Adrian Lamo Explains His Decision To Expose Bradley Manning 341
ilikenwf writes "Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for exposing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it."
Lamo is self-serving POS (Score:5, Interesting)
Lamo was arrested in 2003 for breaking into the NY Times website along with Yahoo, Microsoft and other. Before that he broke into various corporate networks, Lexis-Nexis, etc. [wired.com] Facing a possible 15 year prison sentence he took a plea bargain with reduced it to 6 month to be spent under house arrest at his parent's home. How did he get such a sweet deal? Was part of the deal an agreement to become an FBI informant possibly? Because if the Anonymous arrests have proven one thing, when hackers are faced with serving serious jail time, they will rat their own mothers out to cut a deal.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Interesting)
Manning uncovered a lie by the USA Government.
Lamo uncovered a truth about a fellow soldier.
Both had just reasoning, but only one is being punished.
That is the problem here... these events would have never happened had the cover up never been.
Re:It's hard reading (Score:5, Interesting)
In Lamo's place, I might've done the same.
In Manning's place, I might've also done the same.
I think the problem is the system, not the individuals who feel compelled to expose these things.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:2, Interesting)
He didn't say he was concerned with his mental health and stability. The Slashdot summary is inaccurate (gosh, how could that happen?)
From TFA:
This says almost the opposite of what Slashdot's poorly written summary did--he felt that the damage that Assange could cause was more important than concern for Assange's mental health.
Re:Hold on to your prejudices (Score:2, Interesting)
Talk about prejudices, do you have any source that shows his leadership was corrupt?
Yes. Manning himself, if you bothered to read the message logs between Manning and Lamo. Unfortunately the military decided not to investigate, which makes sense, because "leadership" is very seldom punished when they are only following orders. Under the Bush administration even Generals were fired for not towing the line (you can Google it, though it's common knowledge for anybody who pays attention to the news). When the political leadership is corrupt, it makes sense that the career soldiers who want to keep their jobs will also likely be corrupt). To be succinct: I don't have any good quality, unbiased, primary references. But this should not be surprising to you are anybody familiar with the affair. There will never be transparency in a corrupt government, so you shouldn't expect anything to happen. Yes I was in the military also, and I know how it works. People don't get promoted for being nice or honest, though these things are not mutually exclusive.
I was in the Army for six years... there have been guys who were fairly universally disliked, but there are enough personalities that everyone inevitably has buddies.
I was in the army for 4 years and I never had any "buddies". That fact alone makes you a liar (OK I'll take that back: YOU are being presumptuous). But in the military, the concept of "buddy" is fairly loose. I certainly met very few people that I considered intelligent or moral enough to converse with (although my standards are probably higher than most people's.) You also should realize that Manning was in a fairly specialized position where he likely had few people to choose from as friends and confidants. Yes, I learned NOT to talk to people too much in the army, because I don't like "blanket parties", for example. People who are well socialized tend to give blanket parties to people who stand out. And the army is NOT for a person who is intelligent enough to question authority, no matter what the law or code of ethics or the local chaplain has to say about it.
To be fair, I'll mention that I was not in the American military, but in the Canadian army, and I did meet a lot of good people, but I never got to know them long enough to be REAL buddies with them, or to feel comfortable enough to talk to them about things that could threaten their careers and my personal safety. Let's face it, if you come up with some deviant philosophical idea that poses a threat to the standard way of thinking and doing things, you aren't going to be showing off like you would in a graduate-level philosophy or political science class.
If he wanted, to, he could have made an IA complaint, or wrote to his Representative or Senator, both of which bypass his leadership. And everyone knows about those channels because people will file complaints against their drill sergeants in basic.
I'm too cynical to laugh out-loud. Filing a complaint against a drill sergeant for being mean? Your rhetorical arguments lack substance. Again, I will tell you, I was in the army. I know how much BULLSHIT this statement is. And so do you. The exact SAME people who were in leadership positions in government when Richard Barlow [wikipedia.org] got fired and charged with offenses against the nation are the same people that were in the highest ranks of the Bush administration that spurred Mannly on. BTW, Richard Barlow wasn't even a "whistle blower" as the Wikipedia article states. He was actually summoned to testify in front of a congressional committee. He was merely persecuted because he did not lie about the American involvement in helping Pakistan (and indirectly Iran) develop nuclear weapons. People who go against policy, no matter how corrupt, illegal, or unethical it is, will never win (through conventional means). If you play by the rules of your enemy, and you play in their backyard, a