Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
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.
Let's just hope his Medal of Honor won't be posthumous...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
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.
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.
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).
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am officially gone from
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.
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.
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.
Well, obviously Manning should have had a HOSTS file installed, as that would have prevented any security breach whatsoever!!
hehehelol
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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.
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.
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.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
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.
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.
bah.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
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
I am officially gone from
Everybody is allowed to lie to you with impunity.
Well unless you are a cop.
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?
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
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.
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.
... 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.
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?
[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.
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?
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.