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."
Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
but I think a few years in solitary isn't the best thing for one's mental health and stability.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is not responsible for the way Manning was treated. You have to thank your beloved commander in chief for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He claims he was concerned about Manning's mental health??? Manning has ended up locked in solitary confinement for YEARS on end. That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.
Re: (Score:2)
That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.
Yes, except for the three meals a day, regulation cot, freshly laundered clothes, shower, toilet, heating and air conditioning, material to read, contact with family, mental health counseling, religious counseling, legal counsel and lack of torture devices, it's almost identical to a medieval dungeon with torture devices.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
Naked does not equal freshly laundered clothes, cot with no bedding is not comfortable especially when you are regularly denied it use, air conditioning does not necessarily equate to comfort when gutless psychopaths adjust the controls and counselling services were severely restricted and used more in the content of the carrot and the stick. So as always distortions by a propagandist based upon the truth being left out.
Lamo is just a gutless coward who went for a personal grab for glory all else is a lie. Like your typical narcissist he personally has no real idea of what is appropriate social behaviour and what is not, hence his criminal past and then of course time spent setting up his 'sic' friends (narcissists have no friends everyone is there to be used). So typical self serving selfish disconnect from what is real human social behaviour and the arse hat makes a big grab for notoriety and fame by stabbing a true hero in the back. Let's not forget all the other arse hats at Wired who similarly could not differentiate between a hero and the criminals the hero was exposing, so a piece of shit web site that should be avoided. Even now Lamo focusing is on how traitorous behaviour is affecting him and not how it is affecting Bradely Manning nor and more importantly how it is affecting other whistle blowers. The shit head still can not see how his disgusting behaviour is serving to protects liars and criminals, how it allows corrupt governments to hide the truth, how other people in similar positions to Bradely Manning have to hide corruption in fear of being stabbed in the back by the gutless back stabbing Adrian Lamo's of the world. Two years and he is over it, a hundred lifetimes wont bury that deceit and it's attack upon the truth, for the self serving glory of some worthless jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So 'suicide watch' is 'torture'?
Next time, don't make jokes of killing yourself when in the clink.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the Watcher, I mean, if they are an antisocial asshole like you, then yes, it's torture.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html [telegraph.co.uk]
"Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed," Mr Hassani said, "and if we found people doing any of these things we would beat them with staves soaked in water - like a knife cutting through meat - until the room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they died.
"We always tried to do different things: we would put some of them standing on their heads to sleep, hang others upside down with their legs tied together. We would stretch the arms out of others and nail them to posts like crucifixions.
Re: (Score:2)
Lamo did not know this would happen to Manning. All he knew at the time was that Manning was unstable and was going to release classified materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well manning should have sought protection under those laws. Except that when the Army stamps classified on something the judge who enforces the law can't legally see that a crime was uncovered.
The govt writes the laws, so gives itself loopholes when it doesn't like those laws.
The flat LEGAL answer is that Manning committed a crime (or Civil Disobedience...from a war zone) when he sent those first documents. He clearly did that all on his own without this Lamo guy involved.
Lamo kept hearing the guy brag a
Re: (Score:3)
At that point it's your DUTY to call in the suspicion.
Who agreed that this 'duty' exists? "Keep your mouth shut and don't rat out your friends" is the ancient wisdom that seems to work best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The govt writes the laws, so gives itself loopholes when it doesn't like those laws.
A solid true key point made in your post yet a point that shouldn't be the case. Law should be an independent entity above government and the law should be leveraged to hold governments accountable but it's not used this way, nor is it built to do so.
The Manning / Lamo situation is an interesting one as the greatest wrongs were not committed by either man. It's committed by the above statement. Think of the movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford where there's happy ending in the story. In real life it's mo
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption is a very interesting topic. I work on three simple philosophies when dealing with a wrong when it comes to business or government situations. They go like this.
1. Stupidity and/or Fear. People in powerful positions are sometimes afraid of change or are simply just too vanilla to get it. Regardless of how many letters before or after their name, what position they hold or how much money they earn. Stupid can be found at the top of any government or business food chain.
2. Precedence. Old broken la
Re: (Score:3)
And eventually one of these people gets to point guns (or other power) at the others to shut up or lie. Then you have nasty conspiracies.
Re: (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:
Re: (Score:2)
Your careful analysis/teardown of TFA is rather hampered by the fact that it's Bradley Manning that Lamer is talking about, not Assange.
Re: (Score:3)
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?
I'm guessing the weight of criticism Lamo has faced has forced him to figure out a plausible alternate explanation (aside from "Manning was going to get US soldiers killed, so I turned him in") that was more palatable to folks who don't much care for the US or its m
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
One committed treason and violated the code of ethics he agreed to. The other did not.
This is why one is being punished and the other is not. I am not aware of a precedent for the US government punishing someone for reporting treason.
Whistleblowing is not treason. (Score:2)
Claiming Manning committed treason is like saying copyright infringement is theft.
Manning saw all the innocents whose lives were taken, and did the best thing he knew how to save more lives. If any lives were put at risk by the leak, they are far outweighed by the lives endangered by the military continuing to kill in secrecy, without consequence. Manning didn't commit treason. The US Military commits far more treacherous acts daily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One committed treason and violated the code of ethics he agreed to. The other did not.
This is why one is being punished and the other is not. I am not aware of a precedent for the US government punishing someone for reporting treason.
Being punished before being convicted is a fucking crime against humanity. Fuck my government's asshole raw until it bleeds then give a seawater-lemon-juice enema.
Re: (Score:2)
A member of the military decides to overrule the decisions of the civilian government. What could possible go wrong.
If you do not think this is true you are an idiot. President Obama could sign a pardon today and this would all end.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning didn't know what he uncovered. He just grabbed all the stuff he could.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
You're projecting. If this is just about "proper channels", then why aren't military and CIA officials being prosecuted for the crimes revealed by Manning? Why is it that only the whistleblowers are facing prosecution, not those who committed torture and war crimes?
Idiots.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:4, Insightful)
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
Proven to be false, a complete "red herring".
Re: (Score:2)
Blaw, blaw, blaw...
If you feel that strongly, why not post with you actual User Name, Mr. Anonymous Coward?
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
Yea, about that...
It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?
OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? The submitter thinks that the thing to learn from this is that you need to do things anonymously and don't brag about it? My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore? And yes, that's a
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?
Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this [techdirt.com] going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Insightful)
...and you know this how?
I read the news. Note I said read and not watch. I could list dozens of stories (probably hundreds if I took some time to research) of questionable if not down right illegal actions by the US government in the last few years. I'll name 2 quick ones other than the one I linked to just to get you started. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes. It's not hyperbole. It's reality and it's getting worse rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know it was zero loss of life? You're keeping track of all these Afghani informants?
Re: (Score:2)
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
Yea, about that...
It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?
OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.
So you're saying that agents' lives haven't been endangered? How do you know? What would you look for?
Re: (Score:3)
"Do you believe that if the CIA actually lost, or had to recall an agent, that they would advertise that fact? "
They would if it was politically expedient.
Re: (Score:2)
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?
This is complete BS and has been thoroughly debunked [slashdot.org] numerous times.
Babylon 5 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in the "life lessons from a science fiction" category, he also quotes a science fiction story with an opposite message, where he realized a greater good beyond an individual's personal interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the people who started these wars and set up the whole situation to begin with are COMPLETELY blameless and aren't responsible for the situations they created or the harm they've done! Fuck Manning! Asshole, making us aware of the horrors the US government commits on a daily fucking basis. What a selfish jerk!
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame both, actually. It's not an either/or situation. Our leaders should be held accountable. So should Manning for dumping classified data instead of being a whistleblower on specific crimes or incidents.
Re:Babylon 5 (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh, quoting a Sci-Fi show in any context for facts and reality - you are excused from the table young man, go to your room and play with your toys.
Science fiction (both literature and tv shows) has a long and noble history of using future scenarios to make in-depth political and social commentary.
In fact, I recall one Star Trek OST episode was considered to be too critical of the Vietnam War, and so was censored down to 9 minutes (!) when it was first aired in Australia to make it less subversive.
If you've never seen past the future tech and aliens to understand the underlying themes to be found in good sci-fi, then I pity you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Concerned" my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because when I'm "concerned" about somebody's mental stability, the FIRST thing I think of is sending them off to be held for 900+ days in solitary confinement and psychologically tortured.
This sort of post-hoc rationalization is actually *more* embarrassing than Lamo just coming and saying, "yeah, I did it for the fame. Suck my dick!"
Re: (Score:2)
Im sure it was on his orders that Manning was held in solitary as well.
Your reasoning isnt much better than his TBQH.
Lamo only cares about getting paid (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be nice to see Anonymous take on Lamo as a new "project." Someone ought to teach him that there's a price that comes with being a paid informant, even in a police state.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing, someone advocates making Lamo a "project" and is modded up (I can only assume "project" is a threat for either bodily or economic harm). Someone else defends the common sense and is modded down.
I don't believe him (Score:2)
I can't believe these were his primary goals at the time. I think he got into something that was way more than he expected, and he pulled a c.y.a. move and sent Manning down the river. Saying he did it for the good of the Afghan people that might be named in the documents seems revisionist. But I guess only he knows, so he gets to tell whatever story he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he got into something that was way more than he expected, and he pulled a c.y.a. move and sent Manning down the river.
Exactly.
Saying he did it for the good of the Afghan people that might be named in the documents seems revisionist.
It's not just revisionist, it's obviously false. He's acting as if those documents were transmitted in secret to the Taliban, and that if it weren't for him, nobody else would know about it. In reality, Wikileaks published the documents, so those Afghan people already had just as much warning, regardless of Lamo's involvement.
Just about everybody that gets caught online... (Score:3)
2. told somebody what they're doing
3. don't understand enough about computers to not get caught
4. used their home IP
Missing anything? There's a trend forming here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on to your prejudices (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Manning never "bragged" about anything. He was reaching out to a fellow hacker (who claimed to be a priest that Manning could confess to without consequence).
Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy. His own father hated him for his homosexuality. He had nobody and was under an extreme amount of stress while trying to expose the corruption of his government. Almost ANYBODY would have made the mistake of trying to seek out a person that would be like-minded.
If this Adrian Lamo were honest and not just trying to save what is left of his "journalism" career, then he would be doing everything in his power to try and free Manning for standing by his principles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Manning was in a hostile environment with NO friends and with leaders who were corrupt and untrustworthy.
Talk about prejudices, do you have any source that shows his leadership was corrupt?
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.
while trying to expose the corruption of his government.
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.
He didn't tak
Re: (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
Hate Bradley's treatment, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
there's a good way and a bad way to leak information to the press. Wholesale dumps that destroy innocuous diplomatic relationships and endanger spies and contacts is a bad way.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people so religiously devoted to the idea that information should be free, all information, that they refuse to see any alternative. Someone who sets the information free is a hero of the highest caliber to them.
Yep, also kinda limits the defense of it (Score:3)
If you leak only certain things, well then the argument can be made that you did it out of conscience. You saw these things and said "The public needs to know this. Even though I took an oath not to reveal this, this public needs to know, it is more important." This is the kind of thing that happened with the Pentagon Papers.
However when you just go and wholesale release whatever you can grab, well that kinda goes out the window. You didn't do it for conscience reasons, you did it for other reasons, ego it
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around.
For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.
Re: (Score:2)
So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten? I hope you say no. Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him? Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.
Re: (Score:3)
So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten?
For his narcissism? No. But he just gave an interview where he said he consciously made a decision that he knew might have literally ended another man's life. Death threats are one thing, but how many people have actively taken steps to kill Adrian Lamo -- the way he admits he did to Bradley Manning? I hope he realizes that there might be consequences for actions as grave as his, but I assume he doesn't, because he's a narcissist.
Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him?
Again, for his narcissism? No on the "gut-level hate," whatever that means. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Diplomatic relations were extremely strained and are still being rebuilt.
Yes it may have made sense to release critical information regarding military abuses. However the information was not read or sifted through in advance, instead it was dumped wholesale even though the vast majority of it was diplomatic gossip.
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.
Like with most situations in life... (Score:5, Insightful)
One has to pick their path.
The things that really sticks out in this saga are 1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world. He chose to ignore that route and used the media instead. 2) Lamo looked at the shear number of documents and had to make a choice to either do nothing with the possibility of many people being killed, or turn Manning in with the possibility of facing the death penalty. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
This saga has parallels in history. Think back to the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There were those in the program that had to come to grips with the fact that the work they did led to 250,000+ dead. They had basically two choices. Accept the notion that dropping those bombs led the the end of the war and ultimately reduce the total number of dead, or go crazy thinking otherwise, since we can never know for sure.
Right or wrong, Lamo chose his path and I will not fault him for it. Manning on the other hand choose poorly.
Re:Like with most situations in life... (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world.
This assumes it is considered wrong-doing by the people he is required to report to.
So how did they view the wrong-doing? You'll notice the lack of arrests other than Manning.
Re: (Score:2)
So how did they view the wrong-doing? You'll notice the lack of arrests other than Manning.
What do you consider wrong-doing, revealed by Manning, that is yet to be addressed?
Specifics, please.
History Will Judge Them (Score:2)
And I'm of the opinion that Manning will be the winner.
Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism (Score:3, Insightful)
He's the kind of fuckhead who would be ratting his friends out an invading force the week after they rolled over his town. He's loyal to power, doesn't have any semblance of principles that exist outside of worshiping power, and therefore he's a fucking model American (or German or Frenchman or whomever is running the show).
He probably spends weekends having wet dreams about exposing plots that discredit Old Glory, or any of the principles she has pretended to have over the past 200 years. He sleeps with on hand on a flagpole, stroking it erotically as he tries to imagine a thousand dead bodies and ten thousand eviscerated limbs and container ships full of blood pouring over his naked body to celebrate the March of Freedom -- making a pitstop in weak Arab States before it returns to bring justice to the nigger Filipinos and nigger Mexicanos and Panamanians and Nicaraguans and Hatians, fouling his financial lebensraum and ruining a diverse America predicated on the phallus worship of power and of the gun and all her related orgasms of control and death -- as long as Freedom worships American Freedom unconditionally. Unconditionally, as judicious as God: you are either with Us, or you are against Us and you are doomed to die if you do not obey. But you won't have to wait for hell in the afterlife. This is currently available for overnight delivery, if you call now.
Just before he climaxes, a tear forms in Adrian's eye as he imagines how glorious and good he is, offering the savage Arab a chance to get on their knees and sign up for slavery instead of being killed on the spot. He revels in the moment that God was in the room when his Lord and Savior, George Herbert Walker, decided in his infinite wisdom to kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis and displace two million more in order to improve women's rights by sending tens of thousands of them into prostitution after killing their husbands on the battlefield. In his own way, Adrian has freed the Iraqi people from the tyranny of owning their own resources, and replaced their struggle against corruption of their government with a loss of basic security, infrastructure, and education.
And when he does climax, Adrian thinks about the power he protects. He thinks about raping and murdering a prisoner and then helping cover it up without having to answer to any semblance of a court. He heaves his entire body into rapture as he pictures an innocent man being electrocuted to death by someone from the Agency while Bradley Manning is forced to watch from a prison cell, crying for mercy, as part of his "non-torture" permanent solitary confinement that Adrian bravely initiated because... why?
Because in Adrian's sick fantasy, Bradley Manning is the individual who needs to be cured of dangerous fantasies. But the truth is that Adrian Lamo is a hallow imitation of a human being, and when he passes away there probably won't be a soul left to save. Lamo will worship whoever has the biggest gun, and it will serve him well because parasites make up for their lack of intelligence and abandoned independence with dependence on larger, more powerful entities who will accept fealty from any random piece of shit from the street, including Adrian Lamo.
Re: (Score:2)
...
And when he does climax, Adrian thinks about the power he protects. He thinks about raping and murdering a prisoner and then helping cover it up without having to answer to any semblance of a court. He heaves his entire body into rapture as he pictures an innocent man being electrocuted to death by someone from the Agency while Bradley Manning is forced to watch from a prison cell, crying for mercy, as part of his "non-torture" permanent solitary confinement that Adrian bravely initiated because... why?
I really, really hope the parent poster is some type of forum robot (pseudo-AI) whose algorithm/database has run amok ...
Re: (Score:3)
It was poor and loose imitation of JG Ballard's "Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan [blogspot.com]" published way back in 1968 when it was okay to have an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope your posting privileges get removed.
Translation: I choose not to understand what we achieved by making Freedom of Expression a basic right.
My feelings at the moment totally trump all that hippie bullshit anyway.
Re:Adrian Lamo: Poster Child for Power Patriotism (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I love my fellow citizens. They're more offended by talking about death and destruction than they are about paying for it.
not really. (Score:4, Informative)
This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...
Why Manning contacted Lamo? (Score:2)
What self-respecting hacker loses his old PGP key?
"After receiving this first set of emails, Lamo says he replied - despite not knowing who these emails were from or what they w
Re: (Score:2)
What self-respecting hacker loses his old PGP key?
The kind that never wants old stuff decrypted.
No (Score:2)
Either he is an informer and enemy of free men pleading for forgiveness or a fool so bad he's got to suffer at least some repercussions.
I've no mercy to spare him.
Real Reason (Score:2, Funny)
The real reason is that he hasn't had any attention for almost a decade, when he was on The Screen Savers and stuff after all of his hacking pursuits, so he had to do something to get back on the news.
Lamo is full of it (Score:3)
Trying to make it look like he was concerned. When you look at the chat transcripts [wired.com], Lamo just badgers Manning for info.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I would try to clear me name by claiming ultruistism too.
Do you mean "altruism"?
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that spell check doesn't work on slashdot input fields, but it does on other forums like reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I would try to clear me name by claiming ultruistism too.
Do you mean "altruism"?
Except with rocket boots.
Re: (Score:3)
"Espionage" in what sense, exactly? He wasn't in the employ of a foreign government.
Re:Why does he need to explain himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the "espionage" is actually evidence of crimes, and the authorities are criminals. I know it's hard to accept, but the people in charge are not always right and good.
Re: (Score:3)
Colloquially: you're a dumbfucker. On what planet is leaking evidence of mass criminality, corruption and war crimes equivalent to leaking the identity of a whistleblower? Until you have a video showing Manning gunning down unarmed civilians - and then gunning down people trying to rescue the dying civilians - you can cram that false equivalency right up your dumb ass.
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: (Score:2)
Lamo can't write a coherent message to save his life.
If you liked the Q&A interview, don't forget to read his lengthy, rambling, and confusing essay about it! [guardian.co.uk]
Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources..." (Score:5, Informative)
Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Informants named [wikipedia.org]
Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.
On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.
Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.
Re:Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.
It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Tali
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley Manning didn't know and neither did Adrian (Score:2)
Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Informants named [wikipedia.org]
Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.
On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.
Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.
When you're talking about a leak that big there is no way to know what it could expose. Adrian had no choice, and Bradley Manning betrayed his oath.
Re: (Score:2)
What about telling Manning that he was a minister?
Re: (Score:2)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
U.N. Convention Against Torture (Score:3)
Felony? How about violating a major treaty? The UN Convention Against Torture - signed by that hippie Ronald Reagan - requires prosecution of those who commit torture. A law that Obama has spent 4 years violating by protecting Bushco torturers from prosecution. Then there's the warrantless wiretapping, lying us into 2 wa