
The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired - michael_dorfman
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/27/wired
======
pmorici
Also of note though not specifically enumerated in this article, if you read
the linked biography
[http://govsecinfo.com/events/govsec-2011/Speakers/Speaker%20...](http://govsecinfo.com/events/govsec-2011/Speakers/Speaker%20Window.aspx?SpeakerId={05691608-AB54-45B7-B0DE-7372D9F526F0}&ID={C18700A9-7318-4903-A591-761265B1D934})
of Mark Rasch, who Salon says facilitated this whole thing, you'll notice his
title is, "Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting, Computer Science
Corporation".

Computer Science Corporation aka, "CSC" is a major government contractor for
IT services. What better way to sell more overpriced crap to the government
than to foment a climate of panic around the Wikileaks issue. A problem that
CSC no doubt has the perfect multi million dollar enterprise "solution" for.

In other words Mark Rasch has a likely significant and surely direct financial
interest in making news coverage about Manning as sensationalistic as humanly
possible.

~~~
kvs
It would also be interesting to see who won the DARPA CINDER:
<http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/sn10-68/index.html> this year.

~~~
babeKnuth
I don't follow. Why would this be interesting?

------
jeremymims
Glenn Greenwald has consistently delivered the best analysis of what has been
going on with Wikileaks. He's appalled at the way most of the media has
covered this story and I couldn't agree more.

~~~
nir
I don't understand - I thought the media was (justly) all over WikiLeaks, with
special features in Guardian, NY Times and others? Short of the 2008
elections, I can't think of stories that got similar attention in recent
years.

I don't get Greenwald's issue with Wired. Journalists rarely provide complete
records or transcripts of their communications with sources. Even interviews
contain mutually agreed "off the record" sections. Maybe they ought to release
the chat logs, maybe not, either way "journalistic disgrace" sounds a bit
hyperbolic.

~~~
jeremymims
The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but
they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. In fact, many media
outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to
dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know".

The problem isn't when journalists agree to keep some information off the
record to protect a source. It's when doing so fundamentally changes the
character of a story or is actually part of the story itself.

What Greenwald outlines is a journalist who is thoroughly compromised. It's
gone so far that he's actually part of the story.

Two other similar examples come to mind:

1\. When Judith Miller was given false information about Iraq that she used to
write pro-Iraq invasion stories, she was using anonymous Bush administration
sources. When it turned out that this information was incorrect, she decided
to protect the identity of her sources. A real journalist would have realized
that the story was: "Bush Official X leaked false information to journalists
in order to sell the war to the American people." When a source makes you that
much of a fool, you burn them, unless you were a helpful collaborator.

2\. When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his
source. At this time, Scooter Libby was peddling this information on behalf of
Vice President Cheney's office. This was in retaliation for her husband, Joe
Wilson's, release of information dismissing the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake story
that the US used as a reason to go to war. However, it turned out that it was
Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed
along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak. Tim Russert covered the
Valerie Plame story for years before anyone knew he was the reason for her
outing. And Russert failed for years to use his inside knowledge to report the
true story to the American people. This led to Scooter Libby being able to
take a minimal charge of obstruction of justice and ultimately a sentence
commutation from George Bush.

So this isn't so much about keeping notes or a transcript. It's about a member
of the press with the truth at their disposal, but choosing to hide it for
some reason. My guess is he's writing a book and would like to keep some
information proprietary, but considering the case that Greenwald levels, some
sort of response is appropriate.

~~~
samfoo
> The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but
> they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves.

I disagree strongly with you. The NYT (as an example) has entire pages
dedicated on their website for both the war logs and and diplomatic cables.
Even several days ago their front page (print) story was from the leaks. The
media is not dropping the ball on this, it's just that alternative media
talking heads desperately _want_ them to drop the ball and so just keep saying
that they have.

Like it or not, Julian is the face of Wikileaks and his eccentricities and the
intrigue surrounding him is part of the story. A compelling part. One that
gets more people reading about this than otherwise would have. Reporting isn't
just about telling facts no matter how unbiased a reporter or news
establishment might be. This is precisely why Wikileaks releases raw data to
their media partners for analysis under an embargo in the first place;
analysis which comes with some bias.

Would you consider it good reporting if the media were to never address the
rape allegations when interviewing Assange? Even if they're fabricated?

> In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks
> organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't
> already know".

Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an
Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it
anywhere.

~~~
jeremymims
\- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most
cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion
reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.

\- I've noted a few articles in the previous comment that make the assertion
that nothing new was released by Wikileaks in the article headlines. Most
people don't really read beyond those anyway.

\- Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be
written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to
actually investigate the cables. Since the cables were transmitted to
Wikileaks, vetted by select media partners, and released, no one has accused
him of either fabricating or falsifying anything contained in these leaks. The
rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change
the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the
leaked information.

It'd be like me writing:

Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip
to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding
ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for
implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

True, but irrelevant.

~~~
samfoo
> \- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most
> cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion
> reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.

So your argument is: "Most people don't realize that there's a difference
between opinion and reporting, so there isn't one."? I don't accept that
people can't distinguish, and even if true, I don't accept that it makes any
difference in the truth.

There is also a difference between real new organizations -- viz. print -- and
cable news. Even on Fox News, however (note: I don't watch cable news
frequently, I'm assuming this is still the case), their opinion shows are
clearly separate from their actual reporting. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and
Friends all discuss the news but aren't reporting it.

> Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written
> about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually
> investigate the cables.

Forgive me, but, It's a bit offensive to the reporters at the New Yorker, or
the Times, or the NYT to imply that such a story is easy and lazy. You make it
sound like the two stories are mutually exclusive and it's not as it the
cables themselves are being ignored by anyone.

> The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not
> change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint
> the leaked information.

I'm not sure how major media outlets are implying that it does tain the leaked
information. If you can see that, what makes you think that others can't?

> Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a
> trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a
> speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table
> for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

I honestly don't know how you can't see that there's an ethical difference
between what you said and the bias it contains and reporting that Julian
Assange is accused of rape. If Obama were accused of rape and tried to pass
DADT, you can bet it would be reported on too. Like it or not, the world
doesn't organize itself into self-contained encapsulated segments of
information. Humanity and human faces are a part of reporting, one that drives
more people to know about things like the leaks than otherwise would have.

------
schrototo
Wired has always been the worst kind of tabloid (The Web is Dead, push
technology is the future, the dotcom bubble won't ever burst...), their lack
of journalistic ethics doesn't surprise me in the least.

~~~
rbanffy
Still, It's not Poulsen's obligation to release the Lamo-Manning logs. If
Greenwald wants them so much, he is free to contact Lamo himself. Also, don't
forget Lamo could have edited the logs before giving them to Poulsen and it's
only Lamo's word that assures their authenticity.

~~~
queensnake
The article says that Lamo says he doesn't have them any more.

~~~
rbanffy
I suppose we can't prove he is telling the truth

------
moondowner
"Whether by design or effect, Kevin Poulsen and Wired have played a critical
role in concealing the truth from the public about the Manning arrest."

Manning is in a cell getting the worst possible treatment for God's sake.

The damage has been done, however, anyone who cares can sign this petition
"Stop the Inhumane Treatment of Bradley Manning" (it's a blog post with a
petition, to be more precise):
[http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/23/bradley-manning-
sp...](http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/23/bradley-manning-speaks-about-
his-conditions/)

~~~
sigzero
Inhumane? Please. He is a traitor and after reading that article is not being
treated inhumanely.

~~~
rhizome
Not much for due process, areya?

~~~
qq66
Due process in the military is not the same as due process for civilians. This
is well-known and not sprung upon people after they join the armed forces.

~~~
rhizome
I'm pretty sure the UCMJ doesn't allow for calling people traitors before
they've been convicted.

~~~
rhizome
As it turns out, treason isn't even _in_ the UCMJ.

------
hebejebelus
Looks like someone needs to do some leaking down at the Wired office.

That would be interesting, particularly if the chat logs were "leaked" to
Wikileaks. Would they still publish the logs, even if the logs meant life
imprisonment for Bradley Manning? Would that then be a breach of trust between
Wikileaks and Manning?

Anyway, besides all my ridiculous speculation and getting ahead of things; The
title is in no way an exaggeration, and Poulson should think rather hard about
what he's going to do about it.

~~~
commandar
Supposedly, Adrian Lamo had submitted the logs to Wikileaks to pose this
conundrum before giving them over to Wired.

~~~
redthrowaway
Source? It's interesting if true, but I think that would be hard to verify, as
Lamo's honesty is suspect and Assange has no problem lying about what he does
or does not have.

~~~
commandar
[http://adrianlamologs.blogspot.com/2010/06/adrian-lamo-
outs-...](http://adrianlamologs.blogspot.com/2010/06/adrian-lamo-outs-self-as-
wikileaks.html)

------
mikedouglas
Greenwald doesn't seem to think that Lamos is a credible witness because
statements he has made in the press aren't corroborated in the released
sections of the chat log. But, (1) isn't it likely that the chat logs aren't
the full extent of the communication between Manning and Lamos during this
period, and (2) if Lamos is suspect, the chat logs are meaningless anyways, as
they can easily be doctored.

How does the release of the full transcript solve either of these problems?

~~~
pmorici
They don't, his argument revolves more around the fact that _not_ releasing
them is exceedingly suspicious not that their release would be the savior of
iron clad truth.

~~~
mikedouglas
Suspicious, but if you don't trust Lamos, than it's also completely
inconsequential to the truth.

Evidence is only valuable if, after confirm its existence, your beliefs shift
in some direction.

~~~
archgoon
One can not trust Lamos, but believe that he didn't have the foresight to work
out a consistent story before sending the chat logs to Wire.

~~~
mikedouglas
If Lamos's story were consistent, would you be any more likely to believe it?
If not, then you already have sufficient evidence that Lamos can't be trusted
and you can just point to that. Evidence can't be important if, after learning
it, you believe the exact same things.

------
aw3c2
bad link, go to the full story straight away:
[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/27...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/27/wired/index.html)

------
tzs
Perhaps Wired is only releasing those parts of the logs that they are able to
find some corroboration for. Considering the Salon author's prior poorly
researched reporting on Manning, the idea of actually checking on things
before publishing may be alien to him.

~~~
rhizome
That's an awfully charitable attitude toward Wired, who has stonewalled
without comment any inquiry regarding the logs since they got them.

Considering the amount of public pressure the US Government has exerted in
prior restraint of the press and punishing those in their employ who might
read Wikileaks, it seems reasonable to conclude that Wired is withholding them
either under government duress or is saving them up for a different story
(like a book or a post-conviction victory lap). In other words, power and/or
money, not public benefit.

------
jdp23
Kevin Poulsen's response on Twitter:

Heard there's a measured, mature critique I should respond to. Will look for
it tomorrow when I'm back from vacation.

------
ajays
If the USG wants to charge Assange with aiding/abetting Manning, then it is in
their interest to not have the chat logs released. As long as the chat logs
are hidden, the USG can claim that Manning admitted to Lamo that he received
some help from Assange, and bingo! Assange can be indicted.

~~~
jdp23
If the chat logs say something different and the government lies about it to
get an indictment, then it would be a disaster for the prosecution.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
Yes, but this isn't about a trial, this is about the court of public opinion.
Getting civilian charges filed and then thrown out on "technical grounds" is
almost the best case scenario if you're Pentagon PR. You get to indicit
Assange (with loads of press coverage of him in chains to drive home the idea
that he's evil and to scare off other whistleblowers and/or journalists) and
then you get to blast the inadequacy of civilian courts for national security
trials when (a year later) they throw out the case of a guy "everybody knows
is guilty" on technical grounds which are far to complex to fit in a sound
bite.

------
brown9-2
Can someone explain this part of the article to me?

 _But after that, The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima quoted from the chat
logs and included several parts that (a) Wired had withheld but (b) were not
about personal matters or national security secrets; see this analysis here of
what was disclosed by the Post, Wired and others. (Nakashima and the Post
refuse even to say whether they possess all the chat logs. When I asked
Nakashima several months ago, she referred my inquiry to a corporate
spokeswoman, who then told me: "We don't discuss the details of our
newsgathering." But I focus here on Poulsen because of his central role in
these events, his long-standing relationships with the key parties, and the
fact that -- unlike the Post, which obviously has nothing to do with
journalism -- I actually expect better of Wired)._

Is Greenwald saying that the _Washington Post_ "has nothing to do with
journalism"?

As in, what the WaPo does is not journalism?

~~~
pessimizer
Yes.

------
Vivtek
Does anybody but me find it sort of comic-booky that the head of Project
Vigilant, a group surveilling the Internet so the government won't have to, is
named "Uber"?

------
jdp23
It's interesting reading the email exchange between Greenwald and Poulsen. To
me it looks like Glenn trying bullying trial lawyer tactics: "you have to
admit there's something disturbing about all of this" etc. That approach isn't
going to work well with Kevin.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
There is something point-blank disturbing about it. A journalist has an
exclusive on a major news story, and he's making no effort to publish it. In
terms of suspiciousness, this is like cats not chasing mice - it's just so far
outside normal behavior that you just have to assume something else is in
play.

~~~
rhizome
"The dog that didn't bark." --Sherlock Holmes

------
shanked
Could it be that the information in the chat logs are sensitive and he/Wired
is avoiding the legal nightmare that may be caused by publishing?

~~~
marquis
I'm sure the legal issue could be circumvented by having the logs 'leaked'.

------
DanielBMarkham
Okay I admit to skimming after the tenth paragraph or so, so if I screw up my
response I apologize. The article just seemed very wordy, but not so
substantive.

<snark>But am I to understand that the beef here is that wired is _not_
publishing something that others think they should? So now not only do we need
a world with no secrets, we also need a world where the mob can demand that
others publish whatever we ask?

I know the counter-response will be something like "but they made statements
for which we have no support and the chat logs could either prove or refute
those statements"

To that response, all I have to offer is that there is an active criminal
investigation, not carried out in the press or the mob but by due process, and
that news sources all the time say things from anonymous sources and such. I
don't like it when they do, but I don't think demanding that every news source
that uses an anonymous source release their name is very realistic either.

I understand that this is an emotionally-charged issue. And folks want to
know. But you can rest assured that it will all eventually come out. If that's
not fast enough for you, then perhaps a little more patience might help.

This whole thing -- the subsequent events to WL and Manning's arrest,
including the title of the article here, has the air of a bunch of assholes
kicking around folks just to keep their emotions stirred up and readership
levels high. It's become the chatty, gossipy topic-of-the-week. If you can't
find a juicy enough Wikileaks story, then run a story about the story that
doesn't exist. What did they say about cable news during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal? It's all Monica, all the time. Wikileaks makes folks crazy, and I
have a feeling various news outlets are going to be yanking our chain with
this for some time to come. There's money in it, no matter what angle you
use.</snark>

Feel free to correct me if I've missed something.

~~~
rhizome
As far as I know, Wired is not operating under a gag order and they are not a
party to the case. It is not illegal or anything to evaluate independently-
possessed evidence.

------
codybrown
Don't just complain about this. Show Wired how much interest there is in
releasing the chat logs. I'm organizing response here:
<http://kommons.com/questions/418>

~~~
rhizome
Has there ever been an effective online poll?

~~~
shrikant
<http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/>

------
futuremint
I'm mildly surprised that a media outlet is actually calling this out at
another organization.

In my opinion, _every_ media outlet has been complicit in helping the U.S.
powers that be try to discredit Wikileaks and distract from the contents of
the leaks. Not to mention hiding corruption.

Wikileaks has done a great job at showing the world how much those in power
don't care about anything but their own power (and their "conspiracy
network"). But all I'm seeing is the same apathetic and head-in-the-sand
response from the general population to reality.

~~~
mquander
If this were on the New York Times editorial page, I'd agree with you, but I
can't believe you're surprised that Glenn Greenwald is angry at another media
outlet. He is angry about the same thing every week.

~~~
futuremint
This is the first time I've heard of Greenwald. I don't read Salon regularly.
However the occasional article I have read has been decent.

------
anigbrowl
_I do not have a very high opinion of Glenn Greenwald in general. I mention
this not to support my argument but to admit my bias up front. I have other
biases as well - about whether this material was leaked, whether it should
have been leaked, and whether it should have been published as it has been -
but I'm trying to steer clear of such issues here and just address the
specific topic of this article. The morality of these leaks is a political
question; until there are changes in the law, responsibility for the leaks is
a more narrow legal question.

For reference, where I talk about the contents of these chat logs I'm
referring to the the same source Greenwald does, at
<http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/> That seems like
factual summary with zero editorial commentary; citing it is not meant to
express any particular view on the site's editorial/political stance. However,
it does have some sloppy copyediting (summary descriptions of following
section appearing inline as if they were the final line of chat) and seem to
be somewhat incomplete, per this BoingBoing story
[http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-
wikileak.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-
wikileak.html) \- likely an honest mistake, as BoingBoing's writer apparently
edited the transcripts subsequently out a desire to avoid prejudice. Finally,
I am not a lawyer, and so these are nothing more than the opinions of an
amateur.

EDIT: downvoting doesn't bother me, but absent comment I have no idea what
part of it you disagreed with..._

It seems to me that Greenwald is assuming his own conclusion here, that the
chat logs provide evidence of Manning's innocence. They could, of course; and
I imagine that Manning's Lawyer will subpoena them for just that reason: if he
can not get them from Wired, then he can get them from Lamo or the FBI. (Lamo
apparently says the FBI took his computer with the logs on them, but until he
says so under oath that doesn't mean a thing.)

There are alternative possibilities, which Greenwald does not address, that
could well justify Wired's withholding other parts of the chat logs and still
maintaining a high standard of journalistic ethics.

First: the possibility that the logs contain more evidence of Manning's or
Assange's guilt. Lamo makes statements to multiple journalistic sources such
as the NYT and Washington Post as well as to Wired; so whether Poulsen reports
his remarks first or not, the fact that such allegations are being made is a
matter of public record. Poulsen neither confirms nor denies Lamo's
allegations with reference to the chat logs. Greenwald argues that he should,
as Lamo's accusations amount to prosecuting Manning and Assange in public.
However, accusations without evidence are just talk. If Poulsen releases the
transcripts, many will see the contents as conclusive evidence, whether they
support or undermine Lamo's assertions, or even if they are ambiguous. That
could make a fair trial for Assange impossible, if indeed he is charged. It
could also amount to conducting Manning's (military) trial in public in a way
that undermines his rights.

As yet, there's no proof that Bradley Manning was 'Bradass87' or that he was
the one conducting those conversations (vs someone else using his login, say),
or that the logs are a true and unedited copy of actual chats. But the logs
that are public already are being treated as the indisputable truth. That they
are public makes it very difficult for Manning's lawyer to attack their
admissibility as evidence: if he does so, many people will dismiss his
arguments as lies. Just the fact that the public logs have the 'feel' of a
real conversation is enough for many people to decide they're authentic, for
the same reason that people often remember movies better than they do real
history. Even if it can be shown that the chat logs are authentic records of
conversations between Manning and Lamo, they are only _evidence_ that Manning
believed and said certain things to Lamo. As far as the logs talk about
Assange, their legal value is that of hearsay evidence. But opponents of
Assange will treat such hearsay remarks as proven facts (they're not even
close), while his supporters will say none of it is admissible at all because
it's hearsay (not true either). Regardless of which side Poulsen or anyone
else is on, making that material public risks undermining justice.

Personally, I think it would have been better not to release any transcripts
at all in order to avoid biasing a trial (either of Manning or of Assange, if
he is charged later). Mind, that's very much a personal opinion. I'm also
against police releasing mugshots or making people do perp walks because so
many assume that criminal defendants must be guilty because they look bad. But
suppose, for argument's sake, that there's so much evidence of Manning being
the leaker that the facts are not really in question, and that's why Poulsen
felt ethically justified in releasing partial transcripts.

This leads me towards the other possibility which might have led Poulsen to
release only partial transcripts - the question of Manning's motivations. In
the published logs he sounds like someone offended by the government's low
ethical standards, unhappy in his job situation, and alternatively bragging
and remorseful about the magnitude of the revelations. So his defense might go
ahead on the basis of 'yes, he broke his oath and leaked all these documents,
but he was young and idealistic and believed himself to be acting on a higher
purpose, thus he's really only guilty of exercising very poor judgment.' But
(in theory) if the unpublished logs include him having a bad day and going on
an extended rant to the effect that 'bin Laden was right' or 'the American
empire deserves to collapse' or something? Such sentiments are not unknown,
and considering that members of Congress have already been calling for the
kid's execution - although none of the charges against him carry the death
penalty - if evidence of a 'bad' motivation comes before the public there's
likely to be lynch mobs forming outside the camp where he's being held. More
likely, there's an entirely different set of possible motivations.

 _[Quoting OP article] When I first wrote back in June about Wired's
concealment of these chat logs, the excuses Poulsen gave were quickly proved
to be false._

That's very much a matter of opinion. The parts that were not in Wired's
original release which later appeared in the WaPo (orange and red text at the
link above) all seem to me to have a bearing on these subjects. 'Sensitive
information' could refer to the removal of Assange's name/identifying detail
in some places, but mostly Wired's redactions seem to concern such personal
matters as Manning's emotions, mental stability, and life situation, which
might interpreted as damning or mitigating by different people. Greenwald says
several parts are neither, but doesn't say which parts or (more importantly)
why he thinks so.

The personal information here appears to show Manning as a troubled kid who
turned to the army in search of the stability that was missing in his life,
but became deeply disillusioned with the institution and country he served. It
appears that the army had become disillusioned with Manning too, and that he
was being discharged for an 'adjustment disorder.' What that means is
uncertain, but there's been a lot of speculation to the effect that Manning
was gay or had gender identity issues. That's a pretty contentious subject as
far as it relates to the military (see the depth of feeling in the recent
debate about repealing DADT) and the extent to which it could have affected
Manning personally, and the extent to which any lack of stability on Manning's
part would be his fault or that of the army's, are questions which could have
a significant bearing on his sentence. And because the issue is very
contentious, it tends to split opinion further among those already holding
polarized opinions: if you think Manning's a bad person, then his personal
hangups may compound his moral failings or be an unacceptable sympathy play;
if you think he's a good person, then his personal hangups may be an
additional justification for leaking the secrets of an unfairly
discriminatory, or an unacceptable attempt to smear him as a sexual deviant.

It seems to me that Poulsen decided to publish those parts of the logs which
showed Manning's access to, awareness of, and methods for leaking classified
information. In other words, the published excerpts offer answers to the
question of where multiple different leaks of military and diplomatic
information came from (one single intelligence analyst tasked with cross-
referencing army intel with that from other branches of government); whether
the leaking was a deliberate act, or an accidental result of bureaucratic
incompetence (deliberate, with understanding of content, likely publicity, and
negative impact); and whether the allegations were credible (obviously the
government intranet does not include a 'leak to public?' option, and the weak
point was the CD-RW supposedly filled with Lady Gaga tunes (am I the only
person who finds this detail bizarrely ironic?)). All this information is
concerned with factual issues. Courts-martial have to establish proof beyond a
reasonable doubt as do civilian courts, but they differ in terms of things
like jury requirements, which may make it easier to deal with the publication
of factual evidence than would be the case for a civilian trial. But while it
may be easy to prove the acts occurred, mental state, criminal responsibility,
and would be an appropriate sentence are much trickier questions. Because such
matters are inherently subjective, the standards for evaluating them are
different from those for establishing material fact, and there are different
risks of potential bias.

My guess is that Wired's legal department (rather than Poulsen as an
individual) would have gone through the transcripts marking different sections
as factual or subjective, with lesser or greater possibilities of bias and
thus legal liability for publication.

~~~
pessimizer
My guess on why you're being downvoted is because this very long comment
starts with the sentence: "It seems to me that Greenwald is assuming his own
conclusion here, that the chat logs provide evidence of Manning's innocence."

I don't remember Greenwald ever claiming or even giving off a vibe that he
didn't think that Manning was the leaker; this is a media critique, like most
of his work. Doesn't bode well for the next 1400 words.

~~~
anigbrowl
Ah, I guess that's my fault for using my terms too loosely. Greenwald
certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also seems to
think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly put it,
'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. In the following link, for
example, Greenwald both expresses skepticism about whether Manning is
definitely responsible for all the leaking, as well as whether he had the
state of mind required for criminal responsibility, remarking that '[..]
Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest
of motives, and probably was exactly that.'
([http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html))

This reads to me - perhaps incorrectly - like Greenwald is saying that Manning
may have a valid legal defense for his actions, as a military whistleblower.
If so, I think - again, perhaps incorrectly - that Greenwald is wrong, and
that the Supreme Court has put tighter limits on military whistleblowers than
on the general public (Parker v. Levy 417 US 733 (1974)
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7171415278006906...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7171415278006906954)).
Please note that I'm speculating on what the law actually is, not what it
ought to be.

~~~
ghshephard
". Greenwald certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also
seems to think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly
put it, 'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. "

I've read every article Greenwald has ever written on Manning, and I've never
seem him state that, or even imply that Manning is not guilty. About the
furthest I've seen him go is imply that perhaps we should not presume him to
be guilty before trial, and that we should treat him as a suspect, and not a
convicted felon, until that point.

~~~
anigbrowl
Do you mean that you don't agree with my reading of what he said in the
example I gave? (It's about half way down the linked page, right after a ' * *
* * * ' divider, or you could just search on the text I quoted.)

Greenwald does go into some detail about why he considers Manning to be a
'whistleblower' - a term with legal meaning, as used in _eg_ 'Military
Whistleblower Protection Act.' It certainly sounds like he's suggesting it
would be a valid defense (as in, 'yes, I did those things but I am not guilty
because I was acting as a whistleblower'). If not, what do you think he means?

------
freejoe76
Speaking of disgrace, Salon is prominently featuring ads to scammy sites like
hxxp://www.online8report.com/Acai-Berry/ right next to that article.

------
phatboyslim
This may be too far out there, but does anyone believe that perhaps Poulsen
has some closeted sympathy for Manning given his black hat history and
subsequent history with law enforcement? I'm not saying that is his motive,
but I do wonder if it plays into his decision at all. He once did also
actively pursue freedom of information through non-legal means.

------
jdp23
TL;DR summary: Glenn thinks Kevin Poulsen is a disgrace for not publishing the
chat logs Adrian Lamo gave him involving Bradley Manning (or somebody claiming
to be Bradley) (as potentially edited by Adrian).

~~~
robterrell
Your summary misses the longest and most interesting part of the article: the
discussion of the pre-existing relationship between Lamo, Mark Rasch, Poulsen,
and Chet Uber (can the names in the saga get any better?), the fact that Rasch
is the guy who sent Poulsen to prison before he was a writer for Wired, the
fact that Rasch himself is a writer for Wired, and the fact that Lamo's claims
about the contents of the log continue to shift in ways that seem beneficial
to the prosecution.

~~~
jdp23
Fair enough. None of this is news but the information about the relationships
is useful for people who aren't familiar with the backstory.

As for Lamo's story continuing to shift, gee, what a surprise.

~~~
rhizome
I'd say the information about pre-existing relationships among the players, as
well as conflicts of interest within them, is indeed news.

~~~
jdp23
News to Greenwald, apparently. It's well known in the security and civil
liberties communities.

~~~
tomkarlo
Regardless of how well known those relationships are in certain circles, Wired
should still disclose them when publishing a story, given that they have a
much wider target audience.

------
coreymull
I usually like Greenwald and in general agree with his argument here. But I
sure as hell don't like the ad-homing of Lamo as a mental patient and
convicted felon. Not relevant, Glenn.

~~~
olefoo
I don't know that he's engaging in an _ad hominem_ so much as pointing out
that it is unusual for someone who was just released from mental health
supervision to be acting as a key witness in a federal prosecution. And Adrian
lamo is a convicted felon so that's a factual detail relevant to the story.

The thing that makes this story confusing to many people is that there are
multiple overlapping contexts in play here.

1\. Glenn Greenwald is attempting to hold Kevin Poulsen accountable as a
journalist for holding back information relevant to the story and for failing
to disclose his ties to other actors who are directly involved in the story.

2\. Greenwald is attempting to establish when Lamo began working for the
government in this case, and is using parts of the transcript released so far
to show that it was probably much earlier than Lamo claims.

3\. He's also attempting to show that it's quite likely that the inhumane
treatment being afforded to Pfc. Manning is intended to coerce him into
implicating others in his criminal activities whether the facts and the law
support that implication or not.

------
earnubs
s/--/&mdash;/g

~~~
earnubs
Out of interest am I being down-voted because this is off topic, too short, or
because no-one is interested in typesetting and the humble em dash?

------
shareme
This is Wikileaks thesis that those who have influence are hiding facts to
miss-lead public to a different conclusion..

Here we have 2 of the 4 and possibly 3 of the four being government informants
driving a miss-leading conclusion of the media story and using Wired as
government mouthpiece..

I submit that wikileaks will not be charged by the US government due to the
corrupt miss-handling of both government informants in this case as well las
the PR work the government embarked upon...there are simply too many skeletons
that no-one wants to see the light of day..

And the US government has history of dropping prosecution if secrets are used
as evidence in courts as they do not want them exposed...However, Manning is
different case because he will be in the Military court system not the public
US court system..which is unfortunate as he should be able to defend himself
using whatever evidence Wired has..

------
jkava
What's the problem? He has a right not to publish. This article screams
"written because I'm mad at Wired." Get your own source and then we'll talk
about who's a "journalistic disgrace."

------
nailer
Great article. Flagged as not hacker relevant. Post it to Reddit.

