If the Justice Department Is Investigating Manning-Wikileaks, Why Isn’t It Investigating Lamo-Wired?

[slipslidingaway]

http://my.firedoglake.com/cindykouril/2010/12/30/if-the-justice-department-is-investigating-manning-wikileaks-why-isnt-it-investigating-lamo-wired/#comments


"WikiLeaks says that their software allows a leaker to upload information to them with complete anonymity...

...On the other hand, Adrian Lamo claims that the chat logs of instant messages he allegedly had with Manning contain classified information. Wired.com’s senior editor Kevin Poulsen also claims that he spoke with Lamo; Lamo agreed with Poulsen to give Poulsen a complete and unredacted set of the chat logs, presumably with all that classified information intact, if Poulsen would drive down to Lamo’s location to collect them. Poulsen not only agreed to this, but apparently made the trip thereby committing an affirmative act in furtherance of the agreement.

Now here’s what intrigues me: if the U.S. Department of Justice is looking at a conspiracy charge involving WikiLeaks, why isn’t it looking at a conspiracy charge against Wired.com? In the case of Wired we have: 1) two people who actually know each other, 2) an agreement to turn over classified information, and 3) an act done in furtherance of that agreement..."

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[slipslidingaway]

2. "Kevin Lee Poulsen (far right), pictured circa 2001 with Adrian Lamo (far left) ....

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

From the comments section at FDL.

Thanks :)

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Who links to FDL anymore?

Obsolete

[NorthCarolina]

4. Awwww, aren't you precious. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

5. Why not go to Drudge or WND if you want to read that?

:shrug:

[NorthCarolina]

8. ..

:rofl: I think you win the prize for attempting to convince us that apples are oranges. Congrats....really quite a phenomenal s....t....r....e....t....c....h

[PBS Poll-435]

9. If unproven and unauthenticated documents are lies...

Then they belong on Drudge or Newsmax


:shrug:

[fascisthunter]

14. rrrrright... you are feeling sleepy

[PBS Poll-435]

19. be fair...

Let's take those cables to town!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Give Jane a kiss for me

I think her method is disgusting.

[NorthCarolina]

11. Hurry...I think I just saw someone mention FDL in another post in GDP

Better get over there quick. I think I may have seen another post where someone mentioned..."Kucinich", you may want to go dump on that thread too. You better hurry though...busy, busy, busy. :silly:

[girl gone mad]

16. She's an obsession..

she's your obsession
what does she want you to do
to make her sleep with you

you will have her, yes you will have her
you will find a way and you will have her
like a butterfly, a wild butterfly
you will collect her and capture her...

[slipslidingaway]

13. Same people who link to Greenwald, Goodman, Moyers, Wolf etc...

:evilgrin:

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Exactly

Agenda not intended!

:evilgrin:

[slipslidingaway]

20. Guess the agenda of all these people is to take down the Dems...

:shrug:

No need to address the substance of the article ... happens over and over again.

:(

[WillyT]

6. Big K & R !!!

:patriot:

:kick:

[Statistical]

12. "presumably with all that classified information intact" which means nothing.

They presume their was classified material in the chat log despite not having any (none what so ever) evidence to support that.
Thus the transfer of the logs (containing the alleged and unsupported claim of classified material) is a crime.

That is the mother of all utterly unsupported presumptions.

Now if there was no classified material in the chat logs (and the author has no evidence there is) then the entire article is a bunch of hot air.

In related news: "Today statistical received a Spicy Chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-a which presumably had a kilo of cocaine in it. Why isn't the DEA investigating Statistical and Chick-fil-a?"

[Luminous Animal]

17. Lamo claims that he was in possession of classified info, thus the "presumably."

He states here that he was in possession and passed along classified information:

"LAMO: I would have felt required to, yes, and, when I talked to Kevin Poulsen last, I told him that, if he wanted me to, I would plead the First if asked whether or not I had given him the full logs, because that might mean that he was in possession of classified information, and he fortunately declined that offer, but I made him the offer."

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/12/28/glenn-greenwald-interview-with-adrian-lamo-pt-ii-6-17-2010-transcript-audio/

[NorthCarolina]

15. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

21. Thanks :) n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Jane said "meh"

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

23. Now you are just being plain silly, Jane did not write the article...

any comments on the the actual article or Greenwald's coverage? Do you just want to try and discredit anything published on FDL because it does not always agree with the Dem Party?

Thanks for the kicks though :)

Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html

"...That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. That, ironically, is what WikiLeaks critics (and The New York Times' John Burns) did with the release of the Iraq War documents showing all sorts of atrocities in which the U.S. was complicit: they tried to put the focus on the personality quirks of Julian Assange to distract attention away from the horrifying substance of those disclosures. That, manifestly, is the same tactic Wired is using here: trying to put the focus on me to obscure their own ongoing conduct in concealing the key evidence shining light on these events..."