Why Obama May Have Doomed Manning's Chances:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42770631/ns ... -security/
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 8bitagent » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:32 pm
by RocketMan » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:07 am
Amazingly, this incident -- as this truly excellent post documents -- is highly redolent of the time Richard Nixon publicly declared Charles Manson's guilt before the accused mass murderer had been convicted. Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, was at Nixon's side when he did it and immediately recognized the impropriety of Nixon's remarks, and the White House quickly issued a statement claiming that Nixon misspoke and meant merely to suggest Manson had been "charged" with these crimes, not that he was guilty of them. Obama's decree was worse, of course, since (a) Obama has direct command authority over those who will judge Manning (unlike Nixon vis-a-vis Manson's jurors); (b) Manson's jurors were sequestered at the time and thus not exposed to Nixon's proclamation; and (c) Obama is directly responsible for the severe punishment to which Manning has already been subjected (h/t lysias).
It is notable indeed that an act immediately recognized as grossly improper by John Mitchell -- "easily American history's crookedest Attorney General ever" -- is engaged in by our nation's top political-leader/Constitutional-scholar, and no attempt is made to rectify it until it becomes clear that the controversy could harm both Manning's prosecution and the President's political standing.
by 8bitagent » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:27 pm
by wintler2 » Thu May 05, 2011 9:09 am
by JackRiddler » Sat May 14, 2011 12:18 am
Bradley Manning Charged With 22 New Counts, Including Capital Offense
By Kim Zetter March 2, 2011 | 6:08 pm | Categories: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks
Updated 8:00 p.m. EST.
The Army has filed 22 new counts against suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, among them a capital offense for which the government said it would not seek the death penalty.
The charges, filed Tuesday but not disclosed until Wednesday, are one count of aiding the enemy, five counts of theft of public property or records, two counts of computer fraud, eight counts of transmitting defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, and one count of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing it would be accessible to the enemy. The aiding-the-enemy charge is a capital offense, potentially carrying the death penalty. Five additional charges are for violating Army computer-security regulations.
“The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Pvt. 1st Class Manning is accused of committing,” spokesman Capt. John Haberland said in a statement.
According to the Army, the prosecution team will not seek the death penalty for the capital offense. But under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the convening authority ultimately decides what charges to refer to court-martial and whether to impose the death penalty.
Manning was arrested last May after he told a former hacker that he passed thousands of classified and sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. He has been in custody at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, awaiting a mental health hearing requested by his attorney. Depending on the result, the case could then proceed to an Article 32 hearing — the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation.
Though WikiLeaks is not named in the charges, the details of what Manning allegedly accessed or transmitted largely match up with WikiLeaks leaks over the past 10 months. Charge II, Specification 2 charges him with leaking a classified video titled “12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone-avi” on or before April 5, 2010, the day WikiLeaks published an Army video of a July 12, 2007, Army helicopter attack in Iraq that killed innocent people.
WikiLeaks released the video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Iraq under the title "Collateral Murder."
Specification 4 in the same charge describes a “Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database containing more than 380,000 records.” On Oct. 22, WikiLeaks released a largely classified Army database of events in the Iraq war with 392,000 entries. A similar Afghan database with over 90,000 events, partially published by WikiLeaks on July 25, is described in Specification 6.
Specification 8 describes “a United States Southern Command database containing more than 700 records” — likely a reference to the records of more than 700 Guantánamo Bay detainees that WikiLeaks reportedly received, but has not published. Specification 12 accuses Manning of stealing over 250,000 State Department diplomatic cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy database — a clear reference to the WikiLeaks “Cablegate” material.
At least one of the charged leaks has neither been acknowledged by WikiLeaks, nor mentioned by Bradley Manning in his online chats with Adrian Lamo — the ex-hacker who turned him in to the Army and FBI. That’s a “United States Forces -Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list belonging to the United States government.” This may indicate that investigators recovered evidence from forensic examinations of Manning’s computer following his arrest.
The charge of aiding the enemy is a purely military charge from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members. But the specter of a capital offense will likely be seized upon by lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who have claimed that Assange’s pending extradition to Sweden in a rape-and-molestation investigation there could somehow lead to him being shipped to the United States, where some politicians have called for Assange to be charged with a capital offense.
If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a life sentence in prison, assuming the convening authority takes the death penalty off the table. Before the latest charges, the maximum potential jail time he had faced was 52 years.
The full charges and specifications, from the charge sheet (.pdf), follow, with the allegedly leaked or accessed material in bold.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 104.
THE SPECIFICATION: In that Private First Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, without proper authority, knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134.
SPECIFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 5 April 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a video file named “12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone-avi“, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793 (e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Amy, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the United States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database containing more than 380,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use a£ another, a record or thing of value of the United States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database containing more than 90,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Planning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 8 March 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the united States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: a United States Southern Command database containing more than 700 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 9: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than three classified records from a United States Southern Command database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 10: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U-S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 April 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than five classified records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 11: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a file named “BE22 PAX.zip” containing a video named “BE22 PAX.wmv”, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 12: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 4 May 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the United states or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Department of State Net-Centric Diplomacy data base containing more than 250,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 13: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having knowingly exceeded authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: more than seventy-five classified United States Department of State cables, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 14: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 18 February 2010, having knowingly exceeded authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: a classified Department of State cable titled “Reykjavik-13″, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1),such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 15: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a classified record produced by a United States Amy intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e),such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 16: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the united States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the United States Forces -Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92.
SPECIFICATION I: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 March 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a) (4) , Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by attempting to bypass network or information system security mechanisms.
SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Amy, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 February 2010 and on or about 3 April 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5 (a)(3), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer.
SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 4 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a) (3),Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer.
SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a)(3), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by using an information system in a manner other than its intended purpose,
SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 380-5, dated 29 September 2000 by wrongfully storing classified information.
UPDATE 3.3.2011: This story updated to note that the convening authority decides whether the death penalty will be pursued in the case.
Senior editor Kevin Poulsen contributed to this report.
See Also:
Assange Opposed Quick Publication of Cables Out of Concern for Bradley Manning
by MinM » Tue May 24, 2011 7:27 pm
In January 2010 when Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning was allegedly contemplating leaking thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, he visited friends in Boston, who brought him to a party at Boston University’s BUILDS hacker space.
Frontline, which is airing a documentary about Manning and WikiLeaks on May 24, has obtained a video showing Manning at the party. [Disclosure: Threat Level's Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter were interviewed for the documentary.]
At the time of the party, Manning was on a two-week leave from his assignment in Iraq. It was at one point during this trip that he told friend Tyler Watkins that he’d gotten his hands on classified information that he was thinking about leaking, according to Watkins. “He wanted to do the right thing,” Watkins said in an interview with Threat Level last June. ”That was something I think he was struggling with.”
The video shows Manning at the BUILDS party, small in stature compared to the hackers around him, leaning against a table while chatting with friend Danny Clark (in a red t-shirt at Manning’s left).
The party was hosted by David House, founder of the hacker space, who now helps run the Bradley Manning Support Network. House tells Frontline that Manning didn’t stand out and didn’t strike him as remarkable at the time.
The government is known to have interviewed some of Manning’s Boston-area friends after his arrest in May 2010, including House and Clark. Last month, the government reportedly issued a grand jury subpoena to one of Manning’s friends, who has not been publicly identified, but lives in Boston. House has said he did not receive a subpoena.
According to the charges against Manning, he allegedly downloaded what’s now known as the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs between December 31, 2009 and January 8, 2010 – prior to his Boston visit – and leaked them on or before February 5. The time frame leaves open the possibility that Manning might have brought the war logs with him to the U.S. to leak them from a network not subject to the Army’s monitoring.
At the time of the BUILDS party, Manning had already leaked an encrypted copy of a classified Army video, BE22 PAX.wmv, according to the charges. That file is likely a video of the notorious Gharani massacre in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks acknowledged having that video on January 8, 2010, but has never published it.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... in-boston/
by JackRiddler » Tue May 24, 2011 10:13 pm
by MinM » Tue May 24, 2011 10:41 pm
The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks
...
Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.
All that said, this series of events isn't completely implausible. It's possible that a 22-year-old who engaged in these kinds of significant leaks, sitting in isolation in Iraq, would have a desire to unburden himself by confessing to a stranger; the psychological compulsion to confess is not uncommon (see Crime and Punishment), nor is the desire to boast of such acts. It's possible that he would have expected someone with Lamo's hacking and "journalist" background to be sympathetic to what he did and/or to feel compelled as a journalist not to run to the Government and disclose what he learns from a source. Still, the apparent ease with which Manning quickly spilled his guts in such painstaking detail over an Internet chat concerning such serious crimes -- and then proceeded to respond to Lamo's very specific and probing interrogations over days without ever once worrying that he could not trust Lamo -- is strange in the extreme.
If one assumes that this happened as the Wired version claims, what Lamo did here is despicable. He holds himself out as an "award-winning journalist" and told Manning he was one ("I did tell him that I worked as a journalist," Lamo said). Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn't appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California's shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning's talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (early on in their chats, Manning said: "I can't believe what I'm confessing to you"). In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential -- perhaps legally required to be kept confidential -- only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.
Worse, Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security. Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security. And Manning's capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was "pending discharge" for "adjustment disorder," and no longer had access to any documents (Lamo: "Why does your job afford you access?" - Manning: "because i have a workstation . . . *had*").
If one believes what the chat logs claim, Manning certainly thought he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. And if he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what our wars entail -- then he's a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning...
(Manning) explained why the thought of selling this classified information he was leaking to a foreign power never entered his mind:
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Lamo: why didn’t you?
Manning: because it's public data
Lamo: i mean, the cables
Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.
That's a whistleblower in the purest form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." That's the person that Adrian Lamo informed on and risked sending to prison for an extremely long time.
Making Lamo's conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention. Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known hacker of the Tor Project who has known Lamo for years, said that Lamo's "only concern" has always been "getting publicity for Adrian." Indeed, Lamo's modus operandi as a hacker was primitive hacking aimed at high-profile companies that he'd then use Poulsen to publicize. As Appelbaum put it: "if this situation really fell into Adrian's lap, his first and only thought would have been: how can I turn this to my advantage? He basically destroyed a 22-year-old's life in order to get his name mentioned on the Wired.com blog." [There are efforts underway to help secure very competent legal counsel for Manning, including a legal defense fund for him; assuming the facts are what the current narrative suggests, I intend to post more about that shortly].
None of Lamo's claims that he turned informant out of some grave concern for "national security" and "the lives of his fellow citizens" make any sense. Indeed, Lamo several months ago contributed $30 to WikiLeaks, which he's use to tout his support for whistle-blowing, and told me has has long considered himself on "the far left." Yet in the public statements he's made about what he did to Manning, he's incoherently invoked a slew of trite, right-wing justifications, denouncing Manning as a "traitor" and a "spy," while darkly insinuating that Manning provided classified information to a so-called "foreign national," meaning WikiLeaks' Assange. Lamo told me that any embarrassment to the U.S. Government could cause a loss of American lives, and that he believes anyone who breaks the law with leaks should be prosecuted. Yet he also claims to support WikiLeaks, which is run by that very same "foreign national" and which exists to enable illegal leaks.
Then there's the fact that, just in the last two weeks, Lamo's statements have been filled with countless contradictions of the type that suggests deliberate lying. Lamo told me, for instance, that Manning first contacted him with a series of emails, but told Yahoo! News that "Manning contacted him via AOL Instant Messenger 'out of the blue' on May 21." Lamo told Yahoo! "that he spelled out very clearly in his chats with Manning that he wasn't ... acting as a journalist," that it "was clear to Manning that he had taken his journalist hat off for the purposes of their conversation," and that "Manning refused" a confidentiality offer, but last night he said to me that he told Manning their conversations would have journalist-source confidentiality and that Manning never refused or rejected that. Just listen to the interview Lamo gave to me and make your own judgment about his veracity.
* * * * *
And what about Wired's role in all of this? Both WikiLeaks as well as various Internet commentators have suggested that Poulsen violated journalistic ethical rules by being complicit with Lamo in informing on Manning. I don't see any evidence for that. This is what Poulsen told me when I asked him about whether he participated in Lamo's informing on Manning...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html
by 8bitagent » Tue May 24, 2011 10:59 pm
by JackRiddler » Tue May 24, 2011 11:30 pm
8bitagent wrote:I'm going to watch Wikileaks Front Line tonight. I already saw WikiRebels, highly recommended. I have no doubt these guys are not some CIA psyops, even though coincidentally sometimes it seems the "leaks" are precisely what the government wants(the theory that perhaps the government releases to the media leaks under the cloak of being a wikileak)
by 8bitagent » Wed May 25, 2011 6:33 am
by 8bitagent » Wed May 25, 2011 10:11 pm
Assange, Ellsberg: Manning prosecution an assault on journalism
By Rich Gardella of NBC News and Alex Johnson of msnbc.com
The government's case against Pfc. Bradley Manning is really about keeping government secrets safe by silencing whistle-blowers across the U.S. government, WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg contended Wednesday.
Manning, 23, an Army intelligence analyst, is charged with leaking thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables. It is widely believed he provided the documents to WikiLeaks, which began publishing them last year in cooperation with The New York Times and other news organizations.
Assange has never said Manning was the source, but he has made the soldier's treatment in U.S. custody — confined alone in a small cell at a Marine base in Virginia until he was transferred to Leavenworth prison in Kansas last month — a personal crusade, alleging that it was intended to humiliate him and send a message to would-be government whistle-blowers.
"I don't know whether it (the source) was Bradley Manning or not, but he is only person behind bars on that allegation," Assange said in explaining why he's been so dogged in defending Manning.
Joined on a conference call with reporters by Ellsberg, Manning's attorney and representatives of the Bradley Manning Support Network, Assange said the government's treatment of Manning amounted to using a "sledgehammer to crack a nut."
The government is trying "to terrorize whistle-blowers into not revealing information to the public," he charged.
Ellsberg, who triggered a Supreme Court freedom-of-the-press judgment when he leaked the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War to The Times in 1971, called Manning a hero. He said Manning was "accused of being the one person who obeyed his oath to the Constitution" by disclosing government "crimes that could be prosecuted" during the war in Iraq and its aftermath.
The bigger danger, Ellsberg contended, is that if Manning is convicted, the government would be emboldened to further pursue journalists for reporting leaked material. He and Assange pointed to U.S. prosecutors' decision this week to subpoena Times reporter James Risen to testify at the trial of former CIA operative Jeffrey Sterling, who they allege leaked classified information that Risen used in his 2006 book about Iran's nuclear operations, "State of War."
The Justice Department has cited the 1917 Espionage Act in prosecuting Sterling and at least four other alleged sources of classified material used in various news reports, raising alarms among First Amendment activists that the Obama administration is pursuing a governmentwide war on whistle-blowers.
The administration's interpretation of the act is a fundamental threat to investigative journalism and to "any journalist who has a byline above classified material," Ellsberg said.
Assange added, "The Obama administration's attempts to expand 1917 Espionage Act ... will put a chill across all investigative journalism in the U.S."
But Assange also leveled scathing criticism at U.S. journalists, essentially saying they were wimping out in the face of unconstitutional federal pressure.
Saying U.S. coverage of Manning's case had been "appalling and salacious," Assange said: "Either the mainstream press collapses as an effective organ, and all sources are forced to deal only with WikiLeaks, or the U.S. is a free society that upholds values."
He added: "From our perspective — from WikiLeaks' perspective — either of these outcomes works."
by JackRiddler » Sat May 28, 2011 7:54 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... gile/print
WikiLeaks accused Bradley Manning 'should never have been sent to Iraq'
Guardian exclusive: Soldier held over US intelligence leak was known to be mentally fragile and unsuited to army life
Maggie O'Kane, Chavala Madlena and Guy Grandjean
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 May 2011 22.25 BST
The American soldier at the centre of the WikiLeaks revelations was so mentally fragile before his deployment to Iraq that he wet himself, threw chairs around, shouted at his commanding officers and was regularly brought in for psychiatric evaluations, according to an investigative film produced by the Guardian.
Bradley Manning, who was detained a year ago on Sunday in connection with the biggest security leak in US military history, was a "mess of a child" who should never have been put through a tour of duty in Iraq, according to an officer from the Fort Leonard Wood military base in Missouri, where Manning trained in 2007.
The officer's words reinforce a leaked confidential military report that reveals that other senior officers thought he was unfit to go to Iraq. "He was harassed so much that he once pissed in his sweatpants," the officer said.
"I escorted Manning a couple of times to his 'psych' evaluations after his outbursts. They never should have trapped him in and recycled him in [to Iraq]. Never. Not that mess of a child I saw with my own two eyes. No one has mentioned the army's failure here – and the discharge unit who agreed to send him out there," said the officer, who asked not to be identified because of the hostility towards Manning in the military.
"I live in an area where I would be persecuted if I said anything against the army or helped Manning," the officer said.
Despite several violent outbursts and a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, a condition that meant he was showing difficulty adjusting to military life, Manning was eventually sent to Iraq, where it is alleged he illegally downloaded thousands of sensitive military and diplomatic documents and passed them on to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.
In Iraq, Manning retained his security clearance to work as an intelligence specialist.
Two months after his arrival, the bolt was removed from his rifle because he was thought to be a danger, his lawyer, David Coombs, has confirmed.
A Guardian investigation focusing on soldiers who worked with Manning in Iraq has also discovered there was virtually no computer and intelligence security at Manning's station in Iraq, Forward Operating Base Hammer. According to eyewitnesses, the security was so lax that many of the 300 soldiers on the base had access to the computer room where Manning worked, and passwords to access the intelligence computers were stuck on "sticky notes" on the laptop screens.
Rank and file soldiers would watch grisly "kill mission" footage as a kind of entertainment on computers with access to the sensitive network of US diplomatic and military communications known as SIPRNet.
Jacob Sullivan, 28, of Phoenix, Arizona, a former chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist, was stationed at FOB Hammer in Manning's unit.
"A lot of different people worked from that building and in pretty much every room there was a SIPRNet computer attached to a private soldier or a specialist," Sullivan said
"On the computers that I saw there was a [sticky label] either on the computer or next to the computer with the information to log on. I was never given permission to log on so I never used it but there were a lot of people who did."
He added: "If you saw a laptop with a red wire coming out of it, you knew it was a SIPRNet. I would be there by myself and the laptops [would] be sitting there with passwords. Everyone would write their passwords down on sticky notes and set it by their computer. [There] wasn't a lot of security going on so no wonder something like this transpired."
Manning is facing multiple charges of downloading and passing on sensitive information. No one else at the base has been charged. Manning denies all the charges. If convicted he could face up to 55 years in jail.
The US Defence Security Service is also investigating why Manning, who had been sent for psychiatric counselling before he was deployed to Iraq, was not screened more fully before he was allowed to work in intelligence.
Eyewitness accounts by soldiers who served with him there and friends in the US who spoke to the Guardian paint a picture of an increasingly unstable and at times violent man.
One soldier who served with him describes him "blowing up and punching this chick in the face".
Additional reporting by Daniel Fisher
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
by Nordic » Sat May 28, 2011 11:40 pm
by Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun May 29, 2011 12:01 am
A Guardian investigation focusing on soldiers who worked with Manning in Iraq has also discovered there was virtually no computer and intelligence security at Manning's station in Iraq, Forward Operating Base Hammer.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 153 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.