Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media The Military United States Your Rights Online

Wired Releases Full Manning/Lamo Chat Logs 307

Posted by timothy
from the crossed-fingers-legally-binding dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wired Releases Full Manning/Lamo Chat Logs

Comments Filter:
  • User Settings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crow_t_robot (528562)
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:13AM (#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.

  • Reward him (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:14AM (#36773572)

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

    • by c6gunner (950153)

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

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

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by KiloByte (825081)

            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

        • GP was obviously trolling, suggesting that the journalist did the honorable thing here by betraying Manning, who was blowing the whistle on an untold number of military lies and atrocities.

          It's disgusting to me that people think that the military should be able to do such things and get away with it. It's even worse when they think they should be covered up afterwards for reasons like national security or confidentiality protocols, as if those were more important than making those bastards pay for what they

      • by KiloByte (825081)

        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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:21AM (#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: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Sparx139 (1460489)
      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
    • by abigsmurf (919188)
      "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 detail
      • by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:52AM (#36774542) Journal

        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.

        • by _Sprocket_ (42527)

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

          Which is actually a rather wonderful bit of bait-and-switch. The basic focus of the video is intact - the horrific deaths of a news media crew. But there's some background that gets edited out. Instead, what is always linked to is the edited and editorialized version.

    • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:42AM (#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.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:53AM (#36774552) Journal

        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.

      • 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.

        Remember the video of the death of the Reuters journalist [reuters.com], which the US repeatedly withheld against the wishes of said news agency? Care to guess how it eventually came to light?

    • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:55AM (#36774572) Journal

      However it DID show a lot of reprehensible behavior on the part of the US government,

      Not just reprehensible. Illegal.

      -jcr

    • 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.

      Why not???? You can't say top secret information shouldn't be released just because it is classified as top secret. If it actually _is_ top secret, then yes, I agree that it shouldn't be released. If it's classified as top secret so our military superiors can cover up abuse, then it should be exposed immediately, and all else be damned!

      And as you mentioned in the first line of your post, no harm at all has been caused, so why in hell's name was this information classified as top secret anyways? Because the

  • Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MasterOfMagic (151058) on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:23AM (#36773644) Journal

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:48AM (#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.

    • More than those two, Wired itself has been untrustworthy since the Conde Nast acquisition. Since then, advertorial has increased dramatically. The most recent, glaring, example was the piece fawning about Symantec staff dissecting stuxnet [wired.com]. Read through that piece and count how many references there are to the size and scale of Symantec's resources.

      Of the article's 54 usages of the name "Symantec", the 3rd one down the page is a classic example of PR designed to raise a company's profile among its competi
  • Bye bye Wired (Score:5, Informative)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) <[ten.3dlrow] [ta] [ojom]> on Friday July 15, 2011 @07:27AM (#36773674) Homepage

    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Clever7Devil (985356) on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:30AM (#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.

    • Wired Lies (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jdev (227251) on Friday July 15, 2011 @09:48AM (#36775210)

      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.

      MANNING: he (Julian Assange) knows very little about me
      MANNING: he takes source protection uber-seriously
      MANNING: "lie to me" he says
      LAMO: Really. Interesting.
      MANNING: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about yourself

      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.

  • 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.
  • 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.

    • On the contrary... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jdev (227251) on Friday July 15, 2011 @10:34AM (#36775762)

      ... they contain a significant amount of important information.

      1) Lamo stated the he was a journalist and a priest, so the chat logs would be secret.

      2) They further show Manning's intent for releasing the documents.

      3) Julian Assange had very limited communications with Manning in an effort to protect his sources.

      4) Manning wasn't simply a low level employee as the government has tried to portray. He had direct communications with high level officials.

      5) Wired misled the public by concealing this information for a year and allowed Lamo and others to spread lies about Manning.

      But yeah, besides all that, there is nothing new or revealing.

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department

Working...