Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Wired Hiding Key Evidence On Bradley Manning?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the also-who-killed-jfk dept.

The Media 381

Hugh Pickens writes "Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon that for more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed but refuses to publish the key evidence in the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source. 'In late May, Adrian Lamo — at the same time he was working with the FBI as a government informant against Manning — gave Poulsen what he purported to be the full chat logs between Manning and Lamo in which the Army Private allegedly confessed to having been the source for the various cables, documents and video which WikiLeaks released throughout this year,' writes Greenwald. Wired has only published about 25% of the logs writes Greenwald and Poulsen's concealment of the chat logs is actively blinding journalists who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do. 'Whether by design or effect, Kevin Poulsen and Wired have played a critical role in concealing the truth from the public about the Manning arrest,' concludes Greenwald. 'This has long ago left the realm of mere journalistic failure and stands as one of the most egregious examples of active truth-hiding by a "journalist" I've ever seen.'"

cancel ×

381 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fallout... (2)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691722)

Publishing evidence is what got Wikileaks in trouble in the first place. I doubt Wired will reveal anything without a subpoena.

Re:Fallout... (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691746)

But they already have revealed sections of the logs with incriminating evidence. What's the point?

Re:Fallout... (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691748)

The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.

They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.

Re:Fallout... (0, Redundant)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691788)

Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.

War is peace.

Re:Fallout... (2, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691868)

This has to be one of the worst uses of a 1984 quote ever. How is it not the height of journalistic integrity to protect the identity of your sources that wish to remain anonymous? Are you saying that they should be giving up this material and thus compromising their source?

Re:Fallout... (5, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691922)

Compromising which source, exactly? Lamo? Manning? Or the DOJ?

None of these seem to be anonymous at this point.

Re:Fallout... (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691978)

Compromising which source, exactly?

In case you didn't actually bother to read the parent quote that started this thread:

They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.

This isn't saying that for sure there is some other unnamed sources they are trying to protect, but if there is and they are withholding this evidence to protect their identities than it very much is the height of journalistic integrity. Now it is also likely there are no other sources. We can't really say and Greenfield is mostly just blubbering.

Re:Fallout... (2)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692072)

Well, actually, we can really say. How many have been arrested and placed into 23-hour-a-day confinement? Exactly one. Mystery solved.

Re:Fallout... (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692170)

Just because one person has been arrested, doesnt mean there are no other "sources".

Re:Fallout... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692256)

Just because I don't think jam will kill me doesn't mean it isn't poisoned either.

There exists a notion of 'likelihood'.

Re:Fallout... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692296)

Just because I have a big dick doesn't mean I'm going to shove it up your ass.

Re:Fallout... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692188)

Yes, which is why they don't want to tatttle on the ones that haven't been arrested yet, if any.

Re:Fallout... (2)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692068)

Wired doesn't need to make excuses until they're legally compelled to release the information with a subpoena or a court order.

Re:Fallout... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692140)

Wired doesn't need to make excuses until they're legally compelled to release the information with a subpoena or a court order.

Indeed. And even then, they could likely refuse to testify against themselves. But then again we're discussing the court of public opinion at this point, not a court of law.

Re:Fallout... (0)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692304)

This is the U.S. We no longer have rule of law.

Re:Fallout... (1)

Rotworm (649729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692280)

I think toastar was referring to doublethink. That something that's the height of journalist integrity is being criticised as being so bad it is beyond "journalistic failure."

Re:Fallout... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692186)

toastar, you are a moron.

Re:Fallout... (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691880)

The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.

They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.

...which is precisely what makes a meta-news-organization like wikileaks so different. They're not trying to protect anyone: they reveal everything and let the consequences be responsible for themselves.

Re:Fallout... (3, Interesting)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692100)

That's not true. Wikileaks protects their sources as much as any journalist does, and for the exact same reason. If you don't protect your sources, you won't have any sources to protect.

Re:Fallout... (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692108)

They're not trying to protect anyone: they reveal everything and let the consequences be responsible for themselves.

On their terms and their timetable. They most definitely have not 'released everything'.
Also, Wired releasing this supposed info could influence an eventual jury (one way or the other).

Re:Fallout... (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692132)

...which is precisely what makes a meta-news-organization like wikileaks so different. They're not trying to protect anyone: they reveal everything and let the consequences be responsible for themselves.

Except that they are now vetting their releases through news organizations in the attempt to avoid criticism over providing names of informants like they did their last release. They are certainly protecting people now. They are certainly revealing less than "everything". And they seem to be much more interested in consequences than originally stated.

Re:Fallout... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691890)

Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.
I don't think they fear this; it certainly didn't prevent The New York Times from publishing material during the Bush (43) administration.

Re:Fallout... (2, Interesting)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691904)

> Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.

Exactly.

Plus, If Wired got the info from a government informant (Adrian Lamo), presumably Lamo should have the info. And the FBI should have the info.

I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.

Re:Fallout... (5, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691950)

I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.

Because it appears that Poulsen is on the job as well. In fact, I've never believed that the May trip to visit Lamo was legit. I've always suspected that this particular non-article was to cover Poulsen's visit to Lamo in which they collaborated on the Manning story. Likely, even, while Lamo was still chatting with Manning.

Unclean hands...

Re:Fallout... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692116)

"It appears"? "I've never believed"? "I've always suspected"?

Maybe whatever you believe is correct. But is there some sort of evidence Poulsen participated in ... whatever you allege he did?

Re:Fallout... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692246)

Since I'm not an active participant in any part of this process, my freedom to draw my own conclusions is completely unimpugned. I can speculate wildly and you can either agree or disagree as you see fit.

Now were I bringing charges, or stating that I know such and such to be a fact then I'd be expected to present some evidence. As I'm doing neither, I'm using the appropriate labels throughout all my conversations, as you have clearly noticed.

Seeing the full logs would settle it, I'd think.

Re:Fallout... (1)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692486)

Here's something to call into question Poulsen's integrity: Lamo has continued to make claims about what Manning told him and how Manning first contacted him. Some of these claims seem to be contradictory. Not only has Poulsen not released the remainder of the logs, he has so far refused to use them to fact-check Lamo's more recent accusations.

Re:Fallout... (1)

LinEagle (1180795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692084)

According to Glen Greenwald in this statement [salon.com] , Poulsen chose to voluntarily withhold the full logs. Nowhere is any mention of national security or other sources mentioned by Poulsen or Greenwald. We should not have to guess at Poulsen's reasons for not disclosing the full logs when he could state right out why.

Re:Fallout... (1)

ChikMag777 (1337235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692176)

Is it that difficult to just redact the names of any other informants/sources?

Re:Fallout... (0)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691762)

Publishing evidence is what got Wikileaks in trouble in the first place. I doubt Wired will reveal anything without a subpoena.

If only there were some sort of site, maybe like a website whose pages were editable by anybody, through which material could be leaked...

Re:Fallout... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692440)

There's evidence that the government put pressure on Lamo beforehand as well, and we won't know what that was. According to Wired, Lamo was arrested prior to Bradley being arrested.
Wired shrugged it off as the police officer noticing strange behavior, and that Lamo wasn't on his meds. However, if you read between the lines, it seems that they were after Wikileaks then, and must have made threats. At that point, Lamo would have felt pressure to come up with a scapegoat, or to give up actual informants, we don't know. In any case, Lamo could have forged those chat logs.

Irony (5, Funny)

mortalmatt (1550837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691752)

So, if someone decides to leak the chat logs will Wikileaks publish them?

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691842)

So, if someone decides to leak the chat logs will Wikileaks publish them?

I would hope so... after all Wikileaks did published the list of Wikileaks donors when it was leaked.

Re:Irony (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692312)

Probably not, since doing so would endanger the welfare of a former American soldier...

So...? (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691772)

So what exactly is /. intimating is in these logs that Wired and the shadowy conspiracy in which they are complicit wants withheld from the public?

Is Wired protecting a source? (2)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691776)

I don't know enough details to decide if Wired is protecting a source (my first instinct) or if they are really holding back the press. I firmly believe that citizens deserve more privacy while governments need to be more open, and Manning sure has the deck stacked against him!

Re:Is Wired protecting a source? (1)

dunng808 (448849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691900)

Wired's duty to protect their sources is more important to the nation -- the people -- than helping the government to prosecute those sources. Democracy demands freedom of the press.

Re:Is Wired protecting a source? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691966)

Wired's duty to protect their sources is more important to the nation -- the people -- than helping the government to prosecute those sources. Democracy demands freedom of the press.

Unless those sources are the government, due to Wired's being employed by the DOJ to solicit Manning's confession.

Re:Is Wired protecting a source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692062)

WTF are you talking about? How did Wired "solicit Manning's confession" if they never once spoke to him? How were they employed by the government? I strongly suspect you're massively confusing Lamo and Paulson, and I suggest you learn the facts before posting.

Re:Is Wired protecting a source? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692088)

Oh, I'm not confusing them. I'm recognizing how entities farm things out to one another in order to obfuscate the true actors in their crimes.

Lamo was a puppet of Wired and Wired was a puppet of the DOJ.

This explains the non-story they printed back in May about Lamo. Not that anyone would have noticed or cared that Poulson spent the weekend with him in San Diego. But they ran a cover story anyway...

Secret Identity! (2)

drakonandor (937885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691784)

From TFA: (1) For the last six months, Adrian Lamo has been allowed to run around making increasingly sensationalistic claims about what Manning told him; journalists then prominently print Lamo's assertions, but Poulsen's refusal to release the logs or even verify Lamo's statements prevents anyone from knowing whether Lamo's claims about what Manning said are actually true. (2) There are new, previously undisclosed facts about the long relationship between Wired/Poulsen and a key figure in Manning's arrest -- facts that Poulsen inexcusably concealed. (3) Subsequent events gut Poulsen's rationale for concealing the logs and, in some cases, prove that his claims are false. Sounds kinda like Assange has a lot in common with #2, and #3.

Whats Greenwald's angle? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691794)

Glenn Greenwald writes

Whats Greenwald's angle? Anyone know?

I read what he's writing, all very good agitprop, but the unreleased info could be used for many different purposes depending on what it is, maybe Greenwald already knows. Or his buddy told him to support it. If it happens to match a pre-existing agenda of his. So in that scenario, if we know his agenda, we know what the unreleased contents are..

Re:Whats Greenwald's angle? (2)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691884)

Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.

However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.

Re:Whats Greenwald's angle? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692288)

Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.

However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.

That sounds like an accurate summary of the guys article, rather than his angle, or agenda or goal, or whatever.

Re:Whats Greenwald's angle? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692490)

Journalistic integrity.

One of Greenwald's many recurring themes is the lack of integrity by journalists who spout an establishment line and stick to it, in the face of overwhelming evidence the line contradicts reality. The media's handling of Wikileaks has been a topic of interest for the last few months because it demonstrates the extreme lack of integrity that Greenwald has been highlighting, notably:

  • The repeating of government talking points that are, in fact, counter-factual (such as the commonly repeated untruth that Wikipedia has published 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables.)
  • The refusal to address the actual scandals raised by the leaks (in part because many of them implicate the media as well - see the Dyncorp child rape scandal as an example of where press collusion using the "Lives will be lost" excuse is virtually an aside by the diplomats involved.)
  • The side lining of government critics and concentration on talking heads that buttress the pro-government position
  • And in this case, an ex-con with a history of mental illness has his, contradictory, accounts of his role in the capture of the alleged leaker published, uncritically and with no health warning, as a lead New York Times story, with a refusal by those who have the logs that show what actually happened to publish that information.

Those are the four that spring to mind just off the top of my head. Read Greenwald's blog for a more in depth analysis with appropriate links to articles discussing it.

General background: Greenwald is a fairly respected anti-establishment left-wing constitutionalist media critic whose entries frequently result in upset amongst the media establishment. Reportedly, Barack Obama considers Greenwald his critic of conscience because of Greenwald's related attacks on Obama's continuation of many of Bush's executive-supremacy policies. Despite the subjective nature of many of his subjects, his articles tend to be well researched, linked to supporting evidence, albeit with a tone that puts many people off.

here we go again. (1)

sigterm9 (1192467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691796)

This is beginning to sound like a "domino effect" of anyone who has any info relating to those events...

Journalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691856)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :)

Ethics lecture from a sock puppet (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691862)

Greenwald has a sock puppet past, so it is a bit hard to take his great moral indignation too seriously. Google Greenwald sock puppet to see the posts on the topic.

Give it to Assange ... (2)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691866)

... if he doesn't publish it, then we'll have proof of what many of us have strongly suspected: he's a hypocrite.

Greenwald must be bored (0, Troll)

cartoonduck (1114287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691872)

with attacking all the other people who don't see his vast conspiracy theories and how everyone is against you. They're watching you right now! Pull the drapes! Maybe Wired just isn't following the new norm of shooting their mouth off without all the facts and are, you know, checking the sources and considering what the repercussions might be.

Pot meet kettle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691888)

Wired not publishing all of the information it has? OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOEZ! Wikileaks does the same shit, not to mention blackmail as well.

wtf (-1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691896)

OH KNOCK IT OFF, What Manning did was uphold the Declaration of Independence.... the part that says its the right and duty of Americans to keep their government in check. We need information to do that.

He supplied information to enable Americans to do their duty where the rest of this damn government is hiding everything they can, including their stupid babel.

Their are near 7 billion people on this planet and some fraction of 1% that playing the childish hide and seek game of waring information that messes with teh rest of us.

Maybe the governments need to stop playing with their war toys and i8nstead use the resources to actually fix real problems where doing so will remove waring motives.

If there is anything to know from all the leaks its simply this:

The few in positions to cause war have mental handicaps and they should be institutionalized and I don't mean the institution called Government.

Re:wtf (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691934)

He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.

Re:wtf (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692012)

Oh, hey, then all the government needs to do is uphold their part of the bargain is charge him with a crime, and give him a trial. I doubt he signed anything saying that if he was accused of leaking secrets, he could be held without trial and tortured. But, given who he works for and their previous history of torturing people they don't like, he should have known what they would do to him, eh?

Re:wtf (4, Insightful)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692082)

Before being granted access to classified information an individual must meet three criteria:

1) Hold a current security clearance
2) Possess a valid need to know
3) Have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)

Private Manning, if he's done what most suspect he's done, has violated the terms of the NDA he signed. He is therefore subject to the requisite prosecution under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for violating the NDA.

If he hasn't been to trial yet, it's only because the case is still being built against him. The military will not prosecute him if they are unable to make a convincing case of his guilt. As soon as they have that case, Manning will then have his day in court.

Re:wtf (5, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692156)

And until then, they are free to torture him [salon.com] to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out of him? I think not.

When did acting like the villains out of a WWII or Cold War spy flick become publicly acceptable for the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world?

Re:wtf (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692458)

And until then, they are free to torture him [salon.com] to their hearts content in an effort to force compliance out out of him?

According to Manning's lawyer [armycourtm...fense.info] he isn't being tortured and the guards at the facility where he is being held are treating him professionally.
Greenwald doesn't really say much about how Manning is being held and gets some of that wrong. Some of the stuff he complains about, like not being allowed to exercise in his cell, are standard rules in military prisons. Sure, I wouldn't want to be put in Manning's position, but Greenwald overstates the isolation Manning is subjected to and selectively quotes a couple of articles dealing with real isolation to prove how this is damaging to Manning.

Re:wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692382)

As soon as they have that case, Manning will then have his day in court.

Many many, many many many years from now. Probably several presidents down the line, actually. But hey! No need to rush things.... This is a Democratic Republic, after all.

Re:wtf (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692428)

He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.

Well, shit, we should throw him in jail and throw away the key. he broke a contract!!!! That's worse then, maybe, killing civs and covering it up. I know I think that.

Wake the fuck up. Dude did what his conscious had him do. And he did right. Now it's up to us to help him out.

Where's my Free Bradley Manning tshirts at?

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691988)

But all I want's a Pepsi.

Re:wtf (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692008)

1. The Declaration of Independence isn't law.
2. Manning was a solder and may have broken his oath.

Members of the military are under CIVILAN command. The only right that applies is if he was given an illegal order. Keeping those cables secret violates no laws or in any way the UCMJ.

If Manning is the source he committed criminal acts. Obeying orders is not an option for a member of the military of a free nation. They must be under the control of the civillian government.

Re:wtf (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692124)

The Declaration of Independence is the spirit of the Constitution of the United States you fucking commie.

Manning most certainly did break his oath, if not the law. However, it is not the job of the press to hand evidence to convict him of those things to the government.

I have no doubt that most of the WikiLeaks stuff that got out was just ordinary security breech. SOME of it however, is probably illegal black ops stuff. That leaves some gray areas as far as Manning goes, it is NOT his duty to execute illegal orders, and it could be argued that it is his duty to expose illegal acts by diplomats and US Government officials even if he is ordered not to.

Only a fucking commie would think otherwise.

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692206)

For he's a wanker, he's a wanker, la la la la la lar. Fuck off yourself nazi cunt faggot.

Re:wtf (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692294)

It could be argued except that he isn't a judge.
Also the vast majority of wikileaks are not illegal acts. So they can just convict on those.
if he did it. He is still innocent until proven guilty.

Re:wtf (1)

bball99 (232214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692138)

thanks for pointing this out... i suspect not too many /. readers understand military service, the UCMJ, and enlistment oaths...

if Manning is guilty, he is in deep doo-doo and is looking at a long stretch in Leavenworth (i doubt he'll would get the death penalty)...

Re:wtf (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692320)

It will make little difference because they don't care, understand or want to understand.
The danger of a military that feels it is above the civilian government is outside the understanding of most US citizens.
Also thanks for also using the the wording if Manning is guilty as I have.
They also don't understand that he still has to go to court.

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692498)

Mm.. would be rather too ironic if the only verifiable 'blood on their hands' would be from the execution of the American boy.

Right idea, wrong argument (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692344)

IANAL, so the below opinion represents a non-legal reading of the various treaties, obligations and rulings. A judge may well reach a different conclusion. In fact, were Judge Pickles involved (different country so he can't and he retired anyway), any judgement might be possible. The guy was living proof of the razor-edge between genius and utter insanity. However, I feel that even if my reading is legally incorrect, the cited texts should still be taken into consideration.

The Supreme Court has long decided that the Declaration of Independence is just so much scrap paper with no legal backing whatsoever. The argument needs to be stronger.

Now, under US law, all International Treaties that the US has signed up to have the weight of US law. Maybe that will offer some possibilities.

Article 29 of the Second Hague Convention: An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Well, there's no claim that he used false pretenses to access the material or that he did so clandestinely. Nor is there any claim that he communicated it to the hostile party.

Article 31 states: A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

So if he, after giving the information to Wikileaks, acted correctly under the commanding officer and committed no offence at the time of his arrest would not qualify as a spy as he had "rejoined the army to which he belongs".

Nurenberg Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

Nurenberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

Taken together, this would mean that if Manning's silence would be a crime under international law, then it would be a criminal act even if it was (a) legal in the US and (b) ordered by his superiors. Thus, we now have to establish if his silence was a criminal act.

Principle IV also states:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Under (ii), silence would be partitipation in a common plan or conspiracy, provided the acts he was aware of were indeed illegal.

Article 5 of the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded on the Field of Battle (Red Cross Convention) states: Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected, and shall remain free. The generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity, and of the neutrality which will be the consequence of it.

Thus, bombing civilians rendering aid, regardless of who they are aiding, is an illegal act. Which would make Manning's silence an illegal act under Principle IV above.

So, from this we can reasonably conclude that Manning (a) is not a spy or guilty of espionage (regardless of any US law to the contrary, since international law supercedes it), and (b) would have been guilty of a war crime had he not released the information.

This does NOT make him innocent of any crime. It merely makes him innocent of the crime that is popularly attached to him. There may well be legal grounds for disciplining him for his method of non-silence, but legally he was obliged under international law to be non-silent.

Anyone want to start a pool? (2)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691898)

Anyone want to start a pool on when Anonymous will DDoS Wired for not supporting Wikileaks?

Re:Anyone want to start a pool? (1)

peteinok (1825618) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692022)

Anyone want to start a pool on when Anonymous will DDoS Wired for not supporting Wikileaks?

one week.

Working on 4chan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692464)

Slashdot says they are working on 4chan now, so perhaps when they are done with that. Oh wait.

Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691912)

This is all hearsay and wouldn't be accepted in any reputable courtroom anyway.
For all we know Lamo is guilty and could be just trying to shove the blame on someone else.

Lamo: I did it. I met Manning on disgruntled-army-boys.net and thought he would be a good scapegoat.
Poulsen: Interesting...

What the fuck? (3, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691914)

Ok, totally baffled here. We don't know what, if any, sort of information Poulsen has about a possible link between Manning and Wikileaks. If he does possess such information, then what he has is information about a confidential source relationship. Greenwald is suggesting that the failure to release this information somehow is a failure of journalistic integrity on the part of Poulsen? I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism. Perhaps he's upset that Poulsen doesn't work for Wikipedia and should therefore divulge any information he has. I find it hard to believe that professional journalists would make it a habit of outing each other's sources in such a manner. What is this guy smoking?

Re:What the fuck? (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692038)

What source? There are basically only three people involved here: Manning, Lamo, and Poulsen. If third parties are mentioned in the chats between Manning and Lamo, Poulsen is under no journalistic obligation to protect those identities because they are not sources. At the very least he could at least verify the veracity of the public revelations of his compatriot, Lamos.

Re:What the fuck? (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692122)

Greenwald is suggesting that the failure to release this information somehow is a failure of journalistic integrity on the part of Poulsen? I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism.

You mean like how Lamo and by extension Poulsen promised Manning journalistic confidentiality as a source for a Wired article?

Re:What the fuck? (5, Interesting)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692154)

If he does possess such information, then what he has is information about a confidential source relationship... I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism.

You do realise that it was Lamo (Wired journalist) who turned his source over to the FBI? The evidence suggests that Wired and/or their journalist staff do not have an absolute policy of protecting their sources.

Re:What the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692298)

My translation of this article "Whaaa! He might have information that I don't and I don't think that is fair. Whaaa!"

Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are Informants (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691916)

It's been an open secret for some time that Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are both federal informants and have been since they were released from prison. That was part of the deal that they made with the government when arrested to avoid the hell that Kevin Mitnick went through when arrested. Even if it weren't an open secret, their actions in regards to Bradley Manning and Wikileaks expose them.

The chat log between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning will likely never see the light of day.

Re:Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are Informants (1)

yoyoq (1056216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692262)

mod parent up

Re:Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are Informants (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692286)

To add to this a bit more, didn't Lamo break California law by misrepresenting himself as a journalist while being an informant for the Feds? That brings up Fed vs. State legal wranglings, but it still rubs me the wrong way that he committed what amounts to wire fraud for the Feds. I guess when you work for the other side you really do get a golden pass.

Mannings only mistake was talking to the wrong person. Of course there is also the illusion that he was the only source, and leak. Yea, not buying that one personally.

Re:Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are Informants (2)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692394)

... and the assertion that Manning sought out an attention-whore loser like Lamo to "confess" to is absurd. Most likely he contacted Poulson who fobbed him off on Lamo as a sort of firewall.

The chat logs are important because they contain the only evidence that Manning did anything at all. And Lamo got to play with them before anyone else saw them.

Re:Kevin Poulsen and Adrian Lamo are Informants (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692488)

Okay, sure, they may well have something going on with the government. But why does them being informants mean that they have information that is going to be more or less damning than what was already released? How does it serve the government to keep that secret?

<published>
Lamo: So you felt you had the duty to release those classified documents, no matter what the consequences?
Manning: Oh yeah, I so totally leaked that shit.... I could not stand by and watch as people got killed for nothing. Fuck those bastards.
</published>

<hidden>
Manning: Disregard that, just joking. L-O-L
Manning: You're not going to publish that, right?
Lamo: Of course not. What do you think I am, an FBI informant?
Manning: Haha, whew!
Lamo: And that's uh, Bradley Manning right? Of 1204 First Street?
Manning: Uh yeah, why?
Lamo: For the autographed Wired mousepad, of course!
Manning: RAD!
</hidden>

Good journalism often edits out info ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691954)

Good journalism often edits out info. There are often details or info that does not add to an article. Redundant, off topic or tangential material can make an article worse and dilute or confuse the point of the article. Consider that a total dump of all info and data is what hostile parties due when they want to hide meaningful information in response to a court order to provide info or data. Journalism is often about sifting through this mess to find the meaningful info, not merely repeating the total dump.

Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (1, Insightful)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691996)

Seriously, just because you can publish something, it doesn't mean you should. Sometimes it makes sense to sit on a story.

Not that I'd expect the wikileaks crew to get that.

Re:Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (3, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692190)

If they were just sitting on it, you'd have a point. But what they actually did was release choice tidbits of the chat logs and then refuse to publish anymore or even answer questions such as "Did Manning actually say this in the logs?".

Which only makes sense if you are trying to frame Manning or milk your 'exclusivity' to the detriment of Manning.

Re:Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (1)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692238)

It's possible that they are milking this, but it's also possible that they have legitimate reasons for holding parts back (e.g. to protect a source). My core point is that the last line of the OP is a bit over the top IMO.

Re:Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692436)

Answering questions like "Did Manning really claim to have physically dropped off a hard drive with Assange" doesn't require anything more than a yes or no or at worse, the relevant portion of the chat logs published.

And obviously, they know how and are willing to do just that, or they'd have not published anything at all.

Which leads us back to the argument I've made. This has squat to do with 'journalistic integrity' or 'protecting national secrets'. It's about either being part of a frame up or milking their limelight of being the only folk with access to the logs.

The Manning logs were NOT about the leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692024)

The discussions with Manning involved doing layout work for Wired.

Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (4, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692060)

This is merely my suspicion, but I feel that the entirety of the content of those logs would reveal that Manning was caught in a sting by the DOJ. That the story of Manning finding someone, anyone to brag to was false and that Lamo sought direct contact to solicit the confession. This is the most-likely scenario, as I suspect it:

1) DOJ contacts Wired via Rasch informing him of this 'lead' about one of the biggest cyber-crimes of all time. Chances are the military knows that Manning has leaked something, but they can't prove it. They need a confession before they can attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

2) Poulsen hires Lamo for the job. Note the non-story Poulsen wrote about Lamo in May. This was likely a cover to hide their extended contact at that time.

3) Lamo contacts Manning using information given to him by the DOJ and violates his civil rights in order to solicit a confession that otherwise would not hold up in court.

4) Manning is arrested and those logs are secured from the public's eyes under the guise of 'national security'.

That's how I see it. It just makes more sense than the story we're being told. Please do poke holes in it if you can, because where I sit right now, Wired is a fairly disgusting entity deserving some charges being brought of their own.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692150)

If Lamo is on being paid by the FBI it would seem reasonable that Wired would be cautious about using an account of the exchange with Manning which came only from Lamo. They may as well just get the version from the FBI.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (3, Interesting)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692214)

In the comments section of that Greenwald post (called "Letters"), many are also asking how authentic the chat logs are: aren't they just text files anybody with Notepad can generate?

I'm also wondering if maybe Lamo and Poulsen, under the orders of Rasch, doctored a "chat conversation" up to get rid of Manning who has been seen as trouble (because of his independent thinking streak). I'm starting to wonder if Manning is the leaker at all, is there any proof of that other than an alleged chat that took place, based on the evidence of a text file?

Maybe they knew they got a leak, and they needed to take down WikiLeaks, and they thought, "we can do this by taking a US soldier, put him in solitary until he loses his mind, and then he'll say whatever we want him to say (like 'Assange coerced me into doing it!'), do we have a monkey we can use for that?"

"How about this troublesome Manning kid?".

Hey, if they can change the story about that girl soldier who was taken peacefully from a hospital into a "we ambushed the enemy stronghold to get her!" piece of news.

Posted not anonymously, hello CIA database! I guess I won't be visiting the US for a long time, maybe when a free country rises up from the ashes of the burnt-down empire.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692278)

Yeah, that's possible, but it doesn't seem quite as likely. Hard to say though. Very good point.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (3, Interesting)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692504)

I'm starting to wonder if Manning is the leaker at all, is there any proof of that other than an alleged chat that took place, based on the evidence of a text file?

Bingo. None that anyone knows of.

Incidentally, Lamo himself has said that he told Manning that (a) he (Lamo) is a journalist and source shield laws would protect Manning, and (b) he (Lamo) is an ordained minister and that priest/penitent laws would make Manning's "confession" inadmissible. Yes, Lamo himself has said he said these things. Are they in the chat logs? Good question, and it makes a lot of difference.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692272)

3) Lamo contacts Manning using information given to him by the DOJ and violates his civil rights in order to solicit a confession that otherwise would not hold up in court.

How is confessing to a paid informant a violation of Manning's civil rights? This isn't an entrapment situation. You realize that using paid informants (who elicit confessions and then testify) has been standard police practice for 500 years? The American "check" on this process is that Lamo will testify at Manning's trial that Manning confessed to the crimes and then Manning's attorneys can impeach Lamo's testimony based on his status as a paid informant. The jury can then weigh Lamo's credibility. IAAL and this is the standard plot for most criminal trials, at least with respect to paid informants.

Re:Poulsen, Lamo, Rasch, Wired - All on the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692472)

You forgot:

5) Pressure Manning (by months of solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and promised of a reduced sentence) into signing a 'confession' that fingers Assange (and Wikileaks) as co-conspirators.

6) DOJ then have the legal tools to bring extradite Assange and begin the legal process to shut down Wikileaks.

Wikileaks has been a thorn in the US's side for years (moreso now than ever before), but until now they have not had the direct evidence to charge Assange with anything. With Lamo telling reporters that there is a link between Manning and Assange, he is effectively leaking the DOJ's plan to boost his own ego. Problem is that everything released in chat logs so far seem to indicate there is no link between Manning and Assange. I'm willing to bet that there is nothing in the logs that show any link whatsoever. It is more likely that the link to Wikileaks was either Lamo or Poulsen (or both).

They are gonna release it soon (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692142)

Together with pictures of the WMD's in iraq. They guy is being set up. Put in isolation for months and soon he will sign a 'confession' that Assange put him up to it. If there is one thing we can learn from wikileaks, than it is that the US government easily falls under the terrorists-label. They can not, and should not, be trusted. Ask that german guy who was kidnapped and tortured by the cia if you believe different.

FDL's chart covering Manning, Lano, and wikileaks (1)

LinEagle (1180795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692282)

This chart [firedoglake.com] was compiled by FDL and readers. Covers the whole timeline of what happened when and by who.

Can't anybody else ask Adrian Lamo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692334)

Hey reporter-dudes, track him down!

Have the rules of evidence changed? (1, Interesting)

Tangential (266113) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692500)

"concealment of the chat logs is actively blinding journalists who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do"

Have the rules of evidence changed? Is there now a requirement on the judicial system that all evidence be turned over to journalists to investigate and report on their interpretation of what Manning did or did not do. This seems more like a requirement placed on them by their parent organizations who need such stories and speculation to generate income.

If I were Manning, I would want evidence presented under the rules of evidence without prejudicial interpretations by the press.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?