had mod points today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Am I missing something? Because from the little about this I know, if the government wants whatever Wired may or may not have, there's a handy legal device called a subpoena. Wired isn't required by any law to publish any information about anything, and the government can obtain that evidence if it so desires. It just seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions just because some journalist says "No Comment." Sure, not publishing means something may be hidden, but it's not like they're out of line by withholding information from your curious eyes. Condemn them all you want based on your conspiracy theories, but don't condemn them for exercising their rights as free press, citizens, etc. in deciding what they will or will not publish.
Consider that cable about US Treasury funds ultimately being used to buy children for sex. If you have knowledge of that crime, Nuremberg tells us that you damned well better NOT follow orders, and you better to the right thing...
Yes, never mind that Manning was not ordered to commit that crime. Never mind that manning had no first-hand knowledge of the crime. Never mind that the crime happened outside US jurisdiction and was being handled by the country in question. Lets invoke Nuremberg and raise Manning up on a pedestal as a hero.
When did acting like the villains out of a WWII or Cold War spy flick become publicly acceptable for the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world?
9/11
Shrug, probably shouldn't have violated a military agreement then eh? He was made fully aware of the possible consequences of his actions before he was given access to the information.
He either accepted his fate and expected this and thought he was doing the right thing anyway, or, he didn't expect this in which case he will serve to show others that the military is indeed not joking about its enforcement of the rules regarding classified information. Either way, he violated a few laws and voluntary agreements he made. Now had he released information that was truly Earth shattering or world changing the public might give a shit about his plight. But he didn't release anything we didn't already know and did release things that the public DIDN'T need to know, basically all that came of it was a bunch of arguing and bickering on the Internet about if the US is Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil, or maybe even Chaotic Neutral if your a moderate. Really, no one cared enough to cause any change because of it.
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed. Yes, he's being annoyed, its like he lives with a 4-6 year old sister and is confined to his bed like a handicapped person, get some fucking perspective his life isn't that bad considering he's in prison. For someone like him, where he is now is far better off than being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why do you think this is isn't torture?
Thank you for reminding me again why I have a red dot next to your name. I hope to hell you never have to experience what he's going through simply for doing what you think is right, regardless of whatever your misshapen idea of right is.
Anyone with any knowledge of Lamo knows he is a mewling little fraud undeserving of any positive attention.
Why darker elements of society allow him to keep running his suckhole and breathe air is beyond me. Then again,
maybe that is why he turned rat. For protection against all the people he has pissed off.
When did acting like the villains out of a WWII or Cold War spy flick become publicly acceptable for the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world?
09/11/01
Not that we never misbehaved before. That's just when it became acceptable.
Of course, the War on Drugs already had us primed for it. Politicians like to spin some problems as so severe that normal rules of good behavior don't apply.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Except that he hasn't actually been convicted of anything yet. Shouldn't we at least go through the motions of trial before we subject a citizen of the US, and a VOLUNTARY soldier in the US armed forces to such treatment?
Personally, I have no problem with a public hanging should he properly tried and convicted.
I believe that torture after trial and conviction is both unnecessary and unproductive, but it is not without precedent.
But extended torture for months before trial and conviction is EVIL. The people holding him in such conditions should be ashamed of themselves. It'd be more "just and honorable" to simply put a bullet in him and be done with it.
Bradley Manning? When is his execution? Treason is a capital crime of course.
an ill wind that blows no good
I wonder if they took his tuna.
Aren't NDAs limited in scope? Even in the private sector, an NDA can not be used as a deterrent in whistle blowing, especially when you know the law has been willfully violated and done in bad faith.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
"Everyone in the military is well compensated for they do"
Um, let me tell you that is unequivocal BULLSHIT.
I've been to the VA not only with my grandfather but with several other military friends.
The treatment half of these people receive would NEVER be accepted in any other civilized country.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
> Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are both federal informants
{{Citation needed|reason=I thought he was an ethical concerned citizen.}}
Imagine that. A man who was convicted of several felonies, one of them obstruction of justice, is... obstructing justice.
Long term sleep deprivation is torture.
It has standing if we enforce it by armed insurgence.
But you're too cowardly to do that, so...
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The traitorous bastard should be given a fair and speedy trial and then taken out and shot.
It should be noted that treason is the one crime specifically called out in the U.S. Constitution and it carries the death penalty. By the Constitution's definition that means taking him out and shooting him is not cruel nor unreasonable.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I'd rather see him tried under Article III; Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution for committing treason. Once he's convicted the traitorous little bastard should be taken out and shot.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Along with all the high-minded gobbledy-gook about journalistic responsibility everyone seems to be forgetting the principle of a "scoop." Wired has what no one else has. That's a journalist's dream. Get used to it.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
In a fair trial he would have had a defense if he had simply refused to follow an order he viewed as unlawful. He might have even had a defense against leaking information about ongoing unlawful activity. But not everything he leaked related to unlawful activity.
Manning was pissed off because he was demoted and one of his co-workers called him gay. He leaked a shit-ton of documents in an act of revenge. His defense that he was serving some kind of greater good went out the window when he leaked a whole bunch of other stuff that had no business being public.
While I wouldn't describe it as "standard treatment" it's definitely something the military does.
While I was in the Air Force it was called "Corrective Custody" and was something of a boogy-man NCO's told stories about to frighten the younger troops into behaving, and represents the most extreme non-judicial punishment a commander is allowed to give to his troops.
Any time I ever heard of it actually being implemented it only lasted around a week to a month, and it got rolled out when a base commander wanted to make an example out of someone. I.E. if someone is such a discipline problem they're getting administratively discharged, and they want to make the dude's last month hell so no-one else gets any bright ideas about getting out of their contract early.
The US military isn't subject to civilian limits.
I'm not sure if it's specifically called a Non-Disclosure Agreement, but back when I had a clearance I had to sign about a dozen documents indicating that yes, I was aware that revealing any classified information to anyone not authorized to possess it was going to land me in jail for quite a long time.
There was another memorable training session that involved initialing every page of a pretty thick training manual.
Wired?
Not since Conde Naste bought them.
Ad men and graphic artistes who have been whiffing too much paint....
this does raise an interesting question - does a journalist have a responsibility to protect _another_ journalist's confidential source? i would say it depends on the situation - there might even be circumstances where there is a responsibility to publish, not protect.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
There is no ethical or legal rule that forces journalists to reveal everything they know. All the contrary, they need to protect their sources. Does a prosecutor, a military leader, a president reveal everything they know? Does anybody? Every truth is selective. There's nothing wrong with that.
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed. Yes, he's being annoyed, its like he lives with a 4-6 year old sister and is confined to his bed like a handicapped person, get some fucking perspective his life isn't that bad considering he's in prison. For someone like him, where he is now is far better off than being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Every part of this quote just makes me sad.
OK, if you insist.
Except that the article linked to is a debunked distortion that deliberately mis-interprets the military's use of the word "exercise," deliberately ignores the fact that Manning is allowed to interact with others, and that the scope of his case (involving a quarter million stolen documents) makes it impossible to have already prepped a prosecution and defense - hence the time elapsed. That article's characterization of his detention is a highly politicized, agenda-driven bit of axe grinding.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Would you rather him be fed bread & water only? That's also a punishment under the UCMJ. Perfectly legal too.
Punishment comes AFTER you are found guilty and convicted. Remember that silly "presumption of innocence" thing? Look up Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
The NDA is definitely required as one of the three components necessary for access to classified information.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html
This particular reference led me to an interesting section of US law I was unaware existed - Title 18, Section 793(e):
Whoever, having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document... relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates... or causes to be communicated... the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it... [s]hall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(take the widest possible definition of "communicate" because I deleted all the other similar words for clarity)
It's something of a corollary to the UK Official Secrets Act. I've no idea whether this is applicable to anyone subject to US law or just clearance holders (as I am too lazy to read the entire section of code). It would seem to me that all of the US newspaper editors collaborating with Wikileaks are in violation of this section. I'll reserve my personal opinions on that particular idea.
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
First Amendment, friend. There is a reason for it.
Shouldn't he be a quarterback?
For what it is worth, I agree. As a result of this I hope that some day I can make this same post without the need to be an AC.
And Wired is a giant douchebag, too--which is why I stopped reading it years ago after they published a number of stories that made me think they were sociopathic douchebags.
Just sayin'.
OK, if you insist.
And this is the problem right here. This isn't about reasoned consideration of the issues or a thoughtful movement towards justice. It is an emotional thrashing about that rivals mindless patriotism and religious zealotry; cheer on anything that aligns with your position and demonize anything that does not.
Consider that cable about US Treasury funds ultimately being used to buy children for sex.
Not quite.
And the matter of 'Collateral Murder'?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
those 2 articles seem both seem to contradict each other. One says he's in solitary for 5 months, the other says constant interruptions is torture (which is by no means solitary). The link to the lawyers website says he is under suicide watch, while the salon link says he has never been on a suicide watch and is allowed to do nothing but eat, walk and sleep, which the lawyers site completely says otherwise, including access to books and has a designated correspondence time.
Of which you were certainly not partaking, oh no.
There are a couple of good excuses, actually, both of which are squarely on point to his case. One is the oath of office, the other is the Nuremberg principles.
He violated his oath, betrayed his country, and Nuremberg never came into it.
He got the so called 'Collateral Murder' thing wrong.
The United States will be paying the price for his hissy fit for years to come.
American diplomacy is in shambles. (Hopefully the Wikileaks revelation that China was willing to see North Korea go under doesn't push them into war, which is where they may be heading now.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Snarky quips do not make an argument. I have pointed out that the issue of an unlawful order has little to do with this situation. Granted - I did do it in a snarky way myself. But at least my point was a bit more involved than your equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I."
Manning was "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend",.
Thank you for reminding me again why I have a red dot next to your name. I hope to hell you never have to experience what he's going through simply for doing what you think is right, regardless of whatever your misshapen idea of right is.
The problem isn't doing what you think is right, it's about the honesty of saying one thing and then doing another. PFC Manning swore to the world that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, the officers appointed above him, and the UCMJ. He then turned around and broke that oath.
To contrast, I have no beef with Assange and Wikileaks for doing what they think is right. Assange is an Australian and owes no loyalty to the US at any rate. Their moral convictions, right or wrong, are plain for all to see and judge. They have committed no perfidy, nor gained any trust by virtue of a lie. Whether or not anyone likes them, no one can accuse them of disloyalty because they never claimed to be loyal to anyone but themselves.
The chat logs can be complete forgeries. Look at this chat log please (slightly modified to display on Slashdot):
:D
:P
T 1293136794 18 EndYandY> lalala!
T 1293136799 18 Globulism> c access tot he accnt using the inductive splice
T 1293136801 18 Sinter8> so all you need is a shovel?
T 1293136804 18 Globulism> line access yes
T 1293136805 18 zpill> stfu
T 1293136806 18 Sinter8> and a drop?
T 1293136809 18 EndYandY> WHAT?
T 1293136811 18 Sinter8> do you have proof?
T 1293136811 18 Globulism> wait I'll post
T 1293136814 18 EndYandY> what are you talking about?
T 1293136816 18 2xic> SIPR hardhack
T 1293136819 18 EndYandY> ur going to jail
T 1293136821 18 2xic> lol'
T 1293136824 18 2xic> US death camp
T 1293136825 18 Globulism> snd344bgu.i2p
T 1293136842 18 zpill> jesus
Now that is a completely fake chat log, any normal chat log is only text and anyone can make anything. The easiest of course would be to create two accounts, go to a room, and log a private conversation with yourself...
No, SIPRNET is not hardhacked.
No, the US does not have to check every inch of their network cable in situ.
No, the US does not have death camps.
All fake, promise!
Whose lies are you going to believe anyways?
One cannot sustain freedom without responsibility nor can one sustain responsibility without freedom.
Who the hell thought this private had a "need to know" all of these hundreds of thousands of documents?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if some low-level guy like this could access all of that material, then the real spies (of practically every country on the planet) already had it all, and more.
Isn't the real scandal the extraodinary lack of security that allowed this in the first place (assuming it ever really happened anything nearly like the way they say it did, and that Manning was actually involved)?
Somebody please tell me that stuff like this is protected better than "Hey, we made sure he signed something, no one could possibly have foreseen that anyone who had done so would break their word".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The Constitution of The United States of America is the spirit of The Constitution of The United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence and the success of the ensuing revolution got us the unworkable Articles of Confederation.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
At which point you will be in violation of The Constitution of The United States of America, which does have legal standing.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/greenwald/
Wired is owned by Condé Nast publishing, a long-suspected CIA front company.
Wired have posted a fairly robust rebuttal to Greenwald's accusations which don't paint him in a very god light: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/greenwald/
You may not give a fuck, but I personally think torturing someone that hasn't been found guilty of any crime unacceptable.
being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Ah, not pre-judging anything at all there then.
Whether he violated the law, whether he broke a contract, he should not be getting tortured. There is no legitimate outcome from that, it is merely spiteful immature behaviour from his captors that reflects very badly on them and on their superiors.
That you support it merely makes you a cunt too.
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed.
And what of the eighth amendment?
Why do you hate America so much?
What Manning is in is called pre-trial confinement . This is, for all intents and purposes, the same a being arrested in the civilian world for a crime and denied bail, which happens all the time. A number of reviews are mandatory for this to happen, and a lot of people have to agree to it.
Really good merge of various sources into an almost complete set of chat sessions
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
The problem isn't doing what you think is right, it's about the honesty of saying one thing and then doing another. PFC Manning swore to the world that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, the officers appointed above him, and the UCMJ. He then turned around and broke that oath.
I haven't seen anybody attempt to suggest that Manning shouldn't stand trial and, if found guilty, receive an appropriate and proportionate punishment.
The issue people have is the treatment of the man prior to trial. A fair trial is increasingly unlikely as Manning has a strong likelihood of suffering mental illness as a result of his treatment, and/or may agree to any crime just to get an end to this, quite apart from the lack of justification for treating him as they are doing.
Sorry, what's a "fucking commie" and why wouldn't one recognise, acknowledge and live life in accordance with the Declaration of Independence?
You'll have to forgive me, I come from a country where people aren't explicitly labelled in a black and white manner.
No - there is a little thing called Nuremburg an its consequences, relating to war crimes. That clearly established that following orders is no defence.
But will you feel the same way upon the exposure of those within the government past and present who have committed treason and hide it using the machinery of classification?
There is already evidence out of such acts going on within government.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-Discuss-Constitutional-Issues-Raised-by-WikiLeaks/10737418252-1/
About 1:46:45 in... consider what is being said with the following in mind:
"United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695."
I'm sure there is more acts of treason within our government to uncover. For it is common of deceivers to claim of another what they themselves are guilty of. Julian is not American and as such he cannot be charged with treason, yet there are several politician who don't seem to know this including Joe Liberman. Why is that? Simply because they are themselves are guilty of what they are projecting upon Julian.
Its not a crime to expose treason within the government. Next thing to happen is effort to claim Manning did not pass such information to wikileaks. Otherwise he'll be seen as a hero while those committing treason are tried and shot. And that will be a hard thing on government top do.
We already see act of espionage being exposed within government... so why are those obviously guilty still free?
I think the world would be a sadder place for no snarky quips.
Article 31 states: A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.
So if he, after giving the information to Wikileaks, acted correctly under the commanding officer and committed no offence at the time of his arrest would not qualify as a spy as he had "rejoined the army to which he belongs".
You read that backwards. That means that if a spy of country A spies against country B, then puts his uniform for country A back on (or rejoins the army of country A), he is no longer to be considered a spy by country B. If you've ever seen the movie "the Great Escape", that is the reason all the recaptured POWs were insisting that they were actually wearing their service uniforms when caught.
However, if a soldier of country B decides to spy for country A, never taking his uniform off, he is still a spy as far as country B is concerned regardless of when he is caught.
Indeed, YANAL.
Anyone who's ever served would know the consequences of that act and the fact that the death penalty can be applied. Anyone who's ever served knows the military does *nothing* quickly, to include processing a highly visible, highly sensitive treason case where the suspect would be held in solitary until his court-martial.
Assuming he is indeed guilty (which sounds pretty likely), he chose his fate.
Or are we talking about the single translation he cited where he realized that the US Army tries to follow middle-eastern countries wishes within the context of those nations laws (including not having a free press)? Amazing crimes uncovered by a 22-year old demoted PFC awaiting a less-than-honorable discharge; no way he was just retaliating, is there?
US courts have ruled that such isolation is torture.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Unfortunately the "Nuremberg defense" does often work, historically at least. Also you don't need the defense if no one pushes the charges, which is often up to someones discretion. Selective enforcement of the "rule of law" has always been the way.....
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
American diplomacy is in shambles, because we now know its full of people like you. You really think what you are doing is OK.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Oh I bet you do they are everywhere.
It is foolish to judge an entire nation by a single post or even the posts you see on Slashdot. I am from the US and I am not a communist at all no matter what that jafiwam says. This person just has more passion then education or understanding.
Hopefully that will be corrected over time.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
After 9/11/01 the U.S. Federal Government was strongly criticized for not sharing information that could have alerted the proper agencies of that plot. There was some directive (either the Patriot Act or some executive order, I don't recall which) requiring agencies to share information so analysts could better "connect the dots". The notion of "Need to Know" was never really retracted, but augmented with the notion of "Need to Share". The thought was that everybody in the national security apparatus needed to know information that could somehow prevent another 9/11 type of attack. As result, SIPRNET became somewhat more open to those with access to it.
In light of the Manning case, the wisdom of this policy is now being seriously questioned and will likely be amended.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone???
And so was Guantanamo Bay, when it finally came out. Didn't make it any more righteous either.
Following orders has never been a valid defense for doing the wrong thing. Especially when keeping your oath conflicts with the other oath you took to protect our nation and uphold the Constitution.
Especially when keeping your oath means turning a blind eye to your government breaking it's oaths.
What's the old line? "For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing."
Manning may have indeed violated his oath. But as the leaked wires have already shown in as least some cases what he leaked was evidence of wrongdoing on the part of our own government.
Well, yes. We all like to be entertained.
I just can't believe the digerati over at Wired magazine would be slaves to fashion cliques like those that bailed out Goldman Sachs and decided it was in the US national interest to Invade the World, Invite the World and be In Hock to the World.
I'm shocked... SHOCKED! I tell you!!!
Seastead this.
And so was Guantanamo Bay, when it finally came out
When what finally came out? That we're using that established facility to detain and interrogate fine people like KSM? That (until Obama scuttled them, in favor of civilian trials that he can't organize in states that want nothing to do with them) we were using the facility to hold military hearings and tribunals? This didn't "come out," this was basic information, widely known, and routinely discussed.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yeah, but a PFC? Really?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"Due to a potential of either high probability of escape, those likely to be dangerous or violent, and those whose escape would cause concern of a threat to life, property, or national security; maximum custody detainees are under constant supervision and have regular interaction with authorized supervisory personnel assigned to the facility to include physicians. Quantico Information"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Why would people think that, if he confesses, he'll go to The United States Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth, and would be unlikely to see much improvement.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"The notion that the Marines posted at Quantico's brig are anything but professional is absurd. Not only are they responsible and accountable for the detainee's security, they are also responsible and accountable for the detainee's safety. ANYONE attempting to harm a detainee in their charge would find themselves in a very difficult situation." Quantico Information
I assume that that would include Manning harming Manning as well as anyone else. That letter to the editor goes into considerable detail about what Manning is and isn't allowed.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Ironic, I thought you had laws against cruel punishments?
It's like British Army justice in the 30s..
After the 9/11 attack it was decided that Analysts need more transparent and open access to Military, Law Enforcement and Intelligence intelligence so that they had all of the dots to connect.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Well you can go to Wikileaks and make a donation to his defense fund that he will not get.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
In reality, what has legal standing and what has no standing at all is 100% dependent upon who's willing to take up arms to enforce it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No it's "Cruel and Unusual", many traditional punishments are OK even if a bit cruel. Trained Military are also expected to be more tolerant of hardships than wussie civilians are too.
Typically the confinement conditions required for temporary confinement like Manning is in or a civilian jail is quite a bit more spartan than what you would find in a prison which is a more permanent confinement typically for felons; Military prisons like Leavenworth never had been described as a federal country-club prison, nor has rehabilitation been a priority for them.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It isn't voluntary if it is coerced as a condition of employment.
I'm very opposed to the notion of the Government negotiating away individual liberties. The government has no business asking people to give up their rights and they do it to often. That said, I could narrowly agree that yes, it does have a need to keep secrets; however, if it asks him to conspiring in covering up a warcrime - the government has overstepped, and I say Free Speech overrides. The video is most definitely a war crime - case closed if I'm on the jury.