Tech Forensics Take Center Stage in Manning Pre-Trial
smitty777 writes with some updates from Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing: "Wired has been reporting all [yester]day on the prosecution's technological evidence against Bradley Manning. The first is on the technology and techniques used by Manning. In the second, the examiners admit they didn't find any matching cables on Manning's computer. And finally, evidence that Manning chatted directly with Assange himself."
The prosecution was able to access chat logs and other bits of evidence (which had been deleted, but not scrubbed from the disk) thanks to PFC Manning's use of the same password for his OS login and encryption passphrase. Oops.
You do realize, that unlike your football and basketball stars, you actually have a real hero, don't you? He is in your prison - a political prisoner, because he dared to challenge the government and its illegal activities.
You can't handle the truth.
From the first article...
So Manning certainly knew about this kind of thing, but either didn't do it or didn't do it correctly. I wonder how difficult it is to mess something like that up?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
1. He's not at trial yet; this is an Article 32 hearing.. basically a grand jury hearing/pre-trial. 2. At Trial, he would have a jury of his peers; far more so than you'd find in a civilian courtroom. He's and enlisted soldier, so if his defense team opted, they can have a jury full of enlisted soldiers. 3. Contrary to what you wish to believe; military court martials aren't show trials. I'd argue that they're ultimately far more fair and impartial than you'll ever find in a civilian courtroom where a DA and/or Judge may have a political agenda to fulfill.
Somehow you missed the very next line of the article ....
All the data that Johnson was able to retrieve from un-allocated space came after that overwrite, he said.
A real hero would have taken the time to scrub names of people who are informants and such in hostile areas.
Whoever passed the information did so unto the entity that did the scrubing for him. It's unreasonable to expect that he parsed reams of documents to remove stuff.
A real hero would always be on the look out for the the little guy, not simply acting out of anger or spite.
Whoever leaked the docs, was looking out for the helpless and wanted to defend them from US military assholes acting out of infantile anger, spite and sadism.
A real hero does not act as Manning allegedly did.
FTFY, idiot.
we will never know how many lives were lost because of it. Granted we may not know of lives saved, but I imagine those lost are real.
FTFY. That's just your imagination/wishful thinking/bad will/brainwashing.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
3. Contrary to what you wish to believe; military court martials aren't show trials. I'd argue that they're ultimately far more fair and impartial than you'll ever find in a civilian courtroom where a DA and/or Judge may have a political agenda to fulfill.
Bradley Manning was held in solitary confinement for almost a year before he was even indicted. How is that consistent with your even handed, non-political picture of military justice?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In fairness;
-He was assured that the names of sensitive peoples would be scrubbed. Or rather, the truly sensitive cables would not be leaked. And Wikileaks actually did not release many documents purely because of that.
-Wikileaks was using agencies like TheGuardian for the leaks, which assured them that they would properly vet the cables
-The last, drastic and total leak was the result of general incompetence in regards to the total file and the security passcode for it having been posted online by different people, unawares. Oops.
Really, his duty is to the US constitution, and if he believed that there was cause for the leaks - that the army or military or diplomats were treasonous in their duty and that the cables were proof needed to bring this to light - then it's quite understandable that he tried to expose them.
His main mistake was pure naivety or pure dumbassery in trusting a random foreigner with such sensitive data - he had NO way of knowing that this information wasn't going straight into enemy hands - and not trying to bring this data to a local news agency like the NYT (just an example).