Slashdot Mirror


Adrian Lamo Explains His Decision To Expose Bradley Manning

ilikenwf writes "Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for exposing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it."

341 comments

  1. Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but I think a few years in solitary isn't the best thing for one's mental health and stability.

    1. Re:Thanks for the concern by Bomazi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is not responsible for the way Manning was treated. You have to thank your beloved commander in chief for that.

    2. Re:Thanks for the concern by Synerg1y · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A snitch is a snitch even if it's a snitch of snitches.

    3. Re:Thanks for the concern by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      Philosophically speaking, what does it mean to be responsible?

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    4. Re:Thanks for the concern by drakaan · · Score: 2

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?

      I'm guessing the weight of criticism Lamo has faced has forced him to figure out a plausible alternate explanation (aside from "Manning was going to get US soldiers killed, so I turned him in") that was more palatable to folks who don't much care for the US or its military.

      I think he is indeed scared, and likely feeling impotent and bullied. I might feel that way too if I snitched on a traitor and got routinely called a "duplicitous, disingenuous little self-righteous and traitorous faggot", and had people wishing I'd suffer a repeat of a public mugging, for example.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning technically snitched on the Army. So in your view, he's as guilty as anyone right?

    6. Re:Thanks for the concern by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here is how I read this conversation...
      Manning uncovered a lie by the USA Government.
      Lamo uncovered a truth about a fellow soldier.
      Both had just reasoning, but only one is being punished.
      That is the problem here... these events would have never happened had the cover up never been.

    7. Re:Thanks for the concern by catchblue22 · · Score: 2

      He claims he was concerned about Manning's mental health??? Manning has ended up locked in solitary confinement for YEARS on end. That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    8. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Everyone knows governments lie. Manning had alternatives to dumping these docs, by contacting any number of people (heck, even his congressman) who would have been more privy to the information. Further, hackers aren't soldiers, and Lamo isn't some half-baked hacktivist like all of Anonymous.

    9. Re:Thanks for the concern by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      Proven to be false, a complete "red herring".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:Thanks for the concern by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      Yea, about that...

      It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?


      OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A fair point, in that context.

      I'm an honest person, and normally I'd be the last to turn in a whistleblower. But this shit was way over their heads. I can definitely see a thought process something like:

      Jesus, is this dangerous information to have out there? Is it dangerous to have someone like this leaking all kinds of classified info? What else is going to release? Maybe it's not going to endanger someone and he'll stop here, but what if it does? The risk here is american soldiers getting blown up or shot, while I did nothing about it. I think I'm going to put this in more qualified hands... ones accountable to the people. It's not my place to make decisions that could cost people their lives. People didn't elect me to do that. If people think this is info that should get out, and Manning isn't doing anything wrong, then they can deal with their representatives accordingly. Yeah, in this case, I should snitch.

    12. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I never said that putting people in danger was conditional upon their nationality or position. Nor am I anti-military, I served.

      What I am saying is that the American public has a right to know what its leadership is up to, and that its military should hold itself accountable to the public, especially as our domestic livelihoods are going to shit while the military spends billions and trillions on unnecessary wars. How many soldiers or informants died as a result of the leaks? Zero. The government says that the leaks harm national security, but they don't. What the leaks do is embarass the government and show the American public what their government is up to, and that scares the shit out of them because it puts a hamper on their holy crusade and war profiteering. Classified info is nothing but frequencies, aerial photographs of dirt hills, potential entry points of future wars; and yes, embarassments to our government.

      You remind me of one of those idiots I work with, ex-military dinosaurs who still think China and Russia are the bad guys even as they are selling complex electronics to China, one of our biggest customers. You think it's fair that we're throwing millions and billions of dollars at people who hate us while our own are starving and unable to take care of themselves?

      Lame-o is nobody but a self-righeous prick who isn't even consciously aware of why he does the things he does, and manages to hide that fact from even himself by using meandering, verbose, and contradictory language. He claims to be sober but still has the slimy selfish attitude of a dope addict. You're right about one thing, though, Lameo is indeed just another sad wimp.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    13. Re:Thanks for the concern by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1
      So, since nothing happened, it wasn't a valid reason for concern? What kind of argument is that against him releasing what he did?

      this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.

      Seriously? The submitter thinks that the thing to learn from this is that you need to do things anonymously and don't brag about it? My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    14. Re:Thanks for the concern by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      So, since nothing happened, it wasn't a valid reason for concern? What kind of argument is that against him releasing what he did?

      Uh, I never said it was an argument against Manning releasing the documents. I was implying that, since the release there has been absolutely zero loss of life as a result, the governments rationale (we're punishing him so severely because he endangered our agents) sounds more and more like bullshit every day.

      Oh, wait, I didn't imply that - I straight up said it.

      this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.

      Seriously? The submitter thinks that the thing to learn from this is that you need to do things anonymously and don't brag about it? My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.

      Okay.... are you somehow confusing me with the submitter? I don't understand why you're directing this rant towards me, please elucidate.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not responsible for the way Manning was treated. You have to thank your beloved commander in chief for that.

      Obama ordered Manning to be held in solitary? That seems extremely unlikely. Do you have any facts to point back that up? I did some searches and it seems James Averhart was responsible for that call. Obama isn't the source of all evil.

    16. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the sources are now dead, but that doesn't help anyone sell newspapers or get re-elected.Sucks to see people die because of childish bullshit like this.

    17. Re:Thanks for the concern by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Snitching on an organization is called whistleblowing... screwing over your fellow man = you're a POS, screwing over the man (or a corp) = you're a hero to some. You're assuming society makes always sense, welcome to the real world.

    18. Re:Thanks for the concern by sco08y · · Score: 1

      That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.

      Yes, except for the three meals a day, regulation cot, freshly laundered clothes, shower, toilet, heating and air conditioning, material to read, contact with family, mental health counseling, religious counseling, legal counsel and lack of torture devices, it's almost identical to a medieval dungeon with torture devices.

    19. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was made to stand at attention, naked. He was made to sleep, naked. He was made to sleep with the lights on. He was forbidden to sit with his back against the wall. FOR YEARS. That is torture.

    20. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      Proven to be false, a complete "red herring".

      Ah, yes, the classic "mad scientist" argument. Wherein any action understood by any sane individual well-versed in the topic at hand to be a blatant safety risk to the public at large should retroactively be considered perfectly safe and reasonable if, entirely after the fact, it turned out not to directly have caused any irreparable damage. Bonus points if a correlation-equals-causation fallacy gets thrown in, too, including ignoring any possibility of the lack of harm came from unplanned coinciding factors (colloquially, "he just got lucky").

      "Yes, officer, I know the oversized capacitor in my basement COULD have blown with a single flaw, causing an explosion and electrical fire that would most likely have taken out most of the neighborhood, especially when I kept running it past its designed capacity like I was doing for months on end, but in the end, it didn't, so there was no risk to begin with! Besides, I've made this abomination of life itself, which you have to agree was worth any risk to the lives of these fools [indicates angry neighbors who just discovered they have been needlessly put in legitimate mortal danger for the past few months] who called me mad!"

    21. Re:Thanks for the concern by Jiro · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He didn't say he was concerned with his mental health and stability. The Slashdot summary is inaccurate (gosh, how could that happen?)

      From TFA:

      His statements there â" and others, such as his reference, seemingly in half-jest, to having his firearm ready after I mentioned (I think) that I'd been away from the keyboard for a phone call, and his anecdote about striking a fellow soldier â" did seem to indicate personal issues which might be coming to a head. But however I personally felt about his issues, his motives, and his state of mind didn't matter, and could not factor into what I did.

      This says almost the opposite of what Slashdot's poorly written summary did--he felt that the damage that Assange could cause was more important than concern for Assange's mental health.

    22. Re:Thanks for the concern by sco08y · · Score: 0, Troll

      He was made to stand at attention, naked. He was made to sleep, naked. He was made to sleep with the lights on. He was forbidden to sit with his back against the wall. FOR YEARS.

      That is torture.

      Wow. You really have to be full of shit if you think even that (blatantly dishonest propaganda) is "torture". It's a fucking prison, not a five star hotel.

      You know what's medieval torture? What the Taliban did to the informants they caught because of those leaks. They like to remove people's fingernails, place hot needles in there, snip muscles with wire cutters, you know, actual medieval torture. In a real fucking dungeon.

    23. Re:Thanks for the concern by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Blaw, blaw, blaw...

      If you feel that strongly, why not post with you actual User Name, Mr. Anonymous Coward?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    24. Re:Thanks for the concern by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      Well manning should have sought protection under those laws. Except that when the Army stamps classified on something the judge who enforces the law can't legally see that a crime was uncovered.

      The govt writes the laws, so gives itself loopholes when it doesn't like those laws.

      The flat LEGAL answer is that Manning committed a crime (or Civil Disobedience...from a war zone) when he sent those first documents. He clearly did that all on his own without this Lamo guy involved.

      Lamo kept hearing the guy brag and decided to turn him in. It's the Internet, there's no way to know if somebody was bragging... Until he saw that it wasn't bragging.

      At that point it's your DUTY to call in the suspicion. The DoD gets zillions of "suspicious" reports a year.. If there wasn't anything to FIND Manning wouldn't be in military prison.

    25. Re:Thanks for the concern by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One committed treason and violated the code of ethics he agreed to. The other did not.

      This is why one is being punished and the other is not. I am not aware of a precedent for the US government punishing someone for reporting treason.

    26. Re:Thanks for the concern by DaHat · · Score: 1

      So 'suicide watch' is 'torture'?

      Next time, don't make jokes of killing yourself when in the clink.

    27. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who met Lamo would know how much he cares about other people's health and well being... only about as much as it takes to retain his own. Additionally this whole fiasco was the nail in the coffin for his 'hacker' career, and people were already considering him toxic a few years prior to that. Oh yeah, and assuming he wasn't already an informant, he was carrying tech prior to his parole clearing on that whole LexusNexus thing. In retrospect probably informing to his masters while socializing in the circles he used to frequent.

      Adrian Lamo: Grade 1 toxic.

    28. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      How easily some people are fooled - don't you see this is exactly the method by which the military can claim Manning is being treated 'humanely' and 'fairly'?

      I suspect that if you were in Manning's position you might feel differently, despite all the amenities. Mental/psychological torture is just appalling - but that's OK, because the US "doesn't use torture".

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    29. Re:Thanks for the concern by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      At that point it's your DUTY to call in the suspicion.

      Who agreed that this 'duty' exists? "Keep your mouth shut and don't rat out your friends" is the ancient wisdom that seems to work best.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    30. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, since nothing happened, it wasn't a valid reason for concern? What kind of argument is that against him releasing what he did?

      It is worth noting that we are probably not going to hear on national television how several dozen US informants and their families being taken in the middle of the night and tortured to death in the middle of Nowhere, Afghanistan.

    31. Re:Thanks for the concern by pjabardo · · Score: 1

      It appears that this atitude is disapearing. A few years back this Lame-o guy would be despised by his peers. People would turn their backs on him and no one would ever trust him again. Hell, even the military, who would like and use his info, would never trust him! That certainly represents the zeitgeist.

    32. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I read Bamford's book about NSA and the story is like this: Two "homosexuals" working for NSA were concerned about NSA-controlled USAF aircrafts "straying" into soviet airspace (actually to provoke the electronic emanations of soviet SAM radar) and were shot down then and now. Nations don't like airspace intrusions, you know.

      These two "homo" guys tried to whistleblow via their senator. The latter guy thought the NSA "homos" were a kind of "test of whether senators can keep a secret, by intelligence" and decided to simply keep all of that for himself. So the "homos" defected to the Soviet union and made their knowledge available via a press conference in Moscow.

      Bamford has a lot to say about "homos".

      BUT, how do we know this is truly about homosexuality ?? Maybe it is more about the government using "homo" as a codeword for a certain type of person. I smell something when "homo" correlates with "traitor". And I know that the rich and powerful have lots of codewords which they use to communicate amongst themselves. So, is Manning truly a homosexual and has it any bearing ? Or is it the government trying to make it up ? Is it a rich-and-powerful code ?

      Also, they shot down a high-ranking German General named Kiessling by "homo" rumors. Never proven, but General retired.

    33. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kie%C3%9Fling-Aff%C3%A4re

    34. Re:Thanks for the concern by EasyTarget · · Score: 0

      .... except the Taliban didn't do any of those things.. you just made them up.

      - Or do you have some credible citations?
      - If you do, please add them to the Wikipedia article on wikileaks, since those poor liberal Wikians cant seem to find any.

      The only people who routinely used torture were the CIA via it's proxies in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Saudi, etc..

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    35. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed Mr G-man. Except that one whitehouse man had to resign his post after calling Manning's treatment improper. So YES, Obama did know and approve. If you say he is not responsible, then Hitler never ran a KZ, his underlings did.

    36. Re:Thanks for the concern by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      Depends on the Watcher, I mean, if they are an antisocial asshole like you, then yes, it's torture.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    37. Re:Thanks for the concern by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      Your careful analysis/teardown of TFA is rather hampered by the fact that it's Bradley Manning that Lamer is talking about, not Assange.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    38. Re:Thanks for the concern by nikorvus · · Score: 1

      So Lamo put him in solitary? Lamo put the various suicide-prevention limitations in place? All this time I thought he was a security specialist, not the CO of the Marine Corps Brig in Quantico. I didn't know he was a Military Judge. And I didn't know he turned in Bradley specifically to put him in solitary.

    39. Re:Thanks for the concern by greenbird · · Score: 1

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?

      This is complete BS and has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    40. Re:Thanks for the concern by RalphWigum · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here you go:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html

      "Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed," Mr Hassani said, "and if we found people doing any of these things we would beat them with staves soaked in water - like a knife cutting through meat - until the room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they died.

      "We always tried to do different things: we would put some of them standing on their heads to sleep, hang others upside down with their legs tied together. We would stretch the arms out of others and nail them to posts like crucifixions.

    41. Re:Thanks for the concern by oztiks · · Score: 1

      The govt writes the laws, so gives itself loopholes when it doesn't like those laws.

      A solid true key point made in your post yet a point that shouldn't be the case. Law should be an independent entity above government and the law should be leveraged to hold governments accountable but it's not used this way, nor is it built to do so.

      The Manning / Lamo situation is an interesting one as the greatest wrongs were not committed by either man. It's committed by the above statement. Think of the movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford where there's happy ending in the story. In real life it's more like "Law Abiding Citizen" with Gerard Butler if not worse.

      Was the information contained in the cables simply not damning enough? was the Wikileaks escapade a waste of effort for Assange / Manning? and did they destroy their lives in vein? Personally I'd like to live in a world where believing in one's own self belief and hope that situations like say "The Fugative" movies could possibly take place.

      I don't know too much about the content of the cables or if there was any worthwhile information contained in them which could be used to arrest anybody. Was it really just a waste for all these guys? Do they watch too many movies perhaps?

    42. Re:Thanks for the concern by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      A member of the military decides to overrule the decisions of the civilian government. What could possible go wrong.
      If you do not think this is true you are an idiot. President Obama could sign a pardon today and this would all end.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    43. Re:Thanks for the concern by greenbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?

      Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    44. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No amount of rules about a "meta government" can fix the problems of corruption. YOU can fix government by showing up at meetings where government reps also show up. Ask them tough questions. Or even better, join government and try to reform them from inside. And please, don't get corrupt yourself in the process. 99% of people are actually corrupted in that process.

    45. Re:Thanks for the concern by Aristophon · · Score: 1

      Yep. You're right. Military officers in the Abwehr did conspire against the elected government. Fortunately as I take it by my understanding of the reasoning, they were shot for their crimes. Early in this decade I could no longer think of putting on my old uniform again. The stench of crimes against humanity committed by my elected government had begun to permeate the fabric of the uniform I once wore to "protect the weak and liberate the oppressed."

      --
      "Nothing we despise in the other person is entirely absent from ourselves." -- Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    46. Re:Thanks for the concern by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Manning didn't know what he uncovered. He just grabbed all the stuff he could.

    47. Re:Thanks for the concern by HPHatecraft · · Score: 2

      ...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

      Yea, about that...

      It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?

      OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.

      So you're saying that agents' lives haven't been endangered? How do you know? What would you look for?

    48. Re:Thanks for the concern by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Do you know it was zero loss of life? You're keeping track of all these Afghani informants?

    49. Re:Thanks for the concern by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Lamo did not know this would happen to Manning. All he knew at the time was that Manning was unstable and was going to release classified materials.

    50. Re:Thanks for the concern by Aristophon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am a former prison Monitor for the State of Arkansas. Not jiust the United Nations rapporteur, but me -- yes this former prison official -- knows stone cold that Manning's treatment was blatently, massively wrong. No self-respecting prison offical could get away with treating any prisoner in that fashion. Except under the "special regime" at Quantico...

      --
      "Nothing we despise in the other person is entirely absent from ourselves." -- Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    51. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an asshat...

      Do you believe that if the CIA actually lost, or had to recall an agent, that they would advertise that fact? Ditto condifental informants... And don't even get started on all the sources and informants we lost out on because they decided the US government didn't have the discretion to hide their treason to their mother countries?

    52. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One committed treason and violated the code of ethics he agreed to. The other did not.

      This is why one is being punished and the other is not. I am not aware of a precedent for the US government punishing someone for reporting treason.

      Being punished before being convicted is a fucking crime against humanity. Fuck my government's asshole raw until it bleeds then give a seawater-lemon-juice enema.

    53. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A media shit storm! There hasn't been a single report on a death related to the leak, it's logical to assume the media and government would go apeshit over connecting a fatality to the leaks.

    54. Re:Thanks for the concern by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Corruption is a very interesting topic. I work on three simple philosophies when dealing with a wrong when it comes to business or government situations. They go like this.

      1. Stupidity and/or Fear. People in powerful positions are sometimes afraid of change or are simply just too vanilla to get it. Regardless of how many letters before or after their name, what position they hold or how much money they earn. Stupid can be found at the top of any government or business food chain.

      2. Precedence. Old broken laws, Misinterpreted precedence or better yet manoeuvred legal precedence sold to a judge who fits in to philosophy #1. Precedence can be the blame of the GFC in certain areas. Precedence is the hinge of "one size" fits all legal defence and since we are humans nothing ever fits just "one size" when it comes to natural interaction of life. It's why we've been absolutely inundated with ridiculous precedence which create ridiculous law and fuels an endless yet fundamentally flawed process of trying to turn "right and wrong" into a poorly written piece of spaghetti code (law).

      3. Corruption. The tyrant, the ego maniac (narcissist), the thief, perhaps the 3 lesser common forms of corrupted types of people out there. Corruption can simply be using a position of high responsibility to help a friend. The concept that "what goes around comes around" simply does not work in such circumstances. The "all boys club" or "sliver spoon club" are corrupted by their own arrogance assuming that simply because they are in the same group they are of all the same level/class regardless of talent, usually not the case and loops straight back to philosophy #1.

      So yeah, all in all, not a big believer in true corruption more I simply believe the world is simply too dumb or scared to know what's best, it's my dark yet humours way of looking at life.

    55. Re:Thanks for the concern by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Naked does not equal freshly laundered clothes, cot with no bedding is not comfortable especially when you are regularly denied it use, air conditioning does not necessarily equate to comfort when gutless psychopaths adjust the controls and counselling services were severely restricted and used more in the content of the carrot and the stick. So as always distortions by a propagandist based upon the truth being left out.

      Lamo is just a gutless coward who went for a personal grab for glory all else is a lie. Like your typical narcissist he personally has no real idea of what is appropriate social behaviour and what is not, hence his criminal past and then of course time spent setting up his 'sic' friends (narcissists have no friends everyone is there to be used). So typical self serving selfish disconnect from what is real human social behaviour and the arse hat makes a big grab for notoriety and fame by stabbing a true hero in the back. Let's not forget all the other arse hats at Wired who similarly could not differentiate between a hero and the criminals the hero was exposing, so a piece of shit web site that should be avoided. Even now Lamo focusing is on how traitorous behaviour is affecting him and not how it is affecting Bradely Manning nor and more importantly how it is affecting other whistle blowers. The shit head still can not see how his disgusting behaviour is serving to protects liars and criminals, how it allows corrupt governments to hide the truth, how other people in similar positions to Bradely Manning have to hide corruption in fear of being stabbed in the back by the gutless back stabbing Adrian Lamo's of the world. Two years and he is over it, a hundred lifetimes wont bury that deceit and it's attack upon the truth, for the self serving glory of some worthless jerk.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    56. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Glad to see you're onboard with Manning being shot for his treason.

    57. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Any chance you'll display your credentials for accessing the classified evidence at a military trial? Yep...

    58. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Apparently Manning supporters have the ability to track the entire classified dataset and provide concrete evidence on call. I say hire them for spying if they're that good!

    59. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government.

      ...and you know this how?

      What is this fair percentage? Can you quantify your hyperbole?

    60. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Yes because the American media obviously gives two shits about reporting anything other than the latest gotcha or celebrity baby.

      Maybe you should start the spy new corps.

    61. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Your evidence is a link pointing back to this article?

    62. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, then don't say stupid things that require people to have a suicide watch over you. Not being a drama queen would make Manning's life much easier. Considering the costs to the taxpayer in the knee jerk responses to his treason I really have little sympathy.

    63. Re:Thanks for the concern by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget completely free college.

    64. Re:Thanks for the concern by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      And eventually one of these people gets to point guns (or other power) at the others to shut up or lie. Then you have nasty conspiracies.

    65. Re:Thanks for the concern by formfeed · · Score: 1

      One committed treason and violated the code of ethics he agreed to. The other did not.

      Where's Godwin when we need him..

    66. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jerry Sandusky is in solitary for the rest of his life.

    67. Re:Thanks for the concern by keneng · · Score: 1

      Do you remember the wikileak video of the reporters that were killed by soldiers? The two court systems military and civil could not provide justice for those killed reporters. In my humble opinion, not unveiling this video is betrayal and treason. Any professional soldier would agree a gun doesn't get pointed/unlocked/fired unless an unknown actually fires and that particular unknown is tagged as hostile from then on, but not before. Without the unveiling of that video, it was both military and the civil court committing treason towards those killed reporters by remaining silent about the event displaying clearly unprofessional conduct unbecoming of a soldier representing his country in a foreign land. It goes without saying a professional soldier has the burden of unlimited liability on himself which is most honourable, but in the heat of the moment when an entire team is on duty there needs to be at least one lucid and observant head screaming for evidence of hostile behaviour before calling for fire. It goes without saying soldiers are humans too and they need their rest just like the rest of us otherwise they make bad decisions like other humans. That video demonstrates evidence that everyone in that particular team hadn't gotten much rest and were running on auto-pilot and the auto-pilot was somehow stuck in kill-mode when they saw unknowns on that day.

      It's all easy for me to say this because I'm not a soldier, but I have great deal of respect for the professional soldier from any country because they all abide by the same international convention with respect to code of conduct. The flip-side of the coin is accountability and transparency aren't around because anyone who stands on this argument seems to get shot or thrown away to shame. Government and soldiers seem to value secrecy more because it gives them carte-blanche to spend money on anything whenever they want claiming it's for the better good of the country.

      Spending everywhere should be tightly monitored and everything should be tightly justified from an ensemble of people and not just a few easily corruptible individuals anymore. Everyone has a part to play to try to understand how corruption works and to find new and creative ways to mitigate corruption. "Government secrecy for the public good" needs to be replaced with more transparency coming from different sources and not just an official government sources. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD should be the new motto. TAX FAIRNESS should be the new motto everywhere, no more TAX-FREE LOOPHOLES, no more TAX-HAVENS. Wikileaks is a crystallisation of a catalyst concept towards this new "TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD" whose positive impact aims for nothing less than a better future for everyone on the planet and not just the (obscenely wealthy)1%.

      We all owe a great deal for all the efforts Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and all the anonymous players for everything they have done.

    68. Re:Thanks for the concern by davester666 · · Score: 1

      To do anything to promote yourself in the eyes of others, for personal fame and glory. And to boost the number hits your blog gets.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    69. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it could be argued that the act of treason FULFILLED his code of ethics.

    70. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning obeyed his oath to Protect the Constitution, there was nothing treasonous about it.

      You are an enemy of Freedom spreading FUD.

      And an Asshole!

    71. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, it used to be that if you just *knew* the government was a grand conspiracy despite having no evidence of such you'd be considered crazy. Now it's 5/5 Insightful.

    72. Re:Thanks for the concern by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Lamo is just a gutless coward who went for a personal grab for glory all else is a lie. Like your typical narcissist he personally has no real idea of what is appropriate social behaviour and what is not, hence his criminal past and then of course time spent setting up his 'sic' friends (narcissists have no friends everyone is there to be used). So typical self serving selfish disconnect from what is real human social behaviour and the arse hat makes a big grab for notoriety and fame by stabbing a true hero in the back. Let's not forget all the other arse hats at Wired who similarly could not differentiate between a hero and the criminals the hero was exposing, so a piece of shit web site that should be avoided. Even now Lamo focusing is on how traitorous behaviour is affecting him and not how it is affecting Bradely Manning nor and more importantly how it is affecting other whistle blowers.

      You missed an important point too - that he's "come forward" now purely because he's been out of the lime light for a little while now and needs to get his name plastered all over the news again.

      He's had years to explain his position. Why now? Why not when everyone was asking why?

      The only reason is because the media has moved on and back to the "Adrian who?" stage again. So he's come forward now to put his name again - "Adrian Lamo - the guy who turned in Bradley Manning" and if anyone goes "Bradley who?" they just go "Wikileaks!".

      The best thing would be for the media to ignore him.

    73. Re:Thanks for the concern by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      "Do you believe that if the CIA actually lost, or had to recall an agent, that they would advertise that fact? "

      They would if it was politically expedient.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    74. Re:Thanks for the concern by greenbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...and you know this how?

      I read the news. Note I said read and not watch. I could list dozens of stories (probably hundreds if I took some time to research) of questionable if not down right illegal actions by the US government in the last few years. I'll name 2 quick ones other than the one I linked to just to get you started. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes. It's not hyperbole. It's reality and it's getting worse rapidly.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    75. Re:Thanks for the concern by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Your evidence is a link pointing back to this article?

      No. It's a link to a comment post. If you look through the replies to the varies comments raising the same BS the GP did you'll see at least half a dozen more.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    76. Re:Thanks for the concern by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Funny, it used to be that if you just *knew* the government was a grand conspiracy despite having no evidence of such you'd be considered crazy.

      Yeah, the dozens of news articles you can read every month are no evidence at all, including one of the more bizarre ones that I linked to. I'll point you to 2 quick ones off the top of my head. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    77. Re:Thanks for the concern by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      It's true that he committed treason, although I am not sure that he violated his ethical code. It's a very complicated issue at the very least.

      It's blatantly obvious that what PFC Manning was against Army rules. But we also expect soldiers to take a stand when their superiors give them unethical orders, and we expect that the US servicemen will follow the rules of engagement and otherwise conduct themselves properly, and we expect that the Army will discipline those soldiers that do not do so. We expect fair treatment and a just trial be given to those charged with a crime, and in fact none of that has happened in this case, but PFC Manning is the only that is going to be punished because he embarrassed those in power.

      There are differences in scale, but the obvious parallel is with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. The whistleblowers there were initially denounced as traitors by the Army and a large part of the public, but in hindsight it is obvious that they did the right thing. I suspect PFC Manning will be exonerated by history in the same way.

    78. Re:Thanks for the concern by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So your excuse is that it's OK because it's not as bad as the taleban?

      Wow. I mean, I've heard some lame justifications before, but wow.

      Also, if you don't think sleep depravation counts as torture, you are staggeringly ignorant. Done enough it can cause permenant mantal damage and even death.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    79. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is having access to automatic weapons and explosives as army private in Afghanistan would.

    80. Re:Thanks for the concern by fatphil · · Score: 1

      That bit in quotes - where's it from? I can't find it on google.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    81. Re:Thanks for the concern by fatphil · · Score: 1

      No, this is a comment post:
          http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3359033&cid=42485963

      Yours is a link back to this article.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    82. Re:Thanks for the concern by eulernet · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the weight of criticism Lamo has faced has forced him to figure out a plausible alternate explanation

      No, this has everything to do with ego.
      Everybody wants to have a good opinion of himself.
      When a lot of people start to criticize you, you try to find noble motives about your actions, even though your actions are "evil".

      Lamo started to realize that his acts were not as "good" as he thought, so he tries to justify himself, because his belief system is starting to collapse.
      When the belief system is flawed, it's difficult to change it, so doubts and guilt arise.
      And after that, various (self-inflicted) illnesses appear.

    83. Re:Thanks for the concern by torsmo · · Score: 1

      The salt in the seawater would neutralise the acid in the lemon juice. Sriracha potion would work better.

    84. Re:Thanks for the concern by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes, except for the three meals a day, regulation cot, freshly laundered clothes, shower, toilet, heating and air conditioning, material to read, contact with family, mental health counseling, religious counseling, legal counsel and lack of torture devices, it's almost identical to a medieval dungeon with torture devices.

      Yes, except for the constant sleep deprivation - being woken up once an hour by guards - the "suicide smock" he was forced to wear - when prison doctors said he was not suicidal - taking his glasses away, sleeping with a light on, and staying in solitary confinement long past the 120 days the UCMJ said he was supposed to be tried, or the unlawful command influence where Obama pronounced him guilty.

      You Nazi sack of shitstain.

    85. Re:Thanks for the concern by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that prison doctors said - repeatedly - that Manning was not suicidal. But you haven't let facts get in the way of your homophobic, authoritarian storyline so far, why stop now?

    86. Re:Thanks for the concern by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      You're projecting. If this is just about "proper channels", then why aren't military and CIA officials being prosecuted for the crimes revealed by Manning? Why is it that only the whistleblowers are facing prosecution, not those who committed torture and war crimes?

      Idiots.

    87. Re:Thanks for the concern by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Ah... But have you ever seen them in the same room together?

    88. Re:Thanks for the concern by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Lamo is a sleaze, and from everything I have read his treatment has been extremely harsh, but in the end the person responsible for Bradley Manning being prosecuted for leaking government and military secrets is Bradley Manning.

    89. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was suicidal, his hanging makeshift rope was produce in the court to support that fact. Army was right, shrinks were wrong.

    90. Re:Thanks for the concern by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      And Lamo is a poor pathetic man that only can sustain himself by inflating his ego. He didn't outed Manning for loyalty to the USA or any other high reason. He did it because he likes people to talk about him. Nothing else. But since people still talks about Manning and forgot about him he needs to remind the world of his miserable existence.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    91. Re:Thanks for the concern by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Being punished before being convicted is a fucking crime against humanity

      "The soviet famines" were a crime against humanity; this is a crime against an individual.

      But this is a non sequitur; I was using "is being punished" in the future tense, and it is almost certain that he will be convicted and punished for it, as he should be for an act that would have been called in days gone by "espionage"-- giving intelligence to our enemies (a subset of "the entire internet connected world").

    92. Re:Thanks for the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that our corrections system is so far out of line that i would be tempted to find almost any suspect not guilty as putting people in some prisons may be more immoral than what the criminals have done. The idea of warehousing followed by release is in itself immoral. I can't fathom a thought process that places a non-violent criminal in a super-max unit simply because cell space is available. I can not understand why crime would not be amplified by releasing inmates with little mental health care, job skills, educations or funds to get them started back in society. Can you imagine a couple of years in solitary confinement followed by a sudden release from prison?
                          But the more people get locked up the more jobs for guards and other prison staff. The more jobs for cops, lawyers, judges and the whole nine yards are increased and secured by dumping people in prisons. Then we make it worse by privatizing prisons such that the owners have no interest at all in the progress of an inmate. If anything they seek broken inmates who don't want to leave prison and are easy to manage and do not have health issues. Inmates who are burdened with expensive illnesses often get paroled and it is not about mercy. It is about money.

    93. Re:Thanks for the concern by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

      Naked does not equal freshly laundered clothes, . . . yada yada . . . propagandist based upon the truth being left out.

      Oh cry me a fucking river.

    94. Re:Thanks for the concern by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      my good man, today is obviously not the thinking day on slashot i will take a wild guess and say you definitely have not been in jail and you probably don't know anyone who has been inthere. I will also take a wild guess and you have never even seen a thirty minute docu on the psychological effects of solitary confinement on people, even for a short period of time i don't know enough of this particular case to talk about the reasons and the punishment but YEARS of solitary will never benefit anyone, two weeks of that would break most people down. I understand no one is allowed to go against the mighty us if even people get extradited over copyright claims then this guy is probably lucky to be alive still. I dont know why people make so lightly of this, comparing it to places where jail is worse? I wish you all some stupid accident so you can experience it first hand. Afterwards, come back and give that opinion again. I think i'm not having a good day here

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    95. Re:Thanks for the concern by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Do you know it was zero loss of life? You're keeping track of all these Afghani informants?

      Short answer: Pics or it didn't happen.

      Seriously, man, I shouldn't have to point out the slippery slope when it comes to the government using "classified" information as evidence against someone in court, it's such obvious bullshit.

      "You stand accused of causing the deaths of our agents!"

      "What agents? Where?"

      "Oh, we can't tell you that, just take our word for it - it was your fault."



      Brave new world, war is peace, all that jazz.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    96. Re:Thanks for the concern by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you anti-military...just noting that there are a large number of people who are that fervently believe that manning should not be/have been punished

      I also believe that the public has a right to know what its leadership is up to and that our military should be accountable. I won't attempt to argue the necessity of any particular war...that's strictly opinion when you're talking about whether it's worth saving or taking lives.

      You say that since we don't know of any deaths that are directly related to the release of this information, then there was zero effect. Then why have any classified information at all? Why not make all troop movements, intelligence, and orders public? Certainly if releasing *some* information (a large amount, I suppose) had no effect, then we're just wasting money trying to maintain information security at all, right?

      Leaks that disclose operational intelligence *do* harm national security. They imperil our fighting forces and their allies and sources or (at a minimum) force swift changes in plans and relocations of individuals on the taxpayer dime (if we're talking about wasting billions).

      Classified info is much more than what you mention, and if you don't really know that, then maybe that's why you don't think this Manning's disclosure was dangerous.

      ...You think it's fair that we're throwing millions and billions of dollars at people who hate us while our own are starving and unable to take care of themselves...

      Umm, no. No, I don't. I think it's unfair that you find Lamo's disclosure about a single individual reprehensible but Manning's laudable.

      ...Lame-o is nobody but a self-righeous prick who isn't even consciously aware of why he does the things he does, and manages to hide that fact from even himself by using meandering, verbose, and contradictory language. He claims to be sober but still has the slimy selfish attitude of a dope addict. You're right about one thing, though, Lameo is indeed just another sad wimp.

      I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that I'm sorry you hate him so much. For what it's worth, I certainly don't feel that way about Manning. I think he did something stupid and dangerous, and that he should have availed himself of other well-known, often-used channels to report what he saw. Officers and enlisted *do* get court-martialed and relieved of duty over atrocities...at least in the US military...

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  2. Brag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He went to him for advice.

  3. Babylon 5 by kentrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Notice his bizarre reference to Babylon 5 that seems to be without irony. He's obviously a fan, but did he miss the message the show had about how a group of soldiers had to follow their conscience and expose war crimes and corruption from their government at home. These characters had to deal with propaganda from the government, professional snitches (Nightwatch) and threats of treason and imprisonment from their corrupt government. I guess Adrian Lamo was rooting for President Clarke all along.

    1. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ugh, quoting a Sci-Fi show in any context for facts and reality - you are excused from the table young man, go to your room and play with your toys.

    2. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably."

    3. Re:Babylon 5 by Dishevel · · Score: 0, Troll

      If he wanted to expose crimes that the US were responsible for he could have just released the pertinent documents cleaned of mentioning anything that could put a persons life in danger.
      What he did was dangerous, stupid and selfish.
      He just wanted to be the big man. Fuck Manning.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the people who started these wars and set up the whole situation to begin with are COMPLETELY blameless and aren't responsible for the situations they created or the harm they've done! Fuck Manning! Asshole, making us aware of the horrors the US government commits on a daily fucking basis. What a selfish jerk!

    5. Re:Babylon 5 by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ugh, quoting a Sci-Fi show in any context for facts and reality - you are excused from the table young man, go to your room and play with your toys.

      Science fiction (both literature and tv shows) has a long and noble history of using future scenarios to make in-depth political and social commentary.
      In fact, I recall one Star Trek OST episode was considered to be too critical of the Vietnam War, and so was censored down to 9 minutes (!) when it was first aired in Australia to make it less subversive.

      If you've never seen past the future tech and aliens to understand the underlying themes to be found in good sci-fi, then I pity you.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    6. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I expect much ability from an AC but ...
      If you had read the first sentence of my post you would not seem like such an idiot.
      Hope that was helpful.

    7. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like Wikileaks offered to, and the government turned them down?
      http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/

    8. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity him anyway, at his age it's very hard to change when you have a closed mind.

    9. Re:Babylon 5 by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Well in the "life lessons from a science fiction" category, he also quotes a science fiction story with an opposite message, where he realized a greater good beyond an individual's personal interests.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    10. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're missing the point of the entire previous 13+ years. You're blaming Manning for putting people in harm's way instead of the people who actually PUT THEM THERE! How many documents do you think that was? Do you think he had the resources to do what you ask? No, but wikileaks did, and were doing until a couple of papers released the unredacted versions. But that's just a courtesy, the real blood is on the hands of the people waging these wars and making these people targets. Security through Obscurity, heard of it, dumbshit?

    11. Re:Babylon 5 by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      You can blame both, actually. It's not an either/or situation. Our leaders should be held accountable. So should Manning for dumping classified data instead of being a whistleblower on specific crimes or incidents.

    12. Re:Babylon 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the cables, and they are mainly reports of how USG collaborates with dictators of all shades in order to suppress their own people and wage war on them. Detailed intelligence with informant's names are "Top Secret" and Manning only released "Secret" messages.

      Yeah, Manning is responsible for quite a few Arabs overthrowing the thugs who oppressed them. People were killed; America and Israel lost thuggish allies. How horrible indeed !!

    13. Re:Babylon 5 by Sarius64 · · Score: 0

      How can you know this? Stop pontificating and present your evidence or shut the fuck up. You're as much an AC drama queen whiner as Manning.

      Manning did have the resources to not put people in harm's way. It's called fulfilling his oath. If he didn't want to be in the Army then he should have quit instead of trying to fuck other people over.

      Your average 12 year-old could replicate WikiLeaks these days. The fact that Manning sent these materials to WikiLeaks displays intent, not caring. Also, because some fucking kook organization calls itself WikiLeaks does not give it standing within the U.S. Government. Most people would inherently realize that but apparently you're too fucking stupid to grasp common sense.

    14. Re:Babylon 5 by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Waiting for the concise evidence you have verifying these assumptions? Yep...

  4. "Concerned" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, because when I'm "concerned" about somebody's mental stability, the FIRST thing I think of is sending them off to be held for 900+ days in solitary confinement and psychologically tortured.

    This sort of post-hoc rationalization is actually *more* embarrassing than Lamo just coming and saying, "yeah, I did it for the fame. Suck my dick!"

    1. Re:"Concerned" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lamo is a prime grade CUNT for even making this rationalisation.

    2. Re:"Concerned" my ass by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im sure it was on his orders that Manning was held in solitary as well.

      Your reasoning isnt much better than his TBQH.

    3. Re:"Concerned" my ass by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning isnt much better than his TBQH.

      It is, actually. Lamo had his own run-in with law enforcement in 2003, meaning he knew perfectly well that the government would be gunning for Manning's ass.

  5. He's an FBI informant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now I'm going to RTFA and see what cover story did they come up with.

  6. Mental health? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Turning him over to a government who have since spent much time making his life as unpleasant as possible. I'm sure that's done wonders for his psychological well-being.

    I'm still also waiting to hear who had their lives put at risk by Manning... More to do with risk to certain peoples reputations, and the credibility of the US government.

  7. Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd be nice to see Anonymous take on Lamo as a new "project." Someone ought to teach him that there's a price that comes with being a paid informant, even in a police state.

    1. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your poorly placed faith in a group of government-puppeteered, 12-year old script kiddies is adorable.

    2. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It would be nice to see Anonymous at the bottom of Lake Michigan. You would be a bonus.

      Manning betrayed a trust and he's a hero to pathetic losers like you.
      Lamo betrayed a trust and hate him.

      You are a hypocrite.

    3. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Amazing, someone advocates making Lamo a "project" and is modded up (I can only assume "project" is a threat for either bodily or economic harm). Someone else defends the common sense and is modded down.

    4. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Aristophon · · Score: 1

      Mr. Manning -- and Mr. Assange -- helped bring about the uprisings of the "Arab Spring." Here's hoping to more information coming out to make our American masters ever more embarrassed and fearful for their position. Manning did great honor to the spirits of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

      --
      "Nothing we despise in the other person is entirely absent from ourselves." -- Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    5. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Anonymous ever caused bodily harm? Or economic for that matter?

    6. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by elucido · · Score: 1

      Amazing, someone advocates making Lamo a "project" and is modded up (I can only assume "project" is a threat for either bodily or economic harm). Someone else defends the common sense and is modded down.

      I agree with you. Lamo did the best he could with the information he had. Anons do the same with the information they have. Anon does not belong to Julian Assange. Julian Assange has a vendetta against the US government and it's as simple as that. Where are Julilan Assanges leaks on the Australian, Chinese or Russian government?

    7. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by elucido · · Score: 1

      Mr. Manning -- and Mr. Assange -- helped bring about the uprisings of the "Arab Spring." Here's hoping to more information coming out to make our American masters ever more embarrassed and fearful for their position. Manning did great honor to the spirits of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

      So the entire middle east is unstable and you're crediting Assange? What if it led to WW3?

    8. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning betrayed the trust of an institution to empower people.
      Lamer betrayed the trust of an individual to hand him over to institutions.

      Little Sieg Heil fucks like you are the problem.

    9. Re:Lamo only cares about getting paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah lemme break that down for you:

      Manning betrayed a trust and he's a hero to pathetic losers like you.

      Ad hominem against OP, and it was the government that originally betrayed the trust of its people, so they (the US gov) deserve no trust in return.

      Lamo betrayed a trust and hate him.

      Lamo is an attention seeking doushebag like Assange, only his claim to fame is putting a friend in solitary for 2 years. Real stand-up guy, Lamo.

      And I totally agree with OP that Anonymous should go for Lamo. Of course I never condone physical harm, but exposing his lies would be good news imo.

  8. It's hard reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because Lamo can't write a coherent message to save his life.

    But the message boils down to "You can't handle the truth. I'm far more intelligent than you are".

    1. Re:It's hard reading by Pliny · · Score: 1

      It though it boiled down to "Pay attention to ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"?

      --
      What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
    2. Re:It's hard reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Lamo's place, I might've done the same.

      In Manning's place, I might've also done the same.

      I think the problem is the system, not the individuals who feel compelled to expose these things.

    3. Re:It's hard reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I was beginning to think no one was able to look at this objectively.

    4. Re:It's hard reading by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Lamo can't write a coherent message to save his life.

      If you liked the Q&A interview, don't forget to read his lengthy, rambling, and confusing essay about it!

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    5. Re:It's hard reading by elucido · · Score: 1

      Adrian Lamo is a human being. People forget that. Whether we agree or disagree with what he did he still is a person.

  9. Enjoy your pieces of silver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Turncoat.

  10. Adrian Lamo is a douche canoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hasn't he milked enough fame out of this already?

    He's not a respected hacker or computer expert or whatever the fuck he thinks he is. He's just a shit heel troll who should be ignored.

    1. Re:Adrian Lamo is a douche canoe by elucido · · Score: 1

      Hasn't he milked enough fame out of this already?

      He's not a respected hacker or computer expert or whatever the fuck he thinks he is. He's just a shit heel troll who should be ignored.

      He's a human being. It's another case of people being people. He did what he thought was right just like Bradley Manning.

      In fact Bradley Manning is the one who betrayed his oath. He broke his word after swearing to protect the Constitution. Julian Assange doesn't give a shit about the Constitution, he's not a US citizen and never swore an oath to protect the US Constitution. Stop defending a foreign national.

    2. Re:Adrian Lamo is a douche canoe by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Technically whether or not Manning broke his oath of enlistment or not is still to be decided at his court martial. Remember that defending the Constitution is the prime directive of the oath, not following orders or protecting your chain of command.

  11. Whistleblower protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Bradley!

  12. Re:Yeah by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I would try to clear me name by claiming ultruistism too.

    Do you mean "altruism"?

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  13. I don't believe him by Mirage · · Score: 2

    I can't believe these were his primary goals at the time. I think he got into something that was way more than he expected, and he pulled a c.y.a. move and sent Manning down the river. Saying he did it for the good of the Afghan people that might be named in the documents seems revisionist. But I guess only he knows, so he gets to tell whatever story he wants.

    1. Re:I don't believe him by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      I think he got into something that was way more than he expected, and he pulled a c.y.a. move and sent Manning down the river.

      Exactly.

      Saying he did it for the good of the Afghan people that might be named in the documents seems revisionist.

      It's not just revisionist, it's obviously false. He's acting as if those documents were transmitted in secret to the Taliban, and that if it weren't for him, nobody else would know about it. In reality, Wikileaks published the documents, so those Afghan people already had just as much warning, regardless of Lamo's involvement.

  14. As Wikileaks is fond of saying: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Information wants to be free". They don't mind promoting other peoples' secrets, so it should be no problem to expose theirs.

  15. Lamo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Just about everybody that gets caught online... by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

    1. used their real name w the accounts they used to commit their crime
    2. told somebody what they're doing
    3. don't understand enough about computers to not get caught
    4. used their home IP

    Missing anything? There's a trend forming here...

    1. Re:Just about everybody that gets caught online... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Used an actual machine instead of a throw-away virtual one?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Just about everybody that gets caught online... by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... the only incrementing evidence there is the MAC address, which is hardware specific, but it's easily spoofed without loss of functionality of the machine. Of course VMs auto-assign MAC addresses themselves.

    3. Re:Just about everybody that gets caught online... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is actually true (maybe Manning is just part of a CIA information operation), then Manning is an idiot and you two also. IP addresses and whom they were leased to at a certain point in time matter. MAC addresses are not transmitted out of a LAN.

    4. Re:Just about everybody that gets caught online... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only need #3

    5. Re:Just about everybody that gets caught online... by elucido · · Score: 1

      1. used their real name w the accounts they used to commit their crime

      2. told somebody what they're doing

      3. don't understand enough about computers to not get caught

      4. used their home IP

      Missing anything? There's a trend forming here...

      Yeah, fingerprints, timestamps, metadata, and I could go on.

  17. Lamo = Traitor, Manning = Nobel Peace Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2012: Lamo: Hero, Manning: Traitor
    2018: Lamo: Traitor, Manning: Nobel Peace Prize
    2020: Manning released . . .

    1. Re:Lamo = Traitor, Manning = Nobel Peace Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a cute, naive kitten. Nobel prizes are given to war mongers like OSS man Kissinger and warmonger-in-chief Obama. I expect Lamo to get some kind of Shitprize from the Norwegian establishment. Who are in deep collusion with the slimeballs in Washington and London, btw.

  18. Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it."

    Manning never "bragged" about anything. He was reaching out to a fellow hacker (who claimed to be a priest that Manning could confess to without consequence).

    Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy. His own father hated him for his homosexuality. He had nobody and was under an extreme amount of stress while trying to expose the corruption of his government. Almost ANYBODY would have made the mistake of trying to seek out a person that would be like-minded.

    If this Adrian Lamo were honest and not just trying to save what is left of his "journalism" career, then he would be doing everything in his power to try and free Manning for standing by his principles.

    1. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by sco08y · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy.

      Talk about prejudices, do you have any source that shows his leadership was corrupt?

      I was in the Army for six years... there have been guys who were fairly universally disliked, but there are enough personalities that everyone inevitably has buddies.

      while trying to expose the corruption of his government.

      If he wanted, to, he could have made an IA complaint, or wrote to his Representative or Senator, both of which bypass his leadership. And everyone knows about those channels because people will file complaints against their drill sergeants in basic.

      He didn't take that course of action. What he chose to do cost lives, mostly likely some poor bastards in Afghanistan who we paid for information were tortured to death by the Taliban. He didn't care about their lives, he didn't care about the lives of his fellow soldiers, he just wanted revenge on everyone who he felt had wronged him, and he wanted attention.

    2. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You think the best way to respond to government-endorsed war crimes is complain to the government about it?
      Best case, he would have been released from duty and kept under close observation in case he decides to leak something, worst case, he'd be where he is now, but without the truth getting out.

    3. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mostly likely some poor bastards in Afghanistan who we paid for information were tortured to death by the Taliban. He didn't care about their lives, he didn't care about the lives of his fellow soldiers, he just wanted revenge on everyone who he felt had wronged him, and he wanted attention.

      Some poor informant?

      Sorry, how many children are dead?

    4. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Talk about prejudices, do you have any source that shows his leadership was corrupt?

      Yes. Manning himself, if you bothered to read the message logs between Manning and Lamo. Unfortunately the military decided not to investigate, which makes sense, because "leadership" is very seldom punished when they are only following orders. Under the Bush administration even Generals were fired for not towing the line (you can Google it, though it's common knowledge for anybody who pays attention to the news). When the political leadership is corrupt, it makes sense that the career soldiers who want to keep their jobs will also likely be corrupt). To be succinct: I don't have any good quality, unbiased, primary references. But this should not be surprising to you are anybody familiar with the affair. There will never be transparency in a corrupt government, so you shouldn't expect anything to happen. Yes I was in the military also, and I know how it works. People don't get promoted for being nice or honest, though these things are not mutually exclusive.

      I was in the Army for six years... there have been guys who were fairly universally disliked, but there are enough personalities that everyone inevitably has buddies.

      I was in the army for 4 years and I never had any "buddies". That fact alone makes you a liar (OK I'll take that back: YOU are being presumptuous). But in the military, the concept of "buddy" is fairly loose. I certainly met very few people that I considered intelligent or moral enough to converse with (although my standards are probably higher than most people's.) You also should realize that Manning was in a fairly specialized position where he likely had few people to choose from as friends and confidants. Yes, I learned NOT to talk to people too much in the army, because I don't like "blanket parties", for example. People who are well socialized tend to give blanket parties to people who stand out. And the army is NOT for a person who is intelligent enough to question authority, no matter what the law or code of ethics or the local chaplain has to say about it.

      To be fair, I'll mention that I was not in the American military, but in the Canadian army, and I did meet a lot of good people, but I never got to know them long enough to be REAL buddies with them, or to feel comfortable enough to talk to them about things that could threaten their careers and my personal safety. Let's face it, if you come up with some deviant philosophical idea that poses a threat to the standard way of thinking and doing things, you aren't going to be showing off like you would in a graduate-level philosophy or political science class.

      If he wanted, to, he could have made an IA complaint, or wrote to his Representative or Senator, both of which bypass his leadership. And everyone knows about those channels because people will file complaints against their drill sergeants in basic.

      I'm too cynical to laugh out-loud. Filing a complaint against a drill sergeant for being mean? Your rhetorical arguments lack substance. Again, I will tell you, I was in the army. I know how much BULLSHIT this statement is. And so do you. The exact SAME people who were in leadership positions in government when Richard Barlow got fired and charged with offenses against the nation are the same people that were in the highest ranks of the Bush administration that spurred Mannly on. BTW, Richard Barlow wasn't even a "whistle blower" as the Wikipedia article states. He was actually summoned to testify in front of a congressional committee. He was merely persecuted because he did not lie about the American involvement in helping Pakistan (and indirectly Iran) develop nuclear weapons. People who go against policy, no matter how corrupt, illegal, or unethical it is, will never win (through conventional means). If you play by the rules of your enemy, and you play in their backyard, a

    5. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy.

      Citation needed.

    6. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by elucido · · Score: 1

      Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it."

      Manning never "bragged" about anything. He was reaching out to a fellow hacker (who claimed to be a priest that Manning could confess to without consequence).

      Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy. His own father hated him for his homosexuality. He had nobody and was under an extreme amount of stress while trying to expose the corruption of his government. Almost ANYBODY would have made the mistake of trying to seek out a person that would be like-minded.

      If this Adrian Lamo were honest and not just trying to save what is left of his "journalism" career, then he would be doing everything in his power to try and free Manning for standing by his principles.

      Since when was it considered smart to reach out to a hacker? Why not ask a professional con-artist for spiritual advice?

    7. Re:Hold on to your prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when was it considered smart to reach out to a hacker? Why not ask a professional con-artist for spiritual advice?

      I wasn't talking about intelligence; I was talking about psychology. Most people do things under stress that they wouldn't normally ever even think of doing, especially in a war.

      Unfortunately, many people higher up than Manning do actually seek out the supernatural when planning important events: like presidents and generals. You can think of the Reagons who made their decisions (at least in part) based on the advise of an astrologer. McKenzie King (in Canada) was also a religious kook who "believed in an afterlife, and consulted fortune tellers, communicated with his dead relatives in seances, and pursued 'psychical research.' Mackenzie King was also extremely superstitious." (ref: ).

      And another nation with nuclear weapons has its politicians make decisions based on (ref.)

      The daily added: "Indian politicians too are deeply influenced by the pronouncements of these gurus, and come election time, the whole country evolves into one huge crystal ball."

      It noted that in Pakistan leaders from Benazir Bhutto to "lesser political mortals like Imran Khan are reported to have consulted pirs and spiritual gurus on their life choices and strategies...."

      "Black goats, astrologers, numerologists, holy men have all figured in the lives of our leaders.

      I'd say that the relatively young, naive, uneducated, low ranking, 23 year old, private, who wanted to do the right thing is a lot more sensible than the religious kooks who are revered for their leadership and their pursuit of greed. So he may not be a genius, but at least he isn't an elected official.

  19. Eyewitness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manning was and still is an eyewitness in a fucked up system he did not consider competent enough to care for consequences of their activities, so he went public. Thats not a question of mental health, but one of common sense.

    Unfortunately he came across Lamo, whose condition would make me go very far away from him as he might be in a situation that is not advantageous to discretion. And i am not necessarily talking about the FBI here.

    1. Re:Eyewitness by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      and there's where you're wrong. He did not go public, did he? He committed treason.

    2. Re:Eyewitness by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    3. Re:Eyewitness by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're committing dumfuckery. Revealing mass corruption and lawbreaking isn't treason, it's acting as a whisteblower. You know, something to be comended. Then there's the slight fact that the Pentagon has never been able to name a single instance of harm resulting from Manning's alleged leaks, so see a doctor about your broken priorities.

  20. Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there's a good way and a bad way to leak information to the press. Wholesale dumps that destroy innocuous diplomatic relationships and endanger spies and contacts is a bad way.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up! I don't understand how people can be so pissed off about this. It's not Lamo's fault for how Manning was/is treated. If you read the chat logs and everything, Manning seemed really unstable mentally - I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around. On top of all that, Manning's life in exchange for whoever was mentioned in the dumped files is a worthy exchange IMO.

      If he'd come to Lamo and said something like "I'm uncomfortable because I've seen how our government is handling things, and I need to find a proper way to voice and prove this without further threatening anyone's life," I have a feeling Lamo would've actually helped him.

    2. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Hatta · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're right, most Americans don't support what Bradley did. Most Americans are as morally bankrupt as their leaders are. Most Americans support the TSA, they supported the war in Iraq, they supported the imprisonment of pot smokers for 70 years. Most Americans care more about 20 children killed by a crazy person in CT than they care about 20 children killed by their president in Afghanistan. Most Americans don't believe in evolution or climate change. Most Americans are idiots or assholes or both. If most Americans support you, you're probably doing something terribly wrong.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually most Americans only care for themselves, and as a result, they elect crappy leadership that gives them all the things they want from the tax coffers while waging wars and letting corporations buy laws in order to keep the cycle going.

      What the American people think is irrelevant because they still elect leaders who allow these things to happen.

    4. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And dumping documents that you have no idea what is contained within isn't morally bankrupt? What if it lead to the deaths of people who supported human rights in a country where you'd be hung if you were gay or you didn't bow down to Allah 5 times a day? Would that have been A-OK with you too?
       
      This isn't as black and white of an issue as you make it out to be.

    5. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      none of things happened. please peddle your strawmen somewhere else.

    6. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know this is all true ? Chat logs are no proof of anything if they cannot be traced back to an IP address and it can be proven only a certain person had access. Beyond reasonable doubt.

      How do we know you are not a G-man, doing propaganda work here ? eh ?

    7. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around.

      For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.

      Another part of the problem is that whatever the ethics of what Manning did, it should be clear to any rational person that his treatment by the military has been totally egregious, way beyond the pale of any logical mode of incarceration. The man was not arrested for any violent offense. He's not a rapist or a murderer (whether you think his disclosure of information indirectly cost lives is irrelevant here). After so many years locked in solitary confinement, just what do they think he could be smuggling under his ball sack that they have to strip search him and force him to sleep on the floor naked every single day? Do gang lords have to do that? Did Jeffrey Dahmer?

      It's hard to have any sympathy for the government's position when their opening move in the affair was to strip Manning of his basic human rights -- not just civil, but human -- and announce that they planned to keep him that way indefinitely. How can any American justify that, given the circumstances?

      Sure -- if Manning did something wrong, put him on trial and lock him up. In a prison. Like a criminal. But what kind of society are we if our government can choose when and where it feels like following our most basic moral principles? I think it's this that pisses most people off about the situation -- not that Manning is some kind of hero, which is clearly questionable.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 0

      Well said; I'm pleased to see you haven't been modded to death for speaking the ugly truth. As for this statement however:

      Most Americans are idiots or assholes or both.

      Mostly correct but Americans have no monopoly on stupid. We've plenty of idiots here in New Zealand, hell, you've only to look at Australia to see an entire nation of dumb! :p
      In all seriousness though, we know the USA gets most of the attention because its actions are still the most visible to the world. The fact that nearly every arsehole with an attitude carries a handgun doesn't help either.

      "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve,"
      (attributed to Alexis de Toqueville or paraphrased from Joseph de Maistre, depending on who you talk to)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    9. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are people so religiously devoted to the idea that information should be free, all information, that they refuse to see any alternative. Someone who sets the information free is a hero of the highest caliber to them.

    10. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten? I hope you say no. Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him? Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.

    11. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Diplomatic relations were extremely strained and are still being rebuilt.

      Yes it may have made sense to release critical information regarding military abuses. However the information was not read or sifted through in advance, instead it was dumped wholesale even though the vast majority of it was diplomatic gossip.

    12. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by elucido · · Score: 1

      I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around.

      For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.

      Another part of the problem is that whatever the ethics of what Manning did, it should be clear to any rational person that his treatment by the military has been totally egregious, way beyond the pale of any logical mode of incarceration. The man was not arrested for any violent offense. He's not a rapist or a murderer (whether you think his disclosure of information indirectly cost lives is irrelevant here). After so many years locked in solitary confinement, just what do they think he could be smuggling under his ball sack that they have to strip search him and force him to sleep on the floor naked every single day? Do gang lords have to do that? Did Jeffrey Dahmer?

      It's hard to have any sympathy for the government's position when their opening move in the affair was to strip Manning of his basic human rights -- not just civil, but human -- and announce that they planned to keep him that way indefinitely. How can any American justify that, given the circumstances?

      Sure -- if Manning did something wrong, put him on trial and lock him up. In a prison. Like a criminal. But what kind of society are we if our government can choose when and where it feels like following our most basic moral principles? I think it's this that pisses most people off about the situation -- not that Manning is some kind of hero, which is clearly questionable.

      Despite Adrian's flaws, he does have a conscience, morals, and tries to do what he thinks is right. I don't think it's fair that he is labeled a snitch but at the same time he was definitely a liar, a bad friend, and did seem from the logs to be acting as a sort of honey trap. I think the truth is that he wasn't completely innocent but wasn't a snitch either.

      A snitch is someone who was on a side and betrays their side for another. Bradley Manning actually is the snitch in this scenario because he swore his oath to defend the US Constitution putting him clearly on the side of the military with a uniform and everything. The military trusted him with it's secrets. And what did he do? He started leaking.

      Whistleblowing is when there is a crime taking place such as if innocent people are being murdered, tortured, etc. In the Cablegate leak there weren't any instances of human rights abuses that I could see. The leak wasn't worth the risk and to leak to Julian Assange, a foreign national??!

    13. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by elucido · · Score: 1

      So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten? I hope you say no. Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him? Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.

      I agree. The amount of hate Adrian Lamo is receiving is bizarre. What is even more bizarre is that the US government isn't defending him. Why isn't Obama thanking him or speaking on what he did calling him a hero? Why isn't the media and establishment telling his side of the story from the point of view of hero? Or just that of a confused person who acted on his conscience?

      They are treating Adrian Lamo like he's a throwaway. The way Adrian AND Bradley are being treated by the government should concern EVERYBODY no matter what your politics. The government is treating them both like throwaways.

    14. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten?

      For his narcissism? No. But he just gave an interview where he said he consciously made a decision that he knew might have literally ended another man's life. Death threats are one thing, but how many people have actively taken steps to kill Adrian Lamo -- the way he admits he did to Bradley Manning? I hope he realizes that there might be consequences for actions as grave as his, but I assume he doesn't, because he's a narcissist.

      Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him?

      Again, for his narcissism? No on the "gut-level hate," whatever that means. But he certainly deserves my utmost contempt for being such a despicable person. You might think he did what he did out of some kind of pang of conscience, but as I've said, I don't buy that. Not one bit. He didn't do it for his country, or out of concern for Manning's mental health, or any of the other excuses. He did it for himself, because he's not really capable of thinking about anyone else. Whether it's his autism that makes him that way or whatever other reason, it still pretty much makes him scum, IMHO.

      Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.

      Donald Trump is a television cartoon personality. Adrian Lamo is a real person who ruined another man's life in a way that hopefully none of us will ever experience, and he did it for pretty much no valid reason at all. I'll take Donald Trump.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    15. Re:Hate Bradley's treatment, but... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Whistleblowing is when there is a crime taking place such as if innocent people are being murdered, tortured, etc. In the Cablegate leak there weren't any instances of human rights abuses that I could see.

      Other than all those Iraqi civilians getting shot in that one video, I guess.

      I'm not going to argue that what Manning did was in keeping with his oath or with U.S. law, but come on -- if the leaked information wasn't important and relevant, then what's all the goddamn fuss about? Why isn't Bradley Manning a free man today?

      The leak wasn't worth the risk and to leak to Julian Assange, a foreign national??!

      Oh, can the flag-waving. The leaked cables were all about U.S. foreign policy. Who would like to know about that -- whom does it concern -- if not foreign nationals?

      But suppose Manning leaked the cables to someone who wasn't a foreign national. When that person went and turned over the information to The New York Times the way Assange did, I guess foreign nationals were just going to ignore it?

      This is the dumbest argument against what Manning did that I've heard yet.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  21. Lamo is self-serving POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lamo was arrested in 2003 for breaking into the NY Times website along with Yahoo, Microsoft and other. Before that he broke into various corporate networks, Lexis-Nexis, etc. Facing a possible 15 year prison sentence he took a plea bargain with reduced it to 6 month to be spent under house arrest at his parent's home. How did he get such a sweet deal? Was part of the deal an agreement to become an FBI informant possibly? Because if the Anonymous arrests have proven one thing, when hackers are faced with serving serious jail time, they will rat their own mothers out to cut a deal.

    1. Re:Lamo is self-serving POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't that make calling him a "self-serving POS" unnecessary, as well as all this "snitch" and "traitor" crap? You and anyone else here would sell out to get off the hook for something like this. I've seen people sell out everything they stand for, for even less. If anything, this anger should be turned towards the Congress and President (and those of the past), who cause all of this crap to happen in the first place.

    2. Re:Lamo is self-serving POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's a self-serving POS for being a publicity whore who's trying garner media praise for pretending to make a conscientious decision on the info he got. He didn't care one whit for Manning, Afghani informants, national security, or anything other than his own image. Read the Wired article I linked to. Self aggrandizement is what this dude has been about for his whole life. He's owned by the FBI, but he wants other people to think otherwise.

    3. Re:Lamo is self-serving POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the language Lamo uses it is very clear he is actually PART of the government. A kind of "walking honeypot". Do we know all the alleged crimes are real ? Could it not be he has been an intelligence operative from his 17th birthday ? You should be very careful to believe all the "official" stories about certain people.

      Government has informers throughout society, that is why they call it "Intelligence And Security".

    4. Re:Lamo is self-serving POS by elucido · · Score: 1

      Lamo was arrested in 2003 for breaking into the NY Times website along with Yahoo, Microsoft and other. Before that he broke into various corporate networks, Lexis-Nexis, etc. Facing a possible 15 year prison sentence he took a plea bargain with reduced it to 6 month to be spent under house arrest at his parent's home. How did he get such a sweet deal? Was part of the deal an agreement to become an FBI informant possibly? Because if the Anonymous arrests have proven one thing, when hackers are faced with serving serious jail time, they will rat their own mothers out to cut a deal.

      1. He's not an informant.
      2. The US government isn't treating him all that good right now. They wont even defend him morally.

  22. Re:Yeah by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Strange that spell check doesn't work on slashdot input fields, but it does on other forums like reddit.

  23. Like with most situations in life... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One has to pick their path.

    The things that really sticks out in this saga are 1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world. He chose to ignore that route and used the media instead. 2) Lamo looked at the shear number of documents and had to make a choice to either do nothing with the possibility of many people being killed, or turn Manning in with the possibility of facing the death penalty. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    This saga has parallels in history. Think back to the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There were those in the program that had to come to grips with the fact that the work they did led to 250,000+ dead. They had basically two choices. Accept the notion that dropping those bombs led the the end of the war and ultimately reduce the total number of dead, or go crazy thinking otherwise, since we can never know for sure.

    Right or wrong, Lamo chose his path and I will not fault him for it. Manning on the other hand choose poorly.

     

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:Like with most situations in life... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world.

      This assumes it is considered wrong-doing by the people he is required to report to.

      So how did they view the wrong-doing? You'll notice the lack of arrests other than Manning.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Hatta · · Score: 0

      1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world.

      And absolutely no reason to believe that they would work. And he was right. To date the government has done nothing about the crimes Manning revealed. The government has done nothing to punish anyone who inappropriately classified documents to cover up crimes.

      There's no reason whatsoever to believe the result would be different if he had used the official channels to file a complaint. The realistic result is that nothing would be done after filing an official complaint, and he would be the first suspect if those documents were later leaked.

      Manning did the right thing in leaking the data. He did the wrong thing in speaking about it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grim truth is that when lefties come to power, they tend to be even worse nastyballs than the rightwingers they replace. See GWB and O'Bumma. I am sure the second one could way lyrically for hours about human rights and all that. Until he got to the controls.

      Also interesting how he and Kissinger got Nobel Prizes. I think it should be re-baged Nobel Prize For Exceptional Use Of Dynamite. After all, that fuck Nobel made his money with explosives !

    4. Re:Like with most situations in life... by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      So how did they view the wrong-doing? You'll notice the lack of arrests other than Manning.

      What do you consider wrong-doing, revealed by Manning, that is yet to be addressed?

      Specifics, please.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about murder and coverup? Is that enough?

      That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, "provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi." The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking [to extend the Iraq war beyond the December 2011 deadline established by GWB].

      http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

    6. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you made it clear that you are a rat and that people should not hide in your house for you will rat them out very fast.

      its rats like you that allow shadowy goverments to continue their criminality

    7. Re:Like with most situations in life... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The bomb example is a bit of an extreme example that doesn't really fit Manning's alleged crime of releasing documents that over a million people had daily access to. People are finding it very hard to find a single example of how the leak has changed anything in the war in Afganistan, while if your example had happened there would have been an immediate and obvious impact.
      With the greatest possible respect, I think you are normally a better person and would normally not make such a misleading and hysteria provoking statement. You've blundered into the realms of people who lie for a living in PR companies and can hopefully find a way out while you still have some self respect.

    8. Re:Like with most situations in life... by elucido · · Score: 1

      One has to pick their path.

      The things that really sticks out in this saga are 1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world. He chose to ignore that route and used the media instead. 2) Lamo looked at the shear number of documents and had to make a choice to either do nothing with the possibility of many people being killed, or turn Manning in with the possibility of facing the death penalty. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

      This saga has parallels in history. Think back to the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There were those in the program that had to come to grips with the fact that the work they did led to 250,000+ dead. They had basically two choices. Accept the notion that dropping those bombs led the the end of the war and ultimately reduce the total number of dead, or go crazy thinking otherwise, since we can never know for sure.

      Right or wrong, Lamo chose his path and I will not fault him for it. Manning on the other hand choose poorly.

      If what you say is correct then why is Lamo receiving full vitriol and hate from the media, from the hacker community, etc? And instead of being morally defended by people in government he's completely ignored? If he saved the world or did the right thing then where is his meeting and photo op with Obama? Where is his cash reward if people think he's a snitch? Not only did he not gain anything, but he's lost a lot from this.

      And the government doesn't morally defend him. They used him and seem to have thrown him to the wolves. Now he has to deal with death threats, look over his shoulder for life, deal with being labeled a snitch, and no one in the US government will speak out and say otherwise?

      That is the tragedy.

    9. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The grim truth is that when lefties come to power, they tend to be even worse nastyballs than the rightwingers they replace. See GWB and O'Bumma

      Only if you think "left" and "right" are mere extensions of party labels, rather than being based on policies and actions. Of course Obama is a right winger. You don't see "lefties" attempting to claim that gun control is a conservative issue just because Republicans like Mike Bloomberg support it, do you?

    10. Re:Like with most situations in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Obama administration has not been thanking whistleblowers for their efforts, they have been ruthlessly persecuting them at every opportunity. If I was sitting on a gold mine of documents that would expose corruption, I'm not sure I'd ask my own corrupt government to do something with it.

  24. Lamo fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he was truly concerned about the leak, he could have informed the DOD about a leak and not the leaker.

    Odd that this is not addressed.

    1. Re:Lamo fail. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. DoD knew about the leaks. WikiLeaks bragged about the leaks. Sheesh.

  25. Re:Yeah by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I would try to clear me name by claiming ultruistism too.

    Do you mean "altruism"?

    Except with rocket boots.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  26. Why does he need to explain himself? by Intropy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He had evidence of espionage and turned over that evidence to authorities who could act on it. Why does he need to justify that?

    1. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      "Espionage" in what sense, exactly? He wasn't in the employ of a foreign government.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treason, then

    3. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the "espionage" is actually evidence of crimes, and the authorities are criminals. I know it's hard to accept, but the people in charge are not always right and good.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

    5. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was REPORTING treason, not committing it. Try again.

    6. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning's acts were exposed. In what way is his exposure any different than the exposure he performed?

      Or, colloquially, what's good for the goose is good or the gander.

    7. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the "espionage" is actually evidence of crimes, and the authorities are criminals. I know it's hard to accept, but the people in charge are not always right and good.

      Citation needed.

    8. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      No, he was committing treason. Manning is not the law. Manning accepted the oath of enlistment and NDA to gain his access. It is definitely he who committed treason.

    9. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Or, colloquially, what's good for the goose is good or the gander.

      Colloquially: you're a dumbfucker. On what planet is leaking evidence of mass criminality, corruption and war crimes equivalent to leaking the identity of a whistleblower? Until you have a video showing Manning gunning down unarmed civilians - and then gunning down people trying to rescue the dying civilians - you can cram that false equivalency right up your dumb ass.

    10. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There's a definition of treason available on the net and others have posted handy bits of it here. I just can't see any way to make it fit (without stretching the "comfort" bit enough to put Kevin Bacon and all his connections in trouble) so I can only conclude you are using treason as an insult because "commie" is too old fashioned.

    11. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by elucido · · Score: 1

      Or, colloquially, what's good for the goose is good or the gander.

      Colloquially: you're a dumbfucker. On what planet is leaking evidence of mass criminality, corruption and war crimes equivalent to leaking the identity of a whistleblower? Until you have a video showing Manning gunning down unarmed civilians - and then gunning down people trying to rescue the dying civilians - you can cram that false equivalency right up your dumb ass.

      There are no war crimes and mass criminality in Cablegate. That is wishful thinking.

    12. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You can pretend no such thing happened to support your world view or you can simply admit that the world is more nuanced. Regardless of if what Manning did was right, he certainly did reveal all sorts of very bad crimes (murder, torture, etc).

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julian-assange/wikileaks-bradley-manning-testifies-cablegate_b_2215387.html

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by elucido · · Score: 0

      You can pretend no such thing happened to support your world view or you can simply admit that the world is more nuanced. Regardless of if what Manning did was right, he certainly did reveal all sorts of very bad crimes (murder, torture, etc).

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julian-assange/wikileaks-bradley-manning-testifies-cablegate_b_2215387.html

      From what I'm reading there was a settlement.

      "In 2007 the U.S. embassy in Baghdad obtained a copy of the Iraqi government's final investigation report on the massacre of 17 civilians on September 16th, 2007 in Nisour Square. The report concluded that the incident was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians, asked for $8 million in compensation for each death and $4 million for each injury, and demanded that the private security firm Blackwater be replaced within six months. Blackwater continued to operate in Iraq for two years afterwards, and the U.S. Embassy compensated victims with $10,000 for each death and $5,000 for each injury. Five years later, the offending Blackwater mercenaries have escaped from accountability to Iraq, and attempts to bring them to justice in the U.S. have resulted in a long chain of dismissed cases and one undisclosed settlement."

      This is something which can be handled in court. Do you really think this amounts to war crimes? If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?

    14. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is something which can be handled in court.

      The point was that it wasn't handled in court.

      If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?

      Are you saying that just because nothing happened as a result, it should never have been exposed?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're definitely making shit up. Otherwise, if it was actually about the law, you'd be demanding mass RICO prosecutions for torture and warrantless wiretapping. If it was about military rules and procedures, you'd be demanding Manning's release because the UCMJ requires trials to take place within 120 days and forbids unlawful command influence.

      The problem with you hacks is your selective Concern over the law. Makes you easy to spot.

    16. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You are quite the prolific Concern Troll in this story, elucido. I hope somebody is at least paying you for it.

      There are no war crimes and mass criminality in Cablegate. That is wishful thinking.

      That's willful ignorance:

      That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, "provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi." The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking [to extend the Iraq war beyond the December 2011 deadline established by GWB].

      http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

    17. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by elucido · · Score: 1

      This is something which can be handled in court.

      The point was that it wasn't handled in court.

      If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?

      Are you saying that just because nothing happened as a result, it should never have been exposed?

      I'm a consequentialist. If nothing happened as a result of the exposure to the media then it shows exposure doesn't have the intended consequences.

    18. Re:Why does he need to explain himself? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      I would guess that this is Lamo's /. account. Hardly anyone else could have such a high opinion of such scumbag.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  27. Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the article expecting to hear how Adriana Lima came forward and exposed for Peyton Manning.

  28. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have turned him in, too. Violating a security clearance IS a major felony, regardless of motivation, and releasing classified information without authority is just flat-out wrong. I am far more sympathetic to Wikileaks and Julian Assange, but really don't give one whit what they do to Manning.

    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is basically the equivalent of "Using pot should be legal, but growers should be arrested."

    2. Re:Meh by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      If it's against the law, sure. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't put out a list of undercover cops and endanger their lives and then justify in your narcissistic reality.

    3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's against the law, sure. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't put out a list of undercover cops and endanger their lives and then justify in your narcissistic reality.

      I would disagree with this. "I am only following orders." is not, and never will be an excuse.
      If a cop agrees to work undercover targetting pot growers then he is a willing part of the system that is targetting those pot growers.
      They are fully justified in putting his name and identity on a list of undercover cops to avoid dealing with.
      (I don't smoke or do any other drugs, but I regard the "war on some drugs" as a power and money grabbing farce.)

  29. Hmm, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For an insight into how Lamo thinks, take a close look at the baseball cap he's wearing in the article.

  30. Summary by faustoc4 · · Score: 1

    Q: Why?
    Lamo: Because I became FBI's bitch

  31. Why? by m0s3m8n · · Score: 0

    Because it was the right thing to do. Very simple.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice that right and wrong has nothing to do with the actual actions he committed in your mind. How very left wing of you. A person's political persuasion shouldn't be the only factor in which you judge them by.

      Your logic isn't simple. It's just perverted and selfish.

  32. History Will Judge Them by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    And I'm of the opinion that Manning will be the winner.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  33. Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's the kind of fuckhead who would be ratting his friends out an invading force the week after they rolled over his town. He's loyal to power, doesn't have any semblance of principles that exist outside of worshiping power, and therefore he's a fucking model American (or German or Frenchman or whomever is running the show).

    He probably spends weekends having wet dreams about exposing plots that discredit Old Glory, or any of the principles she has pretended to have over the past 200 years. He sleeps with on hand on a flagpole, stroking it erotically as he tries to imagine a thousand dead bodies and ten thousand eviscerated limbs and container ships full of blood pouring over his naked body to celebrate the March of Freedom -- making a pitstop in weak Arab States before it returns to bring justice to the nigger Filipinos and nigger Mexicanos and Panamanians and Nicaraguans and Hatians, fouling his financial lebensraum and ruining a diverse America predicated on the phallus worship of power and of the gun and all her related orgasms of control and death -- as long as Freedom worships American Freedom unconditionally. Unconditionally, as judicious as God: you are either with Us, or you are against Us and you are doomed to die if you do not obey. But you won't have to wait for hell in the afterlife. This is currently available for overnight delivery, if you call now.

    Just before he climaxes, a tear forms in Adrian's eye as he imagines how glorious and good he is, offering the savage Arab a chance to get on their knees and sign up for slavery instead of being killed on the spot. He revels in the moment that God was in the room when his Lord and Savior, George Herbert Walker, decided in his infinite wisdom to kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis and displace two million more in order to improve women's rights by sending tens of thousands of them into prostitution after killing their husbands on the battlefield. In his own way, Adrian has freed the Iraqi people from the tyranny of owning their own resources, and replaced their struggle against corruption of their government with a loss of basic security, infrastructure, and education.

    And when he does climax, Adrian thinks about the power he protects. He thinks about raping and murdering a prisoner and then helping cover it up without having to answer to any semblance of a court. He heaves his entire body into rapture as he pictures an innocent man being electrocuted to death by someone from the Agency while Bradley Manning is forced to watch from a prison cell, crying for mercy, as part of his "non-torture" permanent solitary confinement that Adrian bravely initiated because... why?

    Because in Adrian's sick fantasy, Bradley Manning is the individual who needs to be cured of dangerous fantasies. But the truth is that Adrian Lamo is a hallow imitation of a human being, and when he passes away there probably won't be a soul left to save. Lamo will worship whoever has the biggest gun, and it will serve him well because parasites make up for their lack of intelligence and abandoned independence with dependence on larger, more powerful entities who will accept fealty from any random piece of shit from the street, including Adrian Lamo.

    1. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Spectre · · Score: 1

      ...

      And when he does climax, Adrian thinks about the power he protects. He thinks about raping and murdering a prisoner and then helping cover it up without having to answer to any semblance of a court. He heaves his entire body into rapture as he pictures an innocent man being electrocuted to death by someone from the Agency while Bradley Manning is forced to watch from a prison cell, crying for mercy, as part of his "non-torture" permanent solitary confinement that Adrian bravely initiated because... why?

      ...

      I really, really hope the parent poster is some type of forum robot (pseudo-AI) whose algorithm/database has run amok ...

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    2. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Sephwrath · · Score: 2

      That's the most vitriolic and agreeable post I've ever read. You had me at the first paragraph, the rest was just icing. Nice work, I've vote you up if I had mod points.

    3. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really, really hope the parent poster is some type of forum robot (pseudo-AI) whose algorithm/database has run amok ...

      This. It's getting harder and harder to tell the trolls from the bots from the examples of Poe's Law. I LOL'd, so I'm going with (+1, Trollarious :)

    4. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some sort of Bill Hicks rant generator?

    5. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 2

      I hope your posting privileges get removed.

      Translation: I choose not to understand what we achieved by making Freedom of Expression a basic right.
      My feelings at the moment totally trump all that hippie bullshit anyway.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    6. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    7. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by copponex · · Score: 2

      It was poor and loose imitation of JG Ballard's "Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan" published way back in 1968 when it was okay to have an opinion.

    8. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why I love my fellow citizens. They're more offended by talking about death and destruction than they are about paying for it.

    9. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slow clap.
      Thank you.

    10. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      I fully agree. Period.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    11. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow man.....you should write literature.....you'd make millions!!!!! MEEEELLLIOOONNN I TELL YOU!!

      no seriously....that was pretty fucking awesome.....

    12. Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I don't have to pay for it, I just come here and read your comments.....you've got a very "active" mind :)

  34. Living up to his name ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this guy is quite a Lame-O

  35. not really. by flip-flop · · Score: 3, Informative

    This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...

    1. Re:not really. by elucido · · Score: 1

      This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...

      Did Manning seem concerned about what could happen to intelligence sources or sensitive diplomatic relationships?

  36. ./ needs more fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. The moral fiber here in ./ has shaken my faith in humanity. So many of you fancy yourselves hackers or part of the hacker culture and saying what Lamo did was traitorous, without even reading a single word of his explanation. I thought what he said in the interview was well thought out and highlights a highly intelligent, and sane person. Of course, he did have 2 years to erudite, but he is by no means any of the shit spewed here. Maybe you all should really read the article before resorting to your knee-jerk ways. He may be lying through his teeth, but everything he said in the article holds a true message. Regardless of who he is, he did the right thing, and it may be tough for the stupid of you to comprehend, but that his words match his actions means that this was the truth from the very start. Whatever happened to Manning while in custody of the law is something Lamo had no control over. I'd turn all of you retards in for backing Manning up. If Manning weren't stupid and really wanted to do good, then he would have filtered the leak to only expose what needed to be. But noooooooooooooo...

    1. Re:./ needs more fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know, you don't have to approve of what Manning did to criticise Lamo for being a publicity-seeking, disingenuous ratfink. He'd sell out the US in a minute if it brought him more fame. When it comes to publicity whoring, he makes Assange look like a amateur.

    2. Re:./ needs more fiber by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      What about telling Manning that he was a minister?

    3. Re:./ needs more fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah turning in a whistleblower who outed multiple war crimes shows lots of moral fiber.
      I'll bet the Germans felt the same way about the Vichy who turned in members of the resistance.

    4. Re:./ needs more fiber by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So many of you fancy yourselves hackers or part of the hacker culture and saying what Lamo did was traitorous, without even reading a single word of his explanation

      Lamo had his own run-in with law enforcement for hacking. Of course he knew what would happen to Manning. You'd think that Lamo was just insulting anyone with a level of intelligence above Terry Shiavo with such an excuse, but it looks like some people bought it after all.

  37. Not complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did it because he's a cunt.  And everyone will know he's a cunt for the rest of his life.

  38. Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources..." by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article.

    Informants named

    Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.

    On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."

    In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.

    Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  39. Remember, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil disobedience is still disobedience. That's part of the fun of being this sort of activist.

  40. To hell with Manning by Vladius · · Score: 1

    It kills me all of this mindless hero worship for Manning. I don't care that he was gay even though it's obvious he had serious mental issues and should have never been allowed in the service much less given a security clearance. What really bothers me is that after leaking the information he could have likely gone unnoticed afterward. Wanna know how he got caught? He was bragging and making jokes about what he did with Adrian Lamo. Yes sir, that makes him a real hero. Manning was a real bradass...LOL On the other hand I don't agree with the government going after Assange. He's a Swedish citizen that owes no loyalty to the US. If all he did was receive and retransmit what Manning sent them then that's fine. If Assange helped him though that might be a different story. I also don't agree with the mistreatment of Manning. Someone needs to be brought to task for this. We have combatants in custody that are likely being treated better. I wonder. Just how many people may have died due to Manning's leak.

    1. Re:To hell with Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact you think Assange is Swedish shows how poorly informed you are about the whole situation.

      I have not seen any evidence of bragging to Lamo, more explaining his situation in confidence to someone he thought he thought would understand.

    2. Re:To hell with Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a Luftwaffe soldier and ended up first in American, then in French custody. He told he saw American soldiers purposely running over a German POW's foot in order to "make him confess" shooting an American airman.

      So, welcome to the Land Of The Free Torturers. I am sure you can justify that to your kid, when they do it to him, by saying "the Gestapo would have already shot you ! Suck it up."

      Later, in a French coal mine my father nearly died of starvation, until a French doctor removed him from that service "due to bad eyesight".

      Another old guy told me he was forced to eat beef in American custody for weeks at a time.

      You see, it was all a case of "bad guys vs good guys". Clearly. If you believe all the propaganda bullshit of mainstream media.

    3. Re:To hell with Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You opinion would be more interesting if you could get basic facts right.

    4. Re:To hell with Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange isn't Swedish. Please learn about this story before you spout off about it, for fuck sakes.

    5. Re:To hell with Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hur dur, you spoke out against the hive mind. Now the hive mind will mod you down.

  41. ERRATA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should read "running over a German POW's foot WITH A TRUCK".

  42. Whatever you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..Mr G-man.

  43. dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Applying any SciFi story theme to a real-life situation is generally dumb .... but if we are to play the game, than I have to ask: why do you automatically assume manning was the good guy? There has never been (and never will be) a perfect nation or government, but some governments actually try to do the right thing more-often than others do. What twisted you so badly that you want to assume the US is the bad guy? That position IS an assumption since you lack all the info; Manning's leaks are far from a complete global picture of ALL American (and non-American) military and diplomatic activity (most of which was NOT leaked). Where are the equivalent leaks of Russian data? Chinese data? Afghan data? Jihadist data? Perhaps Manning was a stupid dupe tricked into serving "the shadows" and his data dump, along with other acts by others who were similarly duped, undermined a government that was generally feckless but trying-to-protect-its-citizens .... but is now becoming so corrupted and cowardly that it is not willing to even speak of "the shadows" and its officials have been spotted having quiet conversations with representatives of "the shadows" ceding territory to them, agreeing not to resist them so strongly, etc. Representatives of "the shadows" have been seen in the executive building and even with some legislators where there has been talk that the population needs to be indoctrinated into not thinking negatively about "the shadows". Indeed, perhaps it will become unsafe for anybody to say anything negative about "the shadows"

    Now, for "the shadows", substitute "Jihadists"

    Don't like that? Think Manning is a hero? In the B5 storyline, Bester is a hero to many and the surviving members of the Icarus crew are absolutely convinced that they and their bug-like friends are the "good guys" .... oh, and of course the people influenced by "the shadows" leaked plenty of information about Sheridan and his associates ....

    As I said, SciFi does not map directly to reality ........ but I am fascinated by all the sicko traitor-worship that left-leaners have for Manning; the twerp was not a civilian or a journalist, he was giving aid to the enemy in time of war while under oath and wearing the uniform .... he should have been put before a firing squad and shot within hours of being found. We will never know how many people lost their lives because of him but what we DO know is that he made international relations worse for ANY US President (including Obama) People/governments who do/might help the US must be more cautious and be worried about being exposed. It's likely Manning contributed to the deaths of more Americans and allies in Afghanistan (for a number of complex reasons, including the effects the leaks have had on political support and related schedules and plans) and that as a result of the looming pull-out from Afghanistan (and the changes made to get out quicker) more civilians there are likely to be punished for listening to music or flying kites, more women and girls killed for seeking an education or medical care, etc. In short: Manning is a vile, twisted, evil, wart on the posterior of the human race, right along with the "people" he assisted. The human rights abuses he has helped extend (by undermining the people who were at least trying to mitigate some of it) may ripple through Afghanistan for generations. The people manning undermined were the elected representatives of the US implementing an admittedly flawed policy trying to deal with a very dangerous and complex world. Manning was never elected to anything. He took it upon himself to hijack policy without authority and with a belief he could escape all accountability.

    1. Re:dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always amazing for me to see Americans uttering the same crap and threats as loyal members of the Ministerium Für Staatssicherheit of the GDR. These people were actually more convinced of their mission than their KGB overlords. You know, indoctrinated Prussians...

    2. Re:dumb by Aristophon · · Score: 2

      Yep. Military officers in the Abwher were also horrified by the criminatity of their elected government and did something about it. They were indeed shot, as you recommend. I am a retired Naval Officer. Early in this decade I realized I can't wear my old uniform again, even for ceremonies. The reason is that the stench of criminality and war crimes by this government has permeated the fabric of the uniform I once wore to "protect the weak and liberate the oppressed." Take that as my "liberal" answer. It's about time somebody besides me and my like-minded progressive/liberal buddies starts loving on all ten amendments in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The first good step would be shipping Messrs. Bush and Obama to the International War Crimes Tribunal for "waging agressive war."

      --
      "Nothing we despise in the other person is entirely absent from ourselves." -- Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    3. Re:dumb by dbIII · · Score: 1

      he was giving aid to the enemy

      No.
      Causing embarrassment to Hillary Clinton (the order to commit identity theft on foreign diplomats) and a pile of other little inconvenient documents being released is not "giving aid to the enemy" unless you draw the incredibly long bow of suggesting that making people feel less happy about a war is "giving aid to the enemy", which would be childish and misleading. You are not doing that are you? What exactly do you mean by it?
      Since it's a very extraordinary claim, please elaborate exactly how Bradley Manning assisted the Taliban by dumping some documents that over a million people had access to. I'd be interested if you've got anything of substance.


      I'm also curious about your demographic. There seems to be a very weird and contradictory crossover between people that think they should have guns at home for the purpose of revolting against the government and people that think Manning committed full on treason that deserves death by leaking some widely available material and causing some embarrassment to that government. Are you one of those?

  44. is lamo still alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping someone would have killed that pathetic Judas weasel already. Fucking boot licking fascist-loving FBI dick sucking piece of shit. He represents the New America. The one where we are all agents of the FBI looking to get brownie points with our benevolent daddy-government. I feel so sorry for the government that their murder and torture and racist piece of shit soldiers might be exposed for what they really are. The truth hurts I guess.

  45. Don't give the attention whore any attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adrian Lamo is an attention whore. He needs it, he feeds off it, and when people start forgetting about him he becomes increasingly more desperate to bring his doings back into the spotlight.

    Lamo is a disgusting, worthless piece of shit. He'd fuck over anyone for any reason if it meant he could catch a few more seconds of fame.

    Being a self centered asshole, he'll never understand for a second what he did to Manning, or what Manning is suffering through. That's completely irrelevant to Lamo. He doesn't empathize with other people, he doesn't understand altruism. All he knows is how to fulfill his own needs at any given time.

    I hope the media ignores Adrian, and I hope at some point in his life he understands what he did to Manning.

  46. Why did Lamo snitch on Manning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did Lamo snitch on Manning, a good guess would be that Lamo worked as an agent for the Feds ever since his arrest in 2003. Where in the leaked documents were the names of Afghan informants released?

  47. Don't tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tell ass holes like Adrian Lamo.

  48. Snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snitches get stitches lol

  49. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Lamo could not have known beforehand that there would be no fallout from the release. It seems a reasonable fear to be had.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  50. Why Manning contacted Lamo? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    'Although none of the Wired articles ever mention this, the first Lamo-Manning communications were not actually via chat. Instead, Lamo told me that Manning first sent him a series of encrypted emails which Lamo was unable to decrypt because Manning "encrypted it to an outdated PGP key of mine" [PGP is an encryption program]."

    What self-respecting hacker loses his old PGP key?

    "After receiving this first set of emails, Lamo says he replied - despite not knowing who these emails were from or what they were about - by inviting the emailer to chat with him on AOL IM, and provided his screen name to do so."

    "Lamo says that Manning thereafter sent him additional emails encrypted to his current PGP key, but that Lamo never bothered to decrypt them. Instead, Lamo claims he turned over all those Manning emails to the FBI without ever reading a single one of them.

    What self-respecting hacker doesn't bother to read his email. Why would it be necessary at this point for Lamo to claim not to have read the emails?

    "Thus, the actual initial communications between Manning and Lamo - what preceded and led to their chat - are completely unknown. Lamo refuses to release the emails or chats other than the small chat snippets published by Wired". link

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Why Manning contacted Lamo? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What self-respecting hacker loses his old PGP key?

      The kind that never wants old stuff decrypted.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  51. Fuck Adrian Lamo, he is a snitch piece of shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snitches deserve no respect.

    If he ever goes to prison for anything, he will find out
    how snitches are respected when the lights go out.

  52. Lamo should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be ashamed and disgraced. What an a**hole. Hope i meet him in an dark alley someday....

  53. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it Assange who stated that he did not care who was exposed or might be killed by the release of the information.

  54. This gem struck me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AL: Assange went on to say " we are not about to leave the field of doing good simply because harm might happen", and that if anyone were conclusively killed because of WikiLeaks, they could take comfort knowing: "Well, we will review our procedures" upon proof of their death. I have a different vision of good, one where high ideals don't excuse any crime or atrocity because someone meant well.

    So let me get this straight, mowing down innocent civilians with an attack helicopter, that's ok, but exposing it to the NY Times, THAT IS THE ATROCITY? What a fucked up individual. Lamo is trash and a rat.

  55. Informants Panel at HOPE conference by Kplx138 · · Score: 1

    Adrian Lamo spoke at a HOPE conference Informants Panel some years ago about this very subject... ugh anyway
    1. he's a rat, snitch whatever and he did because it doesn't take a genius to realize that if someone tells you they just stole a truck load of top secret diplomat cables and is going to release them, the government is going to send people to jail and you have to make a decision if you want to be one of those people.
    2. all the flimsy excuses he's given so far sound to me like something a FBI would have to said to him to make him feel better about ratting Manley out, whereas Lamo would have looked less like a creep if he just admitted to ratting Manley out because he didn't want to go to jail.

    1. Re:Informants Panel at HOPE conference by elucido · · Score: 0

      Adrian Lamo spoke at a HOPE conference Informants Panel some years ago about this very subject... ugh anyway
      1. he's a rat, snitch whatever and he did because it doesn't take a genius to realize that if someone tells you they just stole a truck load of top secret diplomat cables and is going to release them, the government is going to send people to jail and you have to make a decision if you want to be one of those people.
      2. all the flimsy excuses he's given so far sound to me like something a FBI would have to said to him to make him feel better about ratting Manley out, whereas Lamo would have looked less like a creep if he just admitted to ratting Manley out because he didn't want to go to jail.

      He's not a rat or snitch. He knew what side he was on all along and that side was with whatever side protects the most lives. Bradley Manning was potentially putting many lives at risk while the US government in this instance was only putting Bradley Manning's life at risk. Which life should be risked if you had to make the choice?

  56. No by Blackajack · · Score: 2

    He either had no concern for the well-being of Manning and is just saying so or he is utter and complete fool for thinking that ratting him would result in anything other than utter persecution and kafkaesquely hellish existence.
    Either he is an informer and enemy of free men pleading for forgiveness or a fool so bad he's got to suffer at least some repercussions.
    I've no mercy to spare him.

    1. Re:No by elucido · · Score: 0

      He either had no concern for the well-being of Manning and is just saying so or he is utter and complete fool for thinking that ratting him would result in anything other than utter persecution and kafkaesquely hellish existence.

      Either he is an informer and enemy of free men pleading for forgiveness or a fool so bad he's got to suffer at least some repercussions.

      I've no mercy to spare him.

      So you would have put intelligence sources at risk? You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days? a few weeks? to see no intelligence sources are put at risk? Yeah right...

      Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?

    2. Re:No by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So you would have put intelligence sources at risk?

      So you think repeating a Big Lie eventually makes it true? The Pentagon has never been able to name a single case where the cables resulted in any risk or any harm to any intelligence "source".

      You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days?

      As if Ellisburg read all 120,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers.

      Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?

      Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?

    3. Re:No by elucido · · Score: 1

      So you would have put intelligence sources at risk?

      So you think repeating a Big Lie eventually makes it true? The Pentagon has never been able to name a single case where the cables resulted in any risk or any harm to any intelligence "source".

      You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days?

      As if Ellisburg read all 120,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers.

      Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?

      Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?

      How would the Pentagon go about naming a single case where the cables resulted in harm to an intelligence source without damaging itself as an institution and potentially putting future intelligence sources in danger? If the enemy had success they wouldn't announce it and if the enemy failed they wouldn't announce it.

    4. Re:No by elucido · · Score: 1

      Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?

      The intelligence sources ARE the lives most at risk currently. They are the civilians who are under the threat of death and torture if discovered.

  57. Whistleblowing is not treason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Claiming Manning committed treason is like saying copyright infringement is theft.

    Manning saw all the innocents whose lives were taken, and did the best thing he knew how to save more lives. If any lives were put at risk by the leak, they are far outweighed by the lives endangered by the military continuing to kill in secrecy, without consequence. Manning didn't commit treason. The US Military commits far more treacherous acts daily.

    1. Re:Whistleblowing is not treason. by elucido · · Score: 1

      Claiming Manning committed treason is like saying copyright infringement is theft.

      Manning saw all the innocents whose lives were taken, and did the best thing he knew how to save more lives. If any lives were put at risk by the leak, they are far outweighed by the lives endangered by the military continuing to kill in secrecy, without consequence. Manning didn't commit treason. The US Military commits far more treacherous acts daily.

      It is treason if sources get killed over it.

    2. Re:Whistleblowing is not treason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is treason if sources get killed over it.

      Has it been proven that anyone has been killed due to the leak? What about when compared to how many lives have been saved as a result? What about the simple fact of exposing WRONGDOING? Shouldn't the fact that the US Military has been show to be performing illegal(!) acts (illegal in not only US law, but military law & human rights violations) carry some weight in this?

      As an aside, the whole concept of treason is bullshit anyway. Nationalism is just another religion. Any Xtian will tell you one of the Commandments is "Thou shalt have no gods before me." Add to that "Thou shalt not kill" and you have to realize if you kill someone over Nationalist ideals, you have put the religion of Nationalism ahead of God.

      I maintain whistleblowing is not treason.

    3. Re:Whistleblowing is not treason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. No really. I know people say that a lot, but I mean it here. Don't. Manning was a troubled individual who was making a cry for help because he didn't have the stones to do it any other way. And it wasn't a cry for help for the country, it was for himself. He took upon himself an undeserved responsibility, one that he was not qualified to execute, and he blundered it.

    4. Re:Whistleblowing is not treason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you 100%, minus your 'don't be an idiot' advice. Do you really mean that? I'm shakin' in my boots, man!

      I have been following this case from the beginning, and I completely understand the personal ins and outs of his state of mind and the situation he was in and the mistakes he made. That doesn't change the fact that whistleblowing is still not treason.

  58. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    He also could not know that there would be fallout from the release. What he did was purely speculative. It seems like the prudent thing to do for someone who has genuine concerns about taking an action that would get someone locked up for the rest of the person's life, Lamo could have reviewed the documents himself or inquired about what precautions were being taken. Instead, he seems to have based his decision on what he reads in the newspapers and without contacting any of the parties involved.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  59. Cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His keepers have him doing damage control PR.

  60. Yep, also kinda limits the defense of it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    If you leak only certain things, well then the argument can be made that you did it out of conscience. You saw these things and said "The public needs to know this. Even though I took an oath not to reveal this, this public needs to know, it is more important." This is the kind of thing that happened with the Pentagon Papers.

    However when you just go and wholesale release whatever you can grab, well that kinda goes out the window. You didn't do it for conscience reasons, you did it for other reasons, ego it would appear in this case. You want to "get them" or whatever. It wasn't a reasoned action.

    Well, intent should and does matter in what you do. The reason behind your actions can be as important as the actions themselves.

    There is also the issue of harm and potential harm caused vs what was gained. While it seems to be taken as an article of faith on /. that extreme government crimes were revealed, I've yet to have anyone point them out to me. The only thing that seems to get referred to is the "collateral murder" video which if you watch unedited clearly shows the opposite: There was no crime, the soldiers engaged per the rules of war (which are quite different from regular civilian laws).

    A selective leak of information that the public needs to know can be a very noble act. A big dump of anything classified you get your hands on is not.

  61. Adrian Lamo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adrian Lamo is an attention seeking whore, it's why he went to wired and media with the scoop instead of keeping it simple and reporting only to the FBI.

    I can't be bothered hearing what he has to say anymore, frankly, he's not worth the steam off my piss.

  62. Real Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The real reason is that he hasn't had any attention for almost a decade, when he was on The Screen Savers and stuff after all of his hacking pursuits, so he had to do something to get back on the news.

  63. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

    You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.

    It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Taliban got information on that informant. It's possible the Taliban decided to go completely against all of their past behavior, and decide to not target any of the leaked informants unless they found independent corroborating evidence--and that is about as likely as every lung cancer death of a smoker being due to causes unrelated to their smoking.

  64. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

    Really Paul? You think it was irrational to fulfill the oath taken and the agreements signed concerning classified information because you (irrationally) believe it would have null effect? How could Lamo or anyone else concisely review the documents for scope? I suppose you have experts instantly available, for free I might add, that just provide this service on call?

  65. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    You need to the read the Wikipedia article and then provide an intelligent response. What you have typed is pure speculation.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  66. More BS by Meniconi,Nando · · Score: 1

    "Afghan informants, for instance" Still pushing this bullshit?

  67. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 2

    I took the same oath when I joined the Navy, and part of that oath is to swear to uphold the Constitution. Manning had information on activities that are clearly unconstitutional. Your argument is what the establishment wants to hear: we must protect secret, illegal government activities that harm millions, if not billions, to protect a few people involved with these programs, even though no evidence can be provided that anyone has directly come to harm from these activities. It seems likely that any harm, even speculatively, that would have come from these disclosures would have been presented by top officials and featured on front page of the Washington Post. But there has been no evidence to support the claims. Lamo made a poor decision.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  68. Manning knew what the consequences were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manning is responsible for the way Manning was treated.

    Manning knew the consequences of his actions if he were caught, that's part of the process of getting a clearance.

    And you had ever actually carried a security clearance you would know that.

    1. Re:Manning knew what the consequences were by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Funny...when I got my clearance I don't remember anything about acceding to torture. Imprisonment? Absolutely. Torture? Supposedly only from the bad guys. oh...wait...

  69. Bradley Manning didn't know and neither did Adrian by elucido · · Score: 1

    Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article.

    Informants named

    Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.

    On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."

    In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.

    Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.

    When you're talking about a leak that big there is no way to know what it could expose. Adrian had no choice, and Bradley Manning betrayed his oath.

  70. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by elucido · · Score: 1

    He also could not know that there would be fallout from the release. What he did was purely speculative. It seems like the prudent thing to do for someone who has genuine concerns about taking an action that would get someone locked up for the rest of the person's life, Lamo could have reviewed the documents himself or inquired about what precautions were being taken. Instead, he seems to have based his decision on what he reads in the newspapers and without contacting any of the parties involved.

    Reviewed the documents himself? Do you know how many documents it was ? We haven't even read all the cables and we haven't been able to review it. It was from the 1970s to 2010 or something.

  71. What activities in specific? by elucido · · Score: 1

    I saw nothing unconstitutional with State Dept cables. You're talking about a different leak.

  72. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by elucido · · Score: 1

    You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.

    It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Taliban got information on that informant. It's possible the Taliban decided to go completely against all of their past behavior, and decide to not target any of the leaked informants unless they found independent corroborating evidence--and that is about as likely as every lung cancer death of a smoker being due to causes unrelated to their smoking.

    It's also possible that certain informants might not actually die in a way which would allow us to think they were killed. Accidents, illnesses, natural causes.

  73. Treason? Come on now by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That's not treason these days. Deliberately and knowingly selling US government owned weapons to some guys that blew up over 150 US marines and a pile of civilians in the previous year is not the treason it looks like and is instead the act of a true Patriot that good Republicans should vote for, according to election PR at the time. Against that measure leaking some stuff that over a million people had access to just does not rate.
    Anybody that cared enough about that information and had the resources to turn one of those million (or a secondary source such as someone working for a US ally) could already get access to that information.

  74. He's not being paid by elucido · · Score: 1

    It'd be nice to see Anonymous take on Lamo as a new "project." Someone ought to teach him that there's a price that comes with being a paid informant, even in a police state.

    There is no indication that he has been paid or that he is being paid. Do you see him in a brand new car? A brand new house? What payment? They didn't even keep his identity a secret. He's known as "the snitch". I think you should do your research, because I can tell you based on mine he has not been paid.

  75. Re:Lamo is self-serving POS - Life is a buffet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a liar. I bet you purchased some asbestos pants.

  76. Mod him up x2! by elucido · · Score: 1

    You know what you're talking about. That is exactly the problem.

  77. Agreed by elucido · · Score: 1

    Mod this guy up! I don't understand how people can be so pissed off about this. It's not Lamo's fault for how Manning was/is treated. If you read the chat logs and everything, Manning seemed really unstable mentally - I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around. On top of all that, Manning's life in exchange for whoever was mentioned in the dumped files is a worthy exchange IMO.

    If he'd come to Lamo and said something like "I'm uncomfortable because I've seen how our government is handling things, and I need to find a proper way to voice and prove this without further threatening anyone's life," I have a feeling Lamo would've actually helped him.

    If it were a situation where Manning were putting the lives of sources at risk then his life should not be considered more valuable than theirs. It's a messed up decision to have to make but I can understand it. There is no way Lamo had the time to review all those documents to know sources would or wouldn't be compromised and if he's going on probability then the probability is high/unacceptable when you're talking about a leak that big.

  78. The US gov is treating Lamo like a throwaway by elucido · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? Diplomatic relations were extremely strained and are still being rebuilt.

    Yes it may have made sense to release critical information regarding military abuses. However the information was not read or sifted through in advance, instead it was dumped wholesale even though the vast majority of it was diplomatic gossip.

    If Adrian Lamo really is a hero who saved lives why isn't Obama, Biden, Senators, Congressmen, or the establishment itself thanking him? Rewarding him? Calling him brave? The way he's being treated should reveal a lot about how he is truly viewed by them.

    Think about it. Bradley Manning is allegedly being tortured. Adrian Lamo is being completely ignored by the powers that be and not receiving any moral support. What is going on with that?

  79. Because people are calling him a snitch/traitor. by elucido · · Score: 1

    He had evidence of espionage and turned over that evidence to authorities who could act on it. Why does he need to justify that?

    And they are calling him that unfairly I might add. And not only that but the US government isn't morally defending him either. So they are basically letting him get called a snitch and traitor etc.

    Where are all those Congressmen to defend Lamo? Where is Obama? Where is FoxNews now?

  80. What crimes? by elucido · · Score: 1

    Cablegate wasn't about any crimes. That was entirely political and that is the worst leak.

  81. Not if he tried to protect lives by elucido · · Score: 1

    I'm going by what he claims he was thinking. He claims he did what he did to protect the lives of sources. That is as far away from being a snitch as possible. A snitch is someone who would leak to the enemy.

  82. Lamo is full of it by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    Trying to make it look like he was concerned. When you look at the chat transcripts, Lamo just badgers Manning for info.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  83. Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. by elucido · · Score: 1

    You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.

    It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Taliban got information on that informant. It's possible the Taliban decided to go completely against all of their past behavior, and decide to not target any of the leaked informants unless they found independent corroborating evidence--and that is about as likely as every lung cancer death of a smoker being due to causes unrelated to their smoking.

    And worse we probably can't expect the government to admit that the leak did result in harm to intelligence sources. It would make the government look bad.

  84. Oh for fucks sake you ignorant twat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really isn't too hard to find.

    Go to Wikileaks.
    Or Google. A quick google gives this:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html

    But you don't want the truth. You can't handle the truth. You want it to be Anti-USA because you're an ignorant arrogant fuckwit who hates the FACT that the USA is one of the biggest if not the biggest terrorist organisations the world has EVER seen.

  85. So procuring underage boys for sex slaves is legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I was thinking that the USA has a law against sex trafficking and paedophile rings.

    Turns out it is all fine and legal.

  86. Re:first! by cffrost · · Score: 1

    fuck, forgot to log in?

    WASHINGTON—Early Saturday morning, The US Internet Cyber-Talk Attribution Agency (ICTAA), along with ICTAA's First Post Validation and Research Group and Fr1st p0sT Incident Response Team, the DOD's Anomalous Authentication and Anonymity Prevention Task Force, and Slashdot Editter's Local 1252 completed their preliminary investigation—message text analysis, server log examination, system administrator interviews, password strength measurement, poster profiling and pattern matching. According to ICTAA press secretary Dick Goatse, ICTAA expects to issue the joint inquiry's official findings report late this week.

    Conditionally speaking as an Anonymous Coward, an official closely involved in the investigation stated that "[the official report] will, in all likelihood, conclude that both of those messages [#42480599 and #42480641] were written by a single author, and that this individual forgot to log in."

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  87. The Homeless Hacker (2004) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, Mr. Lamo: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/hacker_pr.html

  88. U.N. Convention Against Torture by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    I would have turned him in, too. Violating a security clearance IS a major felony, regardless of motivation, and releasing classified information without authority is just flat-out wrong.

    Felony? How about violating a major treaty? The UN Convention Against Torture - signed by that hippie Ronald Reagan - requires prosecution of those who commit torture. A law that Obama has spent 4 years violating by protecting Bushco torturers from prosecution. Then there's the warrantless wiretapping, lying us into 2 wars, violations of the War Powers Act.

    You "but he broke the laaaaaw" guys are all a bunch of fucking hacks. You complain about how Manning broke the law, while ignoring the lawbreaking that Manning revealed. You bleat about how Manning violated the UCMJ, ignoring that the UCMJ prohibits unlawful command influence and requires that trials should take place within 120 days. Manning was held for several times that number before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

  89. offense limited by making shit up by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    ego it would appear in this case.

    Ego, or weak-sauce tautology? If it was ego, Manning would have been publicly running to some state-owned Russian newspaper, not anonymously handing the cables over to Wikileaks.

    You didn't do it for conscience reasons, you did it for other reasons,

    Again, anonymous release of mass corruption and criminality from the United States government and it's allies. How was it not done out of conscience?

    While it seems to be taken as an article of faith on /. that extreme government crimes were revealed, I've yet to have anyone point them out to me.

    So, your attention to detail has been as selective as your storyline.

    That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, "provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi." The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking [to extend the Iraq war beyond the December 2011 deadline established by GWB].

    http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

    The only thing that seems to get referred to is the "collateral murder" video which if you watch unedited clearly shows the opposite: There was no crime, the soldiers engaged per the rules of war (which are quite different from regular civilian laws).

    What "rules of war" allow you first attack unarmed civilians in a country that's not yours, and then do your best to kill anyone attempting to rescue the dying? When other people do that we call it terrorism.

  90. Allegedly people by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    I am not a US Constitution expert but it seems that the presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial is well establish in amendments 5, 6 and 14 to that document. With that in mind I have corrected the most egregious problem with the summary:

    "Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for accusing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, allegedly leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was allegedly risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.

    Whether or not the allegations are true is a matter for the (seemingly absent) speedy trial to decide... not the public rationalisations of the accuser or the court of public opinion.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  91. Benedict Arnold by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm sure ol' Benedict also had a ready supply of justifications.

    Lamo: perfect name.

  92. Oh my God F**K YOU LAMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you horrible, self-serving ass.

    Everyone please support the Bradley Manning Support Network (http://www.bradleymanning.org/ )