Wired Releases Full Manning/Lamo Chat Logs

bill_mcgonigle writes "After more than a year, Wired has finally released the (nearly) full chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning. Glen Greenwald provides analysis of what Wired previously left out. Greenwald writes: 'Lamo lied to and manipulated Manning by promising him the legal protections of a journalist-source and priest-penitent relationship, and independently assured him that their discussions were "never to be published" and were not "for print." Knowing this, Wired hid from the public this part of their exchange, published the chat in violation of Lamo's clear not-for-publication pledges, allowed Lamo to be quoted repeatedly in the media over the next year as some sort of credible and trustworthy source driving reporting on the Manning case.'"

Comments

Re:Ha ha

[Krokant]

Yes, hilarious. A man's life ruined based on lies of a greedy reporter. ROFLMAO ... NOT!

User Settings

[crow_t_robot]

Which checkbox in the user settings do I have to check to get an e-mail update when the story comes out about Lamo finally getting his skull caved in with a steel pipe?

Re:User Settings

[rbrausse]

do it, publish it somewhere, submit the story and I will mark the submission as "+ interesting". deal?

Re:User Settings

[Kierthos]

Actually, I'd rather suspect that the checkbox notifying us of the IT-cornholing Lamo is going to get from Anonymous (or other hacktivist organizations) would trigger first.

Re:User Settings

[Darinbob]

Puhleaze. Lamo did the right thing. He may have promised one thing but that promise could not be kept once he learned of potential criminal activities. Lamo was not a priest who took a vow to never divulge what happens in a confessional

Who are these people?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary should have at least once sentence saying who these people are. I don't recognize the names "Adrian Lamo" and "Brandley Manning".

While we don't need the whole detailed story, at least some context would be helpful. Even if I had read about these people and whatever shenanigans they're involved in earlier, I might not remember it now.

Re:Who are these people?

[crow_t_robot]

I guess the moon still doesn't get television or internet yet.

Re:Who are these people?

[abigsmurf]

You don't know? Wow, you're almost as clueless as Ashley Highvale! Randal Alfredson must be rolling in his grave right now.

Re:Who are these people?

[rbrausse]

The comment should have at least once sentence saying who these people are. I don't recognize the names "Ashley Highvale" and "Randal Alfredson".

While we don't need the whole detailed annotation, at least some context would be helpful. Even if I had read about these people and whatever shenanigans they're involved in earlier, I might not remember it now.

Re:Who are these people?

[darjen]

This is slashdot, and apparently people still not know how to use Google around here? If you don't know something, LOOK IT UP.

Re:Who are these people?

[makomk]

Of course, this particular Wikileaks leak did have an impact that was felt pretty much throughout the world...

Re:Who are these people?

[c 0xFF]

It's called journalism. It only takes 10 or fewer words to give that context, and your readers are much better off for it.

But you're right -- this is slashdot. If you're expecting proper journalism, you're looking in the wrong place.

Re:Who are these people?

[_Sprocket_]

There's this thing called Google.... maybe you've heard of it (but of course, we can't assume that you have)...

Re:Who are these people?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The summary should have at least once sentence saying who these people are

Quite so, and the submission had two links to previous stories here on Slashdot to help set the context. Click on my name right above this comment to see it.

Re:Who are these people?

[Darinbob]

And where is the journalism story that says "something happened today, go look it up"?

Reward him

[KiloByte]

Let's just hope his Medal of Honor won't be posthumous...

Re:Reward him

[c6gunner]

I don't think civilian journalists can be awarded the Medal of Honour. But it's the thought that counts.

Re:Reward him

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure KiloByte is talking about Manning's Medal of Honor. That being said the Army does not value people who divulge classified information, even information that the people have a right to know or that the people should know. In the Army, you are a cog in a machine. You are not to think. You are not to feel. You are to do the will of your superiors. Anything else is wrong, so I am sure that Manning will not get that Medal of Honor. The MPs that arrested him and the guards at the jail that were holding him are more likely to get it for guarding such a "dangerous criminal".

Re:Reward him

[LordLimecat]

You also dont generally get a Medal of Honor for violating your solemnly given oaths.

Re:Reward him

[KiloByte]

Let's look at the description (per Wikipedia):
It is bestowed by the President in the name of Congress on members of the United States Armed Forces (check) who distinguish themselves through "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life (check) above and beyond the call of duty (sadly, also check while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States (check) ." Due to the nature of its criteria, it is often awarded posthumously (likely also check)

Thus, it is certain Manning won't get the medal from this president. He does fit all the requirements, though, so much more than all other participants in this war so far. Direct battlefield bravery can save at most a platoon of comrades, revealing grave misconduct by the chain of command can affect the whole war.

Re:Reward him

[KiloByte]

I don't think civilian journalists can be awarded the Medal of Honour. But it's the thought that counts.

Yeah, Assange is not even an US citizen.

Re:Reward him

[elashish14]

GP was obviously trolling, suggesting that the journalist did the honorable thing here by betraying Manning, who was blowing the whistle on an untold number of military lies and atrocities.

It's disgusting to me that people think that the military should be able to do such things and get away with it. It's even worse when they think they should be covered up afterwards for reasons like national security or confidentiality protocols, as if those were more important than making those bastards pay for what they do and making sure it doesn't happen again. When something is classified just because someone's ass would be roasted if the public were told about it, that's definitely abusing the system, and some oversight is sorely needed.

Re:Reward him

[Nadaka]

The problem is that Manning upheld his oath to the constitution, but not the chain of command because the chain of command was in the wrong.

He is both a hero and a criminal. He does not deserve to get away without punishment, he also does not deserve the torture he has been subject to for years. At this point the only just thing to do is set him free.

Re:Reward him

[c6gunner]

It's disgusting to me that gullible idiots like you are so common. Mannings betrayal of his nation resulted in practically zero new data; the vast majority - if not all - of the incidents contained within the reports had already been reported in the media. Yet twats like you will go to your grave insisting that he's some hero who exposed Teh Gubberments EEREEVIL CUVERUP!!!!! It's pathetic.

Re:Reward him

[c6gunner]

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time finding the part of the constitution where it says that you should give state secrets to an Australian megalomaniac. Could you point it out for me?

Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing Manning released has been shown to result in ANY injuries or fatalities. Almost all of the data was 4+ months old. However it DID show a lot of reprehensible behavior on the part of the US government, assist several nations in mending hurt ties with each other and generally show that the US is not being as transparent as it should be with its people. There was far too much information marked top secret for no true reason other than protecting the image of certain diplomats doing stuff they shouldn't be.

Does this mean I support the release of top secret information? NO. Would I have done what manning did? No, but I'm glad he did. It gave the american people a better idea of how their government is acting. I was not proud to be an american for a while.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[mikael_j]

How did Manning's leak in any way result in that happening?

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Anonymous Coward]

Reread the post you replied to. He's saying the release of the documents haven't resulted in any injuries or fatalities. He isn't saying that the documents didn't include injuries or fatalities. Quite the opposite.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Sparx139]

While I agree that the impact was overhyped, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it as harmless. Sure, there's been no lives lost overseas as a result of the logs, but the jobs of diplomats would have gotten a bit trickier after the release of those cables. If you've ever been caught in between two of your friends that are feuding, you know how tricky it is to remain impartial. Now imagine doing that with entire nations, whilst navigating all kinds of bureaucracy, and those nations are staring at each other (and you) wondering if there's going to be a political falling out, or war. If that isn't enough, add a partial dump of various negotiations (ripe for misinterpretation) and suddenly the task of keeping everyone happy just got even more complicated. And as naive as it sounds, perhaps the reason for the lack of transparency isn't necessarily to hide embarrassing logs from the public, but instead to try and keep diplomacy as simple as possible.

As a disclaimer/apology, I haven't read all the available material, and it was too long ago to pull out any examples to support what I'm saying. Also, I'm an Aussie, so any information that I get on US affairs is pretty limited.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[abigsmurf]

"Nobody got hurt" isn't a defence. I'd imagine a whole lot of informants were shit scared (with fairly good reason) because of these leaks, that's more than enough to show in a court that real harm has been done.

Besides which, it's not like insurgents leave handy notes saying "We killed this guy because of wikileaks!". Insurgents are known to target collaboraters and even if 100% of the names were removed, it's still possible to have a pretty good guess as to people's IDs based on places and other details. If someone was killed over these leaks, it'd be just another civilian who died in the conflict. It's not as if the military would publically say "John Smith was killed because he was an informant", I'd imagine it wouldn't make life all to pleasent for his widow or kids.

What exactly did we learn? That field reports tend to be inaccurate because being shot at kinda affects your ability to write masterful prose? Most of the incident reported in the leaks were known about already, it's just nobody cared about them. The big scandal, the helicoptor incident, despite it initially being edited in the most sensationalist way possible (with the full version only being released silently later), it showed helicopter pilots following procedure in an areas with reported gunfire when dealing with what looked to be a group of insurgents. It was a tragic mistake ultimately but it was hardly a case of gunhappy pilots not caring about who they kill, yes if you paused it correctly and looked real close, you could see a portion of one of the kid's clothes but that's with hindsight, unlimited time and no pressure or danger.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[SilentStaid]

You're completely, 100% incorrect. In no way, shape or form was Bradley Manning a cause of that particular incident -- considering it's one of the first things that he leaked...

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[0100010001010011]

You win. No more posting before coffee.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[LordLimecat]

There was far too much information marked top secret for no true reason other than protecting the image of certain diplomats doing stuff they shouldn't be.

And this terrible crime is truly worth having our clearanced military personelle deciding that its time to violate his oaths and divulge whatever information he saw fit-- even that which shows no "horrible crimes"-- to the entire world.

Truly we want a vigilante system where oaths arent worth the paper theyre printed on.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[DeadCatX2]

Actually, the full version of the helicopter video was released at the same time.

And you ignore the interviews with the members of that very squadron who say such things were common place. One of the interviews was the guy who was saving the kid.

Finally, I bet the people who were most scared were the ones whose improper behavior was being shielded by the US Government. Look what the Tunisians did when they found out about the extravagant lifestyle of Ben Ali and his family.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Hatta]

If you're so hard up on oaths, let's give Obama and Bush the same treatment we've given Manning. They have both utterly violated their oath to protect the Constitution.

Until people at the top start going to jail for their crimes, I can't hold anyone beneath them responsible. I'd much rather the military be ineffectual due to no one following orders than to have a well oiled machine under the command of criminal thugs like Bush and Obama.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[jcr]

However it DID show a lot of reprehensible behavior on the part of the US government,

Not just reprehensible. Illegal.

-jcr

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get stuck between two friends. Tell each of them you're not gonna get involved in their squabble. If one of them can't handle that, then screw him. No one wants to be friends with a little whiner.

The cables revealed that US diplomats were telling their friends and allies one thing, but meaning another. They got caught in a lie and now have to deal with karma. If they dealt openly and honestly, they'd be fine.

If there's a reason they can't deal openly and honestly, they might have to question whether it's worth sacrificing their principles. In many cases it's not.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[elashish14]

Does this mean I support the release of top secret information? NO. Would I have done what manning did? No, but I'm glad he did. It gave the american people a better idea of how their government is acting. I was not proud to be an american for a while.

Why not???? You can't say top secret information shouldn't be released just because it is classified as top secret. If it actually _is_ top secret, then yes, I agree that it shouldn't be released. If it's classified as top secret so our military superiors can cover up abuse, then it should be exposed immediately, and all else be damned!

And as you mentioned in the first line of your post, no harm at all has been caused, so why in hell's name was this information classified as top secret anyways? Because the military is abusing the system. The only reason these things were classified are because they were covering up lies, deception, manipulation, and obvious violations of human rights.

Finally - not proud to be an American for a while? What has changed? Has anyone been held accountable for the atrocities he's revealed? Or are you proud to be American again because the dust has settled and we've reached the point where it's easy to forget about it again and continue letting it happen in secrecy?

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[_Sprocket_]

Actually, the full version of the helicopter video was released at the same time.

Which is actually a rather wonderful bit of bait-and-switch. The basic focus of the video is intact - the horrific deaths of a news media crew. But there's some background that gets edited out. Instead, what is always linked to is the edited and editorialized version.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Sloppy]

There was far too much information marked top secret for no true reason

I think this is the most important part of the whole story.

A lot of the leaked data should have been in press releases or sitting on a public-accessible website or something. If the stuff that should be public is public and the secrets are limited to what needs to be secret, then the government won't be constantly putting their people into terrible no-win situations. Release the information that should be public (and break the law, risking punishment), or be safe by keeping the secret (but betraying your country's rape by looking the other way at what the government is doing).

Get that right, and then only the truly-bad-guys will be a threat. There won't be public sympathy for them and there won't be an overwhelming crowd of well-meaning leakers to conceal them within.

Manning's leaks should have been met with a yawn and "we already read all that stuff years ago on the government's website." With that kind of "reward," he wouldn't have acted out in the first place. Instead, his life is ruined, yes because of his own actions but also because of overzealous use of a Classified rubber stamp.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Hatta]

Unfortunately my representatives, and even the Supreme Court are all complicit in ignoring the Constitution. Not to mention most of the American people.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[LordLimecat]

They have both utterly violated their oath to protect the Constitution.

I may agree on some points-- for example, a number of the things we do with tax money seems, to my eyes, to violate its stated constitutional use-- but until you get a supreme court justice to agree with you, its not unconstitutional.

You are of course free to start a trial to that extent, but generally charges like that need to be proved, and "violating the constitution" is generally something that relies on interpretation. Your point is a complete non-sequitur, Manning's violations were crystal clear, as were his motives which were substantially less noble than they were made out to be.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[gl4ss]

look, if the stuff about manning being who is he is is true, it's just stupid for the american army to have sent him anywhere, military didn't exactly keep up their side of the bargain - about being the good guys, about what kind of work he'd be doing and so forth. and now the army is AGAIN not doing their part in convicting him with proper process of what he did, which is only fitting because the dirt is about basically the entire military not keeping their oaths(responsibility flows up and down).
 
  the oaths are just a fucking ceremony, just like your fucking NDA. a contract you make without knowing what you're making a contract of with someone who doesn't know what the contract is actually about, I doubt any of the guys who took mannings oath(s) would admit that they knew what they were asking him to be a part of, for those oaths would have required him to do something about the things he knew from the data, the military oaths aren't exactly "ok i'll shut my eyes and curl up doing nothing when things are wrong".

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Hatta]

until you get a supreme court justice to agree with you, its not unconstitutional.

Supreme Court justices are people too. They are every bit as corrupt as anyone else in government. The Constitution is the law of the land, not whatever the Supreme Court says. When the Supreme Court blatantly disregards what the Constitution says, what recourse do we have?

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Nadaka]

The military is also proceeding with illegal proceedings such as torture and denial of other rights to the accused.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly we want a vigilante system where oaths arent worth the paper theyre printed on.

If you really wanted justice, you would be complaining about Bradley Manning's bosses who deliberately did wrong, instead of Bradley Manning himself, who at least tried to correct a wrong (a whole lot of wrongs).

But usually there are alternative motives to such biased arguments. Usually these arguments come from the Right Wing who wish to protect their agenda and demonize their opposition.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[DrBoumBoum]

Please somebody mod this guy up.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here

[LordLimecat]

Youre unfortunately mistaken, practically speaking. Not being a legal scholar nor a justice, what you or I think of the constitution does not have the weight of the law. If the Supreme Court disgregards what we think the constitution says, our recourse is to change how we vote (we vote for the people who select and confirm the justices).

Calling them all "corrupt" is a bit of a stretch, incidentally. Some of them may not agree with your or my interpretation, but thats quite a bit different than corrupt.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[darjen]

Not only did Manning do nothing wrong, he did democracy a HUGE favor. Maybe even bought it an extended life.

I have absolutely no respect for Wired, fuck them.

Netcraft Confirms It

[MasterOfMagic]

Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen are rats and not to be trusted, and Wired is no longer the magazine of record for the technology industry. I have officially cancelled by subscription, and I seriously suggest that anybody who is interested in such a trashy rag read Vallywag for free.

For more evidence of Adrian Lamo being a lying rat bastard, listen to him try to explain himself as following his conscience in Informants Panel at The Next HOPE.

PS: He also lies about never having been controlling or being the subject of a restraining order. He is a real piece of trash.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Anonymous Coward]

"PS: He also lies about never having been controlling or being the subject of a restraining order. He is a real piece of trash."

Which all wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that he himself committed hacking offences some years ago and was trying to get everyone onside with shit along the lines of "Oh I was just doing it to try and bring attention to security problems".

The guy is the worst fucking kind of hypocrite, when he breaks the law claiming he was doing it for the good of the country and businesses it's one thing, but someone else does it and he's straight to the FBI.

Lamo is hypocritical scum of the highest order. He should be in that jail cell simply for being a massive cunt, not Manning.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are forced to work for a corrupt organization are you bound by an oath to the same? You know you are not! History has told you,

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, the very first and most important oath that service members take is support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the military is acting like a domestic enemy to the constitution then he has a duty to act, most don't have the guts to do that.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[deadhammer]

Cut the bullshit. "Solemn oaths" don't make massacring a crowd of unarmed civilians and covering it up afterwards okay. What Manning swore an oath to was his country. Covering up war crimes is not serving your country. Dress it up with all the tradition and macho "my country right or wrong" posturing that you want, it's still a war crime.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[MasterOfMagic]

FTFA:

(10:23:34 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.

That sure sounds like a fucking solemn oath to me.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Anonymous Coward]

Whistleblowing isn't generally considered a violation of one's oath to a company, it's usually something that someone feels they have no choice but to expose.

If you feel that you have information the world needs to see then you are considered a whistleblower who is doing what he thinks is the right thing. Allegiance and oath's be damned, the guy did what he felt he morally was obligated to do.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[dcollins]

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Mission Accomplished. (Especially the "against domestic enemies" of the Constitution part.)

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[SethJohnson]

More than those two, Wired itself has been untrustworthy since the Conde Nast acquisition. Since then, advertorial has increased dramatically. The most recent, glaring, example was the piece fawning about Symantec staff dissecting stuxnet. Read through that piece and count how many references there are to the size and scale of Symantec's resources.

Of the article's 54 usages of the name "Symantec", the 3rd one down the page is a classic example of PR designed to raise a company's profile among its competitors:

In 2002 he took a job with an antispam firm, which was gobbled up by Symantec soon afterwards. O Murchu eventually transferred to the corporate giant's Culver City office, leaving Dublin for Southern California.

The article is absolutely riddled with praise like that.

Seth Johnsnon

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[elashish14]

What about the crimes that Manning exposed? Do you think it was more important for him to cover that up?

Do you really think an honor code is worth preserving when it's abused to keep atrocities covered up? I really appreciate what Manning did. Thanks to him, I know that US military can no longer be trusted to keep the right things classified. Lamo on the other hand made it that much harder for people trying to expose the military for doing such horrible things.

Both Manning and Lamo are traitors. But I say that Manning did it for the right reasons and Lamo did not.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Noone forced him to work for any organization. He could have taken a discharge, or simply never taken the oath to begin with. There was no coercion to take the oath, so any court can (and will) find that he was bound by it.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Too bad none of the stuff he leaked showed (AFAIK) any violations of the constitution.

Feel free to post links to examples if you can correct me on that, of course.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

"Solemn oaths" don't make massacring a crowd of unarmed civilians and covering it up afterwards okay.

That video, and especially its after-the-fact massive editing, was not particularly impressive. Our civilian casualties for this war are far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of; trying to paint an unfortunate accident as murder doesnt convince me.

And on that topic, it doesnt impress me in terms of credibility when a supposedly neutral leaking site opens a supposedly journalistic piece of media with a tribute to the men killed, paints them as heroes, and adds a ton of commentary blasting the military. How on earth is that neutral reporting? Why couldnt they have, from the start, just leaked unedited video?

Oh wait, thats right, they have an axe that they just have to grind. Carry on.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Whistleblowing isn't generally considered a violation of one's oath to a company, it's usually something that someone feels they have no choice but to expose.

That might explain ARGUABLY one or two of the things he leaked. What about embassy wires, what on earth makes those fair game?

And Ive never been clear on what the accusation is here-- that the US is authorizing its forces to go and intentionally kill civilians, as if that somehow furthers our goals? Occams razor would push me to believe "War is hell, civilians sometimes die, its usually not intentional".

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

What articles of the constitution were violated, pray tell?

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Manning was not ordered to do anything illegal or unethical AFAIK (unless you can link to such orders?) All evidence I have seen-- including the unedited (not wikileaks edited version) "Collateral murder" video-- points to an attack which was at the time believed to be against insurgents. The helicopter crew's own statements, commander's response, etc indicated their belief that there were armed gunmen whom they were attacking.

Do you honestly believe that the US military has a thing for attacking Reuters reporters? What on earth would the point be?

Do me a favor and tally up the civilian death toll from Afghanistan or Iraq, and then compare it to WW2 or Vietnam.
This graph seems to indicate that our civilian casualties are at an astonishingly low number, especially compared to the "anti-government elements", who have roughly 4 times as many civilian casualties. Collateral murder, indeed.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[ToasterMonkey]

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Mission Accomplished. (Especially the "against domestic enemies" of the Constitution part.)

You are clearly not saying this with sincerity because "enemy" goes both ways. The "other side" is completely justified in treating you as such.

Just... grow up. I know I'm probably talking to a child.. I hate the Internet.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[VindVio]

I did cancel my subscription already last year but they keep sending me their magazine in the mail. I guess they are hard up for subscribers.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[IgnoramusMaximus]

... Our civilian casualties for this war are far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of ...

Iraq affair alone had around a million of civilian casualties by various credible estimates, about 80000 of which were directly confirmed. Plus about 2.5 million refugees.

Unless you mean World Wars I and II or or one of the Japanese Imperial or US Imperial Conquests, a typical conflict in the 19th century had less then 100,000 casualties on both sides, vast majority of them soldiers. 20th century conflicts, such as the Spanish Civil War where Hitler's forces (yes, we are talking genuine swastika-totting Nazis here) engaged on behalf of Franco had around 500,000 casualties (measured in a similar way as those in Iraq) and about 450,000 refugees.

And so on.

With such mendacious, apologist, revisionist bullshit at the very start, any arguments of yours that follow have pretty much zero credibility.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Asmodae]

You can't 'take a discharge' from the military, it's not a job you can just up and quit, and the oath is not optional. It's also given before you know the first thing about what you're getting into, so it's quite easy to be honest and gung-ho at first and find out later things aren't quite what you were led to believe.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you accept that all the official lies (Feith, Cheney, et alia) and the perversion of military leaders (retired and active duty) into TV pro-war propagandists (all illegal under the Constitution and laws based on it) are nothing, the whole of Gulf War II is unconsitutional. Committing troops to war without a congressional vote on war is unconstitutional (a "resolution" was wrung out of congress like the Tonkin Bay resolution; it was wrong in 1965 when LBJ did it and it was wrong in 2002 under Bush II).

Is that enough?

The military, under political pressure, was trying to bury a failed and collapsing war effort with abuse of classification. Lying to a superior officer (suppressing the truth about reality on the ground) is a crime under the UCMJ (which draws its force from the Constitution); do you believe such lies are OK? Remember, the Pentagon said Manning did NOT reveal useful military data; they're just pissed because what he released showed how bad things were and how much lying was going on about "staying the course" and "mission acomplished".

Is that enough? Or should we still be fighting in Viet Nam because we haven't been told how badly that's going or all the lies and criminal behavior behind that war policy? Refer to the so-called Pentagon Papers if that reference is too oblique for you.

Also remember that diplomats ROUTINELY sh*t all over each other in meetings and cables. The old joke has it that the diplomatic phrase for a fist fight is "a frank and open exchange of views". Nobody in the diplomatic community was surprised to hear the US was angry with some of it's "allies". The few diplomats I heard quoted about the cable release thought it was pretty funny that the public got a taste of what really goes on in diplomatic circles. Relations between Pakistan, Iraq, et alia and the US are no worse off for these revelations: relations sucked before and suck now. Believe me, the involved parties already knew what the US thought of them...

Do you truly believe it laudable, heroic, and patriotic to merrily follow along as a government (ANY government, this is non-partisan) lies to continue an expensive and failed war policy? Does the phrase "We have always been at war with Eastasia" mean anything to you?

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Iraq affair alone had around a million of civilian casualties by various credible estimates,

Thats quite a claim. Lets see whether it holds up
Wikipedia says (citing Iraq Body Count) that up to 12/2010, civilian casualties are between 99,000 and 108,000-- a combined total from insurgency, coalition, and US forces. If you look at the figures from Afghanistan, we see that about 75% of the casualties THERE were caused by "anti-government elements"; so if we extrapolate from Afghanistan to Iraq (not unreasonable IMO, unless you have more accurate figures), then we have a whopping 25,000 civilian casualties, over nearly 10 years, in a war where the enemy intentionally blends itself into the population.

This isnt exactly what I call war-crime material. Again, acquaint yourself with former wars-- we're doing way better than the historical record.

a typical conflict in the 19th century had less then 100,000 casualties on both sides, vast majority of them soldiers.

Which war are you referring to, and how long did it last? Antietam hit nearly 23,000 in a day, IIRC. And comparing a war from the 21st century to a 19th century war is disingenuous in the extreme; why are you discounting the 20th century wars (vietnam, WW2, WW1, etc)?

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Committing troops to war without a congressional vote on war is unconstitutional

Good thing we secured such a vote in both Iraq and Afghanistan (a whopping week after 9/11, i might add) prior to committing our troops then-- unlike, incidentally, Obama in Libya.

Opening your post with such blatant misinformation really does wonders for your credibility, you know.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Wikipedia says (citing Iraq Body Count) that up to 12/2010, civilian casualties are between 99,000 and 108,000-- a combined total from insurgency, coalition, and US forces.

Err ... No. Even Wikipedia (never a reliable source at the best of times and despite vigorous editing by various apologists) still retains links to various surveys.

If you look at the figures from Afghanistan, we see that about 75% of the casualties THERE were caused by "anti-government elements"; so if we extrapolate from Afghanistan to Iraq (not unreasonable IMO, unless you have more accurate figures), then we have a whopping 25,000 civilian casualties, over nearly 10 years, in a war where the enemy intentionally blends itself into the population.

It doesn't work that way. The credit for all war casualties is ultimately at the door of whomever started the war. That is why blame for all casualties of WWII rests firmly on the members of the Axis, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in particular.

That is why Hitler was so desperate to create an illusion of being attacked by Poland.

That is also why all casualties in Iraq are hanging around the neck of the "coalition of the willing" and its chief warmonger - USA - in particular.

There is indeed a secondary factor, that of "high moral ground" which usually speaks to utter hypocrisy of those who claim to be the "shining city on the hill" and who pretend to follow laws and care for human rights, all the while engaging in systematic thuggery of the vilest kind - the US being foremost amongst such nations - but that is another issue altogether.

Which war are you referring to, and how long did it last? Antietam hit nearly 23,000 in a day, IIRC. And comparing a war from the 21st century to a 19th century war is disingenuous in the extreme; why are you discounting the 20th century wars (vietnam, WW2, WW1, etc)?

Your claim was that Iraq casualties were, quote: "far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of" (emphasis mine).

I pointed out several cases off the top of my head, which shows that either you were completely ignorant or (a far more likely scenario given your reply) that you engaged in a very popular amongst US denizens sport of revisionist history to justify the wholly unjustifiable actions of the US Empire.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[cavreader]

What crimes would that be? The only crime I see is the incompetence that allowed Manning to join the military service in the first place. In his chats he admitted to self medicateing himself and it's too bad he used he OD'd on stupid pills.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It

[LordLimecat]

Err ... No. [wikipedia.org] Even Wikipedia (never a reliable source at the best of times and despite vigorous editing by various apologists),

Congrats, you just linked to various surveys of wildly varying accuracy, which talk about TOTAL casualties, as opposed to civilian. Iraq Body Count is an ancient website which I dont believe has ever been accused of being "too conservative", and is the source for that wikipedia quote. If you prefer, here is a direct link. Incidentally, in that VERY link you provided, Wikileaks (again, not a site that is ever accused of being pro-US) shows a number of 94,000 civilian deaths between 2004 and 2009, which squares with the 99k-108k (over slightly longer period) that I cited.

The credit for all war casualties is ultimately at the door of whomever started the war.

Congratulations, you just gave open invitation for insurgencies to start wholesale slaughter of civilian populations, knowing that ultimately they are our fault. Thats NOT how war-crimes work, and your sense of right and wrong are seriously twisted.

That is also why all casualties in Iraq are hanging around the neck of the "coalition of the willing" and its chief warmonger - USA - in particular.

So what do you say to the members of the Iraqi interim government as they continue to battle what are essentially insurgents, that because fighting has been continuous since the war started, that it is OUR fault and they need to direct their aggression at the US? Thats brilliant, considering the aid in combatting insurgents we're given. Im sure they would agree completely.

Your claim was that Iraq casualties were, quote: "far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of" (emphasis mine).

No, if you had quoted honestly you would have included this part: CIVILIAN CASUALTIESfar far far lower than in any prior war (more honest emphasis mine), and while we're digging up prior posts YOUR claim is that there were some 800k civilian casualties in Iraq which is roughly 10x higher than either Wikileaks or IraqBodyCount indicate, and is by all measures much higher than even the combined total of civilian and military deaths over the last decade.

I pointed out several cases off the top of my head,

And completely disregarded the fact that you havent given clear figures showing substantial coalition-caused civilian casualties. I suppose if you want to throw the blame for ALL casualties on our side, then by your changing of the rules you win by fiat.

I will admit that I should not have said "All". But on double-checking my facts by a quick google ("revolutionary war civilian casualty count"), first hit pulled up this page, a collection of stats from various wars from the revolution till now (with sources); and it seems that there WAS one war with lower civilian casualties-- the first Iraq war. All others with figures on civilian dead show an astonishingly higher number of dead.

Re:Ha ha

[Rexdude]

swore to obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over him

I'm no US citizen, but I was under the impression that American soldiers' loyalty was to the US Constitution, and not to any individual person(s).

Bye bye Wired

[AmiMoJo]

Wired just lost all credibility for journalistic integrity. Don't expect anyone to talk to them off-the-record now. I wouldn't be surprised if advertisers pulled their ads too, just like they did with the News of the World when the full extent of the hacking scandal came to light. Within days the paper was shut down for good.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[Clever7Devil]

I'm resisting the urge to be snarky... I understand that this has toasted their ability to speak to tech-saavy people off-the-record, but I don't expect them to lose any advertising over it. As far as credibility, since when have we required that from our news media? I always just pick the outlet that best fits my confirmation bias.

The phone "hacks" were on lovable, empathetic characters: Hugh Grant, the royals, soldiers, little girls. Bradley Manning, on the other hand, has been suffering a character assassination from day one. You lose advertising by going against public opinion, not necessarily from just being bastards.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[ScentCone]

Bradley Manning, on the other hand, has been suffering a character assassination from day one.

That's because, from "day one," he deliberately acted with outside parties to copy and distribute hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, without any thought about consequences he couldn't possibly foresee. He lied, violated his oath, endangered people, programs, and processes that involve untold thousands of man-hours to mop up, and he did it all because he was "in a bad place," emotionally. There's no character assassination involved here, there's only character suicide.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[TheRaven64]

Wired just lost all credibility for journalistic integrity

Come on Slashdot, we're used to the news being several years late, but having comments published a decade late is a new low.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[AmiMoJo]

They were hacking crime victims phones too. One family thought their daughter was still alive because her voicemail had been accessed, when in fact it was a NotW reporter and she was already dead.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[AmiMoJo]

There is another way to see it. The military drummed obedience in as much as they could, but eventually Manning's conscience won over, aided by his feeling that the military as not worthy of the loyalty it demanded.

Considering the seriousness of what did come out I don't think the man-hours required to mop up are much of a consideration here. There is no credible evidence that anyone has been put in real danger by what came out, and I find it strange you would consider lying and the violation of his oath as significant factors when we know that the organisation he was working for did far far worse. Leaking by its very nature involves deception and betrail, but it is still justifiable.

Re:Bye bye Wired

[Darinbob]

Read the transcripts. Manning seems to be on the verge of a breakdown. He's freaking out. And I think what's happening from Lamo's side is that he's offering to be a "minister" hearing a confession because he empathizing with someone who's upset here. Ie, gay, getting drummed out of the service, common interest in wikileaks, some hacking background, etc. It is easy to see Lamo empathizing here.

Now where I think Salon is spinning things is that it's treating the "confessional" part as lying to Manning all along. It seems more likely that Lamo was being a confessor where it relates to Manning going through this suicidal depression. But then Manning blurts out that he's downloaded all this highly classified info and is uploading it to Assange and Wikileaks. There's a big line that just got crossed here, the confessor part was for moral support but now Manning is confessing to serious ongoing crimes. From my read of it (didn't read to the end, it's _long_) Lamo is not trying to extract this information out of Manning by lying, he had no idea what was going on at the start when he said Manning could talk freely.

Of course there could be some duplicity on Lamo's part, that could always be true. But that is certainly not deserving of death threats.

Reading what Manning is saying and putting myself in the shoes of someone who does not know what the actual material is, it really reads like Manning is claiming to have a huge amount of extremely sensitive and extremely sensitive material, and has already uploaded it. Not embarrassing diplomatic cables but ongoing operational details whose release could endanger lives. In hindsight you can say that there was not much there, but from Lamo's point of view it does not look this way. Manning provides plenty of hints that he's deep inside at the center, in the same tent that has all the biggest secrets, and he's copied every bit of it. Calling up the FBI seems like the reasonable thing to do here when you learn about an ongoing serious crime. You have to take hindsight out of the picture here, Lamo had no way of knowing that this was benign material.

As for Salon and Wired, I think Salon is just trying to shoot some holes in the competition. So Wired said it released everything but some private personal details and potential security details, but it turns out they didn't release some other stuff. Big deal. Salon is big on sensationalism and they're trying to whip some up here.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[PopeRatzo]

I have absolutely no respect for Wired, fuck them.

They're Conde Nast, what do you expect?

They've drained the respectability from everything they've touched.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you get it? He didn't betray us! He betrayed them. He is our hero. If you're one of them, then fuck off.

Oath

[OpenYourEyes]

The oath that one takes when enlisting is:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Re:Oath

[Methos137]

Then I ask what the UCMJ says about when the Constitution is at odds with the current PotUS or the Order of the Officers above him? Or in any combination? At what point does the soldiers responsibility become to defend the Constitution of the United States against *all* enemies, foreign and domestic, even if those enemies are the President and the appointed officers?

Re:Oath

[GrantRobertson]

That point is the absolute first instance when the President or other appointed officers violate the law or issue an illegal order. Unfortunately, the military has done such a great job of suppressing this notion, even though they teach it in boot camp, and reinforcing the false notion that soldiers are to obey without question, that the whole system is completely corrupt.

Re:Oath

[Mana Mana]

"and that I will obey the [LAWFUL] orders of the President of the United States" Whilst not as poetic, and with a rare degree of confidence, morality, ethics required that is the content of that phrase. Otherwise. I vas following orders might in the cards at The Hague for you.

Re:Oath

[ledow]

I think it's no accident that the allegiance to the constitution and domestic enemies comes first. Just because the President orders you to bomb a friendly country, or Washington, for no reason doesn't mean you have to.

The problem, as always, is proving it and having others give you a fair trial at which to do so. Apparently the US doesn't believe in those yet.

The musician James Blunt used to be an army officer for the UK. While in Kosovo, he was ordered by an American superior at NATO command to retake an airport held by Russian forces. He deliberately and directly disobeyed that perfectly valid order, and was later backed by his UK superiors in doing so.

It's just a matter of context, and who backs you up, and why, and what chances you're given to explain yourself. If you're not given the chance to explain yourself, in an unbiased environment, it's pointless to pretend the system is fair.

Re:Oath

[Rexdude]

Perhaps it's in descending order of priority?
So the constitution would be most important.

Re:Oath

[couchslug]

There are ways to go about dealing with such problems without leaking secrets. No matter how much passion is involved, there is no legal military right to do what Manning did.

There was also no necessity. There are many ways an experienced G.I. could have tackled the problem.

Manning could, for example, have contacted appropriate Congresscritters with a description of what he'd found and how an investigation could review the content. Doing multiple Congressional contacts would mean each would know the other knew.

Since the negative impact has been minimal, I'm not convinced what he "leaked" wasn't manipulated and salted with "useful content". He'd be the perfect chump.

Young (not much life experience), has emotional problems, unsophisticated, bit of an attention whore, with a natural fanbase that won't notice or acknowledge those issues.

Facilitating his inclinations without entrapment would be a perfect sting. Not all intelligence folks are hacks like Gordon Liddy. Feeding a spy what you want them to see is classic.

Re:Oath

[tonywong]

Contacting Congress and the Senate didn't do much for the Tillman family. The Senate inquiry basically pandered to the military and ol' Rummie to the point of it being a cocktail party. I always thought the Tillman family got a raw deal, but then I watched the "The Tillman Story," which showed (from the family's POV) how badly they got railroaded.

All of the cover-up went straight to the top and everyone covered for each other. That was for the death of one (famous) soldier. I don't know what else is in the leaked Manning documents but just the Iraqi reporters being attacked by helicopter gunships was enough to disgust me.

I don't necessarily agree with what Manning did but I don't disagree either. About the only thing I *DO* know is that he is utterly screwed.

Re:Oath

[Wrath0fb0b]

At what point does the soldiers responsibility become to defend the Constitution of the United States against *all* enemies, foreign and domestic, even if those enemies are the President and the appointed officers?

When he thinks that he is likely to be vindicated instead of spending 10 years busting bricks in Leavenworth for insubordination. Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct:http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm -- usually the CM settles on Leavenworth (there hasn't been an execution in the US military since the 60s).

Folks on /. are keen on mocking the "I was following orders" defense but forget to include the flip-side of "we will send you to jail for not following orders".

Re:Oath

[afidel]

Sorry but I'm a big fan of the military being subservient to the elected civilian head of government. If the president gives an illegal order it is up to the supreme court or the Congress through impeachment to challenge it, not the military.

Re:Oath

[evil_aaronm]

I was in downtown Boston on the 4th of July weekend, and happened upon a unique memorial: it was six four-sided pillars, each about 50 feet high, of clear glass. Pretty, actually. Then I looked closer to see what was etched into the glass. It was a collection of numbers, almost like serial numbers, or concentration camp IDs. My wife nearly collapsed at the realization. All those people, dead, because soldiers were "following orders."

A -human's- first order of responsibility is to do what's right.

Re:Oath

[afidel]

What happens when they aren't subservient is you end up with generals taking over the country by force, leading to MANY more civilian and military deaths.

Re:Oath

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death

It's a good thing for him that we haven't been at war since World War II

Re:Oath

[cavreader]

Listen fart face it is not the individual, military or civilian, that defines what is legal and illegal it is the justice system.. Actions such as his just lead to anarchy and conflict which you probably support because you are most likely unable to understand the consequences of that behavior. If Manning was so opposed to military and US policy he had the legal right to declare conscientious objector status and be given a chance to defend his choices in a legal proceeding which he would have been provided with legal representation and given the chance to present his arguments. He chose another route and will have to put up with the consequences if found culpable.

Re:Oath

[cavreader]

Please define these illegal orders. It seems the definition of legal and illegal are defined by a persons political leanings. And if you want to use narrow and self defined reasons that support your particular understanding and political viewpoint you are guilty of manipulating the legal system just to satisfy your political and personal viewpoints. You certainly are not defending any legal process.

Re:Oath

[Runaway1956]

Matters little what you may be a fan of. The men with the weapon ultimately decide what they will do with those weapons. If the CIC issues clearly unconstitutional orders for the military to do thus and so, the military can't wait for the Supreme Court or Congress to decide what to do.

There IS an out in this situation. The military is only bound to obey orders from COMPETENT authority. Issuing clearly illegal orders is an indication that the Pres is no longer competent.

Re:Oath

[Runaway1956]

That's one opinion. I don't think that we've read of mass executions in Turkey, have we. On the other hand, there are any number of timpot dictators who have used their military forces to commit genocide.

Re:Oath

[cavreader]

The purpose of the military is not to support the Constitution it is to make sure that there are US citizens existing and able to create a constitution without interference from any foreign interference or undue influence. Foreign militarises, especially in the Middle East, do just the opposite by ensuring their citizens do not have same the chance of creating their own constitutional rights. The people complaining about the US military refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that if it wasn't for the military there would be no US constitution to argue about. The constitution is not a suicide pack. It has been overriding on numerous occasions to ensure it continues to exist. One example would be FDR. He ignored it completely in order to make sure that the country would still be around to have a constitution. Congress outlawed wire taps and FDR simply directed the FBI to ignore it and do it anyway with a simple note. Congress and a great many of people of that era were so anti-war they make today's anti-war protesters look like crazed war mongers. Because of this Congress passed the Neutrality Act and FDR went around it using the Lend Lease act and expansion of US protected ocean coverage as a fig leaf while fully expecting Germany to fuck up and destroy a US ship and giving the US a reason to enter the war. And after all these "unconstitutional acts" he ended up achieving the total annihilation of 2 of the most vile powers in the world while at the same time protecting US interests and super charging the US economy to unprecedented levels which we are still benefiting from today. FDR came very close to impeachment charges during this time period but There are no absolute rules when it involves any President willing to put his ass on the line like that is worthy of respect. It's a crying shame the US currently has a shortage of leaders willing to act in the same manner. There are times when the end does justify the means and to not acknowledge truism just guarantees that eventually you will fail. The really amusing thing is that Carter, Clinton, Bush1, and Bush2 were interviewed after their terms in office and admitted without any reservation that they not only approved of FDR's actions but would have did the same damn thing. Even Carter!!! The indisputable fact is that the bedrock of US civilization was created and insured by violence and war and denying this while denigrating the military and its citizen soldiers is a travesty and supreme example of moral cowardice and unprecedented ignorance. Flame away!!

Re:Oath

[luis_a_espinal]

I was in downtown Boston on the 4th of July weekend, and happened upon a unique memorial: it was six four-sided pillars, each about 50 feet high, of clear glass. Pretty, actually. Then I looked closer to see what was etched into the glass. It was a collection of numbers, almost like serial numbers, or concentration camp IDs. My wife nearly collapsed at the realization. All those people, dead, because soldiers were "following orders."

A -human's- first order of responsibility is to do what's right.

Did that include the dog tags of those who died following orders on D-Day?

Re:Oath

[Dare nMc]

>None of the three you listed were considered criminals.
Galileo was tried and convicted of heresy, and spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest. Ann Frank, once caught was essentially sentenced to death. MLK wasn't ever locked up by those in power (to my knowledge) but saying he was considered a criminal at the time, doesn't seam like too much of a stretch.

Re:Oath

[evil_aaronm]

Only if those generals have followers that are as devoid of a sense of right and wrong as the general. By himself, Pol Pot couldn't have done much.

Re:Oath

[theshowmecanuck]

I'm sure some German soldier in Auschwitz said this to his buddy as they were throwing the Zyclon B down the shower vents.

Re:Oath

[evil_aaronm]

Then it's another example where soldiers didn't stop to question whether their actions were just: they simply did what they were told. Genocide doesn't happen without complicit actors.

Re:Oath

[rhook]

Since when has "I was just following orders" been considered a valid excuse?

Re:Oath

[Runaway1956]

So, I think you've just come to the conclusion that the military might rightfully disregard and disobey the orders of a civilian?

That's the point I was trying to make, after all.

Re:Oath

[afidel]

I was following a lawful order is in fact a defense under the UCMJ.

Re:Oath

[Thuktun]

I don't think that we've read of mass executions in Turkey, have we.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Re:Oath

[Runaway1956]

You do realize that the Ottoman Empire has been gone for quite some time? I made mention of the nation of Turkey, and your own link mentions:

The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate description of the events (see Denial of the Armenian Genocide).[24] In recent years, it has faced repeated calls to accept the events as genocide. To date, twenty countries have officially recognized the events of the period as genocide, and most genocide scholars and historians accept this view.

Personally, I've never researched the Armenian Disapora as it probably deserves. I don't have a real opinion on the debate as to whether it qualifies as a genocide. The fact that so many Armenians survive around the world suggests something slightly less than genocide, but as I say, I've not researched it.

But, again, the Ottoman Empire is gone, and it's a bit difficult to hold the nation that replaced it as accountable for the Ottoman's actions.

Re:Oath

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I see your article and raise you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Re:Oath

[Noren]

The grandparent was discussing war- your link does not address the topic. The US Constitution is quite specific about the process required to declare war, and the last time the United States declared war was June 5, 1942. The "Korean War", the "Vietnam War", heck even the absurdly named "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", and "War on Terrorism" - none of them are war under the constitution. Note that the subject under discussion was the interpretation of the law, so the legal definition of "war" is precisely the point.

Re:Oath

[theshowmecanuck]

Let's try a version of the old saying: Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The people responsible for the genocide of the Armenians were mostly soldiers by the way. Soldiers following orders from their leaders. You imply that there is some kind of time limit on genocide. You are wrong, time limits don't always apply; and they certainly don't apply in the case of the Armenian Genocide. The empire changes, but the people are the same. They didn't replace Ottomans with Turks. The Turks are Ottomans. The only thing that changed was who was in charge in Istanbul. The people involved couldn't/can't say, "we didn't do anything wrong, that was the Ottomans." They were the Ottomans. The same way Germans involved in the Holocaust couldn't say, "that wasn't us, that was the Nazis, and the Nazis don't exist in Germany any more, they are outlawed." So they weren't Nazis after the war, but they were during and before the war. More importantly they are the same people and still are responsible for their actions. By choosing to follow evil people they themselves became evil. That doesn't change because a government changes. The people always remain even if the leadership of those people doesn't. Ergo, nothing in your argument is valid.

Re:Oath

[GrantRobertson]

What a total dick you are. Conflating the following of illegal orders to commit genocide with the absolutely legal, responsible, and morally correct orders to fight a battle to end that genocide. You can look around. I don't normally call people dicks (in public) but this is getting ridiculous! Sad, actually, that there are so many people out there who cannot tell the difference. Who think everything in the world is not just black and white but a black-hole and a supernova. And anyone who argues for a reasoned, responsible middle-ground is somehow advocating for one or the other extreme. I'm sick of it. Sick, sick, SICK!

It is Friday night and I just got my first paycheck in over a year. I am going to go out, have some fun, relax, and try to forget morons like you exist in this world. At least for one night!

Re:Oath

[rhook]

Only if it was a lawful order.

Re:Ha ha

[PFactor]

I took that oath myself and served honorably, so I can say with some authority that you are correct. The oath is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

It is most certainly not to obey any individual. The UCMJ takes care of that.

Re:Ha ha

[bsDaemon]

the oath is to defend the constitution but also to obey the orders of the President, who is Commander in Chief, and the Officers, who serve as the President's representative at various levels of the chain of command (technically, all commissioned officers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but that all pretty much happens in batches through bureaucracy these days). Here are the full texts of the oaths of enlistment and of officers:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

Re:Ha ha

[oodaloop]

Bingo. and to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. the sad part is we only have one soldier willing to uphold his oath.

Re:Ha ha

[JosKarith]

So in the argument of oath vs conscience you're definately on the side of oath then I guess.
Once you've given your word you have no right to change your mind no matter what the circumstances?
And if a superior officer orders you to open fire on unarmed civillians your choice is...?

Re:So?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Have you _read_ Wired? The amount of spin on every page is stunning. It's quite embarrassing when someone leaves a copy in a workplace lobby due to an individual article mentioning their company. It's usually a good indicator that the company is a pure "dotcom" effort and lacks a working product. And their ads are often a guide to what _not_ to buy, due to companies wasting money on glitzy advertising rather than making their tools work.

Re:Ha ha

[rbrausse]

according to 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer the loyality is indeed person-bound (but at least including the constitution)

Re:What A Disgusting Comment

[crow_t_robot]

I guess you are blissfully unaware of the conditions that Bradley Manning has been kept in. Years of torture like that is much more gruesome than a swift, violent death.

Also, Manning did not betray this country. He betrayed the Bush and Obama administrations.

Re:Ha ha

[dkleinsc]

Absolutely. The President also swears loyalty to the Constitution. The oaths are supposed to emphasize that the US is a country ruled by laws rather than men.

However, there's lots of evidence that this is no longer the case. For instance, Bradley Manning's confinement is violating the spirit if not the letter of at least 3 of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights:
Fifth Amendment - depriving him of liberty without due process, quite possibly attempting to compel him to incriminate himself
Sixth Amendment - depriving him of a speedy and public trial by jury, failing to inform him of the charges against him, failing to allow him to confront the witnesses and evidence against him, and limiting his access to counsel (including numerous attempts to spy on his lawyer)
Eighth Amendment - cruel and unusual punishment (specifically, borderline torture according to most international organizations that study that sort of thing)

But it doesn't matter, because those responsible for prosecuting crimes have decided to look the other way on government misdeeds, and the courts have blocked nearly all lawsuits pertaining to government misdeeds on the grounds that they might compromise national security.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[zero0ne]

We must be terrorists now!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

Re:Ha ha

[SilentStaid]

Please don't mod parent insightful, through no fault of his own - it's not correct.

This is a common misconception. While it is true that enlisted men (such as I used to be many years ago) swear their allegiance to the constitution, they also swear loyalty to their chain of command naming POTUS specifically.

Officers, on the other hand, do NOT swear loyalty to the President. This is specifically for this reason:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Re:So?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I am familiar with Wired as a glossy rag dedicated to fellating .coms and spilling endless ink about 'lifestyle' and how the print media is dead.

My expectations for anything resembling serious journalism are nil, roughly on par with my journalist expectations from HallMark cards. However, my past experience with them was always that they were insufferably fluffy and vacuous; in a useless; but more or less benign way. Their treatment of the Lamo/Manning transcripts, though, appears to be oozing pure evil and utter dishonesty from every pore.

Re:What A Disgusting Comment

[fredrated]

Get off your high horse and pull your head out of your arse, Manning did this country a service on the order of the Pentagon Papers release. Some people actually want to know what our country is doing to others as opposed to burying our heads in the sand.

Re:Ha ha

[mosinu]

You do realize that when you join the military you surrender those rights and are held under the UCMJ unless the military decides otherwise. That is why he is in a military jail and will be tried under military law and rules.

Re:Ha ha

[cbiltcliffe]

Well, obviously Manning should have had a HOSTS file installed, as that would have prevented any security breach whatsoever!!

hehehelol

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[1_brown_mouse]

Oh my. Poor Poor Reddit. Its doomed.

Swore to obey?

[GrantRobertson]

Have you ever been in the military? The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that I was taught, specifically requires soldiers to refuse illegal orders and to report those who issue them. Also to report all violations of the law and the code of military justice. Where Manning made his mistake was in reporting to the wrong people. Granted, he saw widespread violations of the law, and the people in the military tend to "frown on" (read "punish") those who actually follow this portion of the UCMJ, so he didn't know whom to trust. However, he would have been far better off to find some senator friendly to his cause (perhaps Kucinich) and report his findings to them.

So, all you moronic conservatives, and republicans who believe that soldiers are required to obey any order, no matter what, had better hope those soldiers know better when some future republican president, drunk on the power the Tea Party has given her, orders the National guard to fire upon Tea Party protestors who become a major pain in the butt when they realize they have been lied to and manipulated all this time.

Re:Swore to obey?

[shadowfaxcrx]

The trouble is that the way the military works, if you choose to disobey an order on moral grounds, you have a steep hill to climb to prove that you were justified in doing so. And by the time you climb it, you've been punished heavily for disobedience.

I don't really know what the solution is there - if the hill wasn't steep then you'd get dipshits disobeying orders because they don't feel like it.

Re:Swore to obey?

[fishbowl]

Not everybody gets the same training, but I know an Army officer (an O-1) who was routinely drilled on this. Every now and then he'd get a plainly illegal order for something minor, which was a test -- not calling his superior on the test would have been a Bad Thing -- something you had to be on your toes to spot. That was at West Point, so of course not an experience that everybody in the Army has, but when I heard that and other stories it changed my opinion of military training and discipline. Point is, for all this stuff that civilians talk about (what if enemy elements infiltrated the US government? What if there were rogue elements within the chain of command?) at least some military officers are explicitly considering these possibilities as potential reality, and training for it.

Anyway it made me comfortable that at least one 1st Lt. in the US Army had been trained to instinctively consider that an order might not be legal.

On the other hand, that same training makes it really hard to presume that someone in Manning's position didn't know how severe the consequences would be for what he did. I'm not making a value judgment as to whether his actions were ethical or not, because I just plain don't care about that.

Re:Swore to obey?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't really know what the solution is there.

It seems Manning found it. The solution isn't pleasant, but military guys tend to have large brass ones.

Re:Swore to obey?

[shadowfaxcrx]

I was more referring to a solution that would enable people like Manning to expose malfeasance without being unduly punished, without allowing lazy idiots to disobey orders because they just don't want to do it.

Re:Swore to obey?

[c6gunner]

Where Manning made his mistake was in reporting to the wrong people

Where Manning made his mistake was in joining the military, instead of frying potatoes at the local burger-joint. Anyone who hears "you have a duty to report any illegal acts you witness" and thinks "hey, I'm going to take hundreds of thousands of field reports and diplomatic cables, and hand them to a shady group on the internet" is a fucking idiot, and has no business wearing a uniform. Period, full stop.

Granted, he saw widespread violations of the law

What a load of horse-shit. Being opposed to the wars doesn't give you the freedom to invent a whole new reality. Are you intentionally lying, or are you just delusional?

Re:Swore to obey?

[GrantRobertson]

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with you.

Where Manning made his mistake was in joining the military, instead of frying potatoes at the local burger-joint. Anyone who hears "you have a duty to report any illegal acts you witness" and thinks "hey, I'm going to take hundreds of thousands of field reports and diplomatic cables, and hand them to a shady group on the internet" is a fucking idiot, and has no business wearing a uniform. Period, full stop.

You are correct. Manning's choice of who to report, what he believed to be wrong-doing, to was absolutely moronic. However, from my own direct observations it seems that the military actually selects for gullible people who will believe any absurd line of bull-shit if it is repeated often enough by people who claim to be in authority. So, in a way, something like this was inevitable.

Granted, he saw widespread violations of the law

What a load of horse-shit. Being opposed to the wars doesn't give you the freedom to invent a whole new reality. Are you intentionally lying, or are you just delusional?

As it turns out, I am delusional. From what I have seen of the exposed information, I have to admit you are correct on this point also. Much to my chagrin, there are no laws that I know of forbidding the U.S. government from lying to the public or it's allies. There are no laws against starting and carrying on wars for no damned good reason. There doesn't even seem to be any laws against starting or carrying on wars for personal political gain or even just to help certain industries or corporations to earn a profit at the taxpayer's expense. I believe there are laws against "war profiteering," but these are directed at the corporations themselves and don't seem to be enforced at all any more.

Re:Swore to obey?

[c6gunner]

However, from my own direct observations it seems that the military actually selects for gullible people who will believe any absurd line of bull-shit if it is repeated often enough by people who claim to be in authority.

Yeah, it's true. Just the other day, I overheard a military recruiter telling an applicant "sorry sir, but you're just not near as gullible as we'd like. have you considered repeatedly running head-first into a wall? or perhaps getting a lobotomy?"

Since the intelligence/education statistics show the military scoring better than the general public, I'd tend to think that "gullibility" would follow a similar trend. I'd love to see the information you're using as the basis for your conclusion. But what I'd REALLY love to hear is an explanation of how you imagine such "selection" would be implemented. I have a feeling it would be quite amusing.

As it turns out, I am delusional

No worries - at least you're able to admit your mistakes and problems. Cheers.

Re:Swore to obey?

[GrantRobertson]

Since the intelligence/education statistics show the military scoring better than the general public, I'd tend to think that "gullibility" would follow a similar trend. I'd love to see the information you're using as the basis for your conclusion. But what I'd REALLY love to hear is an explanation of how you imagine such "selection" would be implemented. I have a feeling it would be quite amusing.

First, the military targets people in areas with poor quality education and therefore little hope of doing anything better than frying potatoes. This has been shown by many studies. Those who are truly more intelligent or better educated tend to have better prospects and do not choose the military as a career.

Second, while the military does test for intelligence (brain power) and tries to push the high scorers towards Intelligence (secret stuff) and electronics, recruiters lie to potential recruits in what - to astute individuals - are obvious ways. Those who believe the lies, therefore displaying more gullibility, sign up. Those who do not believe the lies are more inclined to choose not to sign up.

Third, once in the military, there is a constant barrage of mis- and dis-information directed at the soldier. Those who believe it are rewarded with promotions. Those who do not tend to get out after their first enlistment is up.

Finally, I would call into any serious question any statistics presented by the military as to the intelligence of their members. "Military Intelligence" is not widely considered an oxymoron for nothing.

Re:Swore to obey?

[c6gunner]

First, the military targets people in areas with poor quality education and therefore little hope of doing anything better than frying potatoes. This has been shown by many studies.

See, now you're just lying again. Or delusional. Whatever. Either way, a quick and simple google search would have shown you just how wrong you are.

Second, while the military does test for intelligence (brain power) and tries to push the high scorers towards Intelligence (secret stuff) and electronics, recruiters lie to potential recruits in what - to astute individuals - are obvious ways.

And what might those ways be, hrm?

Third, once in the military, there is a constant barrage of mis- and dis-information directed at the soldier

lol. You really are delusional :) but it's hilarious to watch you opine on a subject with which you have not even a smidgeon of familiarity.

Finally, I would call into any serious question any statistics presented by the military as to the intelligence of their members.

Of course you would. Paranoia often accompanies delusions. And when the numbers are against you, it's much easier to cry "CONSPIRACY!!!!" than it is to revise your views based on the data.

Re:Protections?

[kmcarr]

In the USA, yes there are (can't speak for other countries). It is afforded the same status as lawyer-client or doctor-patient. A spiritual advisor (priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, spaghetti wizard) may not be compelled to reveal what someone told him PROVIDED the communication is in the context of providing spiritual advice or counseling; this context is generally construed very broadly.

Is Lamo entirely sane?

[pinkeen]

From what I've read I gather that Lamo has got some serious psychological issues. That business with Manning only confirms that the guy doesn't know who he is.

Re:Is Lamo entirely sane?

[pinkeen]

Great read about lamo. There was a lot more, but I can't seem to find it.

Re:Ha ha

[fishbowl]

I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to connect the dots between My Lai and what Manning did.

Re:Ha ha

[Migraineman]

Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

Re:How is this different? Why the outrage here?

[Enry]

1) Journalists have a reputation of not revealing sources if they say that won't (including going to jail). Lamo's actions reflect poorly on the entire profession as a whole (not that it has much anyway..)
2) If Lamo is guilty of doing the same things that Manning is, then why isn't Lamo in lockup instead of being considered a credible source?
3) Manning just released information. Lamo released only part of it and lied (and had others lie) about other parts.

Fuck Wired

[ArchieBunker]

It was an alright magazine in the 90s and eventually I got bored and decided to let my subscription lapse. Little does anyone know that in the fine print Wired will send you to a collections agency over their $12 yearly subscription for not renewing. Way to reward my years of subscriptions. Fuck them I hope they go under quicker than the newspapers.

what's not to get?

[DynamoJoe]

short version:

Manning did what he did for idealistic reasons. Also, he did not lie to anyone (that I know of). He hoped his actions would lead to positive global change.
Adrian Lamo did what he did for the greater good of Adrian Lamo. He lied Manning to get more info and ultimately betrayed him.
Wired participated and perpetuated these lies and gained publicity as a result of them.

Re:This shows just how big an idiot Manning is

[Anonymous Coward]

nice try lamo...

i thought that only cops...

[Anonymous Coward]

were allowed to lie to you with impunity?

Re:i thought that only cops...

[nedlohs]

Everybody is allowed to lie to you with impunity.

Well unless you are a cop.

Re:What A Disgusting Comment

[fishbowl]

The only thing that really changed is that we know that military data security can be horrible, and that the spirit of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" died at some point.

Should have continued to withhold.

[MarkvW]

The complete logs, as Wired said, don't contain anything new or revealing. All they do is show that Bradley Manning is a complete emotional mess.

Re:Should have continued to withhold.

[inviolet]

And [Manning was] a traitor. Don't forget that part.

I'll go 10 to 1 that you would've been on the side of the British, cheering whenever one of the traitor colonists was caught and trussed up.

Is there space in that head thing of yours for the idea that Our Country may require a course correction? And that those who cause such a correction are not automatically wrong?

Re:Should have continued to withhold.

[Anonymous Coward]

"“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right and if wrong to be set right". - Carl Schurz, US Senator, 1872

What Manning did was in acordance with this excellent tradition. What the US has done in Gulf War II has been stupid, a predictable failure, and covered up by Bush II and a fightened, gutless media. Now we know more of the truth about what has been done in our name. That is a good thing.

The USA was founded on civil disobedience and release of the Pentagon Papers and Manning's WikiLeaks document are part of that history. How can we improve America (as we did when getting rid of slavery, stopping an evil and stupid war in Viet Nam, uncovering gov't corruption or stupidity [Watergate, ATF "Fast and Furious"] if we let those in power bury the truth and keep it hidden? You can't get good results on much of anything if you aren't working with truth...

Re:Should have continued to withhold.

[_Sprocket_]

And a traitor. Don't forget that part.

Here's the rub. If we assume that the logs are accurate, Manning seems to feel that he's really uncovered an amazing amount of corruption. Revealing such a thing would not be treason. It would, in fact, be a very heroic thing to do.

My take on it is that he didn't deliver what he thought he had. And if anything, we was an emotionally compromised individual who's clueless actions will have negative impact on people's lives... none the least of which includes his own. That makes him more fool than traitor.

Keep in mind that mistakes are made. Unfortunately, in the military those mistakes tend to cost lives. We don't accuse treason against those who're involved in friendly fire incidents where there is no evidence of intent to kill friendlies (though we may accuse them of negligence if appropriate).

Re:Should have continued to withhold.

[gl4ss]

showing that manning is a complete emotional mess MUCH LIKE MANY OTHER TROOPERS is actually direct evidence how fucked up the way the war is fought is. he was probably just looking for a decent job at some warehouse facility and would have probably failed to become a detective - and what do they think is a proper assignment for him? sifting through the logs of stasi^666. what the fuck.

  (the real shit in the full chat logs is about lamo though)

Re:Should have continued to withhold.

[MarkvW]

You're right. I should have added "nothing additional" to my post.

Re:Ha ha

[GrantRobertson]

Only so long as those individuals issue legal orders and obey the law and constitution themselves.

Re:Ha ha

[jcr]

we only have one soldier willing to uphold his oath.

No, there are many more.

-jcr

Re:Ha ha

[GrantRobertson]

No, you do not surrender those rights. Just about the only right you agree to give up is a very narrow portion of the freedom of speech. You are allowed to say and express anything you want so long as you do not do so while wearing your uniform, thus implying that you are speaking as a member of the military.

Again, they officially teach you this in boot camp but then immediately try to convince you that it is not true. Most of what people believe about soldiers' rights and responsibilities is due to a massive campaign of indoctrination, mis- and dis-information targeted at the soldiers and the public.

Re:Ha ha

[dkleinsc]

The military is not a Constitution-free zone: The UCMJ actually makes it quite clear that they're implementing the same rules, just within a military structure.

For instance, since he's military, his trial may be in front of a court-martial, rather than in front of a civilian judge. Similarly, his right to counsel may be fulfilled by JAG rather than a civilian attorney. There are limits within military law on what a commander can do to punish somebody under their command (e.g. your CO can't just shoot you without repercussions).

You can read the UCMJ for yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Sour grapes by Greenwald

[cprincipe]

Greenwald, as a former lawyer, thinks that journalism is the same thing as "discovery" and is angry that Wired didn't share the chat logs they sourced with him so he could continue his rabid defense of Manning and Wikileaks. He has been attacking Wired and Poulsen ever since.

I know it's trendy on the interwebs to be all pro-Wikileaks and pro-Anonymous, but people really should be a little more critical in their reading.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[gpuk]

Ars is still doing ok....

Engineers and Law

[h1q]

Privilege such as priest-penitent, husband-wife, doctor-patient, attorney-client are affirmative exclusions of evidence, that is closer to mitigation of punishment rather than repudiation of the complaint. Privileges were established for a narrow social benefit and are also interpreted very narrowly by the judge to the end that substantial justice is--done rather than just a technical dodge exploited.

I've notice that people with engineering backgrounds often misjudge the law as a latticework of laser bright lines separating guilty from innocent or probative proof from random fact. The truth is that there are very few absolutes in law; while striving for uniform and clear application of itself and thereby justice, it has to account for the billions of nuances in intent and fact IRL.

Wired Lies

[jdev]

The worst part is they have allowed lies to go unchallenged for all this time. And they have lied to cover their own ass in the process. Take a look at this tweet. This is Evan Hansen, the editor in chief at Wired magazine, stating clearly that they have released all relevant portions of the chat logs concerning Manning and Wikileaks.

Now check out this portion of the chat logs.

MANNING: he (Julian Assange) knows very little about me
MANNING: he takes source protection uber-seriously
MANNING: "lie to me" he says
LAMO: Really. Interesting.
MANNING: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about yourself

This explicitly states that Manning and Assange have almost no relationship. Assange doesn't want to know the guy. Yet lies have persisted for this past year saying that Assange coaxed the documents out of Manning. The feds were trying to build a case against Manning based on that assumption. But the chat logs clearly state the opposite is true.

Wired has lied for a year on the subject and has no credibility. How Evan Hansen is still employed there is beyond my understanding.

Re:Wired Lies

[gknoy]

You can encourage someone to give you information and still try very hard to Not Know who they are.

Re:Ha ha

[tehcyder]

You do realize that when you join the military you surrender those rights and are held under the UCMJ unless the military decides otherwise. That is why he is in a military jail and will be tried under military law and rules.

Bullshit, this isn't Starship Troopers. Yet.

Re:Ha ha

[tehcyder]

I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to connect the dots between My Lai and what Manning did.

They're both cases of individual conscience over-riding the need to follow orders. Seems simple enough to me.

On the contrary...

[jdev]

... they contain a significant amount of important information.

1) Lamo stated the he was a journalist and a priest, so the chat logs would be secret.

2) They further show Manning's intent for releasing the documents.

3) Julian Assange had very limited communications with Manning in an effort to protect his sources.

4) Manning wasn't simply a low level employee as the government has tried to portray. He had direct communications with high level officials.

5) Wired misled the public by concealing this information for a year and allowed Lamo and others to spread lies about Manning.

But yeah, besides all that, there is nothing new or revealing.

Re:On the contrary...

[Maow]

... they contain a significant amount of important information.

1) Lamo stated the he was a journalist and a priest, so the chat logs would be secret.

That one really jumped out at me. WTF Lamo?

I see lots of comments about what a POS Lamo is, but telling that to Manning, and sending him *hugs* [sic], THEN turning him in - while knowing Manning was on his way to discharge, had already lost some level of clearance, well that seems a hugely dishonest betrayal.

--
Salon Kill File: Better letter reading on Salon.com.
http://salonkillfile.maow.net/

Re:On the contrary...

[Darinbob]

Lamo says this at the very beginning of the transcripts. He says this before knowing that Manning is releasing all this material. He says this because Manning is under a lot of emotional stress and is looking for a shoulder to cry on.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[tehcyder]

You are sympathizing with a traitor. It doesn't matter what country a person hails from - or how they feel about others or openness or whatever else, if you betray the people to whom you owe everything for you becoming whatever you might be, you can no longer even be considered Human. Bradley Manning is a piece of shit that deserves to rot in the lowest pits of Hell.

So were the generals who plotted to kill Hitler evil traitors?

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[TheRaven64]

Really? About the only articles there I still read are by Jon Stokes... and he just left. For the past few years their quality has been dropping significantly. I was quite interested when they put out the call for freelancers a couple of years ago. Then I discovered what they paid, and realised why their content quality was so bad.

Re:Ha ha

[peragrin]

The problem is there is nothing in those documents that show otherwise.

There wasn't any fallout, very little diplomatic manouvering, the overall response was meh!

Manning leaked documents just because he was bored. That isnt evedience of crimes.

Re:Ha ha

[Runaway1956]

Now, just because Manning is 99.9% responsible - you can't take away that .1% blame on the reporter for lying. Liars are douches, no matter that the people they lie to may be bigger douches.

This defense is deplorable

[PuckSR]

This whole "Manning was a hero" thing is really weird.
The guy committed a crime. The crime is pretty clear. He also committed the crime with a pretty blatant disregard for anyone else.

You want an analog? Someone robbed at bank with a weapon to pay for surgery for his son.
Was he justified? Maybe...
Was anyone hurt? Luckily no one was injured
Did he still commit a crime for which he is expected to be punished to the fullest extent of the law? Yes

The fact that no one was injured doesn't prove that it was safe. Drunk drivers get in car crashes all the time and no one is seriously injured or killed. Does that mean that the drunk driver was justified to try driving home? Moral justification also does exempt one from legal ramifications. Christian extremists who bombed abortion clinics felt morally justified and obligated to act in the way that they did. Are you suggesting that if abortion is later outlawed(confirming their justification) that we should also pardon those who bombed abortion clinics?

Finally, journalists do not have any "right" to protect their sources. The journalist-source relationship is probably the least defendable confidentiality relationship. There is not any intrinsic guarantee, and if a journalist is protecting someone guilty of a major crime they can actually be considered an accomplice if they do not divulge their source. Journalists try to protect their sources, but there is no guarantee. Also, how does someone who is not a minister even begin to claim a penitant-priest relationship?

Re:This defense is deplorable

[smartr]

Self defense is murder.

Re:This defense is deplorable

[Agent0013]

This whole "Manning was a hero" thing is really weird. The guy committed a crime. The crime is pretty clear. He also committed the crime with a pretty blatant disregard for anyone else.

So when someone come forth with proof that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by Dick Cheney and other high up government insiders, the wistle-blower is the traitor and criminal again?! Our own government is committing crimes and using secrecy to cover it up. I think that gives people the duty to report what they find out.

Have you looked closely at the video footage of the planes hitting the towers? You can clearly see rockets shooting out from pods on the underside of the planes just before impact. Commercial airlines do not have pods on the undersides anyway, and for a bright flame to shoot out before impact does not hold to the stories we have been told!

Re:Ha ha

[Killall -9 Bash]

And on top of that, the first thing they try to get you to do when you do something wrong, is sign away your rights by agreeing to non-judicial punishment.

Re:Ha ha

[bill_mcgonigle]

the courts have blocked nearly all lawsuits pertaining to government misdeeds on the grounds that they might compromise national security.

That's actually one of the Supreme Court's precepts - that, despite all logic or argument, if a decision were to threaten the continuity of the State, that decision is wrong.

Anti-American if you ask me.

Napolitano's Constitutional Chaos has a section on this. Click on the used section for some $4-shipped offerings.

O RLY

[sean.peters]

endangered people, programs, and processes that involve untold thousands of man-hours to mop up

[citation needed]. Even the Pentagon admits that there's no evidence anyone was endangered by this leak. So how about naming some of the "people, programs, and processes" that were endangered? I mean, besides the ones that involve the US gov't lying to the American people and then covering it up. I'm sure THOSE programs really were endangered.

Re:O RLY

[ScentCone]

Grow up, and read the news. Even the lefty, we-hate-the-country, we-love-Manning news. Fragile diplomatic arrangements around the country have been damaged. People working covertly under very ugly circumstances (in Iran, for example) have been outed, and now get to wonder when their families' lives will be used as leverage. Covert operators in places like the Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and throughout the 'stans have had to walk away from when and how they were working with people who can no longer freely talk to them about their awful governments and local thugs.

Of course, you know all of this, and are just hoping that other readers here will be as ignorant of those things as you're piously pretending to be.

Re:O RLY

[fredrated]

I notice you don't bother posting any links afirming any of this, just the unbelievable "Of course, you know all of this" b.s.. I suspect that not only are you the ignoramus but liar as well.

Re:O RLY

[ScentCone]

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's pretending to be informed on this subject, in order to rail about it, but who hasn't read a single bit of the analysis, or (obviously) any of the leaked documents related to Iranian resistance organizers, covert action in Yemen, etc. I'm not bothering to post links because you already know this stuff. Just like everyone else. Don't like my take on it? Read the NYT, or the BBC, or anyone else that doesn't alarm your sensibilities by failing to pander to you. What, did you just hear about these hundreds of thousands of leaked documents yesterday, but only from one blogger on Kos or something?

Re:O RLY

[sean.peters]

No, actually I don't. It's not on the defense to prove the defendant innocent in the courtroom, and it's not on me to prove him innocent in the court of public opinion. The OP makes all kinds of accusations about Manning and has provided nothing other than personal attacks against people who dare to question any of this.

If one thinks Manning is guilty of something, how about some kind of actual evidence, rather than "OMG you must hate America".

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[Dog-Cow]

Evil, perhaps not. Traitors, definitely.

Forgetting something?

[l00sr]

And this terrible crime is truly worth having our clearanced military personelle deciding that its time to violate his oaths and divulge whatever information he saw fit-- even that which shows no "horrible crimes"-- to the entire world.

Remember the video of the death of the Reuters journalist, which the US repeatedly withheld against the wishes of said news agency? Care to guess how it eventually came to light?

Re:Ha ha

[ToasterMonkey]

swore to obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over him

I'm no US citizen, but I was under the impression that American soldiers' loyalty was to the US Constitution, and not to any individual person(s).

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Hey! Now I'm under the impression that non-US citizens don't know how to Google! I'm so impressionable! Can I haz mod points for writing a clever response plz, k thx bai.

Re:Ha ha

[cavreader]

Manning's detention is in no way violating his 5th amendment right. He is being held without bail which is a common practice in the civilian criminal law. You can't modify the codified legal codes just because you feel sorry for the guy. His speedy trial will be held according to the UMJC protocols and his legal representation is free to contest this time period in court proceedings but that has not happened has it? And by the way speedy is not specifically defined. The time limits that define speedy vary state by state and be the type of offense. I imagine the UMJC has similar provisions using base restrictions instead of bail as the guarantor. There is absolutely no truth that he has been denied access to legal representation unless you think his lawyer should be allowed to set up his office in the same cell 24/7 just in case some legal issue comes up. Being in jail or confinement is not supposed to be a pleasant experience. If it was a pleasant experience why would anyone worry about breaking the law and getting arrested? He is getting 3 hots and a cot which is a hell of a lot more than a lot of people get on the outside. He is not being beaten, deprived of food, getting electrodes attached to his nuts, waterboarded, or gang raped. I imagine his initial solitary confinement was a direct result of the type of classified information he was accused of allegedly releasing. If allowed to interact with others what would have prevented him from divulging this same information orally to others thereby spreading even more potentially classified information? Prison is not supposed to be a pleasant experience or why would anyone care about the consequences of breaking a law? Judging by his online chats the guy was already bug fuck crazy filled with self pity and blaming the world around him for creating all his problems and his flaming neurosis. And he was not demoted for being gay or his political views, he was demoted for being a smart ass to another soldier of superior rank and trying to start a physical altercation. Lamo probably helped prevent this basket case from strapping on a suicide vest and heading to the nearest recruiting center or day school. The only government mistreatment of him would be if they took him out back and shot the whiny son of a bitch for treason which by the way is allowed for actions such as his. The real government and military screw up in this whole episode is how this guy ever got accepted in the military in the first place.

Re:Oh, well, if he was lied to...

[fredrated]

What treason? There has been no treason to the Constitution, but perhaps to liars in the us govt. that do not follow their own oaths to protect the Constitution.

Re:Ha ha

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol, these assholes modded you Flamebait despite you being 100% correct. Anyone can justify their treason with any kind of bullshit, and the "I hate America" types will lap it up and make some sophist fucking excuses about how he was serving the greater good. Meanwhile, he just released embarrassing stuff, it's not like he found out the President was performing obscene medical experiments on US citizens or something.

These idiots just confuse treason with whistleblowing, that's all.

Re:You just described

[cavreader]

Your "Bush Administration" bullshit is the epitome of tiresome rhetoric. I asked about you personally. And for the record why don't you do something worthwhile an research how every administration since George Washington has both used and manipulated the legal system to support and justify their actions. The easiest example would be FDR. Investigate his masterful work in using the constitution and supporting laws to push his inflict his will on running the country. Also pay attention to the insults and accusations thrown at him and then take a look at the results of his actions. And please try to stay away from iloveprogressive.com and anarchy_forever.com when doing your research.

Re:What A Disgusting Comment

[Darinbob]

Lamo did not know that Manning would be put into these conditions, so wishing him dead over this as you did is absurd not to mention immoral and flatly repulsive.

Re:Show a quote of my saying HOSTS files

[cbiltcliffe]

Tell me....how often do you need to wipe your keyboard and monitor clean when you're furiously typing one of these nonsensical posts?

Look at the loser with zero logic skills! hahahaha

Re:cbiltcliffe's "GREATEST HITS" Part #1 (lol)

[cbiltcliffe]

You got your ass handed to you on a platter, and you know it. ....*

Actually, no...you don't know it. That's the sad part.
At least, sad for you.

The rest of us find it hilarious.

Google is censoring this article

[detritus.]

Google is censoring this story from Google Reader's RSS syndication, as well as the original article from Wired's RSS feeds.
It's also absent from Google News.

Look for yourself. It doesn't exist.

Re:What A Disgusting Comment

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, guess what: when you declare yourself an enemy of the United States government, and then take steps towards that goal, the US government tends to take you at your word. Torture? Gimme a F-in break. Torture is having bamboo splinters forced up your fingernails. Torture is not the European confinement model, with weekends off. What happened to social disobedience of the Ghandi style, where it is assumed that you will spend time in jail? Manning should be proud to serve his time, as it makes him a greater martyr when his fellow travelers put pressure on the government and force him to be released in violation of US sentencing guidelines.

Re:Funny U don't dispute anything I put up eh?

[cbiltcliffe]

What colour's the sunset in that polka dotted sky world you live in?

HAHAHA loser!

False dichotomy.

[GrantRobertson]

I am really sick and tired of nearly everyone presenting nearly every situation as a choice between one extreme and the other. This is totally the way the conservatives want people to think. If all of the military is not totally subservient, obeying every order regardless of legality, then we will end up with the extreme opposite : Military coups left and right.

Well, I call total BS on that one. If you really believe that then you just aren't smart enough to be reading Slashdot. Perhaps not smart enough to be reading at all. Doncha think it is possible, maybe even likely, that if people in the military obeyed the laws and reported crimes responsibly, then we just may end up with a well run military that obeys the laws and DOESN'T do anything stupid or extreme???

Re:Ha ha

[cavreader]

Sometimes a soldier's individual conscience comes in a distant second place when you are participating an active fight. Dodging incoming rounds probably leaves little time and opportunity to examine the pros and cons of your consciousness.

Re:Ha ha

[c6gunner]

If your conscience is telling you to betray your country and endanger people just so you can impress your boyfriend, there is something very wrong with you.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[c6gunner]

Here we go again...

Manning did nothing wrong.

Wired did everything wrong.

Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.

Blah blah blah.

Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.

And my other comment saying the same thing got modded down, too, so let's try again. Go ahead, assholes, I've got karma to burn.

I'm not sure why I still come to this shit-pit.

Re:Funny U don't dispute anything I put up eh?

[cbiltcliffe]

I guess that did go a little far.

Although I don't see the point in providing dignity to someone who repeatedly strips it away from themselves with their paranoid rantings.

And as far as being dignified myself? Well, I've never been much for pomp and formalities. If I think you're an idiot, I'll say you're an idiot. Call a spade a spade, and all that.

I do think apk is a loser, so I said it. Did I say it in the best way I could? Well, maybe not. But the message is still the same.

Re:Funny U don't dispute anything I put up eh?

[cbiltcliffe]

No, apk, you're not running away.

You're just going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" and adding on "I WIN because YOU FAIL" without any sort of evidence to back you up at all, other than regurgitated bullshit that's already been shot down.

Which is just as bad.

Re:Blah Blah Blah

[gpuk]

Each to their own but I find quite a few of their featured articles worth the read (and their forums have been and still are great)