http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/19/bradley-manning-pre-trial-hearing-live-updates
The Bradley Manning trial is starting.
Quote• Thousands more confidential cables could have been leaked by Manning were it not for a corrupted computer file, it was suggested in court. A computer forensics expert said he found a file containing 10,000 cables – none of which had been released by WikiLeaks. "When it was created something went wrong, there was a partial problem," David Shaver said.
• It was suggested that Manning had hoped to "remove the fog of war" by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified documents on Iraq and Afghanistan. A memory card found amongst the soldier's belongings after they were shipped back to his aunt's house contained 400,000 records of significant activities from Iraq and 91,000 from Afghanistan. A text document alongside the files stated: "This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time. Removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetrical warfare." Other files found on either the memory stick or Manning's laptop contained contact information for Julian Assange and instructions on how to upload data to WikiLeaks, the court was told.
• The court heard from Manning's former roommate Eric Baker, a military police officer, who said after learning Manning was gay he stopped talking to him apart from conversations about whether or not to turn off the lights. Baker seemed reluctant to say that Manning had no friends but he conceded he spent most of his time alone, as Manning's lawyer David Coombs attempted to underscore his client's isolation as a gay military man.
• There was more evidence of lax security at Forward Operating Base Hammer in eastern Iraq where Manning worked. No passwords were required to access the cables and there was no prohibition on downloading cables, the hearing was told. The USB ports on Manning's computers were blocked as part of army policy so he could not download material to a USB stick or load programs or information from one, but Manning had downloaded Roxio, a program for burning CDs, onto both of his computers.
• Daniel Choi, the US soldier who was discharged from the army after coming out, was removed from Fort Meade following a confrontation with military police. Choi was accused of heckling military police, but denied this when speaking to the Guardian. He said excessive force was used to remove him from the complex.
• Scott Olsen, the Iraq war veteran injured during an Occupy Oakland protest in October, has called for the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture to be allowed access to Bradley Manning to discuss his treatment. "I served my country as a US Marine in Iraq," Olsen said. "It pains me to think that fellow Marines were ordered to effectively torture a soldier who, by blowing the whistle on the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, helped end that war."
I don't know how to feel about this. There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this. There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.
Bullshit. Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power. Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them. Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).
If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press. And Daniel Ellsberg. And that NSA guy, Drake. And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.
This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this. There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.
Bullshit. Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power. Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them. Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).
If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press. And Daniel Ellsberg. And that NSA guy, Drake. And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.
This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.
While that is a nice personal definition of treason, the Army does not, has never and never will agree with it.
It's not like he didn't know the possible consequences. There is a difference between a member of the military and a member of government staff, and while it would be nice if the same rules applied, they don't.
I may agree with what he did to a point, but I also understand where the military is coming from. No these were not essential documents that led to the death of hundreds, but it was still against the rules the Army has. Rules which the Army makes abundantly clear and in your face.
You can't pick and choose when to obey them and when not too when you are in the service. You just can't. It doesn't work that way. Besides, to repeat ad anuseum, he knew the possible consequences before he did anything.
Manning definitely intentionally broke the army's rules. No question about that.
I wouldn't call it treason. We'll see what the army calls it.
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
Was he justified in what he did? I think so. Without Manning's sacrifice, there'd be no arab spring, and possibly no #occupy.
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:54:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this. There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.
Bullshit. Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power. Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them. Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).
If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press. And Daniel Ellsberg. And that NSA guy, Drake. And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.
This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.
While that is a nice personal definition of treason, the Army does not, has never and never will agree with it.
It's not like he didn't know the possible consequences. There is a difference between a member of the military and a member of government staff, and while it would be nice if the same rules applied, they don't.
I may agree with what he did to a point, but I also understand where the military is coming from. No these were not essential documents that led to the death of hundreds, but it was still against the rules the Army has. Rules which the Army makes abundantly clear and in your face.
You can't pick and choose when to obey them and when not too when you are in the service. You just can't. It doesn't work that way. Besides, to repeat ad anuseum, he knew the possible consequences before he did anything.
Actually, it's the legal definition, as defined by the US Constitution. Unless your position is that the military can somehow overrule the highest laws of the land? Manning is a whistleblower, not a traitor.
Don't condescend to me, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)?
Actually, that's the easiest question of them all to answer.
The US is waging covert and over war over the Greater Middle East, to secure trade routes and natural resources which enrich the ruling elites of the nation. Assassinating teenagers, bombing scientific facilities, supporting bloody dictators and shipping in arms in vast quantities, with very little in the way of oversight, public debate or any form of consent.
Manning is alleged to have leaked documents which showed US political duplicity, both at home and abroad, in achieving these goals. If that was indeed his motivation, then he is no different to the likes of Daniel Ellsberg.
You (in general, not Cram) can quibble with how Wikileaks handled the documents, as many have, but Manning is not, of course, a member of the Wikileaks team.
Manning is charged under the UCMJ of "aiding the enemy". Let's just look at the definition of that crime, shall we?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm
QuoteText.
"Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
Elements.
(1) Aiding the enemy.
(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and
(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.
(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.
(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;
(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;
(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and
(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.
(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;
(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and
(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.
(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and
(b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.
(5) Communicating with the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.
Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
(2) Enemy. For a discussion of "enemy," see paragraph - 23c(1)(b).
(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.
(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.
(a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.
(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.
(b) Intelligence. "Intelligence" imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.
(c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(6) Communicating with the enemy.
(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.
Lesser included offense.
For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct
So, according to this, Manning had to either be giving classified information to the Iraqi insurgents and/or Al-Qaeda affiliates specified under the AUMF 2001 or have intended to for the charge of "aiding the enemy" to stick.
But he didn't. He gave it to an accredited journalist of an allied nation with a reputation for handling issues sensitive to national security and international crimes.
At no point is there any evidence that he gave either intended to or actually ended up giving classified information to groups violently resisting the United States Government.
But, you know, I'm just making up personal definitions for things, whereas Khara, Expert Military Lawyer, knows Manning is a traitor, even if the standards of the Constitution and the UCMJ clearly don't apply to him.
Couple of things, here:
1. Cain - While you are correct, Khara is operating under the definition of treason as understood by the vast majority of US citizens. Culturally speaking, Americans as a whole have been conditioned to believe that treason is defined as "thwarting the government, particularly the military". While she is incorrect, this is such a commonplace fallacy that it's hard for me to sneer or belittle her for it. People here in "the land of the free" are taught from birth to believe that the military is the final arbiter of what is and is not patriotic on one hand or treasonous on the other.
Consider the laughable "support the troops" slogans of the last decade. What the hell does that even MEAN? Nobody ever could answer that, because there IS no answer other than "do not question the CINC or pentagon under any circumstances". It's not Khara acting foolish, it's Khara acting on bad signal that is damn near universal in this country. I am sure there are some similarities in the UK, though I doubt it's nearly as bad.
2. Khara - Cain is correct in that there is a strict legal and constitutional definition of treason, and Bradley Manning's acts do not in any way qualify for that charge. Had he given the documents to Al Qaeda, he would be legally guilty - probably - of treason. The fact that he revealed wrongdoing to the press is an entirely different matter. The US government was acting illegally in some cases, and unethically in the rest of the cases in question.
The military - even moreso than the rest of the government - has to be held accountable at all times. It is the single biggest potential danger to the American public and to the American republic that exists. While bankers may steal from us and influence our laws, the military can at any time sieze power and there is nobody that could stop them, period. For this reason they must always be at the mercy of the press and the American people...And I say that as a veteran - especially as a veteran - and the father of a Marine.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
I got nothing other than to voice my agreement with TGGR on this.
I have no issues admitting I'm wrong and Cain I am truly sorry if you felt I was being condescending, I did not mean it that way. My apologies.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:21:33 PM
Couple of things, here:
1. Cain - While you are correct, Khara is operating under the definition of treason as understood by the vast majority of US citizens. Culturally speaking, Americans as a whole have been conditioned to believe that treason is defined as "thwarting the government, particularly the military". While she is incorrect, this is such a commonplace fallacy that it's hard for me to sneer or belittle her for it. People here in "the land of the free" are taught from birth to believe that the military is the final arbiter of what is and is not patriotic on one hand or treasonous on the other.
Consider the laughable "support the troops" slogans of the last decade. What the hell does that even MEAN? Nobody ever could answer that, because there IS no answer other than "do not question the CINC or pentagon under any circumstances". It's not Khara acting foolish, it's Khara acting on bad signal that is damn near universal in this country. I am sure there are some similarities in the UK, though I doubt it's nearly as bad.
2. Khara - Cain is correct in that there is a strict legal and constitutional definition of treason, and Bradley Manning's acts do not in any way qualify for that charge. Had he given the documents to Al Qaeda, he would be legally guilty - probably - of treason. The fact that he revealed wrongdoing to the press is an entirely different matter. The US government was acting illegally in some cases, and unethically in the rest of the cases in question.
The military - even moreso than the rest of the government - has to be held accountable at all times. It is the single biggest potential danger to the American public and to the American republic that exists. While bankers may steal from us and influence our laws, the military can at any time sieze power and there is nobody that could stop them, period. For this reason they must always be at the mercy of the press and the American people...And I say that as a veteran - especially as a veteran - and the father of a Marine.
That's a near-perfect summation of the clusterfuck as I can think of.
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 09:49:58 PM
The US is waging covert and over war over the Greater Middle East, to secure trade routes and natural resources which enrich the ruling elites of the nation. Assassinating teenagers, bombing scientific facilities, supporting bloody dictators and shipping in arms in vast quantities, with very little in the way of oversight, public debate or any form of consent.
Manning is alleged to have leaked documents which showed US political duplicity, both at home and abroad, in achieving these goals. If that was indeed his motivation, then he is no different to the likes of Daniel Ellsberg.
You (in general, not Cram) can quibble with how Wikileaks handled the documents, as many have, but Manning is not, of course, a member of the Wikileaks team.
As is that.
Manning is a hero, it's simple and obvious. He's also a martyr. The chances of him getting anything but proper fucked are slim to none.
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
The articles I have read suggested that he knew what the possible consequences of his actions were, and was prepared to face them. That doesn't make them any less unjust or awful, but hopefully that resolve has helped him to endure so far and will continue to do so.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Well, Occupy has been protesting for his release, so not everyone is doing fuckall.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Well, Occupy has been protesting for his release, so not everyone is doing fuckall.
Well, I am sure the military will back down any day now.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Well, Occupy has been protesting for his release, so not everyone is doing fuckall.
Weren't you going to post some snuff porn images or something today?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 07:01:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Well, Occupy has been protesting for his release, so not everyone is doing fuckall.
Well, I am sure the military will back down any day now.
Didn't you know? The Army is TERRIFIED of hippies and will do everything in its power to avoid an open conflict with the unwashed and unemployed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
I agree 100% with this assessment.
However, one single caveat.
There is also nothing else the government can do. Manning broke a very big rule and he got caught. If the government gave him a pass, it would open the doors to a PR mess in the military. While I personally would like an open and transparent government, I can imagine the headache that the people in charge of secrets would have if First Amendment rights trumped protecting classified data.
That being said, government secrets in a democracy run "by the people" seems insane. But then, a standing army deployed around the globe in a nation founded on ideas that included no standing army and no international wars seems insane.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
I agree 100% with this assessment.
However, one single caveat.
There is also nothing else the government can do. Manning broke a very big rule and he got caught. If the government gave him a pass, it would open the doors to a PR mess in the military. While I personally would like an open and transparent government, I can imagine the headache that the people in charge of secrets would have if First Amendment rights trumped protecting classified data.
That being said, government secrets in a democracy run "by the people" seems insane. But then, a standing army deployed around the globe in a nation founded on ideas that included no standing army and no international wars seems insane.
Expedience is not an excuse.
And secrecy is the enemy of liberty.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
I agree 100% with this assessment.
However, one single caveat.
There is also nothing else the government can do. Manning broke a very big rule and he got caught. If the government gave him a pass, it would open the doors to a PR mess in the military. While I personally would like an open and transparent government, I can imagine the headache that the people in charge of secrets would have if First Amendment rights trumped protecting classified data.
That being said, government secrets in a democracy run "by the people" seems insane. But then, a standing army deployed around the globe in a nation founded on ideas that included no standing army and no international wars seems insane.
Expedience is not an excuse.
And secrecy is the enemy of liberty.
I agree... I'm not saying I approve of their actions, only that given the version of the US we live in today, they had no choice.
If every solider knew that they could tell everything they've seen, based on their first Amendment rights, regardless of classification... I don't know if Americans would be ready for that kind of TRUTH. Hell, what they don't successfully hide is horrifying... what kind of awful do you think they're successfully hiding?
Manning is in the right from a human standpoint, but when was the last time the US Government thought of citizens as humans?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 08:01:12 PM
If every solider knew that they could tell everything they've seen, based on their first Amendment rights, regardless of classification... I don't know if Americans would be ready for that kind of TRUTH.
Fuck what they're ready for. Fat fucking bastards don't know how food gets on their table, that's not my Goddamn fault. Same way with this shit.
Just saying.
I've been reading about this today. One thing that struck me (perhaps because it's my own area of interest) is that this Adrian Lamo person is a very odd and unpredictable guy. He's nicknamed the "homeless hacker" (which is pretty accurate). Strange thing is, he used to be the kind of greyhat* hacker that I'd normally cheer for (depending on what they do, exactly).
... until he ratted on Bradley Manning. He's kind of a strange guy, diagnosed with Aspergers (though it could be any form of Autism Disorder, these things aren't black/white), mostly a stalker/hacker with social engineering skills in the style of Kevin Mitnick, except Mitnick is much saner. He's also got drug problems (amphetamines, "disassociative drugs"). He basically social engineered Manning, partly from the homo/gay angle via IM chat [I got the impression Lamo is also gay, and about the same age as Manning], though Manning was also looking for someone to talk (or as Lamo says "brag") to. The reports from the hearings say that he was "really worried about people's lives being endangered" by Mannings alleged leakings. I don't buy that for one second, Lamo just doesn't seem the type to be bothered much by such things (though he could also just be misguided). He's long time part of "Project Vigilant", which are hackers in the pocket of the authorities, not to do jobs but to act as snitches (since he got in legal troubles several times before, among other things for hacking the NY Times). Reports say he doesn't accept payment for services, except for basic covering of expenses.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of deal that he's been offered, certain charges dropped, or maybe even some offer he couldn't refuse--he's got parents that he's still in contact with, who are oddly supportive of his grey-criminal actions (thought they'd prefer him to stop, of course).
Thing is, as far as I understand, without Lamo snitching on Manning, they might not even have figured out Manning [alledgedly...] did it, at all.
* definition time:
whitehat hacker = security consultant = person that hacks things in cooperation with corporations, doing penetration tests as well as research for possible new exploits and generally abides to Responsible Disclosure (aka giving the corporation time to fix the issue before making it public),
blackhat hacker = cybercriminal, seeks exploits either for own personal gain or to sell them to criminal organisations,
greyhat hacker = person that just hacks for the shits and giggles, occasional personal gains/privileges, because they can, not for a criminal career, nor to alert people to their security holes.
Fuck these asshole "social engineers" that call themselves hackers. Social Engineering is VERY USEFUL in breaking into companies, but it does not a hacker make.
That being said, I still hve problems with the whole damned story. This guy was trained to keep secrets. Why would he out himself on IRC? What's the likelihood that he outs himself to a snitch? What's the likelihood that he and the snitch meet in a gay chat room?
If it had been a hacker chat room, I'd likely buy it. I know idiots that think chatting about exploits on a hacker channel is a awesome thing to do. However, in a gay chat room... when its the US GOV that you just pissed off? Doesn't seem like a situation where you would mention that you are responsible for a huge military information leak.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 08:01:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.
As a citizen, Manning did the right thing. The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.
As a soldier, Manning did the right thing. Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1.
In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.
In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat. He'll never see daylight again.
I agree 100% with this assessment.
However, one single caveat.
There is also nothing else the government can do. Manning broke a very big rule and he got caught. If the government gave him a pass, it would open the doors to a PR mess in the military. While I personally would like an open and transparent government, I can imagine the headache that the people in charge of secrets would have if First Amendment rights trumped protecting classified data.
That being said, government secrets in a democracy run "by the people" seems insane. But then, a standing army deployed around the globe in a nation founded on ideas that included no standing army and no international wars seems insane.
Expedience is not an excuse.
And secrecy is the enemy of liberty.
I agree... I'm not saying I approve of their actions, only that given the version of the US we live in today, they had no choice.
If every solider knew that they could tell everything they've seen, based on their first Amendment rights, regardless of classification... I don't know if Americans would be ready for that kind of TRUTH. Hell, what they don't successfully hide is horrifying... what kind of awful do you think they're successfully hiding?
Manning is in the right from a human standpoint, but when was the last time the US Government thought of citizens as humans?
The American public DESERVE to know the horrors. Fuck if they are ready. Not that it would matter. I bet most of them would just ignore the horrors, even if they were shoved into their faces.
cain pointed out on the previous page "the enemy" is never identified as any particular entity. So, that leaves space open to establish Wikileaks as a terrorist organization. In this case, Manning's a means to an end. Is that about right?
[lamo-talk]
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 22, 2011, 08:33:18 PM
I've been reading about this today. One thing that struck me (perhaps because it's my own area of interest) is that this Adrian Lamo person is a very odd and unpredictable guy.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of deal that he's been offered, certain charges dropped, or maybe even some offer he couldn't refuse--he's got parents that he's still in contact with, who are oddly supportive of his grey-criminal actions (thought they'd prefer him to stop, of course).
Thing is, as far as I understand, without Lamo snitching on Manning, they might not even have figured out Manning [alledgedly...] did it, at all.
If I movie of the week it, it just looks like a young informant who's trying to seem interesting (his claim to be the hacker all the baby hackers wannabe like), likely being harassed by the police/media, and attempting an innocence claim on the back of another person.
Here's a bit of weirdness that was probably touched on in the other thread. Apologies if I talk in circles here - I'm trying to sort this out.
What I can know is that Wired journalists have repeatedly returned to Lamo over the past decade as their accessible example of what a Real Life Hacker acts and looks like. You're right - Lamo was charged and convicted of computer crime-related felony by a U.S. Federal court for hacking into a number of higher-profile networks. He was fined, offered jobs writing for securities magazines, and came into the media -- specifically, Wired magazine -- positioned again and again as a troubled and fascinating loner hacker-character.
These might be the same articles you read?
The Homeless Hacker v. The New York Times (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/hacker_pr.html).
Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Institutionalized for Asperger's (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/lamo)
Wired reported that Lamo had been institutionalized by police for Aspergers*. But mentioning it was just a springboard for the journalist to talk about how cool and different hackers are. As though police institutionalize people for Aspergers
all the time. Do they? First I've heard of it.
Scooped up and asked to trap Manning? Possible. "But never mind," says the journalist, "Hackers are sooo cool and different from regular people, don't you agree?" It's a pet peeve of mine - that fiction of computer experts and their supposedly antisocial/robotic personalities. It gives youngsters who have a talent for computers an excuse to act like douchenozzles.
In other news, the journalist is actually writing a tell-all book on how mysterious and different hackers are from the rest of us dullards. Offensively mundane possibility number one: that Lamo and the Wired journalist did this to further cement their reputations as experts in the field of ZOMG Rain Man Hackers!
Last bit of rambly is a disclaimer. I'm just talking about that journalistic contrivance of The Hacker as Criminal, where knowing how to fix your computer from the terminal is evidence of criminal intent... to do... something... I'm not saying that coders, crackers and such aren't quirky multifaceted humans. They are, and the few I've gotten to know well have been fucking brilliant to talk with.
[/lamo-talk]
* (Huh. I just went back an re-read that wired article and there's nothing in there about force, the police, AND the timing has changed... Different from the article I read back in June last year. I've edited my post to reflect what's in the current article. fucked up... )
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
Fuck these asshole "social engineers" that call themselves hackers. Social Engineering is VERY USEFUL in breaking into companies, but it does not a hacker make.
That being said, I still hve problems with the whole damned story. This guy was trained to keep secrets. Why would he out himself on IRC? What's the likelihood that he outs himself to a snitch? What's the likelihood that he and the snitch meet in a gay chat room?
If it had been a hacker chat room, I'd likely buy it. I know idiots that think chatting about exploits on a hacker channel is a awesome thing to do. However, in a gay chat room... when its the US GOV that you just pissed off? Doesn't seem like a situation where you would mention that you are responsible for a huge military information leak.
IM, Instant Messaging. Not IRC, no chatroom. And he probably gained his trust somehow.
Also I find your remark about social engineering kind of short sighted. And I'm kinda tired of the discussion of what's a "real hacker". Lamo used a lot of technical exploits too, but you
need social engineering (aka BALLS) to leverage that into something for real powerful effect. I don't understand why you'd get so worked up about that, it's just a very different mindset than a whitehat perspective, call it a reality tunnel of you like.
And fuck now you got me defending Lamo. I don't want to do that. But I didn't expect "he's no hacker because he did social engineering" from you.
Hoser McRhizzy, yeah I read the first of those two, and two citations from his Wikipedia article on his drug problem (though the articles linked in the citations turned out to be about more than just that).
It's perhaps important to note the dates on those articles, they're all from 2002-2004, long before Wikileaks got much visibility.
I was just reading them to get some background on Lamo, see who that guy is, of course I agree that glamourizing his "homeless hacker" lifestyle is ridiculous, it's still interesting stories though, but IMO all of that changed when wikileaks got into the picture.
And that he got "scooped up" is a fact. Asked to trap Manning is a question, still.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 22, 2011, 11:07:50 PM
Hoser McRhizzy, yeah I read the first of those two, and two citations from his Wikipedia article on his drug problem (though the articles linked in the citations turned out to be about more than just that).
It's perhaps important to note the dates on those articles, they're all from 2002-2004, long before Wikileaks got much visibility.
Good point! And thanks. I put them together thinking about Wired's history with him, found them for the same reason you did - background history - and then my brain muddled them up with last year.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 22, 2011, 11:07:50 PM
I was just reading them to get some background on Lamo, see who that guy is, of course I agree that glamourizing his "homeless hacker" lifestyle is ridiculous, it's still interesting stories though, but IMO all of that changed when wikileaks got into the picture.
And that he got "scooped up" is a fact. Asked to trap Manning is a question, still.
Still, so fucking creepy... Thanks for making the distinction.
So wewant people to know Manning is a hero and do something about it while simultaneously completely disregarding that which is being done about it?
Is there a correct answer to this question or is it just an excuse to throw up our hands and give up?
I'm surprised the US Govt are still pushing so hard for the extradition of Gary Mckinnon. After nearly 10 years. If they push much harder, I can see a major review of the Extradition Treaty re; The Us.
But I am fairly sure McKinnon will not be getting extradited. In 2002, when his 'offences' came to light, the Crown Prosecution Service was looking at handing him (if convicted) a sentence of anything up to 6 months. Then when the US got involved, it was asking for 60 years.
In all fairness, Even if Mckinnon had been to America, committed the alleged offences there, then flown home, there would still quite rightly be issues over his extradition. But Gary Mckinnon has never even set foot on US soil. So really, in this case, the US Govt should shut the fuck up about it. He's not a terrorist, or a spy. He just bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols like they weren't even fucking there. Suck it up. Then get AVG or Norton to put a firewall in for you.
Sorry for the threadjack.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 22, 2011, 11:54:21 PM
So wewant people to know Manning is a hero and do something about it while simultaneously completely disregarding that which is being done about it?
Is there a correct answer to this question or is it just an excuse to throw up our hands and give up?
What are you talking about? I have no idea what you're referring to, here.
Quote from: Pope Pastor Wolf-Something-Or-Other on December 22, 2011, 07:09:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 07:01:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong.
And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.
How is this "good"?
Well, Occupy has been protesting for his release, so not everyone is doing fuckall.
Well, I am sure the military will back down any day now.
Didn't you know? The Army is TERRIFIED of hippies and will do everything in its power to avoid an open conflict with the unwashed and unemployed.
Sorry Trip, referring to this exchange.
Now I appreciate that possibly peole just want to shit on Babylon (which I'm not wild on but that's quite besides the point) but it comes off as like
-people should do something!
-they are!
-that's lame why would you do that?
Nobody is going to be able to single handedly rock up and save Manning. That's pretty much a fact. Bit there are some things, maybe small things, that are happening, and there's grounds to support those small things and try to promote them into spreading, rather than just adding snark.
I'm always a little disappointed when 'someone should do something' conversations fall into this pattern. Small attempts to make things better are completely disregarded. It's like we've decided everything is fucked and there's no hope, and anything that challenges that premise is disregarded. Now, maybe there's good grounds to believe that, but I subscribe to the idea Dolores promotes in Crams xpost (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=31104.msg1130429#msg1130429) that the only rational course of action is to act as though it's possible to make a difference. Occupy won't save Manning and maybe nothing will but it's a start at least.
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on December 22, 2011, 10:50:13 PM
cain pointed out on the previous page "the enemy" is never identified as any particular entity. So, that leaves space open to establish Wikileaks as a terrorist organization. In this case, Manning's a means to an end. Is that about right?
No.
The military prosecutors have confirmed the enemy in question is Al-Qaeda.
Also, off on a tangent here, it is worth noting that Manning only leaked "classified" cables. Ellsberg leaked 7000 pages worth of "Top Secret" rated documents. Any objective comparison would consider what Ellsberg did was far more serious than Manning. But Ellsberg is a hero and Manning was tortured and is now being put on trial (Ellsberg, incidentally, is one of Manning's most vocal supporters).
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 22, 2011, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 22, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
Fuck these asshole "social engineers" that call themselves hackers. Social Engineering is VERY USEFUL in breaking into companies, but it does not a hacker make.
That being said, I still hve problems with the whole damned story. This guy was trained to keep secrets. Why would he out himself on IRC? What's the likelihood that he outs himself to a snitch? What's the likelihood that he and the snitch meet in a gay chat room?
If it had been a hacker chat room, I'd likely buy it. I know idiots that think chatting about exploits on a hacker channel is a awesome thing to do. However, in a gay chat room... when its the US GOV that you just pissed off? Doesn't seem like a situation where you would mention that you are responsible for a huge military information leak.
IM, Instant Messaging. Not IRC, no chatroom. And he probably gained his trust somehow.
Also I find your remark about social engineering kind of short sighted. And I'm kinda tired of the discussion of what's a "real hacker". Lamo used a lot of technical exploits too, but you need social engineering (aka BALLS) to leverage that into something for real powerful effect. I don't understand why you'd get so worked up about that, it's just a very different mindset than a whitehat perspective, call it a reality tunnel of you like.
And fuck now you got me defending Lamo. I don't want to do that. But I didn't expect "he's no hacker because he did social engineering" from you.
I said it was absolutely necessary... but not on its own. In this instance, I don't see any technical exploits... just chatting with some dude and gaining his trust.
Still seems weird to me....
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on December 22, 2011, 10:50:13 PM
cain pointed out on the previous page "the enemy" is never identified as any particular entity. So, that leaves space open to establish Wikileaks as a terrorist organization. In this case, Manning's a means to an end. Is that about right?
No.
The military prosecutors have confirmed the enemy in question is Al-Qaeda.
Also, off on a tangent here, it is worth noting that Manning only leaked "classified" cables. Ellsberg leaked 7000 pages worth of "Top Secret" rated documents. Any objective comparison would consider what Ellsberg did was far more serious than Manning. But Ellsberg is a hero and Manning was tortured and is now being put on trial (Ellsberg, incidentally, is one of Manning's most vocal supporters).
Its an excellent comparison.
Elsberg was also tried for Espionage and I don't know if the public view of him was similar or different than what we're seeing now. If the Nixon administration hadn't used illegal wiretapping etc. he would probably have been convicted.
Heh, I bet those wiretaps wouldn't have been illegal today. :(
Espionage =/= Treason