Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy 222
Hugh Pickens writes "Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon about the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source and criticized Wired's failure to disclose the full chat logs between Manning and FBI informant Adrian Lamo. Now Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen have responded to criticisms of the site's Wikileaks coverage stating that not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of the story. 'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
Careful word play by Wired (Score:5, Interesting)
Wired stated the following in TFA:
Not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of this story.
I've seen this word play before. In fact, it was done by Portugal's foreign affairs minister, when discussing the issue of CIA flights passing through portuguese territory to move kidnapped "terrorists" to Guantanamo. He also repeatedly iterated that no one had any proof that these flights existed and that the Portuguese government authorized them. Yet, thanks to the cablegate posts from the US embassy in Lisbon [213.251.145.96], it has become clear that that very same minister not only knew those flights were passing through Portuguese territory, and some even making stops in Portuguese airports, but he also had an understanding with the US government that, whenever he was asked about them, he would simply iterate that there wasn't any proof they existed. And notice the subtle detail: he never said they never existed, and only claimed that no one could prove they existed. Subtle and important.
This is exactly the same approach Wired is making to this problem. Wired doesn't claim they never did so. Wired doesn't claim they are innocent nor wired's spokesperson tries to dispel the accusation. Wired only claims that no one can prove they did it. But that, as we've seen before, is not the same thing as not making them.
The Critical Section (Score:5, Interesting)
When The New York Times ran an entirely appropriate and well reported profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — discussing his personality and his contentious leadership style — Greenwald railed against the newspaper, terming the reporters “Nixonian henchmen.”
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.” [twitter.com]
With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” [twitter.com] This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange.
I don't know whether or not Wired is guilty or innocent here. But it seems they've got a fair point about Greenwald, and it seems fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re:And that's what's wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Wikileaks has realised since earlier big leaks that releasing everything at once causes information overflow and the individual atrocities don't get enough attention.
Releasing the cables over a prolonged period of time allows press coverage, discussion and digestion.
In Sweden we're currently somewhat disturbed by the Wikileaks-revealed fact that several laws having been imposed on us during the last few years were dictated by the US, with a threat of sanctions if we didn't implement them even though it was known the populace weren't in favor.
That's info from one single cable.
Re:And that's what's wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
They've released it all to the participating old media magazines, and apparently other have access as well*. The logic, which you don't buy, is also based on earlier observations and thus can be said to be based in fact. It also seems those who have access to all of them believe the reasoning to be sound since no one has dumped them all yet.
*) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038170585686718.html [wsj.com]
Another theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, at one point during the panel I recall someone asking him how he came to know Manning; his response was that Manning found him after reading a little about him online, and then proceeded share a lot of "personal things" with him. The insinuation seemed to be that it wasn't anything as simple as moral opposition to the war or his role in it; the fact that Lamo left it so open and wouldn't go into details seemed to me that Manning may be gay, and was struggling to deal with being a closeted member of the military under DADT policy. If you check Lamo's Wikipedia page, it classified him as being an "LGBT person from the United States". Maybe Manning spoke at length to Lamo about being a closested homosexual, and the frustrations that came with it, especially being in the military?
I could be way off here, but maybe the reason they don't want to release the logs is more to protect Bradley Manning's right not to be outed, or to have other potentially "embarrassing" things revealed about his private life that are irrelevant to the rest of the case.