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)
Re: (Score:2)
do it, publish it somewhere, submit the story and I will mark the submission as "+ interesting". deal?
Re:What A Disgusting Comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Manning did not betray this country. He betrayed the Bush and Obama administrations.
Re:What A Disgusting Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Who are these people? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who are these people? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who are these people? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
This is slashdot, and apparently people still not know how to use Google around here? If you don't know something, LOOK IT UP.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called journalism. It only takes 10 or fewer words to give that context, and your readers are much better off for it.
But you're right -- this is slashdot. If you're expecting proper journalism, you're looking in the wrong place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this particular Wikileaks leak did have an impact that was felt pretty much throughout the world...
Reward him (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just hope his Medal of Honor won't be posthumous...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think civilian journalists can be awarded the Medal of Honour. But it's the thought that counts.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
You also dont generally get a Medal of Honor for violating your solemnly given oaths.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Let's look at the description (per Wikipedia): ." Due to the nature of its criteria, it is often awarded posthumously (likely also check)
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)
Thus, it is certain Manning
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Facts: Lets be clear on some facts here (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Forgetting something? (Score:3)
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?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
How did Manning's leak in any way result in that happening?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You win. No more posting before coffee.
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: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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you are forced to work for a corrupt organization are you bound by an oath to the same? You know you are not! History has told you,
Re:Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Iraq affair alone had around a million of civilian casualties by various credible estimates, about 80000 of which were directly confirmed. Plus about 2.5 million refugees.
Unless you mean World Wars I and II or or one of the Japanese Imperial or US Imperial Conquests, a typical conflict in the 19th century had less then 100,000 casualties on both sides, vast majority of them soldiers. 20th century co
Re:Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
That sure sounds like a fucking solemn oath to me.
Re:Netcraft Confirms It (Score:5, Insightful)
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Mission Accomplished. (Especially the "against domestic enemies" of the Constitution part.)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the crimes that Manning exposed? Do you think it was more important for him to cover that up?
Do you really think an honor code is worth preserving when it's abused to keep atrocities covered up? I really appreciate what Manning did. Thanks to him, I know that US military can no longer be trusted to keep the right things classified. Lamo on the other hand made it that much harder for people trying to expose the military for doing such horrible things.
Both Manning and Lamo are traitors. But I say t
Bye bye Wired (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
O RLY (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]. Even the Pentagon admits that there's no evidence anyone was endangered by this leak. So how about naming some of the "people, programs, and processes" that were endangered? I mean, besides the ones that involve the US gov't lying to the American people and then covering it up. I'm sure THOSE programs really were endangered.
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.
Is Lamo entirely sane? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have continued to withhold. (Score:2)
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)
... 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.
Re:Should have continued to withhold. (Score:5, Insightful)
And [Manning was] a traitor. Don't forget that part.
I'll go 10 to 1 that you would've been on the side of the British, cheering whenever one of the traitor colonists was caught and trussed up.
Is there space in that head thing of yours for the idea that Our Country may require a course correction? And that those who cause such a correction are not automatically wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
They're Conde Nast, what do you expect?
They've drained the respectability from everything they've touched.
Re: (Score:2)
Ars is still doing ok....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We must be terrorists now!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So were the generals who plotted to kill Hitler evil traitors?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, obviously Manning should have had a HOSTS file installed, as that would have prevented any security breach whatsoever!!
hehehelol
Re:Ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oath (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was in downtown Boston on the 4th of July weekend, and happened upon a unique memorial: it was six four-sided pillars, each about 50 feet high, of clear glass. Pretty, actually. Then I looked closer to see what was etched into the glass. It was a collection of numbers, almost like serial numbers, or concentration camp IDs. My wife nearly collapsed at the realization. All those people, dead, because soldiers were "following orders."
A -human's- first order of responsibility is to do what's right.
Did that include the dog tags of those who died following orders on D-Day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's in descending order of priority?
So the constitution would be most important.
Re: (Score:3)
There are ways to go about dealing with such problems without leaking secrets. No matter how much passion is involved, there is no legal military right to do what Manning did.
There was also no necessity. There are many ways an experienced G.I. could have tackled the problem.
Manning could, for example, have contacted appropriate Congresscritters with a description of what he'd found and how an investigation could review the content. Doing multiple Congressional contacts would mean each would know the other k
Re:Oath (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the cover-up went straight to the top and everyone covered for each other. That was for the death of one (famous) soldier. I don't know what else is in the leaked Manning documents but just the Iraqi reporters being attacked by helicopter gunships was enough to disgust me.
I don't necessarily agree with what Manning did but I don't disagree either. About the only thing I *DO* know is that he is utterly screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
When he thinks that he is likely to be vindicated instead of spending 10 years busting bricks in Leavenworth for insubordination. Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct:http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm [about.com] -- usually the CM settles on Leavenworth (there hasn't been an execution in the US military since the 60s).
Folks on /. are keen on mocking the "I
Re: (Score:3)
Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death
It's a good thing for him that we haven't been at war since World War II
Re: (Score:2)
It is most certainly not to obey any individual. The UCMJ takes care of that.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there is nothing in those documents that show otherwise.
There wasn't any fallout, very little diplomatic manouvering, the overall response was meh!
Manning leaked documents just because he was bored. That isnt evedience of crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
according to 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer [cornell.edu] the loyality is indeed person-bound (but at least including the constitution)
Re:Ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ha ha (Score:5, Informative)
The military is not a Constitution-free zone: The UCMJ actually makes it quite clear that they're implementing the same rules, just within a military structure.
For instance, since he's military, his trial may be in front of a court-martial, rather than in front of a civilian judge. Similarly, his right to counsel may be fulfilled by JAG rather than a civilian attorney. There are limits within military law on what a commander can do to punish somebody under their command (e.g. your CO can't just shoot you without repercussions).
You can read the UCMJ for yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm [af.mil]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bullshit, this isn't Starship Troopers. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to connect the dots between My Lai and what Manning did.
They're both cases of individual conscience over-riding the need to follow orders. Seems simple enough to me.
Swore to obey? (Score:2)
Re:Swore to obey? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (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: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:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody is allowed to lie to you with impunity.
Well unless you are a cop.