The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired (Manning chat logs, much more)

[EFerrari]

By Glenn Greenwald

*

For more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed -- but refuses to publish -- the key evidence in one of the year's most significant political stories: the arrest of U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source. In late May, Adrian Lamo -- at the same time he was working with the FBI as a government informant against Manning -- gave Poulsen what he purported to be the full chat logs between Manning and Lamo in which the Army Private allegedly confessed to having been the source for the various cables, documents and video which WikiLeaks released throughout this year. In interviews with me in June, both Poulsen and Lamo confirmed that Lamo placed no substantive restrictions on Poulsen with regard to the chat logs: Wired was and remains free to publish the logs in their entirety.

Despite that, on June 10, Wired published what it said was only "about 25%" of those logs, excerpts which it hand-picked. For the last six months, Poulsen has not only steadfastly refused to release any further excerpts, but worse, has refused to answer questions about what those logs do and do not contain. This is easily one of the worst journalistic disgraces of the year: it is just inconceivable that someone who claims to be a "journalist" -- or who wants to be regarded as one -- would actively conceal from the public, for months on end, the key evidence in a political story that has generated headlines around the world.

In June, I examined the long, strange, and multi-layered relationship between Poulsen and Lamo, and in that piece raised the issue of Wired's severe journalistic malfeasance in withholding these chat logs. But this matter needs to be re-visited now for three reasons:

(1) for the last six months, Adrian Lamo has been allowed to run around making increasingly sensationalistic claims about what Manning told him; journalists then prominently print Lamo's assertions, but Poulsen's refusal to release the logs or even verify Lamo's statements prevents anyone from knowing whether Lamo's claims about what Manning said are actually true;

(2) there are new, previously undisclosed facts about the long relationship between Wired/Poulsen and a key figure in Manning's arrest -- facts which Poulsen inexcusably concealed; and,

(3) subsequent events gut Poulsen's rationale for concealing the logs and, in some cases, prove that his claims are false.

Much of the new evidence cited here has been found and compiled by Firedoglake in three valuable indices: the key WikiLeaks-Manning articles, a timeline of the key events, and the various excerpts of the Manning/Lamo chat logs published by different parties.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/27/wired/index.html

[sabrina 1]

1. Greenwald should get a Pulitzer prize for his work on this case

alone.

Wired selectively releasing statements by Manning is disgraceful, out of context statements.

You can make anyone look guilty by doing that. Greenwald is right, I hope Poulsen responds.

[EFerrari]

6. This is much more convoluted than I thought it was.

Greenwald is doing an excellent job of untangling it all.

[bobthedrummer]

2. K&R#10 n/t

[midnight]

3. Lamo is an Fbi informant.... He is the informant on Manning..

"KEVIN POULSEN, Senior Editor, Wired.com
Kevin Poulsen oversees cybercrime, privacy, defense and political coverage at Wired.com, and he edits the Threat Level blog. He previously served as editor of the award-winning computer security news site SecurityFocus, acquired by Symantec in 2002, where his investigative reporting was frequently followed by the national press. Poulsen’s byline has appeared in Wired magazine, Business 2.0 and other publications, and he’s been interviewed by CNN, ABC News, CBS News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, NPR and other outlets. In 2006, Poulsen’s computer-assisted investigation into the presence of registered sex offenders on MySpace resulted in the arrest of an active pedophile, and led to policy changes at MySpace and federal legislation." Does Poulson also work for FBI ?

He seems to working with a security focus and might have security ties?

[EFerrari]

7. If that is true in some sense, then the only reporting done on the logs

was initially done by a government collaborator.

Everything these people do just shows how much we need wikileaks, don't it?

[leveymg]

4. The DOJ case is still weak, even if it had proof that Assange conspired with Manning or there were

3rd parties who assisted Manning in transmitting the documents. Only Manning can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for unauthorized release of classified information - that's an inherent part of the statute, and the intent of Congress in writing it the way they did. We don't have an Official Secrets Act in America - yet.

Without a chargable underlying felony to which others were party, there is no legal case to prosecute Assange or Wikileaks for conspiracy, no matter whether they had foreknowledge or actively assisted Manning.

They declined to prosecute AIPAC last year because of these legal facts, and they can't now go after Wikileaks on the same grounds. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/20/930365/-After-AIPAC-Defendants-Walk,-Holder-to-Prosecute-Wikileaks

Sorry, Mr. Holder. No can do.

[sabrina 1]

8. Exactly, I don't know why they are pushing this theory.

A News Organization can communicate with a source legally. It makes them look desperate. But Conyers' Committee pretty much made it impossible for them to try to go after Assange on any espionage charges anyhow.

[sabrina 1]

9. I meant to add, that Abbe Lowell, who represented the

two AIPAC lobbiests charged with spying, was on Conyers' Committee.

House Judiciary Comm. takes on Wikileaks, Espionage Act

The overwhelming theme of the testimony was that the real problem facing Congress is not Wikileaks, but the government's massive overclassification of documents, which has led to a system where leaks are not only commonplace, but a part of the normal process of keeping the public informed, and legitimate state secrecy is as a consequence not respected.

More harm has come as a direct result of overclassification and lack of information than what is now being attributed to Wikileaks, Ralph Nader said in his opening testimony. Nader, like other witnesses who testified, warned the committee about rushing to pass new legislation. "Stampeded legislation always comes back to haunt its authors."

Abbe Lowell, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, said Wikileaks showed that there are some minor communications that are being classified in the same category as legitimate secrets, which is a huge problem. Lowell, who had recently represented two Washington lobbyists who were unsuccessfully prosecuted on espionage charges, added that there needs to be a law for real acts of espionage and a separate law for handling leaks of legitimately classified documents. However, passing legislation in a hasty response to the current political landscape could lead to "decades of unintended consequences," he said.

Both those testifying and members of the committee stressed the importance of protecting the First Amendment and cautioned against the potential repercussions of placing the news media at risk of prosecution. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein testified that the issue of the impact on free press is one of "fundamental importance." Wainstein had served as former President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, and was the first chief of the Justice Department’s National Security Division from 2006 to March 2008.

[EFerrari]

10. They need to sell the idea that he isn't a journalist

so they can charge him with holding stolen property. Of course, it's ridiculous. Assange has been a member of the main union for journalists in Australia for years.

[leveymg]

13. Rosen and Weissman weren't journalists - they were AIPAC lobbyists -- this too is a false

distinction. The First Amendment isn't, in itself, an adequate defense from prosecution under the Espionage Act. It's the very structure of the Act that's the impediment to prosecution - it only penalizes those who hold security clearances.

[sabrina 1]

15. I wasn't clear obviously. I know they were not journalists.

Their defense was that what they were doing was done all the time and was known and approved of by the U.S. government up to the VP's office. Therefore they were not spying, just doing business as usual. To bolster their claims, they called Condi Rice and others from Cheney's shadow government as witnesses.

I am sorry that case didn't go forward, if only to put the war criminals under oath.

Abbe Lowell's statement to the Conyers' Committee is posted in my other comment. He makes it clear that Wikileaks, which is what that Commission was about, cannot be charged under the Espionage Act.

As for Manning, that is another story. He should have protection under Whistle-blower laws, but the record of this administration regarding Whistle-blowers, doesn't provide much hope of that happening.

[leveymg]

20. You got it right, and I agree with you.

I just wish Cheney and the other top-tiers had been prosecuted. This outcome made it practically impossible, as the lower levels lost any incentive to cooperate when charges were dropped.

[leveymg]

18. The theory of potential prosecution for theft hinges on a 1988 Denial of Cert in the Morison case.

In 1988, Samuel Morison, an employee of the US Dept. of the Navy, unsuccessfully filed cert to remain free on bond after he was convicted of stealing classified U.S. satellite photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier under construction and selling the photos to Jane's Defense Weekly for $300. The magazine and its editors were not prosecuted. Morison was convicted of two charges, one related to conversion of gov't property and the second under Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act. See, http://supreme.justia.com/us/486/1306/case.html

The government's argument in that case was laid out in the brief, below: http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880401.txt

SAMUEL LORING MORISON, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 88-169

In The Supreme Court Of The United States

October Term, 1988

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit



STATUTES INVOLVED

Section 641 (18 U.S.C.) provides:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property
made or being made under contract for the United States or any
department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted --

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $100, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.

The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price,
either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Section 793 (18 U.S.C.) provides in pertinent part:

* * * * *

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any * * * photograph * * * relating to
the national defense * * *, willfully communicates, delivers,
transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered or transmitted * * *
the same to any person not entitled to receive it * * *; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, * * * or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to
the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign
nation, * * * willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to
the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

* * * * *

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both.

* * * * *


[SNIP}

[EFerrari]

23. And that might apply to Manning's charges but if they try it on Assange

they run right into the 1st Amendment.

Now, Manning's stuff would seem to be complicated to some extent because he apparently told Lamo explicitly that he was acting as a whistle blower and no self serving construction can be put on that, except we still don't know his whole conversation with Lamo because Wired is withholding it.

[leveymg]

25. To prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act, they would have to prove that

he published the cables with the knowledge that it would do actual harm to the U.S. to the benefit of a foreign power, which is essentially the same thing as intent to commit espionage.

I haven't seen proof of that.

The conversion of government property statute, Sec. 641, (theft of classified materials) has never been applied to the recipient of classified information, just to Morison who was a Navy Dept. employee at the time he came into possession of the photos. There's also the element of personal gain that would have to be proven against Assange.

It's clear that Manning can be prosecuted under both statutes. The question is, will DOJ now try to make the stretch and indict Assange? I hope not. Anyway, unless and until someone comes up with proof that Assange was acting on behalf of a foreign power with intent to harm the U.S., I don't think DOJ has much of a case against him under the Espionage Act. Prosecution under Sec. 641 for publishing leaks would be unprecedented, and I hope they wouldn't dare.

[EFerrari]

26. They'd be criminalizing journalism.

I don't know. They might do it. If we run down all the other times they'd punished whistle blowers or all the times they've mistreated journalists, if we really run it down, it doesn't seem out of the question.

[sabrina 1]

34. Yes, they seem to be jumping from one idea to the next, to try to

find a crime to match him to. Usually you match a perpetrator to a crime, but in our insane world, anything goes it seems.

Assange is a jouranlist, he is a publisher and an editor.

One thing that bothers me about Manning's case is that while there is no evidence of it, people are assuming he leaked all of the documents in Wikileaks possession.

How, eg, would he have gotten the Corporate documents? Assange spoke about them last month and says Wikileaks has tens or hundreds of thousands of docs from the Corporate World. See here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x77028

I doubt Manning leaked all of those documents, they seem to be from within the Corp. World. And I think they are far more concerned about those leaks, than they are about the military leaks.

[leveymg]

11. The Espionage Act dates to 1917.

Not sure I'm following you. The last substantive amendment I'm aware of is Sec. 798 which followed "The Falcon and the Snowman" leak of NSA methods and data in the early 1980s. See, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798

[leveymg]

14. On edit - I see what you're getting at, s1. The problem will be temptation next term to pass an

Official Secrets Act. Obama will likely sign it, judging by Holder's recent actions. Then, we're all screwed.

[sabrina 1]

16. Yes, but again, if they respect the Judiciary Committee's findings,

(see my link above) they will not try to pass such legislation and then try to apply it to Wikileaks. Most of the witnesses at the Committee hearings stated that legislation passed in a hurry like that, always has 'unintended consequences'.

But now with Republicans in control, it is likely. Still, it would have to go to the courts, and I always thought you could not prosecute someone retroactively, until recently.

[leveymg]

19. The next Congress isn't bound by the findings of its predecessor. The issue isn't so much Assange,

and any prosecution of him under current law, it's the very real danger that the next Congress will pass an Official Secrets Act, and Obama appears likely to sign it.

Such a change in the law, even though it could only be applied prospectively in future cases, would be the end of leaks to the news media and the end of the "Fourth Estate" as a guardian of the public interest in matters related to classified documents.

[EFerrari]

24. Imo, they are more likely to set a precedent by going after both Manning and Assange

because they keep the advantage of framing the story as defenders of our security v. two malefactors.

They don't need to pass a secrets act if the press is made to behave as if we have one. Which, they pretty much do already.

[Dystopian]

5. KandR.

Thank you.


peace~

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. K&R

[struggle4progress]

17. I find Greenwald's signature aggrieved screech almost unreadable and difficult

to take seriously

Here, he shrieks Poulsen should release all the logs Lamo allegedly gave him

In his June article, of course, Poulsen wrote
... Portions of the chats that discuss deeply personal information about Manning or that reveal apparently sensitive military information are not included ...
‘I Can’t Believe What I’m Confessing to You’: The Wikileaks Chats
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter June 10, 201
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

So in June, Poulsen did provide a reason for not releasing all the logs

Of course, I have no way to verify the authenticity of the material Lamo allegedly gave Poulsen, or the veracity of Poulsen's claims about it -- but then neither does Greenwald

The story has turned out to involve lots of people with cyber-criminal backgrounds: Assange seems to have been interested in hacking folk since the late 80s; Poulsen was convicted of cybercrimes at about the same time Assange seems to have been; Lamo was convicted about a decade later; and now all three appear in this article about Manning. And so who does Greenwald consider really really creepy here? Mark Rasch, of course!

A discussion about Internet security
with Mark Rasch and John Markoff
in Current Affairs
on Wednesday, May 25, 2005
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/905

Lazy Workers May Be Deemed Hackers
Mark Rasch, 2009-08-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/504

April 30, 2010, 3:22 PM
iPhonegate: Q.&A. With Mark D. Rasch, Computer Security Expert
By NICK BILTON
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/iphonegate-qa-with-mark-d-rasch-computer-security-expert/

U.S. Hunts 'Hacktivists;' Some Ask: Is It Worth It?
by CARRIE JOHNSON
December 13, 2010
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132015315/as-u-s-hunts-hacktivists-some-ask-is-it-worth-it

[EFerrari]

22. How unfortunate for you. n/t

[leftstreet]

21. K&R

Interesting read!

[Riftaxe]

27. One of the other parties that has access to this evidence

is Pvt. Manning and his defense teams, if they alleviated him of any culpability they would have been published by him or his a long time ago. With that understanding in place, re-examine the article and enjoy a good example of written poutrage.

[EFerrari]

31. Baloney. Manning has been in solitary for months

and is in no position to do anything of the sort.

Fail.

[Catherina]

28. Rec'd. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

29. K&R

Interesting reading.

A pic of Poulsen and Lamo:


I always wondered what Lamo looked like. I'm reminded of Andrew Daulton Lee, who was portrayed by Sean Penn in "The Falcon and the Snowman"

[Ellipsis]

30. Tweet response from KPoulesn ...and the plot thickens.

"Heard there's a measured, mature critique I should respond to. Will look for it tomorrow when I'm back from vacation."

http://twitter.com/kpoulsen

[Ellipsis]

32. .

[Kurovski]

33. K&R. (nt)

[bengalherder]

35. There's a quaint saying online Mr. Poulsen

Dox or GTFO.