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.'"
The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.
They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
So, if someone decides to leak the chat logs will Wikileaks publish them?
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.
Compromising which source, exactly? Lamo? Manning? Or the DOJ?
None of these seem to be anonymous at this point.
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.
I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.
Because it appears that Poulsen is on the job as well. In fact, I've never believed that the May trip to visit Lamo was legit. I've always suspected that this particular non-article was to cover Poulsen's visit to Lamo in which they collaborated on the Manning story. Likely, even, while Lamo was still chatting with Manning.
Unclean hands...
Wrong. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/manning-charges/
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.
That's not true. Wikileaks protects their sources as much as any journalist does, and for the exact same reason. If you don't protect your sources, you won't have any sources to protect.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
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)
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.
The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.
The problem is that Lamo has spent the last few months revealing information from the chat logs. Journalists are repeating what he says as fact without being able to check them against the chat logs. Lamo has been making contradictory statements and changing his statements to apparently support the needs of the DOJ - he said that there was no explicit evidence of anyone helping Manning in the logs, the DOJ said it needed evidence of Assange directly helping Manning, and suddenly Lamo claims the logs contain explicit statements that Assange instructed Manning in how to upload files to Wikileaks. Convenient!
Lamo was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital three weeks before Manning's arrest. Now he is talking to the press about these supposed confidential chat logs that they are unwilling to release. They are unwilling to release even the portion of chat statements that would directly confirm or deny Lamo's public statements. There are rumours that Poulsen and Lamo are both informants, and that both are somehow linked to Project Vigilant - a group that tracks internet users and hands the data over to the Federal Government ("what they essentially are is some sort of vigilante group that collects vast amount of private data about the Internet activities of millions of citizens, processes that data into usable form, and then literally turns it over to the U.S. Government, claiming its motive is to help the Government detect Terrorists and other criminals..")
The article has been updated saying that Wired has promised a response, and Greenwald says "What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist." Is that so unreasonable? Or is the world expected to believe verbatim the contradictory statements of a mentally ill man who refuses to show anyone the evidence behind those statements?
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.
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.
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.
Don't you have to prove your innocence in military trials? No presumption of innocence? That's my understanding, anyway.
.mil warning)
Your understanding is quite wrong.
You could read it for yourself. But I'll enlighten you a little
Manual for Courts Martial 2008 (PDF and
p. 461
851. Atr 51. Votings and ruling
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them---
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(IANAML - emphasis mine)