U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks

[TomClash]

Source: New York Times

U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks
By CHARLIE SAVAGE


WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge dissemination of classified government documents, are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information.

Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.

Among materials prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Manning is said to claim that he had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files. Private Manning is also said to have claimed that Mr. Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

Adrian Lamo, an ex-hacker in whom Private Manning confided and who eventually turned him in, said Private Manning detailed those interactions in instant-message conversations with him.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?hp

[katandmoon]

1. While studiously ignoring the Bush criminal administration. FUCKERS.

[GodlessBiker]

4. It is a disgusting spectacle. I would say they should be ashamed, ...

but they obviously don't know what that means.

[saigon68]

32. More of that Change "We can Believe In"

Meanwhile the wars go on with our fearless leader spending $700 Billion a year on military adventures

[Creative]

70. I don't believe Obama indicated that he would suspend the enforcement of ours laws

if elected president.

[fasttense]

80. No, his words were more along the lines of let's look forward not backward

and now he goes and looks backward at Julian but not at Dick and W.

But in affect his actions say: I will NOT enforce the law when it comes to rich, well placed politicians who torture and murder. But when it comes to a small fry who releases information about my administration, I will use all the laws I got.

[Creative]

89. Manning and Assange occured on his watch. I expect him to deal with it.

And he is doing just that.

Third World dictatorships and other kooks prosecute those they defeat. I'm surprised that you would suggest that the US should regress to that level.

[Creative]

69. Enforcing the law is a disgusting spectacle?

Are you an anarchist?

[GodlessBiker]

78. The uneven application of enforcing the law, in the name of protecting political power, is a ...

disgusting spectacle.

[Creative]

90. I'm all for the equal application of justice.

Are you suggesting that someone else released the cables?

[bemildred]

82. Apparently anything, even suborning perjury, is better than looking impotent. nt

[tax_cuts_r_us]

16. I guess Asange isn't wealthy enough to avoid persecution

It would seem as thugh our entire government has been bought and paid for. When are the American people going to wake up?

[AsahinaKimi]

24. My beef orginally with

The Obama administration was their blindly looking forward, while crimes were committed. Just shows that if you are rich enough, you can stay out of prison. Bush and his Cabal should have been investigated and charged.

[EFerrari]

26. It's hard to imagine any other administration doing different.

And yeah, every move the government makes just proves Assange is right and Wikileaks is needed, doesn't it.

What would it be like to read that the DoJ is really investigating, not fake investigating, but really investigating the Bush torture program? That they were devoting resources to idenifying "tools" that could be brought to bear in a case against prisoner abuse, torture and murder? That they were cooperating with Sweden and Britain to document the rendition network and stamp it out?

It would have to be some other country, not this one.

[wtmusic]

2. What drives them crazy is not the loss of information, but that of power. nt

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1

So true.

PB

[RKP5637]

8. Exactly!!! That is what frustrates them!!! n/t

[krabigirl]

12. Yep.

[harvey007]

19. Their urge to silence and censor also explains this...

WASHINGTON — A former Defense Intelligence Agency officer whose Afghan memoir was belatedly censored by the Pentagon filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking to have the book’s full text restored in future printings.

In September, the Defense Department spent $47,300 to purchase and destroy the entire first printing of “Operation Dark Heart” by Anthony A. Shaffer, asserting that it contained classified information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15author.html

[Creative]

71. What bothers me, is that this could jeopardize the safety of our armed forces and/or

those working with them.

[wtmusic]

75. Ultimately the US government is jeopardizing the safety of our armed forces

and will continue to do so if they're not held accountable.

Big picture.

[Creative]

77. Yeah, but that no excuse for others to do it.

It is truly despicable when a soldier has no regard for the safety of his fellow servicemen.

[Nihil]

79. Really?

What appears to bother you is the possibility that your corporate masters
might be exposed to the light and so you are desperate to find any puny
excuse as to why such exposure is "a bad thing".

[Creative]

81. Nihil...is that as in nihilist? If so, that would explain why you consider treason

to be a "puny" thing.

In any case, it appears that the traitor is now cooperating, so we should learn which of us is correct soon enough.

[Nihil]

83. Has the brain-washing progressed that far then?

> In any case, it appears that the traitor is now cooperating,

Sounds like the corporate machine will be issuing a "confession"
soon that has been tortured sorry, "rendered" from a political
prisoner by means of deprivation & drugs.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
and we'll rob them, lock 'em up, beat the living shit out of them and drive
them to suicide for the greater glory of the beloved dollar."


> so we should learn which of us is correct soon enough

Most people outside the USA (and lots of awake people inside it) already know
which of us is correct - even without a show trial starring a broken little
man being used as a scapegoat for the failings of a corrupt plutocracy.

[Creative]

84. Do you have a link to the evidence that supports your contention that Manning was "tortured,?"

Or does your notion of the presumption of innocence only extend to those who hate the US?

If you are looking for hypocrisy and washed minds, have a look in the mirror, my friend.

[Nihil]

85. Lots of people do ...

UN, European court of human rights, ... all those "details" that are apparently
ignored by the "court of US exceptionalism".

> Or does your notion of the presumption of innocence only extend to those
> who hate the US?

Nope. My "presumption of innocence" extends to all of those who have not
been proven guilty by means of a court beyond the powers of the parties
who would benefit from a "guilty" verdict.

> If you are looking for hypocrisy and washed minds, have a look in the
> mirror, my friend.

Nice try. The difference is that I can read the truth because I am outside
your little "cone of silence".

Land of the Free ... hah! :rofl:

[Creative]

88. Perhaps they do, but clearly, you do not.

[Downwinder]

3. Are they going to start prosecuting all of the

informed sources and high government officials that I keep reading about?

[Demeter]

5. A Clear Case of Projection

Accusing Assange of the crime they committed daily....

[Kaleko]

17. The whole "war on terror" is a clear case of projection.

Assange and WikiLeaks whistleblowers are exposing this fact for all to see.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Ha! I have little doubt Adrian Lamo would be more than willing to help them get the...

..."evidence" they need.

Those chat logs (which are just plain lines of text) are the reason why Assange had such a bone to pick with Wired.com- they were only released as cherry-picked excerpts and Wired ran with whatever Lamo, who had a relationship with the U.S. government, fed them.

I could actually see this story becoming a lot bigger than it is now. I could see the government trying to turn this into their "smoking gun", as it were.

The Feds have Manning in solitary now for at least 5 months, forcibly giving him what are euphemistically described as "anti-depressants"- they're working on turning him into the next Jose Padilla. Meanwhile, you have Adrian Lamo who's already been arrested for computer crimes in the past, has a working relationship with the U.S. government and would like to keep that relationship in good standing.

Wait, wait, wait- the government would never cook up evidence just to pursue a political case! What was I theeeenking!

PB

[JDPriestly]

21. Where have I heard that before?

"Meanwhile, you have Adrian Lamo who's already been arrested for computer crimes in the past, has a working relationship with the U.S. government and would like to keep that relationship in good standing."

Typical!

[liberation]

9. this does not sound very looking-forward-and - not-backwardthingy

No?

[Matilda]

10. I guess that Brad Manning has learned a valuable lesson,

albeit a little too late. TRUST NOBODY! This sort of exercise has to be carried out alone.

We've read so much about what a loner Julian Assange is, and how difficult it's been for anybody to get an interview with him. This is why - you never know who "they" have got to.

I even worry about the fact that if he is released to the mansion of his friend, everyone will now know where he is. That could mean one person too many.

[bemildred]

11. So much for justice being blind.

How nice.

[Matariki]

13. And in the mean time Private Manning is being held in torturous conditions

Which we can only presume is for the purpose of getting the info they want.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. The Attorney General has his priorities all wrong. He needs to start by indicting the BFEE

effective immediately.

Then one of them will sing, and the BFEE empire is dead.

Hawkeye-X

[bluesmail]

22. Hell Yes! eom

[Hissyspit]

15. Sam Seder: Hope irony of NY Times sending alert "U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy"

is not lost on you.

[TomClash]

46. It isn't

That's precisely why I posted it.

[harvey007]

18. Assange is the administration's fall guy

They're just itchin' to clamp down on internet freedom and will use this as an excuse to do so.

The "rape" allegation was just a ruse to defame and discredit the fall guy.

By the way -- the main Swedish accuser has "lost interest" in the case and has moved to the West Bank.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=198862

[bluesmail]

23. You may be right. sigh

[Pavulon]

38. leaving only one rape victim. 1 of 2, decent odds(nt)

[ronnie624]

43. There are no rape victims.

You're parroting establishment propaganda.

[Pavulon]

44. right. no charges were filed.all imaginary.(nt)

[ronnie624]

50. I hadn't seen that. Can you post a link to some info? n/t

[Pavulon]

51. sarcasam. he will be extradited back to sweden

and after that is handled probably extradited to the US to stand trial on conspiracy.

[ronnie624]

58. I didn't think so.

I'm inclined to agree with the above, though. The Western power establishment is thoroughly entrenched and will, in the end, do as it pleases.

[Pavulon]

60. Yes, they will both (manning and assange) stand trial in the US

with attorneys and probably end up serving time.

[JDPriestly]

20. Does anyone know who Adrian Lamo is?

I wonder if he is sort of a police informant or whether he just happens to know so much. Has any second person independently learned about this information? Or does Lamo claim that Manning only communicated all this information to him? What is Lamo's tie to Manning?

[EFerrari]

25. They were in a chatroom.

Remember, Manning is like 22 or so.

[reorg]

27. It's a weird story

Here is the comprehensive account by Glenn Greenwald (including audios with an interview of Mr Lamo):

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks

[EFerrari]

28. So the Pentagon's plan is to discredit Wikileaks

and destroy trust in it; and Lamo is unstable.

That's interesting. Thanks for posting that. The link to the original Pentagon report is not good any more.

[Pavulon]

31. blah, if he conspired with bradass87 he is done.

they can be buddies at florence.

[Poll_Blind]

29. Also, to adress one of Greenwald's unanswered questions: Manning is gay and Lamo used his...

...credibility with the GLBT hacker community in order to gain the confidence of Manning!

:wow:

This is the best answer yet as to why Lamo and Manning actually connected. Lamo has offered a number of implausible or flat out bullshit answers as to how he wound up chatting with Manning and why Manning felt he could speak so openly and in confidence with Lamo.

From Gizmodo article:

Somewhere in the back-and-forth Lamo decided to leak an excerpt of his chat logs with Manning to WikiLeaks. His reasons are murky, but he seemed to see it as some kind of test of their integrity. He claims this portion of the chat was later given by WikiLeaks to Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html">Jardin posted it, and within hours the story took an unexpected turn. (Gizmodo contacted Jardin for comment; Jardin declined to reveal her source or sources.) Boing Boing readers analyzed the logs and concluded that Manning was talking in parts about being either gay or transgendered. (The Boing Boing post has since been modified.) This was the first plausible reason anyone had given for Manning to choose Lamo to confide in; Lamo has a history of working on GLBT issues, rare in the sometimes homophobic hacker community.

Lamo, attention-whore extraordinaire, lures Manning into a series of conversations where he gains his confidence via his work on GLBT issues (though I wish I knew more specifics on that) and then turns around and burns Manning.

You need a Saturn V rocket to lift that much fucked up off the launch pad!

BTW, a piece touching on Manning's homosexuality in this piece. Not very many pieces about this aspect of the story but it's not the only one either.

PB

[EFerrari]

30. About a week ago, I read this bizarrre rant by Greg Palast

attacking Assange for burning Manning when it wasn't Assange at all.

This story is weird.

[Poll_Blind]

35. I saw that too- and I'm a fan of Gred Palast. But having read that piece you ...

...mentioned, I'll say this: This story isn't just about the U.S. government, it's about the media, accessibility and contacts. And also strong editorial pressures from above, below, and the sides. This is making waves in all sorts of places, and it isn't always apparent.

PB

[Pavulon]

33. What he does with his junk is not relevant to this crime

his personal hole usage is not even related to the documents he stole.

[ronnie624]

52. So repulsive.

:puke:

[JDPriestly]

34. The idea of hacking is very strange to me.

It sounds like stealing. What reason would anyone have for hacking the internet other than stealing information?

My question is sincere. I don't really understand hacking. My understanding of the internet is quite limited.

Why do people hack? Is it just to get private or protected information? Are there other reasons?

[Poll_Blind]

36. Totally depends on the mind of the person doing it. Hacking is hacking. But...

...the motivations for hacking are as varied as the people doing it. For instance, Assange, Manning and Lamo have all, I think accurately, been described as "hackers". But each of them have different reasons for doing it, different internal motivations.

Hacking is about finding something out. I'm talking about the word in the most general sense. I'm talking about the word in the most general sense for a reason. In a does-not-do-the-topic-justice nutshell, a white hat shares what they've found out to help others- typically those that the information is about. A black hat uses the information for their own personal enrichment, usually a crime of some sort. And a gray-hat is either in-between or what might best be described (if you're a D&D player) as chaotic neutral alignment.

For instance, Lamo describes himself as a white hat hacker. However, his complicated relationship with Poulson at Wired makes it not so easy to discern his true motivations. If Greenwald is giving an accurate portrayal of Lamo (and not only do I have every reason to believe he is but I've also seen this assessment in other spaces), then Lamo is a person who pretends to be a white-hat hacker but who uses his hacks to further his own hungry ego through Poulson's reporting.

Think the situation is a tad difficult to decipher? Lamo has Asberger syndrome- or at least claims to- and at least given some of the perceptual differences which are described as symptoms of Asberger's, Lamo may, in fact, be telling the truth, from a very, very skewed point of view. Just the relationship between Lamo and Manning, and each of their personalities and minds and lives is super-dense with all sorts of strange things which are like a Gourdian knot trying to untangle.

PB

[Pavulon]

37. lamo did not want to be part of a conspiracy.

very simple if your friend comes to you and tells you he is selling girls to be underage prostitutes and you do nothing you are a conspirator. If you call the police you are not a conspriator.


manning and assange, despite his christ like love here, may be quite fucked in a conspiracy.

hacking is just being a bit smarter than someone else, like using a coupon out of date or photocopying bills, it is not magic, just knowledge someone else does not have.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Pavulon]

68. If I steal classified info and show it to you and you do nothing

you are now part of the crime. Thats how the law works and has worked for a very long time.

Lamo could turn him in or go to prison. He made the adult choice.

[The Flaming Red Head]

72. Show me classified material? We're all reading it right now.

It'd take an awful big prison to hold us all. We are all WikiLeaks.

[Pavulon]

73. yes you are anon.. legion , if I steal classified information and give it to you

you are faced with a choice. Turn me in or be charged. Published information is not afforded the same legal protection.

However unpublished information would still get you arrested by the FBI.

[ProudDad]

86. Most do it for the fun of it...

Some do it for the thrill, the feeling of power...

Very few actually make any money at it ... or want to...

[ronnie624]

49. A young man with principles, for which just about everything was sacrificed:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
*****
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.


In the end, history will regard him as a hero.

[Pavulon]

55. (1:51:25 PM) bradass87: i'd have to ask assange , Lets see how conspiracy works..

works. in the end he still stole information and will die in prison.

the old hacker meme of information should be free, sounds great, not relevant to the crime.

[ronnie624]

65. "information should be free sounds great"?

Can you articulate why the idea of an informed citizenry and electorate "sounds great", but should not be implemented?

I think it "sounds great" because the principle is embodied in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and is central to maintaining democracy. Citizens cannot cast an informed vote, when they have no clue about their government's policies. Government secrecy, on the other hand, is central to maintaining authority over the people. It's pretty obvious which method of governance you prefer.

[Pavulon]

67. You are aware the framers used coded messages to communicate back then right?

that they did not post all their business to the cork board for review...

You live in a representative democracy and therefore do not have complete access. Secrecy helps with things like working with china to prevent a war in korea or securing nuclear material in unsafe places.

Publishing "there is 200KG of HEU enriched to 90% at 101 rob me street in pakistan" is not useful and should be secured.

[ronnie624]

74. And you're the one with the decoder ring?

We don't live in a "representative" anything, if our "representatives" are instituting legislation and policies in secret, that they know the people would oppose.

- "there is 200KG of HEU enriched to 90% at 101 rob me street in pakistan"

Was that included in the diplomatic cables that a couple million people had access to?

[Pavulon]

76. No it was marked classified norfn

and as such was not in the public venue. And diplomatic process was broken by disclosing it.

but hey, all information must be free..

[girl gone mad]

54. A wannabe hacker with no skills turned FBI informant..

some years ago.

[Pavulon]

57. who was smart enought to not be indicted on a conspiracy charge

if someone put that in front of you the choice is simple. Call the FBI or become part of a conspiracy.

[kgnu_fan]

39. Why do US government agents talk up against our democracy????

Trying to destroy the first amendment? Which side are you on????

[saras]

40. Something missing

Where's all the screaming "Conspiracy theorist! Nutcase! Wacko! Can't take them seriously!"

when we actually need it?

Why don't they just bust Assange for violating copyright law? He screwed a lot of government employees out of big bucks writing their memoirs, didn't he?

They just can't seem to get it through their fucking thick numbskulled heads that whatever wrong he did was utterly trivial when compared with the amount of crime and corruption he exposed.

As AA says, "solve these problems in the order in which they are killing you."

[kgnu_fan]

41. How about looking into a bigger criminal conspiracy by our own government to go to illigal wars?

[kgnu_fan]

42. kick for truth!

[JonLP24]

45. That is the only they can get him

(AFAIK)

is to find evidence that Assange or whoever at Wikileaks helped or assisted whoever gave them the documents. This is why the "Pentagon Papers" were safe. Because there wasn't any evidence the NYT helped, assisted, or encourage the release of them.

[EFerrari]

47. Greenwald points out that Bob Woodward has made a whole career

out of cajoling people to disclose classified information -- is he a criminal? And that most journalists do take affirmative steps to get information. Information doesn't just turn up on your desk.

[JonLP24]

61. I'm no expert

I was going off of this who may be full of it.

<snip>

There is no clear answer as to whether WikiLeaks and Assange are liable for espionage. Precedent, most notably the Pentagon Papers case, would seem to indicate that WikiLeaks is protected from publishing leaked documents by the First Amendment. The government rarely attempts to prosecute a member of the media for publishing the fruits of someone else’s leaks.

But is WikiLeaks truly part of the “media?” Can a website that devotes itself exclusively to leaking documents compare itself to the New York Times? Clearly the Justice Department is reexamining whether or not Assange and his website can face criminal prosecution under U.S. law.

There is wording in some Espionage statutes suggesting that anyone who “publishes” information that relates to the national defense is liable for an espionage act violation. So even if WikiLeaks qualifies as “media,” Assange still might not be protected by the First Amendment. Even in the Pentagon Papers opinion, Supreme Court Justice Byron White stated that in certain situations, the publication of national defense information could subject media outlets to espionage prosecutions, despite First Amendment protections.

Furthermore, could the fact that Assange actually solicits these leaks translate into liability for conspiracy to commit espionage? Hypothetically, if any evidence is uncovered that Assange, after receiving the initial Iraq video showing the death of these journalists, actually solicited additional information from Bradley or anyone else and encouraged them to leak, then he may face conspiracy liability. This would of course be difficult to prove, unless Manning agreed to testify.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/08/26/the-wikileaks-story-and-criminal-liability-under-the-espionage-laws/

I guess the answer is much more complex than I originally stated.

[EFerrari]

66. When we read language like"Wikileaks could be charged for collusion"

I think our brains, which are used to siding with the government, start doing the wrong thing. They accept the frame and go from there. That happens to me all the time when reading officialese on this case. It's hard sometimes to question the frame first.

This little quirk (the habit of loyalty or of association or something) seems to turn off the "common sense" tap so that we forget that "said an anonymous administration source who asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the media" is one of the most common phrases in any story about government activity.

[ProudDad]

87. "the fact that Assange actually solicits these leaks"

you of course have proof for that slander...?

[ChumbawambaFan]

48. If you run a 'whistleblower' site, you have to fact check & verify ....

...which is not equal to 'collusion'.

[Bragi]

56. They want to make all whistleblower sites illegal

The good news is that the Obama administration's case against Assange will eventually fail because what he does constitutes protected free speech under the First Amendment.

[Pavulon]

59. Conspiracy is not protected by 1st. If he participated or pulled mannings strings

he is in for the charge. whistle blowing does not apply to 250,000 random diplomatic cables. Like comparing consensual pornography to child porn. One is legal to distribute the other is not. No matter how you "feel" about the content.

[Bragi]

62. Are you a lawyer?

I ask because I see no basis for the view that distributing leaked diplomatic cables isn't protected free speech, or somehow does not constitute whistleblowing.

[Pavulon]

63. NO but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night..

really he cant pull mannings strings and then claim to be press. He has stated he is not press and will not get any protection if he participated in the crime.

[TexasObserver]

53. First, they decide they want to prosecute, then they figure out for what.