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.
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.
He supplied information to enable Americans to do their duty where the rest of this damn government is hiding everything they can, including their stupid babel.
Their are near 7 billion people on this planet and some fraction of 1% that playing the childish hide and seek game of waring information that messes with teh rest of us.
Maybe the governments need to stop playing with their war toys and i8nstead use the resources to actually fix real problems where doing so will remove waring motives.
If there is anything to know from all the leaks its simply this:
The few in positions to cause war have mental handicaps and they should be institutionalized and I don't mean the institution called Government.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
Slashdot says they are working on 4chan now, so perhaps when they are done with that. Oh wait.
"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
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
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
Bradley Manning? When is his execution? Treason is a capital crime of course.
an ill wind that blows no good
> 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.
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
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.
Shouldn't he be a quarterback?
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'.
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.
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/
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.
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?
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.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone???
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.