

Greenwald responds on Wired/Lamo/Poulsen/Manning affair - Bud
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1

======
Bud
Actually not a dupe; Greenwald's response was in two parts, and this is the
other (and somewhat more relevant) part.

~~~
gnosis
You're right. It's not a dupe. I hadn't realized that Greenwald responded
twice in the same day, on the same news website, and with two very similar
URLs. Actually checking the content convinced me they were two different
responses.

Just for the sake of completeness, here's a link to the other one:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049072>

~~~
Bud
Glenn probably should have done us a favor and just made one giant post, like
he so often does. Thanks for the correction!

------
commandar
>Back in June -- once Poulsen's claims that they were withholding only private
information and national security secrets was proven false by The Washington
Post's subsequent publication of chat excerpts that fell into neither category
-- this is what I called on Wired to do:

This is where I disagree with Greenwald. I spent some time looking over a
combined version of the logs that have been released by various sources to
date[1], and didn't come to the same conclusion at all.

Looking at what Wired _did_ release, I think two criteria stand out -- it's
all about either leaks that were already public knowledge or directly related
to Manning's role in leaking the documents.

If you look at what Wired omitted, it's most of the transcript we have for May
22. The parts that Wired chose to omit are almost entirely either about leaks
that weren't yet public at the time Wired published in June or Manning talking
about his mental and emotional state. This aligns fairly well with Wired's
claim that the portions they chose to withhold were sensitive to either
national security or of a personal nature. Looking directly at the primary
source _bolsters_ Wired's argument, if anything, in my opinion.

[1] <http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/>

~~~
gnosis
Even if that's the case, why can't Wired just come out and either confirm or
deny that the withheld chat logs substantiate Lamo's claims?

And if portions of the chat logs do in fact substantiate Lamo's claims, why
can't just those portions be released?

------
grandalf
One heuristic that can be used in a situation like this (Greenwald vs Wired)
is to measure the amount of psychological trickery leaking from each side's
statement.

One classic trick is to get righteously indignant. People act that way to
persuade others (emotionally, not logically) that they are right. It's a
classic trick of psychological manipulation.

The Wired guys have level 10 indignation, while Glenn has about a level 1.

~~~
gnosis
That's an interesting approach.

An alternative one is to actually look in to the substance of their respective
arguments, analyze the evidence they offer, and judge them by that.

~~~
grandalf
True, the heuristic I mentioned should only be used as part of a more complete
analysis.

------
sofuture
Let's keep in mind:

Manning, who has variously been reported to have had 'adjustment issues',
gender identity issues and/or been grappling with his sexual identity reaches
out to someone _openly queer_ , out of the blue, as a like-minded person to
talk to.

I fail to see the massive conspiracy here, aside from a refusal to air (more)
of Manning's private life.

The latest salvo in this journalist internet mudslinging (from both parties)
is not at all HN worthy.

~~~
Bud
Straw man. Nobody has alleged a "massive conspiracy". What's being alleged is
quite limited and can be substantiated.

