Wired Releases Full Manning/Lamo Chat Logs 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.'"
User Settings (Score:2, Interesting)
Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Reward him (Score:2, Interesting)
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:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Interesting)
"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:Bye bye Wired (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Swore to obey? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Again, they officially teach you this in boot camp but then immediately try to convince you that it is not true. Most of what people believe about soldiers' rights and responsibilities is due to a massive campaign of indoctrination, mis- and dis-information targeted at the soldiers and the public.
Wired Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst part is they have allowed lies to go unchallenged for all this time. And they have lied to cover their own ass in the process. Take a look at this tweet [twitter.com]. This is Evan Hansen, the editor in chief at Wired magazine, stating clearly that they have released all relevant portions of the chat logs concerning Manning and Wikileaks.
Now check out this portion of the chat logs.
This explicitly states that Manning and Assange have almost no relationship. Assange doesn't want to know the guy. Yet lies have persisted for this past year saying that Assange coaxed the documents out of Manning. The feds were trying to build a case against Manning based on that assumption. But the chat logs clearly state the opposite is true.
Wired has lied for a year on the subject and has no credibility. How Evan Hansen is still employed there is beyond my understanding.