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!

Wired Releases Full Manning/Lamo Chat Logs

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the crossed-fingers-legally-binding dept.

The Media 307

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

cancel ×

307 comments

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

Ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773534)

Sucked in.

Re:Ha ha (1)

Krokant (956646) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773558)

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

Re:Ha ha (-1, Flamebait)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773618)

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

You mean kinda like the lies that Manning told when he swore to obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over him?

Yeah.

Fuck 'im. His life is ruined because of his own actions - blaming a reporter is ludicrous.

Besides, the information wanted to be free! The public had a right to know! Etc. etc. <insert more platitudes here>

Re:Ha ha (4, Insightful)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773652)

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

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

Oath (4, Informative)

OpenYourEyes (563714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773762)

The oath that one takes when enlisting is:

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

Re:Oath (5, Insightful)

Methos137 (1172787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773920)

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

Re:Oath (1)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774212)

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

Re:Oath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36774338)

Befehl ist befehl! Nicht raisonieren!

Re:Oath (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774274)

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

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

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

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

Re:Oath (1)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774366)

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

Re:Oath (1)

Mana Mana (16072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774272)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

PFactor (135319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773764)

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

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773766)

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

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774530)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773768)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774532)

we only have one soldier willing to uphold his oath.

No, there are many more. [oathkeepers.org]

-jcr

Re:Ha ha (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773828)

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

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

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

Re:Ha ha (2)

mosinu (987941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773952)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773884)

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

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

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

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773770)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774288)

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

Re:Ha ha (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774342)

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

Swore to obey? (1)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774184)

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

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

Re:Swore to obey? (4, Insightful)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774304)

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

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

Re:Swore to obey? (4, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774412)

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

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

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

Re:Ha ha (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774114)

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

hehehelol

Blah Blah Blah (-1, Troll)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773552)

Here we go again...

Manning did nothing wrong.

Wired did everything wrong.

Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.

Blah blah blah.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (3, Insightful)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773620)

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

I have absolutely no respect for Wired, fuck them.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773658)

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

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773730)

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

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773826)

#1 fail troll isn't failing because you are taking the bait.
#2 fail troll is an AC, so why bother responding at all?

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773686)

I have absolutely no respect for Wired, fuck them.

They're Conde Nast, what do you expect?

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

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774132)

Oh my. Poor Poor Reddit. Its doomed.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1, Offtopic)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773726)

Just the response (and modding) I expected.

No surprise there.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0, Flamebait)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773760)

blah blah blah, fuck you and your nationalism.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773646)

I hope you die alone and screaming in pain.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773698)

usa army fucked up seriously when they sent manning overseas. I mean, do they even run psych checks and if they do what the fuck for and what the fuck for do guys sitting on computers just looking through information on a desk job need to be sitting in iraq when drones are flown from washington?

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773738)

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

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

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773948)

Do us all a favor and stop coming.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773784)

Here we go again...

Manning did nothing wrong.

Wired did everything wrong.

Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.

Blah blah blah.

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

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

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

User Settings (2, Interesting)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773560)

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

Re:User Settings (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773624)

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

What A Disgusting Comment (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773780)

And the fact its modded up really shows how sadistic you people are. Whether you like what Lamo did or not, nobody deserves to be physically assaulted for it.

Wishing for someone to be so violently killed is a reprehensible and vile thought. You should be ashamed of yourselves and the moderators should be ashamed for letting this comment stand.

How about you reserve some of your anger towards Manning who betrayed his country and his people for leaking those documents?

Re:What A Disgusting Comment (4, Insightful)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773822)

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

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

Re:What A Disgusting Comment (5, Insightful)

fredrated (639554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773912)

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

Re:What A Disgusting Comment (0)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774166)

In your world what has changed because this kid leaked some documents? Moral high ground or not, was the leak worth it to America (or the world)? If it wasn't for slashdot I'd forget all about it.

Back when I took the delta brief it was made pretty damn clear that I'd spend 7 or more years in a military prison for espionage, not too many years before that people were told they would receive the death penalty for the same activity. Strategic leaks happen all the time, these are intentional, to make an analogy of sorts, wholesale stealing an Elint Parameter List from the safe to OCR and email off to wikileaks over the weekend, you just don't do that crap regardless of how the data is obtained - assuming you value your freedom anyway.

(I love you DSD, I know you read this!)

Re:What A Disgusting Comment (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774468)

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

Re:User Settings (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774054)

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

Who are these people? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773562)

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

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

Re:Who are these people? (5, Funny)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773608)

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

Re:Who are these people? (4, Funny)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773710)

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

Re:Who are these people? (4, Funny)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773818)

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

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

Re:Who are these people? (0)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773834)

Seconded. US != the whole world && != /. readership

Re:Who are these people? (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774268)

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

Reward him (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773572)

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

Re:Reward him (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773692)

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

Re:Reward him (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773720)

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

Re:Reward him (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774392)

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

Re:Reward him (1, Troll)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774520)

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

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

Re:Reward him (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774528)

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

Yeah, Assange is not even an US citizen.

On the payroll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773576)

This tells me Lamo was definitely on the payroll and actively looking to take out people like this. Why else troll for more information to hang the kid after Lamo had been in Manning's shoes before?

News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773582)

Young soldier manipulated by everybody. News at 11...

Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773616)

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

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (0)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773752)

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (2)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773796)

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773838)

Technically, his exposure of the video of it has resulted in the investigation of the people responsible to become tainted and to make them prosecutable under the UCMJ.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773836)

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774122)

You win. No more posting before coffee.

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774022)

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (1, Flamebait)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773968)

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

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (2)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774012)

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

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

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (3, Insightful)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774542)

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

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

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (5, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774422)

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

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

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

Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774552)

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

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

News of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773640)

Did they hack his phone too? Seems to be the way of the world at the moment... anything for a sale, a story or a photo.

Netcraft Confirms It (5, Interesting)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773644)

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

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

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

Re:Netcraft Confirms It (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773840)

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

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

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

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

Re:Netcraft Confirms It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36774018)

He should be in solitary confinement simply for being a massive cunt, not Manning.

FTFY

Re:Netcraft Confirms It (0, Troll)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774462)

Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen are rats and not to be trusted,

What about that dude who lied during his security clearance (violated oath of non-disclosure), as well as his military oath? Should he be trusted?

Honestly its a little crazy that people are making Lamo's lie the worst crime imaginable and completely ignoring the fact that Manning violated his word and the military's faith in him repeatedly. I dont believe Lamo took a "solemn oath" to Manning; but his implied promise carries more weight than Manning's explicit one?

So? (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773666)

What sort of craven spin does Wired have about why it left those particular bits of the transcript out?

Regardless of what you think about either Manning or Lamo, there would seem to be no journalistic logic behind leaving out what they did. There are redactions that make journalistic sense; but this one seems mendacious at best.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773774)

this one seems mendacious at best

Generosity can be good. You are a generous person.

Re:So? (4, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773782)

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

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773906)

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

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

Fuck Wired (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774370)

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

Bye bye Wired (5, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36773674)

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

Re:Bye bye Wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773824)

Ummm, Wired did say they published the chat logs after other journals published them. More importantly, they didn't publish the entire logs of Manning's sake (not Lamo who was the one who gave them the chat logs in the first place with no indication that any of it was off the record).
So I don't think this is up there with News of the World.

Re:Bye bye Wired (3, Interesting)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774256)

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

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

Protections? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773734)

I wasn't aware there were any legal protections in a priest-penitent relationship, actually. I thought it was just that investigators refuse to continue questioning, but there was no actual special status attached, legally.

Re:Protections? (2)

kmcarr (1185785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774228)

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

How is this different? Why the outrage here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36773908)

Manning releases a ton of stuff that he received in the Army 'in confidence' (one way to view a security clearance.) And now Lamo releases a bunch of stuff he received from Manning 'in confidence'. Why are Lamo's actions -so different from- Manning's actions?

Re:How is this different? Why the outrage here? (2)

Enry (630) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774356)

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

what's not to get? (4, Insightful)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774378)

short version:

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

Is Lamo entirely sane? (2)

pinkeen (1804300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774278)

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

Re:Is Lamo entirely sane? (2)

pinkeen (1804300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774310)

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

This shows just how big an idiot Manning is (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36774330)

Very early on Lamo states that his ex is/was a 97B That is Counterintelligence, not the 97E/35M that Manning thought it was be. Lamo was smart, he hinted very early that he had connections to Army Counterintelligence and Manning drove on, so Lamo fed him the BS to let the punk hang himself.

Good on Lamo, manning is a traitor, despite what the /. children claim, there is nothing heroic or noble about what manning did. He leaked our nations secrets, that's espionage, he did it while we are at war (even if undeclared) in two nations, that's treason. And he should face the full penalty. We have no right to those classified documents. The existence of secrets != the existence of wrong doing. Nations have secrets to enable diplomats to converse with each other and to aid negotiations. The Military has secrets because we don't want the enemy to know exactly what we plan on doing next. Nowhere is there any promise or statement that says every single bit of information collected by or created by the government belongs and should be open to the people. Any such government would be used and abused by the nations of the world, it would be unable to have any military successes as the enemies of that country would always know exactly what it was targeting and how it was planning to attack.

Manning is a Traitor, Lamo may have his past history of criminal acts, but in this case he is the real Hero.

Re:This shows just how big an idiot Manning is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36774398)

nice try lamo...

i thought that only cops... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36774438)

were allowed to lie to you with impunity?

Should have continued to withhold. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36774508)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>