Is Wired Hiding Key Evidence On Bradley Manning? 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.'"
Re:Fallout... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Compromising which source, exactly? Lamo? Manning? Or the DOJ?
None of these seem to be anonymous at this point.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I'd expect the wikileaks crew to get that.
Re:wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Except for sitting on the D-Day invasion story? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't get worked up over being put in solitary for seven months, being forced to answer every five minutes if you are ok, being woken up every five minutes if your guards decide they can't tell if you are alright on their own, or being denied the ability to exercise outside of pacing for an hour a day for seven months straight, then you either are young enough to be anyone's naive neo-con's child or you really are John Yoo and have no fucking clue what torture is about.
That, or I really did need to link to the article for you, as you obviously hadn't read it and apparently still haven't.