Slashdot Mirror
Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy
Hugh Pickens writes "Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon about the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source and criticized Wired's failure to disclose the full chat logs between Manning and FBI informant Adrian Lamo. Now Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen have responded to criticisms of the site's Wikileaks coverage stating that not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of the story. 'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
I'm an attorney and I say [citation needed].
Despite the fact that I carry no burden of proof to show you're full of it, I will cite you this:
42 USC 2000aa - Privacy Protection Act
(a) Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or
(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
In Swedish by the Pirate Party European Parliament representative: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/foliehatten-av-for-sveriges-marionettregering/
Short summary in English by the Pirate Party: http://www.piratpartiet.se/cables-us-driving-swedish-data-retention
it's in my head
In reality, once we found that out we put a stop to it. Since the US apparently lied to us, we had to find it out ourselves:
Confirmation that the planes were transporting prisoners came in April 2006 after a daring “surveillance operation” was ordered by Swedish security service Säpo and carried out without the knowledge of the Americans.
On Säpo’s orders, Swedish military intelligence agents dressed up as airport service personnel and boarded the plane. The agents reported back that the plane was carrying prisoners.
[---]
no more secret American prisoner transports have landed in Sweden since 2006
http://www.thelocal.se/30626/20101205/
(This story verified by Wikileaks cable releases)
it's in my head
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason? Such as:
1) They'd just make Manning look even worse to a lot of people without adding anything new or newsworthy?
2) They contain state secrets that would get Wired in trouble if they released them?
3) They're simply not relevant to the discussion?
If the stuff is important to understanding Manning, I'm sure his defense counsel will subpoena it from Wired because it'll be useful in his defense. If it's not useful in his defense, then it's not newsworthy because the public already knows enough from what's been released to have a clear idea of what he is accused of doing.
You have completely missed the point. Just like Wired completely avoided the point in their lengthy response.
Adrian Lamo has made many public statements about what was said by Bradley Manning in their chats. But many of the things Lamo claims do not appear in any of the chat logs that Wired has published. No one is asking Wired to publish "state secrets" or information that is "not relevant" or "not newsworthy". What people DO what to see is the portions of the chat logs which are referenced by Adrian Lamo in the public statements he has made.. A little confirmation that maybe what he is saying is true, especially since he has made some contradictory statements.
Not only has Wired refused to publish those portions of the chat logs which relate to public statements made by Lamo, they refuse to answer a simple question, like "Adrian Lamo said _________ . Is that actually in chat logs. Yes or No."
One of the key complaints by Greenwald is that Wired redacted parts that did not contain "sensitive personal information". The Washington Post and BoingBoing have either full or partial copies of the logs and have published sections that Wired did not include. And guess what... they extra parts they published aren't sensitive personal information.
Firedog Lake put together a merged transcript of what has been published so far and you can decide for yourself whether Wired should have redacted it. I believe most of the relevant part is from May 22.
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
I believe Greenwald is also asserting that Lamo has been making claims that are not substantiated by the logs that have been released. One key claim has to do with whether or not Assange provided assistance to Manning in obtaining the classified documents. Greenwald's article states Lamo said:
"Manning explicitly told him in these chats that he had help from Assange and from WikiLeaks 'intermediaries' in Boston."
That's important because the government is trying to build a conspiracy case against Assange. The logs would help to clarify what Lamo is saying since Lamo previously said Manning never explicity said he had support.
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason?
This seems to be a common strawman related to this issue. But Greenwald never said that Wired needs to release the full chat logs. Here is what he actually said based on the fact that Lamo has been making claims which are not supported by the released chat logs:
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. . . . Poulsen could also provide Lamo -- who claims he is no longer in possession of them -- with a copy of the chat logs (which Lamo gave him) so that journalists quoting Lamo about Manning's statements could see the actual evidence rather than relying on Lamo's claims.
Greenwalds reply to that section:
No, you're wrong. Greenwald has consistently been on the side of protecting the individual. That's what a constitutional lawyer should do, after all. It's Wired that has been misusing this argument to defend itself.
With Assange, releasing information about rape and molestation allegations against Assange, who has not been charged with a crime, is character assassination. If the US government publicly stated: "We want to interview Person A in regards to potential child pornography charges," then it is just destroying Person A's reputation.
The same applies to Manning. Wired has already leaked portions of chat transcripts that it alleges demonstrates Manning's guilt (and Lamo's supposed hacking skills). Paulsen has written stories implying Manning's guilt, and suggesting that he was trying to brag to Lamo about what he did. However, as Greenwald writes in his column, there are holes in the chat logs (such as timestamp discrepancies) and other questionable conclusions in Wired's stories that don't quite make sense. Wired's publications have already caused a man to be jailed for months without being charged with a crime. Greenwald and others want to see the unedited chat logs to clarify things up.
I find it disingenuous that Wired tries to misquote Greenwald. The "Journalists should be about releasing facts, not protecting anyone" quote was directly about Wired. He says that Wired should not hide behind the claim of protecting Manning. How can Wired publish allegations of potential treason against Manning (as the US government calls it) and then claim that it now want to protect him?