backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by dsx724.. on Jun 22 at 7:12 PM


Bradley Manning has become the first Wikileaks source to be arrested.  (Source: Wired.com)

Manning will be facing charges for acting as a whistleblower, releasing thousands of documents that provided evidence of U.S. government wrong-doing.  (Source: Facebook.com)

Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo turned Manning in. He claims he did it to save U.S. lives.  (Source: Facebook.com)
Officer aired video of U.S. soldiers killing civilians, dirty documents; now faces charges

A desire to "do the right thing" may have cost a U.S. Army Intelligence officer, SPC Bradley Manning, his freedom.  Manning, age 22 of Potomac, Maryland, has become the first know Wikileaks source to face charges in an incredible story of government whistleblowing and hacker betrayal according to Wired.

Over the last several years Manning had been stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad.  There he had unprecedented access to intelligence documents.  However, upset over a demotion and what he perceived as a multitude of coverups, he decided to take action airing the United States government's dirty laundry.

An ideal place to conduct his activities was Wikileaks.  Since 2006 no leaker of documents to Wikileaks had ever been compromised.  Wikileaks maintains high-level encryption for its document-submission process and its servers are hosted in several countries to avoid legal persecution. 

After seeing several leaks on the site Manning found an item of his own, too compelling to keep secret -- a video of a U.S. military helicopter attacking what they believed to be armed insurgents.  Except, the Iraqi convoy was really peaceful civilians, armed for self protection.  The attack killed two Reuters employees.  An unarmed civilian pulls his wounded children from the van in the video, after the army chopper had riddled it with bullets.

Manning at first didn't even realize the true secrets of the video, which essentially showed the murder of civilians.  He stated, "At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter.  No big deal … about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it."

Soon he realize the video's dark secrets and made the fateful decision to share it via Wikileaks.  From there on he continued to leak documents and videos, using his Top Secret/SCI Clearance.  Last year he leaked video of a May 2009 air strike near Garani village in Afghanistan that the local government says killed nearly 100 civilians, most of them children.

Getting the files was easy.  Manning had access to two-topic secret networks -- SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level.

The networks were "air-gapped" or physically separated from declassified networks.  However, he used his direct physical access to easily grab information he wanted.  He described, "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file.  No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.  [I] listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history.  Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm."

This year Manning conducted his most ambitious leak yet -- 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning claimed contained "almost criminal political back dealings."

Late last month Manning came into contact with former hacker and Wikileaks donor, Adrian Lamo, over chat and IM.  Manning saw a kindred spirit in Lamo and soon was sharing with him his exploits with and asking him for advice.  That proved to be a fatal mistake.  Lamo handed over chat logs of Manning's admission to masterminding the diplomatic cable leak to FBI agents at a Starbucks near his house in Carmichael, California.

Manning was quickly arrested and is now being held in Kuwait as the U.S. Military and FBI investigates.  [Note: He has since been transferred to Baghdad, Iraq, according to Military statements]  Lamo, who once hacked Microsoft and The New York Times, claims that he was only doing the right thing.  He states, "I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger.  He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air."

The FBI and Military haven't announced what charges Manning will face yet. 

His family is shocked.  His aunt was the first to hear.  She received a collect call from Manning.  He told her his Facebook password and told her to post the message, "Some of you may have heard that I have been arrested for disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons. See CollateralMurder.com."

His father states, "[He was] a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been on drugs, alcohol, nothing."

In the end, being a "good kid" probably won't count for much when Manning has his day in court.  As he's about to find out the hard way, being a whistle-blower in the U.S. government may seem like the higher moral ground to some, but it's also likely to earn your a trip to prison or worse.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Too Bad
By dsx724 on 6/7/2010 4:43:58 PM , Rating: 5
Prosecuting the innocent and rewarding the guilty.




RE: Too Bad
By Drag0nFire on 6/7/2010 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This year Manning conducted his most ambitious leak yet -- 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning claimed contained "almost criminal political back dealings."


I don't know if I agree with you here. Posting a video is one thing, but posting diplomatic communique that in his opinion is "almost criminal"? That honestly sounds immoral, illegal, and quite possibly a threat to national security.

More importantly, it seems to me to cross a line from a whistle-blower acting on his conscience to a hacker acting out for attention.

I have to believe that on matters of national security, there are better places to blow one's whistle than a public website.


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 5:10:22 PM , Rating: 3
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -- Albert Einstein

quote:
I have to believe that on matters of national security, there are better places to blow one's whistle than a public website.


That seems like a subjective statement. These videos appeared to have been covered up by U.S. Intelligence Officials. Can you honestly name a place where he could have gone to see justice was served, other than the public arena?

quote:
I don't know if I agree with you here. Posting a video is one thing, but posting diplomatic communique that in his opinion is "almost criminal"? That honestly sounds immoral, illegal, and quite possibly a threat to national security.


Ah, but he'll likely be tried for both leaks, regardless of how right or wrong they respectively seem.

quote:
More importantly, it seems to me to cross a line from a whistle-blower acting on his conscience to a hacker acting out for attention.


How so? No one would ever have known his name if Lamo hadn't leaked his identity. How is that seeking attention? That's the precise opposite -- he an incredible secret, yet was willing to stay perfectly anonymous.


RE: Too Bad
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 5:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
Are you going to preface every opinion with a random historical quote that has nothing to do with the topic?

When it suits your liberal sensibilities, you quote laws like nobodies business. You'll hide behind due process and laws and even morality when you need to. Now upholding the law is "unthinking respect for authority" ? Which is it Jason?

He broke the chain of command. He breached sensitive materials. He broke who knows how many laws, and in doing so, put other people at risk by releasing sensitive materials. That is not the way things are done. Worst, if an investigation were underway (which it most certainly was) he could have terminally compromised that investigation.

What are you, twelve? It's nice to believe you can live in a world where you only have to follow your conscious, but come on Peter Pan, that's not the way it is. And no offense, but given your typical anti-military posting style, you'll forgive me if I don't fully accept your interpretation of the events of the "civilian" shootings.

We have to dispel the myth of the honorable or Crusading Hacker for Justice right here and now. What he did was WRONG, it was treasonous, and the reasons for it don't matter.


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 5:32:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sure this will get modded down, but you people need to grow up and realize that the world is not, and will never be, the idealistic place you think it is.


I believe every law should be evaluate on the basis of whether it makes sense. Perhaps you do not agree with me on every case, but I would hope you agree with me on that basic premise.

My point here is very simple. Step back for a second and forget "liberal sensibilities" and "conservative values" and think about this -- if a U.S. government officer sees or individual within a business sees evidence of wrong doing covered up by their superiors, where else to they have to go but the public?

(Well perhaps in the case of the private sector, they can at least turn to the government, thanks to whistleblowing laws)

I would support government officials exposing wrongdoing and corruption regardless of whether that exposure harmed corrupt Democrats, Republicans, Green Party members, Tea Party Members, Libertarians, or anyone else you could imagine.

That said, this is hardly a political issue, so let's not make it one, for once?

This is the Obama administration that will be trying him, remember?


RE: Too Bad
By knutjb on 6/7/2010 10:26:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In the end, being a "good kid" probably won't count for much when Manning has his day in court. As he's about to find out the hard way, being a whistle-blower in the U.S. government may seem like the higher moral ground to some, but it's also likely to earn your a trip to prison or worse.
quote:
My point here is very simple. Step back for a second and forget "liberal sensibilities" and "conservative values" and think about this -- if a U.S. government officer sees or individual within a business sees evidence of wrong doing covered up by their superiors, where else to they have to go but the public?
What BS, he violated his oath and his [security] clearance. If he had suspected wrong doing where is his attempt to work within the system. As someone who did spend 20+ years in the military there are a number of ways to blow the whistle without going public. All of which can be done without blaring an out of context video by a bunch of ignorant amateurs who think they know whats right because the read it on the web.
quote:
That said, this is hardly a political issue, so let's not make it one, for once? This is the Obama administration that will be trying him, remember?
Um no, the DOJ-Holder, do not get their hands on him. It will be handled by the Army in a courts martial. And for those who haven't had experience with such, and not many do, I hold a military courts martial above all other criminal courts for the great lengths they go to to provide a fair trial without all the insanity of a Twinkie defense.

Manning isn't a whistle blower he is a criminal. Please learn what a whistle blower is before applying such label to this guy.

BTW
quote:
I believe every law should be evaluate on the basis of whether it makes sense.
Your are wrong. If the law is Constitutional then it will make sense. If you don't use a fixed point to evaluate laws you wind up lost in moral relativism of varied personal opinion.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 10:57:12 PM , Rating: 5
If a law is constitutional then it makes sense? That's ridiculous. The laws that communities pass that ban birds from flying over parades or make it illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket are constitutional, but are also stupid and senseless. You do realize just how low the bar is for a law to be constitutional most times, right?

I spent about 7 years in the military and the idea that he would have been able to stop this sort of thing by working within the system of the military is absurd and you know it. Please detail how you think an E-4 is going to alter US Army ROE enforcement policies. Seriously man, that is total BS.

Most of the rights and procedures in courts martial are similar to civilian trials. There is absolutely nothing in them that precludes the use of the 'Twinkie defense', and I'm pretty sure you don't know what the Twinkie defense actually was. The 'Twinkie defense' was where the defendant's lawyers claimed he was not guilty due to severe depression that led to a severely diminished mental state. The uncharacteristic massive consumption of these foods by a health nut was used to describe symptoms of his depressive state, not that eating Twinkies made him crazy or something. Not an insane defense at all.

The government was trying to cover up murder, he exposed it. There is a difference between living up to the letter of the law and living up to the spirit of it. He exemplified the latter.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 11:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I am speaking in respect to the leaking of the video. Dumping a few hundred thousand classified documents is purposeless and inexcusable. I would fully support them going after him for the documents, but the video needed to be shown.


RE: Too Bad
By kfonda on 6/7/2010 11:23:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
After seeing several leaks on the site Manning found an item of his own, too compelling to keep secret -- a video of a U.S. military helicopter attacking what they believed to be armed insurgents.


quote:
He stated, "At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter. No big deal … about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it."


He was looking for something to leak, after being demoted, to get back at the military. This has nothing to do with his conscience. It was clearly an for the purpose of revenge after being demoted.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 11:31:21 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe you're right.

Regardless, as someone who has held a top secret clearance, leaking that footage was the right thing to do. Keeping that footage classified wasn't protecting US soldiers, it was hiding a crime.


RE: Too Bad
By kfonda on 6/7/2010 11:42:29 PM , Rating: 4
As someone who also held security clearance while working for the US Army Research Laboratory for 15 years, I say that releasing classified information to the public is never the right thing to do. Your statement just goes to show that you never should have had clearance in the first place. If he felt that strongly about the situation he could have brought it up to people who were equipped to handle it properly.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 11:53:33 PM , Rating: 4
I would say that slavish adherence to regulations over doing what is right means that you would be unfit to wear the uniform in the first place, much less have been given a clearance. Leaking classified information to the public is sometimes EXACTLY the right thing to do if you truly hold the oath to the Constitution and your country above the desires of the service.

The classification system is intended to limit the distribution of sensitive materials that would damage the United States, it is NOT intended to conceal mass murder. Exactly who do you think he could have brought this up to that would have led to action being taken to alter Army ROE and press releases related to the accidental killing of civilians? I'd love to know.


RE: Too Bad
By MrBlastman on 6/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 3
I have been in a war zone, both aboard ship during the actual 'war' part and in Umm Qasr after major combat operations.
I have fought in a major war.
I have served in the military.
Specifically I served dealing with classified materials. (encryption keys and message traffic mostly)
I have known people who were killed in Iraq.
Feel free to ask me anything that you wish to establish my credibility on this.

So while I thank you for the compliments and your glowing esteem for people such as myself who have served in our nation's wars, they aren't necessary. Mistakes happen, yes. When they do we have the responsibility to own up to them,not bury it under classification.

I hate the attitude that the military is somehow beyond criticism.


RE: Too Bad
By MrBlastman on 6/8/2010 10:20:52 AM , Rating: 5
They were in a JAG officers possession. Obviously something was being done and due process was being followed to an extent. Let the military do their job internally, airing things such as these when the public has absolutely no idea what the full story was, serves no purpose other than to enrage the populace with sensational headlines and beleaguer our military with uneccessary trouble.


RE: Too Bad
By mindless1 on 6/8/2010 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well when speaking about individual solders or limited troops, they ARE beyond criticism when doing the best they can fighting for their lives and most importantly obeying orders.

"Owning up" has nothing to do with disclosing classified material to the general public. Those who make mistakes answer to a military court when the military, not some armchair quarterback, deems it necessary. That does not involve public knowledge of ongoing war details.


RE: Too Bad
By theapparition on 6/8/2010 1:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The classification system is intended to limit the distribution of sensitive materials that would damage the United States, it is NOT intended to conceal mass murder.

First, it was the killing of non-com civilians, not murder.

Second, someone who knowingly releases classified documents is a traitor.

I only hope you, on your moral high horse (albeit less all the "facts" on this case like all zealots) didn't actively seek to harm the US by committing treason. While you might think the ends justify the means, without all the facts taken into consideration (by someone qualified like the JAG) you take it upon yourself to release information that has been deemed to cause irreparable harm to your country.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 2:15:52 PM , Rating: 5
Your made up definition of treason is absurdly broad to the point of uselesness. You will notice that no arm of our government considers actions treason as you define it. I'm sre you can figure out why. You also apear to be projecting zealotry onto me.

You also do not appear to understand how classification works. Why would a JAG officer possibly be making decisions to declassify? It's not his job. How would he or she be even remotely qualified?

It is common knowledge that governments use classification to hide embarrassing information, but you believe anyone who reveals it is a traitor. All you are doing is enabling horrendous behavior, something I would be unwilling to do.

I guess it just comes down to different morality.


RE: Too Bad
By theapparition on 6/9/2010 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your made up definition of treason is absurdly broad to the point of uselesness.

Releasing classified documents to a foreign power is classified as espionage and treason, and can be prosecuted as such (but is rarely done). Makes the act no less than treason though.

quote:
Why would a JAG officer possibly be making decisions to declassify?

I never implied that the JAG would be attempting to declassify. Why would you read that into what I posted? The JAG, however, does have the authority to determine if a war crime was committed. Until a decision is made on the legitimacy of that claim, no release of information should be made.

quote:
It is common knowledge that governments use classification to hide embarrassing information, but you believe anyone who reveals it is a traitor.

Yes I do. There are cover ups, sure. But at the same time, the slightest bit of information taken out of context or at the inopportune time can be disastrous. It is not someone's call to determine what classified documents they don't agree with should be leaked. Without all the facts and the policy decisions that go into them, the country could be irreparably harmed.

quote:
I guess it just comes down to different morality.

Many groups of people hide behind morals. In Islam, it is one's moral duty to cut the head off anyone who converts to Christianity. So one man's morals are another's atrocity.

But one thing is certain, you have no honor or integrity.


RE: Too Bad
By Calin on 6/8/2010 2:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
That video was in a JAG officer folders - maybe it was there in order to be processed later, maybe it didn't. However, I understand his desire to make it public, and I believe he understood the consequences (being in military intelligence).
About the rest, indiscriminately making public a quarter million diplomatic letters (cables, whatever) when he knows nothing about diplomacy strikes me as wrong.


RE: Too Bad
By Mitch101 on 6/8/2010 8:51:39 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file.

Why was a PC with classified information fitted with a disc burner?


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 9:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
Because computers that house classified information need the ability to move files the same as any other computer. There are different levels of classification,but this computer sounds like a standard SIPRNET workstation. This wasn't a computer holding nuclear secrets or encryption keys.


RE: Too Bad
By Mitch101 on 6/8/2010 1:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
If that's how our government transfers data between PC's where screwed.


RE: Too Bad
By maverick85wd on 6/8/2010 2:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
To transfer information to other classified computer systems. They use thumb drives labeled with the appropriate security classification as well. If you give someone clearance to use a system, you expect them to use it appropriately.

This kid was getting revenge for his demotion, nothing else. There are internal channels available to report any wrongdoing of superiors that also protect the individual filing the report. His actions were criminal, end of story.


RE: Too Bad
By mindless1 on 6/8/2010 6:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
If it's not interconnected to a larger WAN network (due to having this classified info), you kinda need a way to move data around. Dial-up modem? I don't think so.


RE: Too Bad
By tastyratz on 6/8/2010 4:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
Like the people who covered it up? Would THOSE be the people considered the right people?

I do not hold a security clearance but I believe morally he was right in leaking a video involved in a high level cover up REGARDLESS of his reasoning, be it revenge or justice. Clearly it escalated to the point where justice should have been served and it did not. the people "equipped to do so" obviously did not make their decision in the interest of justice.

Most likely it was never released because it fed the propaganda machine bad pr. The realities of the us military holding members as guilty of criminal and unjust activity is damaging to national morale. We are not terrorists but a man of any background behind a gun is often capable of horrible things.

As far as the documents go? That's total crap over the line and he should be tried on it. He did not review 260k documents personally and research their threat to national security. That right there negates his leak.

If your going to leak something, you better make DAMN sure its something that should be out there and scrutinize the details.


RE: Too Bad
By weskurtz0081 on 6/8/2010 9:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
You don't just start leaking anything you can, that's just not responsible.

If he tried to blow the whistle through the system and got no response, that's one thing, but I have seen no evidence of that. What it looks like is, he was ticked off about being demoted and embarrassed, so he embarrassed the Army in return.


RE: Too Bad
By knutjb on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 12:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about with a 'Supreme Court reference'? It's called the rational basis level of scrutiny. If a law is at least rationally related to a legitimate government aim, then it is constitutional. The USSC has almost never struck down any law, no matter how ridiculous, because it failed the rational basis test. You said that if a law passes constitutional muster then it made sense. I just showed you a bunch of laws on the books that would almost certainly pass constitutional muster, and are absolutely ridiculous. You simply made an incorrect statement, sorry. (also, my argument did not involve an analogy, much less a false one.)

As for reporting things to the IG's office that went unresolved or continued to be covered up, it took me all of about 5 seconds on google to find one: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-...

So what were you saying about examples of it not working? Thought so. You can't be that naive.


RE: Too Bad
By Zoridon on 6/8/2010 10:28:35 AM , Rating: 4
Trying to cover up murder? How is that. Your telling me that those pilots intentionally killed civilians for nothing other than getting kicks. BS, if anything it was bad intelligence and a accidental targeting of what they thought was an enemy target. Calling it murder is like calling anyone a murderer for having a car accident and killing a pedestrian. You didn't mean to kill the pedestrian but by your logic your a murderer. If he found the video in a JAG officers files then most likey this was under investigation to determin if any "Intentional" wrong doing occured. I'm sure you would be happy if the U.S. military just tied their hands behind their backs and used harsh language to fight a war. Accidents happen in War, to second guess our military without concrete proof on the intention makes you a traitor. Why don't you just join Alkida I'm sure they don't kill anyone wrongfully or by accident. Or in other words think before you post.


RE: Too Bad
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 10:41:53 AM , Rating: 3
Second guessing our military is not treason, it's something every thinking adult should do. The targeting of the journalists was an accident, but the later attack on the van picking up wounded people was murder (and possibly a war crime).

Your post doesn't actually merit this much of a response. Treason? Don't make me laugh.


RE: Too Bad
By Zoridon on 6/9/2010 2:44:17 AM , Rating: 3
Oh so you have proof they knew the van was full of civilians and not potential enemy combatants? Again you show your bias towards hatred of our military. You give the enemy the benefit of the doubt long before our soldiers. Apparently you believe our soldiers are test tube babies raised from the moment they exit the capsule to kill anything without remorse or morality. What alternate dimenshion of crap do you come from? These are human beings just like yourself raised by parents who did their best in most cases to bring up good law abiding citizens. But you; sitting on your moral high horse,seem to be omipresent and know without any proof what every one thinks and has done. You have the adacity to lecture me about what a traitor is? Your a traitor for believing our military is guilty of murder without having any facts to back it up. As I said before join Alkida I'm sure the propaganda machine could use good sensationalists like you. It shoudl be investigate yes, and if wrongdoing is found it should be made public yes, but in the meantime I'll pull the soldiers out of the street before you run them over with the bus.


RE: Too Bad
By theapparition on 6/8/2010 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
From the article
quote:
Manning at first didn't even realize the true secrets of the video, which essentially showed the murder of civilians.


quote:
The government was trying to cover up murder, he exposed it. There is a difference between living up to the letter of the law and living up to the spirit of it. He exemplified the latter.

Ehh, what ever happened to collateral damage? How many innocent civillians were killed in WWII, Korea, etc.

This was not murder, it was collateral damage. Murder implies that there was intent by the government/military to actively seek and harm civillians. This is far from the case, rather soldiers, acting on orders, fired on a convoy of suspected militants, which turned out to be very bad intel. Civillians were killed, not murdered.

Bad things happen in warzones. Even the innocent get killed sometimes.

But everyone stop with this "murder" BS.


RE: Too Bad
By MojoMan on 6/8/2010 9:07:38 AM , Rating: 5
Reclaimer77, you obviously think you're a conservative. You're not. You're a neo-con. You love the military industrial complex, and you're a fool for it.


RE: Too Bad
By MozeeToby on 6/7/2010 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That seems like a subjective statement. These videos appeared to have been covered up by U.S. Intelligence Officials. Can you honestly name a place where he could have gone to see justice was served, other than the public arena?
How about every senator and house representative? How about superiors higher and higher up the chain of command? How about anyone in a position of authority who is at least cleared to handle classified material? He had options, I haven't heard anything saying that he explored them. Maybe the people whose job it is to care would have ignored it, but he didn't even try before going public.
quote:
Ah, but he'll likely be tried for both leaks, regardless of how right or wrong they respectively seem.
Here's the nub. He signed up to be an intelligence analyst. He signed his name on a sheet of paper saying he wouldn't do exactly what he did. He knew what the potential consequences were and yet he did it anyway. I'm not saying what he did was wrong, nor am I saying that it was right. All that I am saying is that sometimes doing the right thing will get you into a great heap of trouble. Part of civil disobedience is understanding and accepting that you will probably be punished for it.


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Too Bad
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Too Bad
By dsx724 on 6/7/2010 9:53:27 PM , Rating: 5
This is someone with morals that wanted to see to it that there is justice for the FAMILIES of those killed. Everyone knows the video he leaked was an accident and not malicious intention. These are real issues that arise during times of war that need to be thoroughly documented.

The cover-up is the worst kind of injustice to GOOD PEOPLE. Cover-ups should not acceptable in any government agency/office. It often leads to this:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87377/us-lawmakers-wa...
If you want to lose the freedom of the press, I suggest you move to China. They would love you there.


RE: Too Bad
By Solandri on 6/8/2010 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone knows the video he leaked was an accident and not malicious intention.

The people calling it murder obviously don't.

quote:
The cover-up is the worst kind of injustice to GOOD PEOPLE. Cover-ups should not acceptable in any government agency/office.

And like with the people assuming the intent of the pilots in the video was to kill innocents, you are assuming the video was languishing on some DOD computer because it was being covered up. It was in a JAG officer's folder, which strongly implies it was actively being investigated.

I don't dispute that cover-ups happen, and that exposing them is a good thing. The leak of this video however appears to have been premature, unless there's further corroborating evidence that the JAG was trying to cover it up. Too many anti-military folks assume the military tries to cover up anything unfavorable to it. Does it need to be pointed out that the huge Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse story was uncovered and reported to the media by the U.S. military?


RE: Too Bad
By dsx724 on 6/22/2010 7:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
There were several freedom of information requests made on behalf of the Reuters employees by Reuters to find out what happened. They were all BLOCKED for security purposes. The military processed the video, identified that it was damning, and blocked off access to the truth for two years until the video was released by this officer that is getting sent to jail. The cover-up is real and not some fiction I invented. If they had come clean to begin with and provided restitution, this would have been a non-issue.


RE: Too Bad
By rsmech on 6/9/2010 1:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to lose the freedom of the press, I suggest you move to China. They would love you there.


Where is this big conspiracy everyone keeps talking about that the military doesn't have a justice system, overlooks injustices, is enlisted with immoral people. He found the video in a JAG file, but that was probably because someone misfiled it. JAG was never suppose to see it. Did you see on t.v. what everyone in military prison was found guilty of, well if not it must not be true.

How do you like your freedom of the press. They still have theirs but how many have you & I lost? Air travel, ID's, phone calls, ect. Their freedom sure cost me a lot of mine.


RE: Too Bad
By MojoMan on 6/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Too Bad
By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 6:54:11 PM , Rating: 5
He could email senators, snail mail congressmen, call their office and leave a message or make an appointment. He could contact the CIA or FBI. Bring a lawsuit. That having failed, he could leak specific targeted snippets to specific targeted Americans. He could even do most of those anonymously.

About the least patriotic way would be to post massive amounts of random (he obviously didn't cull the info down) classified data to the ******* WORLD WIDE web. That's the kind of thing we call treason.


RE: Too Bad
By Lazarus Dark on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Too Bad
By thrust2night on 6/7/2010 8:37:41 PM , Rating: 4
You're right mistakes do happen in war. But if you make a mistake, you should be punished for it. But covering them up is worse and what this guy did was the right thing; unless you condone covering up your mistakes and not being punished for doing something wrong.


RE: Too Bad
By beerhound on 6/7/2010 9:54:35 PM , Rating: 5
If you WILLFULLY do it it you should be punished. This is an example of an atrocity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

The Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" story is a lot more ambiguaous.

Consider this:

They were flying in a combat zone and earlier in the day, some ground troops were attacked in the area they were patrolling. So, they know there is hostile activity in the area.

They come across a group of men moving through the area and identify them as carrying RPGs. There was one carrying an RPG and at least 2 carrying AK47s. There were also 2 reporters carrying cameras with telephoto lenses that were misidentified as RPGs. (note that misidentification, it is a key part of this)

They fire on the group of men and kill/wound a number of them. A van pulls in and someone starts giving aid. From the air, that looks like part of the insurgents support coming to the rescue. The guys in the chopper have no way of knowing that their were children in the van, so they fire on it too.

It is an absolute tragedy that our troops wounded those children, but they had no way to know they were there.

The reporters were traveling with men armed with at least 1 RPG and 2 Ak47s. They were in an area where combat ops had already happened that day. One moved to the corner of a building and aimed his RPG (which we know to be a camera, after the fact) at a group of US troops.

That is why those aircrews are there. They believed they had hostiles who were aiming weapons at US forces, what would you expect them to do in those circumstances? Check out the displays they had to work with. Not quite up to the standards of the 24" LCD that I have..... (and no slo mo instant replay either)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter...

Those reporters were part of a long line of reporters covering combat. I don't know about WW1 or earlier, but in WW2 and later they have always been there. In the past we called them "War Correspondents" Whether they were "embedded journalists" with US forces or reporters trying to get a story from insurgents, they knew they were taking a risk. Think about Wolf Blitzer reporting from Baghdad during Gulf War 1. He took his chances and survived and parleyed that into a network anchor position at CNN. These guys were trying to make their names and ended up as unfortunate casualties of war. They were with men that had weapons and were most probably insurgents (why would the reporters have found them interesting otherwise?) I regret their deaths at the hands of US forces, but they took a BIG chance by following insurgents around Baghdad and they knew the risk they were taking. Many "war correspondents" before them took the same chance and died doing their jobs as well.


RE: Too Bad
By DominionSeraph on 6/8/2010 6:45:51 AM , Rating: 1
Also both were Muslim and neither was wearing the proper attire to identify themselves as journalists.
I love that people assume that a Reuters employee can't also be a terrorist.


RE: Too Bad
By kyp275 on 6/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Too Bad
By Calin on 6/8/2010 2:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't about being punished for mistakes - armed civilians in a convoy would raise a red flag the size of Mount Rushmore in a zone as Iraq.
It's happened, it's done, down the drain. But at least make sure this kind of things doesn't happen again - covering them up only helps in creating the feeling that you can continue to do the same wrongs again and again


RE: Too Bad
By kyp275 on 6/8/2010 2:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
That's the thing you don't get. The only way you can "make sure this kind of things doesn't happen again" is by eliminating war completely. Civilian casualties has always been, and will continue to be a part of war itself, especially in an urban setting.

And like another poster has mentioned, where exactly is the cover up? or are you saying that every single mission report, mishap, friendly, enemy, and civilian casualties should be broadcast on TV 24/7 world wide for all to see?

By your definition, they also covered up my convoy escort and various other patrol missions, and perhaps you would've liked to see a real time video feed of me taking a dump in the sh*tter too? I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of being involved in a cover up.


RE: Too Bad
By thrust2night on 6/8/2010 8:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
Not to belittle what the troops are doing, but if I drink and drive, run a red light and run someone over I get punished for more than drinking and driving. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume that if I flee the scene or try to cover it up then I face more charges. Why should our military be held to a different standard? I'm not denying that mistakes don't happen, but classifying the mistakes so that no outside entity can call you out on your mistake and seek some kind of remediation for what you have done is wrong.

No one is saying that every single mission report and mishap be broadcast on TV, but when the video was leaked, I had read another article where Reuters requested information on the circumstances of the death of their employees and were turned down. Not to mention the family of the victims who were not given a full explanation of the circumstances and nature in which the two employees died since the video was classified.


RE: Too Bad
By dsx724 on 6/7/2010 9:55:42 PM , Rating: 3
If you make a mistake, own up to it and accept the consequences of those mistakes. Don't try to distort the truth to escape the realities of your mistake.


RE: Too Bad
By Lazarus Dark on 6/9/2010 9:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
They don't have time to stop and apologize for EVERY single casualty. They are in the MIDDLE of a war. They're not out doing frigging simulations here, its ACTUAL WAR. Grow up. They're not going to go out and cry to the news outlets everytime they make a mistake. They learn and move on. There's no time for all this pc bs.

Mistreatment of PoW's is certainly something that should be exposed, because that takes forethought. Or if they are found to have purposely attacked and killed civilians. Otherwise, civilians in a warzone, in the line of fire, may get killed. It happens. Make a report and move on. Because the faster the war ENDS, the fewer innocent lives taken.


RE: Too Bad
By knutjb on 6/7/2010 10:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
True, but how many have access to U.S. Senators? Certainly not many young, low-ranking intelligence officers in Iraq/the Middle East. And after witnessing that these videos were covered up, was it not understandable that he might be afraid of approaching U.S. government officials and informing them of his intrusion?

As far as going up the "chain of command" I can tell you, that would likely have led to him losing his security privileges once he revealed the videos he gained access to without authorization. Even in the unlikely event someone had cared, he wouldn't have had the kind of access anymore to continue to fight these kinds of coverups.
Jason you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. One simple letter to ANY member, House or Senate, and they WILL start digging for answers and it's not pretty.

You need to get off military conspiracy theorist web sites, it's burning holes in your brain.


RE: Too Bad
By Ammohunt on 6/7/2010 6:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
It’s not up for the public to determine what these leaks are and aren't especially without the context or a particular operation to go with them. To believe that the military would cover up massive wrong doing is as naive as it is stupid! i have been there, done that, and got the T-Shirt and it doesn't happen like all the conspiracy nuts believe it happens. Cover ups do happen but for valid reasons of opsec or to protect national security interests.
This guy is a traitor that compromised a trust relationship and should spend the rest of his life breaking rocks at n Leavenworth Kansas.


RE: Too Bad
By Klinky1984 on 6/8/2010 1:00:47 AM , Rating: 4
Pat Tillman would like a word with you... Oh wait, he's dead.


RE: Too Bad
By straycat74 on 6/8/2010 10:14:47 AM , Rating: 3
How did you find out about this "cover up"?

quote:
Tillman’s public memorial service, held on May 3, 2004, took place a day after Army Secretary Les Brownlee was officially told of Tillman’s fratricide. There, Tillman was posthumously awarded a Silver Star in which the Army described battlefield events that clearly never happened. It wasn’t until May 28 that the Army told the Tillmans the real circumstances surrounding Pat’s death.


RE: Too Bad
By Klinky1984 on 6/11/2010 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
So you're suggesting that the Army lying about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death for over a month was not a cover-up? They knew exactly what happened from day one and tried to destroy evidence. They are still lying & his mom still does not have all the answers to the circumstances of his death.


RE: Too Bad
By tedrodai on 6/8/2010 8:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How so? No one would ever have known his name if Lamo hadn't leaked his identity. How is that seeking attention? That's the precise opposite -- he an incredible secret, yet was willing to stay perfectly anonymous.


First, you don't need to give out your identity to gain fame/infamy. By not doing so, people will label you themselves if your actions attract enough notice.

Second, even though loneliness and sense of comraderie may have been part of the driving factor, the fact remains that he WAS NOT willing to stay perfectly anonymous. He got in touch with Adrian Lamo, who is described in your own linked article as "a famous hacker" and basically told him exactly what he was doing. Think how many more leaks he was capable of commiting by actually staying anonymous.

And finally, did you mention a demotion in your aticle above? I think you did. I'm sure he believes what he's done is right, but he was certainly seeking attention and possibly a little revenge. There may have been a few selfless government whistleblowers in our country's history, but this guy isn't one of them.


RE: Too Bad
By clovell on 6/8/2010 3:30:47 PM , Rating: 1
Just shows how little you know about real hackers, Mick. These guys have their own code, which is steeped in centuries of silent observation. Their code requires them to leave no trace of their presence; to leave everything intact. I would expect the guy who turn him in felt he was going too far - and he probably had a keen sense of where that line is.

Everybody here did what they thought was right, and the justice system will bear the truth out as long as we're vigilant. Now be a good reporter and cover this case until there's a verdict, and be open to the possibility that maybe the discretion of a 22 year old Marine who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents is not entirely bullet-proof. The kid did a lot of good, but it's entirely possible that it was the right thing to stop him.


RE: Too Bad
By Rhaido on 6/8/2010 7:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
David Finkel: Hi everyone. Thanks for joining this chat. We got to see an edited version yesterday of a disturbing video showing what one day in the surge was like. Since I happened to be there that day, I thought I'd try to put the video in fuller context. I'm looking forward to your questions.

...

Vancouver BC: You claim that you're trying to put this attack into context. In that case, why are you ignoring the fact that the helicopter operator lied to ground control?

The helicopter crew has at least 480p resolution video. They can see what we can see. So clearly, he was lying...

He claimed that these people were carrying an RPG and AK47's when anyone with two eyes can see that the so-called RPG was no longer than 18 inches, and no such RPG is manufactured by anyone... are you saying that members of the US armed forces are so poorly educated that they think an 18 inch long camera lens is an RPG?

David Finkel: Thanks for asking about this. If you were to see the full video, you would see a person carrying an RPG launcher as he walkeddown the street as part of the group. Another was armed as well, as I recall. Also, if you had the unfortunate luck to be on site afterwards, you would have seen that one of the dead in the group was lying on top of a launcher. Because of that and some other things, EOD -- the Hurt Locker guys, I guess -- had to come in and secure the site. And again, I'm not trying to excuse what happened. But there was more to it for you to consider than what was in the released video.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discu...

Mick: "Except, the Iraqi convoy was really peaceful civilians, armed for self protection."

Of course all Iraqis carry RPG for self protection. Hell, who doesn't nowadays.

How many of the posters on this page have seen the full video and audio? Not the edited version. Post a link if you have one.

Jason Mick is consistently lazy when it comes to research. Unless his worldview is challenged. It appears to be beyond him unless on MSNBC or Wikipedia.


RE: Too Bad
By rsmech on 6/9/2010 1:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
Can you honestly name a place where he could have gone to see justice was served, other than the public arena?

If you read what you are writing about it says he found it in a JAG file. Wouldn't that indicate someone else found wrong doing & if JAG was involved wouldn't that imply a possible investigation?

What is your justice? Wrong doing being investigated, tried, & sentenced by the proper authority having jurisdiction or all this happening on your t.v. as potential propaganda for the enemy. If soldiers did wrong that doesn't mean I did wrong, my neighbor did wrong, or my children did wrong but if you had it your way that is how the enemy would see it.


RE: Too Bad
By masamasa on 6/7/2010 7:23:56 PM , Rating: 1
So where's the trial of those scumbags who clearly 'executed' innocent people and acted like it was a big joke. Pathetic.


RE: Too Bad
By Calin on 6/8/2010 2:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
"260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables"
I agree with him sharing anything he finds... let's say objectionable, no matter the field.
However, I don't see throwing everything out as a good move - some of those diplomatic cables might have been completely honest, AND containing information that really should have remained secret.
I would acquit him for the video files leaks, but he's a traitor to publish things he hasn't had a chance to look upon (did he really looked upon 260,000 cables? Did he really understood what's in there? He's an military information/inteligence specialist, not a diplomat).


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Too Bad
By geddarkstorm on 6/7/2010 5:08:08 PM , Rating: 3
I do believe his heart was in the right place, and I really hope he isn't hurt badly from this.

That said, the manner in which he got himself caught suggests to me that he was losing his perspective and getting too wrapped up in things; and could indeed have started accidentally leaking damaging or life threatening intelligence information. It's hard to stay grounded when dealing with such shadowy stuff.

And this is certainly not an easy topic to know what the right or wrong thing to do was. In principle, leaking government secrets is dead wrong, but... this isn't a perfect world, and we don't have perfect governments... It's impossible to truly take sides in this.


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 5:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

There's certainly a wealth of moral ambiguity here and without carefully studying the most recent leak (diplomatic messages) extensively, it's impossible to know
a) whether he leaked information that did not involve wrong-doing but could hurt the U.S.
b) leaked information providing evidence of wrong-doing.
or
c) leaked ultimately trivial information that most won't care about.

The bad part is even if B) is the case, he'll likely still be tried, found guilty, and be punished.

The videos on the other hand seem much more straightforward. They offered evidence of wrong-doing -- accidental murder of civilians -- covered up by U.S. intelligence. It seems absolutely right that he released those materials. Yet he will likely be tried for doing so.

Ultimately all the players were merely acting their predictable parts in this (except perhaps maybe Lamo). In the end it hopefully at least will be a reminder to the government that their secret dirty mistakes aren't going to stay secret forever, particularly not in a digital age.


RE: Too Bad
By geddarkstorm on 6/7/2010 5:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with you. I know personally I have no time to read 260,000(!) messages to find out myself >>. Have to leave that up to the courts; but they might actually just attack him for the -principle- of the matter, without giving fair weight to the actual content of his deeds; which may well have been truly right.

Truthfully, I do -not- look forward to seeing how this develops, as I have a feeling it isn't going to be pleasant...


RE: Too Bad
By MozeeToby on 6/7/2010 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 3
Even looking at it in the best possible light, the latest leak was a massive mistake, I simply cannot support it. Do you really think he read through all 260,000 communiques himself? There could be literally anything in there and he would never know about it. Undoubtedly, in a quarter million documents there will be some evidence of wrongdoing, you could take that many random emails from any institution and find wrongdoing. That doesn't make what he did right.

The video I can understand. He no doubt watched it and was appalled, weighed the risks and decided that classified or not the world needed to see that video. The same cannot be said for the communiques, there's simply no way that he reviewed all of them and made a determination that they should be shown to the public, he simply decided to release them en masse and to hell with the consequences.


RE: Too Bad
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 5:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
True, perhaps he stepped over the line in that case.

Ultimately, I agree it seems unlikely that he had time to thoroughly review these documents. Perhaps he made an error and should have merely released the ones he found incriminating, plus those necessary to provide context?

But regardless, as I pointed out, even had he not leaked those messages he still would be being tried for the video leaks.


RE: Too Bad
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/7/2010 9:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
While there hasn't been an execution for treason in a very long time, this kid is likely going to get 20 years or more in Leavenworth for his crimes. He was entrusted with the nations highest secrets and he blatantly balked at them because he was being a screwup and decided to "get back" at uncle sam by airing classified SCI materiel on wikileaks. I hope he's proud of himself because as a uniformed service member myself he acted without honor, not to mention failing in his duties as a US Army soldier.


RE: Too Bad
By beerhound on 6/7/2010 8:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would go "all in" on that bet. It is amazingly easy to blow the cover on operations even with unclassified information if you have enough pieces of the puzzle.

As an example: I spent 5 years stationed at Holloman AFB in NM where the F117 Stealth Fighters were based. I signed a 75 year non-disclosure agreement so I will ONLY talk about unclassified. (come see me in 2073) We used to have "Phase 1" exercises (a practice deployment of the whole unit) to keep us sharp. We didn't actually leave home station, we just palletized equipment and tried to operate normally off of only those cargo pallets. In the real world F117s rarely operate as a large group. They would go off in 1, 2 or 4 aircraft deployments typically. Those movements were often classified, people and aircraft were there one day and weren't the next, then some time later they were back. Unless you were part of it, you wouldn't have any idea why.

We also had foot locker sized boxes of basic hardware. Nuts, bolts, washers, etc along with the tools and tech manuals for doing basic fixes on the jets. Those kits were for small deployments.

We also had a thing called "pallet bags". Think of an over-sized, clear plastic trash bag. They were meant to go over top of the cargo pallets to protect the cargo from weather while they sat on the ramp. Pallet bags weren't used for pallets during exercises because they weren't actually leaving home station. Cargo that was actually going somewhere always got pallet bags because you never knew what the weather might be like where it was being shipped.

During one Phase 1 exercise I was sitting around BSing with some friends after a long shift and someone commented that Sgt So and So hadn't shown up for work that day and even the duty section supervision had no idea where he was. Someone else commented that two people hadn't show up for work in his section.

I had one of those "light bulb coming on" moments when I realized that on day one of the exercise I had seen a bunch of pallets on the ramp without pallet bags as would be normal and a few that had them when they shouldn't have. Along with a couple of those foot lockers of basic hardware being missing from my duty section.

The point of this long winded post? A few people not showing up for work and their supervisors having no idea why and some guy in shipping is too cheap to buy pallet bags for practice cargo, but a few pallets actually had them anyway. Add those to the missing hardware kits? Those 3 pieces of unclassified information added up to me that the USAF was using a practice large scale deployment to cover up a real world small scale deployment.

Now instead of a guy with average intellect and no training in intel, put real intel pros on the job and instead of 3 unclassified pieces, give them 260 thousand classified pieces of the puzzle. This absolutely did give a lot of information away to anyone that wants to look.


RE: Too Bad
By zmatt on 6/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Too Bad
By Grast on 6/9/2010 4:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Patriot my ASS........

the Apache pilots did their job. they investigated a target, received confirmation they were hostile, and fired on the target.

It turned out to be civilian. OHHHH BOOO HOOOO. this happens in a war with incirgents dressing like civilians and using civilians as shields.

NEWS FLASH: civilians get killed in any war by accident.

the releasing of the footage of the attack only helps our enemy, demoralized our solders, encites hostility from US populace against the US militar, and enboldens the enemy to continue.

This is WAR. Expecting our military to act like POLICE is idiotic.

This guys is traitor and I hope he gets the firing squad.


RE: Too Bad
By Azure Sky on 6/8/2010 10:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
its the american way, I have been at the loosing end of it a few times myself.


Treason
By kfonda on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Treason
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Treason
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 5:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For leaking covered up videos of U.S. Military officers killing civilians? If that's treason, it seems like our country is headed in a very wrong direction...


First off, you don't know they were civilians. They were armed, and lot's of people who "looked" like civilians have killed American soldiers. Your speculation is NOT fact.

Secondly, your goddamn right what he did was treason. It's the very definition of treason. Tampering with government data networks, hacking, releasing classified information. What part of this DOESN'T sound like treason to you?

You seem to think that, just because this time, the ends justify the means to you that everything is ok. Your anti-Americanism and loathing for the military couldn't be more evident than it is in this article. Oh did I say article? I meant BLOG post.


RE: Treason
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 5:51:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

First off, you don't know they were civilians. They were armed, and lot's of people who "looked" like civilians have killed American soldiers. Your speculation is NOT fact.


It's not speculation -- since the leak, this has become a well document incident. Two of those killed were Reuters journalists.

Read here for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad...

quote:
Secondly, your goddamn right what he did was treason. It's the very definition of treason. Tampering with government data networks, hacking, releasing classified information. What part of this DOESN'T sound like treason to you?


He had access to these networks. Perhaps he was not authorized to view certain documents, and he was certainly authorized to leak them. But does that make it wrong that he leaked some of these documents, which clearly offered evidence of covered up wrongdoing?

quote:
You seem to think that, just because this time, the ends justify the means to you that everything is ok. Your anti-Americanism and loathing for the military couldn't be more evident than it is in this article. Oh did I say article? I meant BLOG post.


There's no reason to get nasty. I love my country and am proud of all the good things America has accomplished. I welcome debate on all issues.

We may not see eye to eye on this issue, but I'm more than willing to listen to you, despite your apparent eagerness to disrespect me. If you have ideas of what a young man should do when he's put in a position where he sees that his superiors have covered up the wrongful death of civilians, by all means feel free to share.

I admit that Manning absolutely might have found SOME way to better handle this -- gain access to a trustworthy Senator -- somebody. However, the guy is 22 -- in fact he was only 20 at the time! As it is, he DID expose a government coverup involving civilian deaths, if perhaps in a messy way. For someone his age, that's perhaps the best one can expect when placed in such a harsh situation.


RE: Treason
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 6:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
So that's it. You're making some emotional argument that he was just a young kid, confused, and thrown into a situation that he couldn't work himself out of without becoming a traitor?

You keep using the word "cover-up" when I'm not sure it applies. The general public and the media does NOT have the right to operational details and the context of military operations. That is why we have Congressional oversight. Now, if you have evidence that this was kept hidden from Congress, the President, and other intelligence agencies THEN it would be a cover-up. Is that what happened here? Is this something the military and only the military buried?

Jason, if you could prove that the Government broke a law here, or bypassed oversight, or SOMETHING, it would add weight to your claims.

No offense, but I find it hard to believe something like this was only known to a handful of people within the military itself and nobody else. A chopper blowing away journalists and carloads of women and children?? You couldn't keep a lid on that, no way! Sorry but I just don't buy that this was a cover-up at all.

quote:
But does that make it wrong that he leaked some of these documents, which clearly offered evidence of covered up wrongdoing?


The issue isn't that simple. Even if he did the "right" thing, he should still go to jail for it, at the very least. You seem to think he stood on some kind of principles and should be rewarded. Well, sometimes standing on principle means you KNOW you are inviting Hell itself, and you do it anyway.


RE: Treason
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2010 6:26:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No offense, but I find it hard to believe something like this was only known to a handful of people within the military itself and nobody else. A chopper blowing away journalists and carloads of women and children?? You couldn't keep a lid on that, no way!


And they certainly weren't able to, thanks to Manning.

Read up on the incident, I suggest. If it were not him, I agree, some one else would likely have come forward eventually. They might be in the same position he is now, though...


RE: Treason
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 6:29:56 PM , Rating: 1
No no, you still don't get it. Did people in the government and Congress, who's job it is to deal with situations like this, know about it? Was it covered up from THEM? That's what I care about.

Again, the general public doesn't have a "right" to classified military operational details. You can't say this was "covered up" just because you or I didn't know about it.


RE: Treason
By thrust2night on 6/7/2010 8:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's what the investigation should not uncover. The point is that this guy has started a chain of events that will hopefully lead to uncovering the people who may be involved in this. Hey, as long as we're sharing what we care about then, I care about drinking and driving and running people over. But unfortunately the law doesn't agree with me. Why? because killing people, even if it is done as a mistake is wrong. What's worse is when you try to cover up those mistakes.

It's easy for the military to classify things in the name of "national security". The problem is that this gives too much power and as you can see, lets them get away with mistakes that result in the deaths of innocent people.


RE: Treason
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 8:58:32 PM , Rating: 1
WOW, take off the tin foil hat. Do you really believe there was a vast conspiracy to go tell a single chopper crew to gun down some civilians? What possible reason could there have been for that?


RE: Treason
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 11:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read his post? He said that it was a mistake and the military was trying to cover it up. The military has a long history of attempting to cover up embarrassing things, and the easiest way to do it is by classifying incriminating materials.

This is just common sense.


RE: Treason
By knutjb on 6/7/2010 11:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
You must be using the heavy-duty foil. The hacker turned him in, maybe time for a rethink?


RE: Treason
By isayisay on 6/7/2010 6:55:47 PM , Rating: 3
Wow.. I read through this thread and am pretty disappointed by the level of logic in your reasoning Jason. The response "and they certainly weren't able to, thanks to Manning" borders on ludicrous. Think about it... you are ignorant on the whether there was a cover-up, and yet you are justifying the actions of the man as a move to prevent a possible cover-up. What?

With whistle-blowing, the court will look at each incident, and what his reasons were behind his actions. With the video, he has some grounds to stand on, and if he can possibly point out proof of cover-up, he has strong grounds to stand on.

Regarding the 260,000 diplomatic cables. He is done and in my judgment, deservedly so. That was not slightly crossing the line, that was saying screw the line. The man lost his perspective, or got high on the thrill or something... I cannot imagine a scenario he can paint to justify this. And for the posters that said 'no person lost their life' ... how in the hell do you know? How do you know that someone on the other side didn't look at these and put 2 and 2 together and figure out something that cost our soldiers their lives? YOU CAN'T KNOW.

While I understand the video leak, and even doing so, he knew he faced jail time. I want cover-ups, if they exist, exposed and lanced. BUT. The cable leak is horrendously bad judgment on his part and, with potentially real life impacts to people's sons (that I know) that are over there... were I in the ex-hackers position, I would have done the same thing without hesitation. Manning was so far past sensible, not even close to a gray zone here, that he was a danger to his fellow soldiers.


RE: Treason
By sviola on 6/8/2010 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not taking any sides in this story, but I find it interesting that many of the posters raise doubt of the possibility of a cover-up on the chopper incident (like the Army has never done this and would never attempt to), but are fast to condemn the leak of the diplomatic cables, which he claimed had evidence of wrong doing (altought there are a huge amount of documents no information available tells if he ahd time to view them all - which in my opinion I don't think he had).

Even if he is found guilty, shouldn't we wait for the judgement to decide before we codemn him?


RE: Treason
By thurston on 6/7/2010 9:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have ideas of what a young man should do when he's put in a position where he sees that his superiors have covered up the wrongful death of civilians, by all means feel free to share.


You do what your masters tell you.


RE: Treason
By SGTPan on 6/8/2010 12:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't logged into DT in while, but there were so many problems with this post that I couldn't NOT post my opinion below yours. To start, you call this low-level intelligence analyst an officer. While this may seem like a relatively minor gripe, the misuse of his rank/position is in the title and link to your blog. That makes it sensationalistic, inaccurate, and most importantly wrong.

You proceed to lay out your argument that because he did something that was ultimately good, in exposing the cover up of *some civilian deaths... (the Reuters journalists, obviously weren't enemy combatants, but the true intentions of ALL the others will likely never be known), he's a whistleblower… a hero. That's like saying a man kills someone randomly walking down the street who just happens to be a serial killer, and he's a hero. Justice may have been served, ultimately, but that does not make his actions honorable, nor him a hero: He's a murderer who accidently did society a favor. Should he be rewarded for it, or should we ignore the fact that what he did was a crime because the person he killed just happened to be a criminal?

Manning might have done some good in the process of releasing some of those documents, and perhaps if he'd released the video alone, or filtered what he'd let go public I could agree with you, (even though there's about 2 million checks and balances he could have used as outlets for this type of stuff; most importantly the Inspector General’s office, but I digress. He didn't filter the thousands of other documents he’d released. Releasing the video alone might have made him a whistle-blower. Releasing the other documents with no knowledge of their contents, only after being demoted makes him a vengeful conspirator, does it not?

quote:
However, upset over a demotion and what he perceived as a multitude of coverups, he decided to take action airing the United States government's dirty laundry.


Your article clearly states that he had a chip on his shoulder. So should we assume that had he not been demoted, he'd have gone along with those cover-ups? Well we should right, because he'd done it until the demotion happened? Well who am I to judge, I certainly don't know his real intentions, but neither do you.

In one of your photos of Manning you wrote the caption:
quote:
Manning will be facing charges for acting as a whistleblower, releasing thousands of documents that provided evidence of U.S. government wrong-doing.


Did you read through those thousands of documents and have examples to show that they provided evidence of wrong-doing? This is just bad journalism, if it can be called that at all. The video he released certainly fit that criteria, but did any of the other 250,000 classified documents? Once you get through them all you can let us know one way or another. Until then, you're caption is irresponsible at best, and biased/agenda-pushing Fox News type stuff at worst.

I'm certainly no journalist, but then again I don't claim to be. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to report the facts. Then, once people know the facts, it's ok to inject your own personal opinion on the matter, but when you let those two get mixed up... (This certainly isn't the first time), it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and you lose credibility with the readers.

I love DT, and I certainly appreciate the effort and dedication all of the contributors (readers included) have to the site, but everything should be taken with a grain of salt here.


RE: Treason
By Zoridon on 6/9/2010 6:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
"Clearly evidence of wrongdoing" where? Hey everyone we have yet another omipresent god before us who can read minds, tell us what others intents are, and come to sound judgement without so much as a thank you sir. Your argument is so full of holes I could sift flour with it. You are making assertions without anything to back it up. Don't wast time quoting someone else who is making the same assertions as you as evidense it only points to yet another Anti American Nazi. Give me real facts and not the new flavor of the day fad. Wait a minute your right. If I say the word "Clearly" before I spout off an assertion based on my own personal bias then its must be true. So "Clearly" you are an idiot.


RE: Treason
By IcePickFreak on 6/7/2010 6:46:20 PM , Rating: 5
While I don't think we should by any means be gunning down civilians, I have to agree here.

I seen the video where the Reuters reporters were killed. They were carrying guns (you can plainly see AK47s) and equipment (obviously in hindsight it was camera equipment) but it sure looked like RPG's and such from the helicopter doing over-watch (where the footage was from). Then they start peeking around a corner looking towards a US platoon and it looked awfully fishy.

Bottom line is, if you don't want to get shot, it's probably not a good idea to walk around in the middle of a war-zone - especially carrying weapons and other equipment that looks like even more destructive weapons, doing suspicious looking activities. Then when they get shot, the rest of their crew pulls up within feet of them (were they just got shot not a minute before) with kids in it?! Sorry, but I have no sympathy here other than for the kids who had to be riding around a war-zone with a bunch of idiots.

Now if it was a gunship pilot opening fire on unarmed civilians outside of a hot zone for "sport" that's one thing, and I wouldn't object to it being brought to light. I'm not sure what this guy thought he was doing though with very objectionable footage like this. I have to believe it's more along the lines of being a type of revenge for his prior demotion.

Oh, and to keep with Jason's quotes:
"Stay out of the road if you want to grow old." - Pink Floyd
...or the war zone, as it were.


RE: Treason
By NullSubroutine on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Treason
By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 7:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they were carrying AK-47s.

What they may not have been carrying is an RPG that may have instead been the camera they were carrying.


RE: Treason
By NullSubroutine on 6/7/2010 9:34:06 PM , Rating: 1
Well the reports I have read stated there were men EARLIER in that area carrying weapons, the US military assumed these were the same people and that the "camera" was in fact one of the weapons. It is extremely difficult to see with clarity what it is the people are carrying. The US personnel had reports of weapons and was predisposed to make any object being carried to look like a weapon.

Which is exactly what I said when I said the action was a result of the fog of war.


RE: Treason
By knutjb on 6/7/2010 11:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
I happened to see it the first time with the sound off and it wasn't hard to identify the AK and the guy with RPG. When your life depends on it you learn quickly to identify what will kill you. YES the helicopter crew was profiling, they fit the profile and were justifiably shot. After wards the soldiers on the ground caught them in the act of hiding the weapons and taking away the bad guys bodies to make it look like a civilian massacre for the media. BTW the profile was a minivan, a couple AKs and RPGs in a small team to shoot down helicopters. I saw all those items in the video.

Maybe you ought to figure out who the real bad guys are. The helicopter crew asked 3 times for permission to fire, how many times does a terrorist ask...

Your fog of war analogy doesn't apply here. If Sherman had seen the video he would have said why did you take so long to shoot?


RE: Treason
By IcePickFreak on 6/8/2010 1:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, again I agree here. This is a war zone. It's a bit ludicrous to expect soldiers to hesitate engaging a possible threat to make sure it just isn't some guy taking pictures instead. If you hesitate and it's not a camera - which I'm going to go out on a limb and say at least 99 out of 100 times it isn't - guess who's going to end up dead. The AK's are clearly visible, and the guy peaking around the corner with what we now know is a camera, sure looked like a guy fixing to shoulder an RPG to me. Again, stay out of a war zone if you don't want to get shot at and/or killed.

And to the guy above you, of course they're predisposed to think anything being carried is a weapon - they're in a war-zone engaging people with weapons every day. You know, like a war .

At least some of these journalist were Iraqi. If a war came ripping through my neighborhood, I might fight, or I might run. But I sure as hell ain't going to stick around taking pictures, carrying a gun, and then expect to not get shot at even if I'm not shooting the gun.


RE: Treason
By ekv on 6/7/2010 7:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For leaking covered up videos of U.S. Military officers killing civilians?
Civilians ... carrying RPG's? and AK47's?

The officers were cleared of any wrong-doing. They went by the book. They lit those guys up.

No "wrong-doing". Just sensationalism. The same ilk you might expect from the NY Times.


RE: Treason
By Reclaimer77 on 6/7/2010 8:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The officers were cleared of any wrong-doing.


Funny how that tidbit of information missed being in the article...


RE: Treason
By eskimospy on 6/7/2010 11:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are you aware that a specific element of the US-Iraqi security agreement allows for an AK-47 with up to 50 rounds in every single house and place of business?

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/LGSA.p...

So yes, civilians carry AK-47's in Iraq. Lots of them.


RE: Treason
By ekv on 6/8/2010 3:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
Cute. Thanks for the link.

Nevertheless, the pilots involved and their commanders were given the green light. U.S. patrol around the corner. RPG's.

Again, this is simply NY Times Jayson Blair-style reporting. I hesitate to even call it reporting. Spin, yes. Very short on facts, which is what we've come to expect. I seem to recall similar "reporting" based on video from Los Angeles a while back ... a certain Rodney King.


RE: Treason
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 8:51:11 AM , Rating: 1
Right, and the green light was wrong. Instead of admitting that we made a mistake, the people in the video were given a postmortem classification as militants and the evidence packed away.

The NY Times is one of the most prestigious and highly respected newspapers on the planet. I know that it is also a boogeyman of the extreme right,but I fail to see why it is even relevant here. Also, Jayson Blair was not guilty of 'spinning',he was guilty of plagiarism and flat out making up facts due to laziness,not to promote an agenda. If you are claiming this story is plagiarized or fabricated, please detail what parts.


RE: Treason
By ekv on 6/8/2010 4:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Right. RPG's. US patrol around the corner. You weren't there. You look at the video and make a snap judgement. Been there. Just like the Rodney King case. When you open your eyes and dig into it, there's a little more to the story.

No wrong-doing.

As far as the NY Times being prestigious ... laughable at best. Your opinion however is lamentable. Jayson Blair is simply the most blatant example. He was there promoting the NY Times agenda as well as his own career. The height of PC America-is-evil-and-must-be-exposed. Much like our 'intelligence analyst'. If Bradley Manning were a super-patriot I might have some respect for him. He did expose weaknesses in the computer networks and handling of secure documents [albeit in an unlawful manner]. But, dumping all the other diplomatic documents out there ... just for the sake of dumping (or was it money?). Not a super-patriot. Just a punk like Jayson Blair, trying to advance his own perverse concept of a career.


RE: Treason
By beerhound on 6/9/2010 3:19:34 PM , Rating: 3
US troops had been fired on in that area earlier in the day. There were at least 2 men with AK-47s. There was at least 1 man with an RPG. There were 2 men with what looked like RPGs (we only find out they were cameras after the fact). One of those men knelt down at a corner and aimed one of the RPGs (camera) at a group of US soldiers.

With the information that was available at that point in time the green light was correct. Those soldiers were not guilty of any wrong doing. Burying the tape wasn't trying to cover up war crimes, it was trying to prevent wildly inaccurate reporting like this blog post. IMHO the right thing for the Army to have done would be issue a press release outlining the same facts I posted in the 1st paragraph and apologize for the accidental deaths of the reporters.


RE: Treason
By bh192012 on 6/8/2010 6:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the PDF you linked to. AK's are allowed "INSIDE a house" yeah, it's even capitalized in that PDF.


RE: Treason
By eskimospy on 6/8/2010 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the PDF I linked to? It says that you do not require a weapons permit to have a weapon 'INSIDE a house', not that you can't carry one outside. It then immediately states after that 'mere possession of a non-military weapon is not a hostile act'. That means that if they didn't have a permit and weren't committing hostile acts their weapons could have been confiscated, not that death could be rained down from the skies upon them.

Just saying man, before you accuse someone of not reading something you should probably have read it yourself.


hacker?
By Murloc on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: hacker?
By geddarkstorm on 6/7/2010 4:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
He was probably worried about Manning escalating his actions, and potentially leaking dangerous intelligence information that would get people killed. Even good intentions can go awry; and information that may -seem- innocuous to one person, could actually be vital in the hands of an opponent.


RE: hacker?
By ElementZero on 6/7/2010 4:58:22 PM , Rating: 5
Or he just wanted his 15 minutes. Never hear of Adrian Limo before? Well, you know who is now don't you.


RE: hacker?
By geddarkstorm on 6/7/2010 5:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there was no guarantee this would go out in the public either, or just be hidden away by the government (I sure hope they aren't planning to "make an example" of Manning..); and trying to get "kudos" from the government is a serious double edged sword. Not to mention he's already had moments of fame hacking places. We really can't guess his motives with the information here in this article.

If I ran into someone who was leaking classified information, I have no idea what I would do, but I wouldn't do anything for -attention-. This is serious, and dangerous business.


RE: hacker?
By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Bull****, "The homeless hacker" was already famous. This incident is just another footnote.


RE: hacker?
By Christobevii3 on 6/7/2010 5:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Probably has some crazy probation that if he is "good" will be lessened. I hope our next president pardons this guy.


Wait... where's security in this?
By Iksy on 6/7/2010 5:22:16 PM , Rating: 5
If this is decided to be treason, he could be executed. It's right there on the paper he signed to gain access to these systems. Also, the ISSM security officer at the facility has a lot of explaining to do. This should never have happened. Only CD-R's go into labs, never CD-RW's and neither is ever supposed to come out again, to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening. Security should have caught those burns almost immediately and when they weren't in the activity log book started an investigation. It's amazing to me that he could even burn a CD in an TS/SCI lab. That lax level of security is in itself criminal.

War is... unpleasant. There is no such thing as "friendly fire". It's also fought by humans and mistakes happen. The idea is to get the bad guys while keeping as many of yours alive and doing as little collateral damage as possible. what if you're in a gun ship in a war zone and can see people are armed and then think they're shooting at you? Was that a muzzle flash or the sun glinting off of something? How much benefit of the doubt are you going to give to those people on the ground, knowing our enemy has gone out of their way to look like innocent civilians? Before you go accusing people of intentional murder, you may want to place yourself in their position and see what you come up with in that split second.




By just4U on 6/7/2010 6:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
You make some valid points. It also needs to be noted that Soldiers (for the most part) in the western world have a great deal of rules they follow (or try to) when they engage potential enemies. They are also under a great deal of scrutiny from the media so it's no wonder that some of this stuff isn't meant to make it out of the intelligence agencies, and really I am fine with that.


By NullSubroutine on 6/7/2010 7:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Bring in a CD-R that has been unwritten to and just put a label "Lady Gaga".


By Zoridon on 6/9/2010 6:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly; If the president had any moral compass he would make a blanket statement about this "if" it was found to be nothing more than an accident. "If so much as one american life is lost due to the information you released I will have your tried for treason and executed." Then send any family affected a letter of apology for having a traitor in our armed services that caused their son, daughter, dad to get murdered by any number of American enemies.


By superstition on 6/19/2010 7:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, then part of the "unpleasant" nature of war is transparency — instead of having the government murder people who object to its behavior.


Duty, honor, country
By armyretired on 6/7/2010 8:40:00 PM , Rating: 3
This is something I finally have to comment on.

When a soldier puts on that uniform he voluntarily gives up some basic freedoms most take for grated. He is not a civilian he is a soldier. He betrayed the trust placed in him by the people of the United States and our constitutionally elected civilian leaders. He volunteered for this and took an oath.

When a soldier believes he knows better, he can vote like anybody else for a change in leadership. If he takes steps like this man did, he puts the military before civilian leaders decisions. That is the path to the police state some nuts scream about.

You do not know what you are asking for if you want soldiers to act on there personal political beliefs and not lawful orders. That's what happens in military dictatorships around the world.

I did 22 years in the Army so I think I have earned the right to say he betrayed everything the Army stands for.

Anyway, rant over, flame away if you need to :)

quote:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Quote by Martin Niemöller




RE: Duty, honor, country
By thrust2night on 6/7/2010 8:53:11 PM , Rating: 1
Are you saying that part of what the army stands for is killing innocent civilians and covering it up? I don't think that about the American army and thankfully neither does Manning. Just because he signed up to take orders doesn't mean he should do something that is clearly wrong; like covering up the death of civilians. I don't think he acted from his personal "political" beliefs but I'm glad he had the courage to step up and try to do the right thing. Not to say that "everything" he did was right. He may have unintentionally leaked some national security information in the 260,000 pages. Hopefully something good will come from this and they are not too hard on him.


RE: Duty, honor, country
By armyretired on 6/7/2010 9:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all. I am not trying to argue the right or wrong of the content of the video and documents he released.

What I question his right to take classified information of any type and post it for the world to see. There is a process to follow if you believe you have seen violations of the laws of war or rules of engagement. He is not above the law because he “thinks” he has seen a cover up. I guess that is the big thing for me, he is not above the law himself.

I believe he is just a kid who was pissed off he got demoted for some reason. He then took action to get back at authority and is trying to claim a moral high ground for doing it. No telling how many lives he has put at risk.
Google a CPT Hugh Thompson at My Lai in Vietnam if you want to see a good example of moral courage. I'm sure there have been others, but this kid is not one.


RE: Duty, honor, country
By thrust2night on 6/8/2010 8:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that he does not have the right to take classified information and post it for everyone to see. Whatever his reason to do so, we cannot deny that what occurred in the video was wrong in the part of the soldiers. But isn't this something whistleblowers do?

From Wikipedia: A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The revealed misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

The video seemed to me to be more than just one man's interpretation of a wrongdoing. He may not be above the law, but personal sacrifices have to be made when you feel that the very organization you work for is doing something wrong. I don't think he expects himself to get a medal for what he has done. More likely he will be punished, but now so will the people associated with the wrongdoings that have been leaked out.


RE: Duty, honor, country
By Zoridon on 6/8/2010 10:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
They need to lock him away and throw away the key. He is a traitor. Who is he to determin what is a cover up and what is not? Was he there when the civilians were killed and did he read the minds of the pilots knowing they killed the civilians on purpose? The video was in a JAG officers files so it must have been under review for possible wrong doing "possible" if the military puts out to the press every single accident as possible wrongdoing then the liberal conspiracy mongers like yourself will find them guilty by public opinion. I agree at some point the story should come to the public but only after full review so that the "JURY" is not tainted with wild rantings of "It was a cover up". Contrary to popular belief the military goes to great lengths to avoid callateral damage putting soldiers at risk in many cases. If it was intentional wrongdoing it will come out but give the process a chance before hanging a soldier for an accident.


RE: Duty, honor, country
By kfonda on 6/7/2010 9:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did 22 years in the Army so I think I have earned the right to say he betrayed everything the Army stands for.


Thank you for serving. It is still appreciated by some of us.


Thoughts...
By iceonfire1 on 6/7/2010 6:07:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo turned Manning in. He claims he did it to save U.S. lives.


Technically, if the U.S. moved up the withdrawal date or decreased military activity in response to the video, that would save more U.S. lives. If Lamo cared about foreign lives this would make sense--oh, wait.

Also, the right/wrong debate is mostly just the spirit of the law vs its letter, or it should be (not sure what the spirit of censor laws is...) In fact, the real question isn't about Manning's actions but about the morality of places like wikileaks. Personally, I think government accountability is a good thing.




RE: Thoughts...
By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
.... and conversly if it enraged people on the fence it could destabalize the country and escalate war.

The unedited video had no context, like activity in the area just before the video was taken. (Still looked legit to me.) The edited version, the one most people saw, was intentionally edited to remove context and make it look worse than it was. (This will probably cause MORE terrorist attacks.)

Non-uniformed people walking around with AK-47's in a warzone. Civilians??? I don't think so. USA isn't a warzone, but what do you think would happen to me if I picked up an AK-47 and started walking around town with it? That's right, cops would light me up.


RE: Thoughts...
By roadhog1974 on 6/8/2010 1:36:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The unedited video had no context, like activity in the area just before the video was taken. (Still looked legit to me.) The edited version, the one most people saw, was intentionally edited to remove context and make it look worse than it was. (This will probably cause MORE terrorist attacks.)


aside from "removing no context" not making sense,
link please.


RE: Thoughts...
By bh192012 on 6/8/2010 7:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
http://collateralmurder.com/

most sites linked to the short version which was "edited to remove context" or if you prefer, edited to falsify context by adding false info...

describing their behavior as relaxed (the guy peeking around the corner doesn't look relaxed)

highlighting of cameras, but not the obvious weapons (that's called propoganda, highlight all relavant info or none!)

zooming in and highlighting vague white specks and ipmlying the chopper pilot should have somehow known their ages.

The edited version leaves out pilot comments like "Hey yeah, roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with AK's behind that dirt pile break." Followed by a conversion from the pilot to the ground asking the men down there "Where else are we taking fire from?" Yeah, cuz duh that would strengthen the case for returning fire, and you can't have that in your anti-military propaganda video. Makes perfect sense.


RE: Thoughts...
By zmatt on 6/9/2010 7:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
The unedited video had no context, like activity in the area just before the video was taken. (Still looked legit to me.) The edited version, the one most people saw, was intentionally edited to remove context and make it look worse than it was. (This will probably cause MORE terrorist attacks.)

The lack of context did any me, understanding what had happened before makes it easier to understand what the Apache pilots did. was it right? No, but it was an accident. IMO the government and military would get less flak if they went out and said they screwed up on things like this. People would be less suspicious of them. They should have had a press release stating the events in context and that the pilots were found innocent because of the events leading up. People would probably have accepted it.

Non-uniformed people walking around with AK-47's in a warzone. Civilians??? I don't think so. USA isn't a warzone, but what do you think would happen to me if I picked up an AK-47 and started walking around town with it? That's right, cops would light me up.

Iraq is not America, don't try to put an American perspective on what they do. My cousin went to the sandbox twice. One thing he always talked about is how everyone was packing. When there is a wedding they shoot into the air, when they go to the market they carry a rifle. In a country that has seen so much and has a week and corrupt police force it makes sense to carry an AK. The laws allow it, and they get along with it surprisingly well. It's a cultural thing. Point is, just because you see a man with a gun in Iraq and you aren't used to that, it doesn't mean he is a bad guy. And at least where I live carrying is legal and practiced fairly frequently. My town is pretty quiet. You can't strap an AK on your back, but there are plenty of rifles in cars and nothing bad happens with them.


I don't get it
By smarish on 6/8/2010 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
Does it make this story sound more important if you call this guy an "Intelligence Officer"? Exactly what officer rank do you think he is?




RE: I don't get it
By cleco on 6/8/2010 4:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was searching for someone who else might of caught that lol

good job daily tech ...

Specialist are E-4... enlisted.


Hmm
By xpax on 6/7/2010 5:16:14 PM , Rating: 1
Lamo has lost a lot of respect in my books.

Wikileaks needs sources. Transparency is a laudable goal, one to which the US government is not committed. If they won't commit to it, someone needs to do it for them.




RE: Hmm
By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 7:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
"I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger. He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air." -Lamo

Really, you think vacuuming 'up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air,' was a laudable goal?

If I take a sword to a wedding and start slicing, I'll inevitably get some evil doers.


RE: Hmm
By roadhog1974 on 6/7/10, Rating: 0
Messages to...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/7/2010 5:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Message to whistleblowers: Go ahead and blow the whistle, but don't get cocky about it.

Message to U.S. government: I hope you're not gonna go after the leaker, unless there was something vital to national security - and not anything to do with wrongdoing - in those 260,000 wires. And I also hope you get a clue about network auditing. Seriously, that's basic IT security stuff.




officer?
By mfenn on 6/7/2010 5:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is an SPC an officer?




Once you know....trust no one.
By sheenobi on 6/7/2010 8:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Would you not do little evil for a greater good?




Hero?
By kfonda on 6/7/2010 9:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
All you people that think he is a hero should reread the above article.

quote:
After seeing several leaks on the site Manning found an item of his own, too compelling to keep secret -- a video of a U.S. military helicopter attacking what they believed to be armed insurgents.


quote:
He stated, "At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter. No big deal … about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it."


He was looking for something to leak, after being demoted, to get back at the military. This has nothing to do with his conscience. It was clearly an for the purpose of revenge after being demoted.




By unicron02 on 6/8/2010 12:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
When you are granted access to Classified information, you must agree to safeguard all such information from unauthorized disclosure. There is no clause which waives this requirement if you think the information concerns really bad people doing really bad things. If you have a problem with any particular piece of classified information, then your only authorized recourse is to bring the situation to the attention of your chain of command, or the Inspector General's office if your chain doesn't care.

This guy shouldn't have even been snooping around JAG directories on some file sever anyhow. Just because some idiot didn't lock them down, or the fact that he had some elevated privileges doesn't make it right.

This guy swore an oath to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All guidance provided which governs access to and the use of Classified information is considered an order issued by a higher headquarters or agency. There is no whistleblower stipulation that gets him off the hook. He had a course of action to deal with what he might have thought of as "wrong", but he decided to do things his way. He knew full well the consequences of his actions, and now he is going to pay the price.

If anybody considers this guy a hero then that is certainly your right to do so, but your personal opinion does not come into play when the law is concerned.




By roadhog1974 on 6/8/2010 2:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
15 minutes is never enough.




Wrong way to do it
By vycor on 6/8/2010 5:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
If he really felt that self-righteous there are ways for military members to expose wrong doing.

He could have taken the info to the Inspector General's office or he could have contacted his congressman.

What he did was treason and very irresponsible. He possibly endangered the lives of so many serviceman. If he is found guilty of these crimes I hope he spending the rest of his life at Leavenworth or put to death.




By iamezza on 6/8/2010 11:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
I know the war in Iraq is highly controversial to start with, so imagine if this was WWII.
What would have happened if an intelligence officer had leaked to the world media evidence of the allied forces accidentally killing the civilians of axis nations, or leaking thousands of confidential diplomatic documents? If someone did this during WWII they would have been executed without question for treason since they were basically giving the enemy free propaganda to use against them.




Poor Internal Security Audit
By Yeah on 6/8/2010 4:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that this fella has outed a problem more with our military's internal auditing and security practices. Why, wouldnt our military's IT staff be able to determine where data within thier infrastructure is being copied to? It is almost as if someone wanted him to disclose the data and he is more of the scapegoat. Bringing in blank CDs to copy data onto? Security at the facility he worked at is laughable at best. I feel sorry for him. He will be blamed for things that I feel someone wanted him to do.




By Director on 6/8/2010 4:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Good on the young guy for doing the right thing, not that most Americans will EVER be exposed to what is being done in the world in their name but at least some of them will.

What this kid revealed is just the tip of the iceberg and while a lot of misinformed yanks might see him as some kind of traitor, he's only a traitor to those who do evil in the name of pursuing their global hegemony. To the whole of mankind, he's a hero.

Wake up Americans, stop watching the main stream media, it's just the state sanctioned propaganda machine.

And Adrian Lamo, appropriately named, lame-o.




the real issue
By justanotherguy1234 on 6/8/2010 5:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone can have their conversations about what is right and wrong in this case.

Here is the real issue, somebody was able to obtain and leak these documents so easily...

It scares me to think that by lip syncing lady gaga, someone with classified clearance was able to walk in, take whatever they want, and leave. I have been in corporate datacenters with higher security.

Forget if this is right or wrong ethically, its clearly wrong that this happened under our noses. Regardless of what data was leaked, whomever is in charge of securing that data needs to be fired.




By WearyTraveler on 6/9/2010 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of talk about the military covering it up forcing him to take the WikiLeak route.

Nowhere in the story does it say that he actually went to someone internal with the information.

Had he tried to escalate a couple of levels of food chain and the story was still covered up, he may have been more justified in going external.

According to the story, he didn't; He made the "fateful decision" to leak the original story to the world, followed by other classified information.

His actions exposed classified information.

Hang him...




By superstition on 6/19/2010 7:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
"A definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire, largely because almost everything that is known comes from a single, extremely untrustworthy source: Lamo himself. Compounding that is the fact that most of what came from Lamo has been filtered through a single journalist -- Poulsen -- who has a long and strange history with Lamo...

Reviewing everything that is known ultimately raises more questions than it answers.

Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together. Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking: Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into The New York Times. When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen. That's because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.

Despite being convicted of serious hacking felonies, Poulsen was allowed by the U.S. Government to become a journalist covering the hacking world for Security Focus News.

Back in 2002, Information Week described the strange Lamo-Poulsen relationship this way: 'To publicize his work, [Lamo] often tapped ex-hacker-turned-journalist Kevin Poulsen as his go-between: Poulsen contacts the hacked company, alerts it to the break-in, offers Lamo's cooperation, then reports the hack on the SecurityFocus Online Web site, where he's a news editor. When Lamo hacked into the NYT, it was Poulsen who notified the newspaper's executives on Lamo's behalf, and then wrote about it afterward.

Actually, over the years, Poulsen has served more or less as Lamo's personal media voice....

If one assumes that this happened as the Wired version claims, what Lamo did here is despicable. He holds himself out as an 'award-winning journalist" and told Manning he was one ('I did tell him that I worked as a journalist,' Lamo said). Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn't appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California's shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning's talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (early on in their chats, Manning said: 'I can't believe what I'm confessing to you'). In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential -- perhaps legally required to be kept confidential -- only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.

Worse, Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security. Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security. And Manning's capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was 'pending discharge' for 'adjustment disorder," and no longer had access to any documents (Lamo: "Why does your job afford you access?' - Manning: 'because i have a workstation . . . *had*').

If one believes what the chat logs claim, Manning certainly thought he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. And if he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what our wars entail -- then he's a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg....

Making Lamo's conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention....

Then there's the fact that, just in the last two weeks, Lamo's statements have been filled with countless contradictions of the type that suggests deliberate lying."

and so on




money
By zodiacfml on 6/7/2010 8:13:29 PM , Rating: 1
There's one person in this story that got a lot richer.




By kfonda on 6/7/2010 7:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That hacker should be in jail.


What the hell are you talking about?

From the above article:
quote:
Late last month Manning came into contact with former hacker and Wikileaks donor, Adrian Lamo, over chat and IM. Manning saw a kindred spirit in Lamo and soon was sharing with him his exploits with and asking him for advice. That proved to be a fatal mistake. Lamo handed over chat logs of Manning's admission to masterminding the diplomatic cable leak to FBI agents at a Starbucks near his house in Carmichael, California.


What did the hacker do that could even remotely be considered a crime? He should get a medal for turning in a treasonous soldier.


By WearyTraveler on 6/9/2010 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%

The hacker did the right thing.


By superstition on 6/19/2010 7:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Glenn Greenwald:

"Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security. And Manning's capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was 'pending discharge' for 'adjustment disorder," and no longer had access to any documents...

Making Lamo's conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention....

Then there's the fact that, just in the last two weeks, Lamo's statements have been filled with countless contradictions of the type that suggests deliberate lying."


By bh192012 on 6/7/2010 7:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
"Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public," Manning wrote.

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/wikileaks_...


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki