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."
If however those in power create a conspiracy upon an individual, they gain power over them and are able to silence them, imprison them, and otherwise dispose of them until they are no longer a threat to the greater conspiracy.
Assange has a wacky way of seeing the world, but it makes sense once you untwist the terminology he uses. A healthy Democracy can only continue to exist as long as a majority of its citizens have sufficient knowledge of what their leaders are doing and are able to hold them accountable.
Notice they don't say "...the logs ARE ENTIRELY sensitive personal information..." We shouldn't have to take Hansen or Poulsen's word for it. Journalism 101: Redact the "sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks" and publish the rest.
True or false, Wired has no credibility in my book since a long time ago. Some time in the early 90s, shortly after launching and becoming wildly successful, they made a clear decision - to go the route of all-out business sellouts, and away from people's needs and interests. They stopped the stories with the tone of "technology is human evolution, revolution with peace is invented", and kept only the stories to the tone of "technology is product and profit". I cancelled my subscription, since edition #2, shortly afterwards, and never cared for it much again.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
That's all we want, documents. Too many people lying. We want evidence, of which there is lots, all hidden. That's what everyone wants, and what Wikileaks gives.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Wired stated the following in TFA:
Not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of this story.
I've seen this word play before. In fact, it was done by Portugal's foreign affairs minister, when discussing the issue of CIA flights passing through portuguese territory to move kidnapped "terrorists" to Guantanamo. He also repeatedly iterated that no one had any proof that these flights existed and that the Portuguese government authorized them. Yet, thanks to the cablegate posts from the US embassy in Lisbon, it has become clear that that very same minister not only knew those flights were passing through Portuguese territory, and some even making stops in Portuguese airports, but he also had an understanding with the US government that, whenever he was asked about them, he would simply iterate that there wasn't any proof they existed. And notice the subtle detail: he never said they never existed, and only claimed that no one could prove they existed. Subtle and important.
This is exactly the same approach Wired is making to this problem. Wired doesn't claim they never did so. Wired doesn't claim they are innocent nor wired's spokesperson tries to dispel the accusation. Wired only claims that no one can prove they did it. But that, as we've seen before, is not the same thing as not making them.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
When The New York Times ran an entirely appropriate and well reported profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — discussing his personality and his contentious leadership style — Greenwald railed against the newspaper, terming the reporters “Nixonian henchmen.”
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.”
With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange.
I don't know whether or not Wired is guilty or innocent here. But it seems they've got a fair point about Greenwald, and it seems fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.
No. Wikileaks has realised since earlier big leaks that releasing everything at once causes information overflow and the individual atrocities don't get enough attention.
Releasing the cables over a prolonged period of time allows press coverage, discussion and digestion.
In Sweden we're currently somewhat disturbed by the Wikileaks-revealed fact that several laws having been imposed on us during the last few years were dictated by the US, with a threat of sanctions if we didn't implement them even though it was known the populace weren't in favor.
That's info from one single cable.
it's in my head
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.
Governments don't need secrets to operate
... absolutely no need to keep any of that secret, obviously?
Ah. So, the identity of an undercover cop who is working to bust up an organized crime operation - that should be public, right? The location and identity of people in witness protection programs - definitely public need-to-know, right?
The timing and routes of shipments of nuclear materials - definitely something that should be easily Googled in advance, right? Encryption keys used to secure communications by South Korea as they coordinate their efforts to be ready in case North Korea tries to sink another of their ships
The government employment records, including household/family details, of the people who work with everything from smallpox to anthrax in NIH, NIST, military, CDC, and related labs? Definitely something that should be run past Julian Assange, for his personal decision on whether it should be public, right? The number of, and location of each shipment in the nation's strategic bauxite reserve system, and the purchase plans that foreign commodity manipulators would love to know? Definitely something that should be published overseas right before checks are written, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
If you want to complain, complain about how the comment is not supported by the article. In it, Wired or its staff utterly fail to take a stance on Assange's actions at all...
Who says Wired needs to have a stance on the matter at all? This might be before your time, but journalism used to be about telling a story, not selling an opinion.