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?
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.
... if he doesn't publish it, then we'll have proof of what many of us have strongly suspected: he's a hypocrite.
Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.
However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.
Anyone want to start a pool on when Anonymous will DDoS Wired for not supporting Wikileaks?
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.
Wrong. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/manning-charges/
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
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.
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?
If they were just sitting on it, you'd have a point. But what they actually did was release choice tidbits of the chat logs and then refuse to publish anymore or even answer questions such as "Did Manning actually say this in the logs?".
Which only makes sense if you are trying to frame Manning or milk your 'exclusivity' to the detriment of Manning.
Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.
However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.
That sounds like an accurate summary of the guys article, rather than his angle, or agenda or goal, or whatever.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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)
what? wikileaks gets it better then most.
They had the info, they sat io the info, they shared the info with other journalists, they told people they where going to release it.
The did EXACTLY what any good journalist does. JA may be a douche bag, but wikileaks did exactly what a good news agency should do.
Just like the Washington post did.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
Yup I googled what you said to and came up with this:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html
Doesn't exactly confirm your accusations.
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.
You're right etymxris, AC is full of it. Claiming that Greenwald's 'sock puppetry' undermines his credibility, when the sources for those charges are suspect and Greenwald has convincingly repudiated them demonstrates the AC is a liar and quit possibly a sock puppet herself.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are both federal informants
{{Citation needed|reason=I thought he was an ethical concerned citizen.}}
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.
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
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/