

Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed - Natsu
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/#more-27735

======
lhnz
> (02:56:04 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: i mean, showed up – for you – if Julian
> were to slip up.

> (02:56:46 PM) bradass87: he knows very little about me

> (02:56:54 PM) bradass87: he takes source protection uber-seriously

> (02:57:01 PM) bradass87: “lie to me” he says

> (02:57:06 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: Really. Interesting.

> (02:57:34 PM) bradass87: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about
> yourself

So it seems that Assange really does take source protection seriously and
isn't a co-conspirator as has been suggested. Why did they redact this
previously?

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
Because it undermines the narrative they wanted to publicize. Now that the
narrative is well established they can release the full logs and it won't even
make a dent in broad opinion.

~~~
rsingel
What was this narrative you speak of? Got a link or an example to back up your
insinuation?

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
The narrative is that Wikileaks acted as a co-conspirator in the theft of
classified information.

It is legal in the US to republish illegally obtained information, so long as
the publisher was not party to the crime in any way. The quoted snippet
undermines claims that Julian Assanage was party to the crime.

Who has made such claims? Lamo. His claims and evidence form the motivation
and basis of the Justice Department's investigation. According to Assange's
lawyers, a grand jury was convened. If true, it clearly would benefit the
prosecution to only enter as evidence the portions of the chat logs that best
supported its case. If Wired published the entire logs, this wouldn't be
possible.

I would take the release of the logs as indication that the justice department
has abandoned that portion of the investigation, possibly after being denied
by the grand jury.

~~~
rsingel
Where in Wired.com's reporting is there any narrative that Assange directed
Manning?

Your statement in the logs would somehow save Assange from a U.S. grand jury
is laughable. And it's a very thin thread to try to weave a tapestry that
Wired is in cahoots with the FBI. You must not read Threat Level very often.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
There isn't in Wired, but there is in Lamo's statements.

They wouldn't save him, but they would significantly weaken the case. Other
than Lamo's word, the only evidence is those logs and several encrypted
emails.

I don't think Wired is in "cahoots" with the FBI (It's a justice department
investigation also, not FBI). I do think one particular person at Wired
(Poulson) is likely acting in a way that supports Lamo. Why Lamo wants all
this, I don't know or care to speculate on.

------
VonGuard
I find it disturbing Wired released these. There is a TON of extremely
personal information about Brad in these logs, and I know I wouldn't want
anyone knowing those things about me, even if I was in jail for the rest of my
life.

In the end, that twitchy little rat fuck Lamo turned Manning in because he got
shot down hitting on him.

~~~
pvarangot
The originally released logs already contained personal information of the
sorts you are most likely refering to (i.e. they already outed manning a being
gay and conflicted with DADT). The rest of what the logs tell, for example
about the issues with his family and boyfriend, has already been researched by
other media outlets and published.

I agree that reading Manning's actual narrative about this this is more
shocking that reading a journalist telling you about it, but I don't find the
fact that they released the logs disturbing.

------
Andrew_Quentin
I shan't read wired whether online or print any more. I do not know what the
relationship is between Lamo or any wired editor, I understand, at least as
far as lamo is concerned, there may be different political leanings or
viewpoints.

That is fine, people have different opinions, we are free to debate and
disagree, but, to withhold quite important information, about a very
politically charged story, and use such secrecy to ones utmost advantage is a
disgrace and dishonoroubale for any journalist or man in my opinion.

It would have cut rhetorics straight through back in the days had the passages
between Assange and Manning been made public back then. There would have been
no room, or option, for some congressmen to say what they did against Assange,
nor even suspicion, towards Assange or wikileaks or any involvement of them in
inducing the leaking of the information. There would have been a unanimous
voice, with little room to doubt, that wikileaks is fully in the clear.

That a magazine decides to withhold vital information from the public and
distort the debate with what may be or has been damaging consequences goes far
beyond any political leaning or fair game. It is downright deplorable in my
opinion and unless our society finds a way to hold such behaviour to account
we will soon end the way of bankrupt, morally deranged, corrupt ridden, dis-
functioning societies.

------
there
_(10:23:34 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I’m a journalist and a minister. You can
pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be
published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection._

maybe not...

~~~
tdfx
How easy is it to hate this guy?

------
redthrowaway
I never thought I'd say it, but I was wrong. I thought Poulsen and Wired were
being shady with the redactions, but they were absolutely right. It was just a
bunch of chatter about his depression and identity issues that nobody needed
to know about. I respect their decision to redact far more, now. Not sure why
they're being released now, but I guess it doesn't really matter anymore.

~~~
defroost
It absolutely was not "a bunch of chatter about his depression". It was much
more. As small sample from the excellent piece by Glen Greenwald at Salon (1):

MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning

LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as
a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of
legal protection.

It is clear from this passage that Lamo promised legal protection of a
journalist-source or priest-penitent relationship. And it shows Poulsen's
claim that the withheld chat logs were only insignificant ramblings related to
Manning's mental state was simply not true.

(1) <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/>

~~~
rsingel
It doesn't matter one whit whether Lamo offered protection or not, except
insofar as what you think of Lamo.

The shield law doesn't require journalists to keep info private -- it simply
allows a reporter to quash a subpoena from law enforcement coming knocking for
the info.

If indeed Manning had taken Lamo up on the offer, at best, Manning has a civil
case against Lamo.

And as for Lamo being a minister, that's a joke. Knowing Lamo he's got a
minister certificate he bought for $25 just to say he has it. Furthermore,
Manning didn't take him up on the offer and the chats certainly don't look
like a minister and a worshipper talking.

While it's clear Lamo is double-crossing Manning and trying to suck info out
of him, this bit of the chat logs don't mean anything substantively.

But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on Wired.com for
reporting the story will work.

Full disclosure: I work for Wired.com and Kevin Poulsen used to be my editor,
and still occasionally is. I never saw the logs till they were pubbed and had
no hand in the decision.

~~~
defroost
You wrote: "But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on
Wired.com for reporting the story will work."

Greenwald doesn't need to go far to find a "nemesis" in this case. And he is
not "beating" on Wired for reporting the story, but for reporting only those
portions that it deemed relevant. The fact is Poulsen, for whatever reason,
was not truthful in his claim that the unreleased chat logs were only
Manning's personal meanderings or that they would reveal national security
secrets. Whether someone at the DOJ put pressure on Wired not to release the
full chat logs, we will never know. But to say that the full logs are not
relevant to Manning's defense or Assange's role in all of this, is absurd.

~~~
rsingel
What came out in the logs isn't relevant to Manning's defense, insofar that
the logs are in the hands of the prosecution and so would be given to
Manning's lawyer, irregardless.

The same goes for Assange. And nothing in the logs rules out that Assange
"ran" Manning nor do they prove it. All they have is Manning saying Assange is
good at OPSEC. So Assange may not know WHO Manning is, but still may have
directed Manning to get more info or look for this or that. That's the
presumed essence of the grand jury proceedings.

Nothing in the logs changes any of that, nor would the publication require the
gov attorneys to show exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. A grand jury is a
one-sided proceeding intended to convince a group of people that someone
likely committed a crime.

Lamo promising "immunity" to Manning on journalistic or religious grounds?
Meaningless, except for your opinion of Lamo, which I assume was pretty damn
low even before you saw the full logs.

This is all sound and fury, when the real truth is simple as can be. Manning
chose the worst person in the world to confide in.

------
econgeeker
I don't see anything here that couldn't be a fabrication on LOMO's part as
part of an attempt to smear manning. LOMO isn't exactly a stand-up character,
and combined with someone inside the military (which wouldn't be hard to find
when the government is looking to create a scapegoat) these logs could be
easily fabricated.

I also don't think that text logs, which cannot be authenticated in any way,
could be admissible in court. But then, military courts aren't usually
concerned with justice.

------
mckoss
(3:25:41 PM) bradass87: god that pacman thing is starting to get annoying

(3:26:14 PM) bradass87: enjoyed it at first, but now everytime i open a new
browser window… whoo-whoo-whoo-whoo-whoo

------
napierzaza
In the context that Lamo ratted out Manning after the chats

(03:21:11 PM) bradass87: >sigh<

(03:22:14 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: i get that

(03:22:45 PM) bradass87: get what… that connection?

(03:23:38 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: yeah.

(03:24:08 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: which is why i’m sad for the people i
sometimes have to hurt.

(03:24:10 PM) bradass87: we’re human… and we’re killing ourselves… and no-one
seems to see that… and it bothers me

------
shareme
questions:

1\. Bias: I am ex military..any security clearance is forever not as access
but as enforcement of secrets staying secret. Thus, why would someone already
in an illegal act talk to ex military like Lamo? It does not add up.

2\. why did Wired protect Lamo for a year? Obviously to protect a source
rather than have it exposed as non-credible.

3\. Who is working for the FBI here? Is it Lamo or Poulsen? It has to be asked
given the manipulation by Lamo in the chat log. If the wired Knew the chat log
was part of the FBI investigation than that explains its failure to publish.
So it is reasonable to ask if Poulsen was involved currently with the FBI.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Who is working for the FBI here? Is it Lamo or Poulsen?_

I see no reason why it couldn't be both.

~~~
VonGuard
Here's the deal. First, read this: <http://blogwarleaks.blogspot.com/> Note
that this was written back in December, and it absolutely NAILS what's in the
logs.

Second, here's the TL'DR for that link:

Lamo and Poulsen have been journalist/source for years. Poulsen met Lamo right
around the time that Lamow as acting as the "homeless hacker" and being all
leet by setting up fake Lexis Nexus accounts on the NYT's dime. Remember that?

Poulsen was also a pro-hacker back in the day: he intercepted a phone line at
a radio staation so he could be the 100th caller and win a Porsche. Twice.

As such, Poulsen was able to connect with Lamo and use him as a source for
years. It's Poulsen who made Lamo famous. And it was that fame that drew
Manning to Lamo. Lamo is known, in the undergound 31337 hacker circles, to be
gay. Manning, who was questioning his sexuality, saw this as a reason to
contact Lamo, expecting some sympathy.

Of course, Lamo had since started working for the government, as any
successful hacker can do once he's out of jail. The US likes hiring hackers
for their team, and Lamo eventually turned in Manning to win points for
himself in this capacity.

Poulsen surely kept Mannings info secret. The leak was entirely Lamo, as
anyone who actually knows him can confirm. As I have said a few times in this
thread; Lamo is a twitchy, untrustworthy little rat fuck. Despite being gay,
he's had restraining orders taken out against him by women. He's that creepy
and fucked up.

Not only was Poulsen not involved in outing Manning to the feds, he went all
the way and protected Manning's privacy by holding these logs for a year, so
far. As we now see, these logs are mostly personal, and there is nothing
gained by us all reading them, except confirmation of what those of us in the
"scene" already knew.

As the above-linked blog states: there is no conspiracy, there is only
gayness. And thanks to Greenwald's incessant whining and conspiracy theory-
mongering, we can all now read the very private conversation of a very
troubled young man struggling to come to terms with his sexuality while
working in an organization that, at the time, held homosexuality as tantamount
to treason.

Oh, and we get to see more of Lamo's untrustworthy nature.

Good job, Greenwald. You just made things even worse for Manning: now the
idiots who are already against him also know he's trans and has had a very
difficult upbringing. Don't we all feel better now about locking him up in
solitary?

Lamo hacked, he got hired. Manning hacked, he got publicly humiliated and will
never be let out of jail. Justice, eh?

------
llambda
This was already posted: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2761514>

