Phail_Saph

"Hacker" rats out Wikileak Suspect

86 posts in this topic

Not sure if this is real, but it was around before Lamo decided to come out of the closet as a COINTELPRO operative, so we have no reason to believe it's not him (other than the name 'disinformation').

"COINTELPRO operative"? Come on.

Why so quick to jump right to the most outlandish assumption?

I don't believe for a minute that Lamo's a professional government spook. Even though he is now technically an 'informant,' he's obviously just an immature, self-centered, narcissistic media junkie. After reading that little QA site of his, I'm sure the title "Disinformation" and the NCIX link are his snarky idea of a joke.

Oh, man, you must have missed my next post where I questioned the very existence of "Bradley Manning!" :D

Although my COINTELPRO comment was half-joking and meant as a smear, some things do seem shady; And I'm not sure that 3 pages and 3 weeks in to this thread can be rightly described as being "so quick to jump right to the most outlandish assumption." :smoke:

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, man, you must have missed my next post where I questioned the very existence of "Bradley Manning!" :D

Although my COINTELPRO comment was half-joking and meant as a smear, some things do seem shady; And I'm not sure that 3 pages and 3 weeks in to this thread can be rightly described as being "so quick to jump right to the most outlandish assumption." :smoke:

No, I just ignored it. I also went back and edited my post to remove the more condescending language, but not before you replied.

Thanks for posting that Formspring page. It is quite revealing.

Lamo certainly appears to be reveling in the attention, taking particular delight in sniping at his critics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, man, you must have missed my next post where I questioned the very existence of "Bradley Manning!" :D

No, I just ignored it.

So you think it's not worth considering that perhaps the individual on the other end chatting with Lamo was someone other than Bradley Manning? There is no proof, other than what the military tells us, and they lied about it the first couple of times.

Wikileaks claims to not even know whether "Bradley Manning" was the individual who leaked the collateral murder video, of course, and the main point in the conversations between Manning and Lamo were these 260,000 diplomatic cables which Wikileaks claim to never have received.

Coupled with the fact that it was a stated goal of the military to discredit Wikileaks, makes it seem like there is more than meets the eye going on here. And I haven't scoured the entire internet or anything, but I don't see any friends or family of Manning around.

Edit: I didn't see that part about the NCIX link. It was definitely not there when I posted the link to his formspring, so that isn't why I mentioned COINTELPRO.

My main point about it was that I call bullshit on Lamo's claims about Manning refusing protection under shield laws.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, man, you must have missed my next post where I questioned the very existence of "Bradley Manning!" :D

No, I just ignored it.

So you think it's not worth considering that perhaps the individual on the other end chatting with Lamo was someone other than Bradley Manning? There is no proof, other than what the military tells us, and they lied about it the first couple of times.

Of course it's possible that Manning was framed, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to support that hypothesis. Not knowing stuff about the case does not constitute evidence to support any scenarios we can dream up.

So to answer your question: Yes. Lacking evidence, I think it's not worth considering. I also get the impression there are some intriguing facts about this case which we're not hearing (and probably never will). But absence of evidence does not prove anything. It's just baseless conjecture. Promoting unfounded rumors is dishonest and destructive.

BTW, what did the military lie about? I'm not aware of them having changed their account of events.

Wikileaks claims to not even know whether "Bradley Manning" was the individual who leaked the collateral murder video, of course, and the main point in the conversations between Manning and Lamo were these 260,000 diplomatic cables which Wikileaks claim to never have received.

Wikileaks has a stated obligation to protect the anonymity of their sources. Provided the source took precautions to hide his or her identity (like using a public Internet access point, spoofing their MAC address, routing through anonymous proxies, etc.) I don't see why it would be in Wikileaks' interest to investigate their sources' identities. Of course they don't know, or at least that's what I'd expect them to say publicly.

As for the 260,000+ State Dept. memos which Manning claimed to have leaked, Wikileaks claims they have seen no such documents and some of the stuff Manning described to Lamo on AIM is nowhere to be found on the Wikileaks site. This, along with his boasts regarding the infamous helicopter footage and the self-absorbed nature of his AIM chats, leads me to believe he might be just a narcissist and compulsive liar. Wouldn't be the first time some idiot bullshitted about a lot of hacking exploits. But this is what investigations and courts are for.

Given that Manning is being charged, I'm assuming the prosecutors have more evidence than just the word of an attention-seeking convicted felon.

Coupled with the fact that it was a stated goal of the military to discredit Wikileaks, makes it seem like there is more than meets the eye going on here. And I haven't scoured the entire internet or anything, but I don't see any friends or family of Manning around.

I didn't need to scour the Internet to find these AIM chat logs with Manning's soon-to-be-ex-wife: http://www.dailytech.com/EXCLUSIVE+The+Complete+Chats+Logs+of+Manning+Lamo+Published+for+the+First+Time/article18841.htm

If you're interested enough and you possess some basic tracking and social engineering skills, you can probably locate and contact Manning's family members yourself. I'm sure there's plenty of information in the various news reports to provide a good start.

As for the stated goal of discrediting Wikileaks, the military did issue that report (which in turn got leaked to Wikileaks) and they've even copped to its authenticity. But the fact that Wikileaks may be hurt by this whole fiasco doesn't prove anything either. It's not uncommon for people and organizations to benefit from events unfortunate to others, without having engineered those events. If I go to an estate sale and get a great deal on a dining room set, that doesn't prove I'm a murderer.

To the best of our knowledge, Pfc. Manning bragged about leaking docs, then was arrested after being turned in by Lamo. Lamo and Poulsen themselves reported that story and government sources have confirmed their investigation stemmed from that tip. This is all we know from channels directly connected to the matter.

Inventing stories about Manning being a fictional character or an innocent patsy do nothing to advance the truth of the matter.

Edit: I didn't see that part about the NCIX link. It was definitely not there when I posted the link to his formspring, so that isn't why I mentioned COINTELPRO.

Are you aware that COINTELPRO is history? It was a tactical program of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI during the Cold War, and it was canceled almost 40 years ago. The FBI has undergone numerous reorganizations in the past half-century and no longer engages in those kinds of political smear tactics. Nowadays the FBI does cop work, investigating specific crimes. I don't know exactly what you're talking about with that reference.

What happened here was a clear case of a military person failing his duties and violating his security clearance. Military people are individuals just like anyone else, with their own individual motives and allegiances that sometimes conflict with their duties. Some over-stressed, mentally-unstable, or just plain dishonest individuals are eventually going to evade detection and go rogue. In a free society, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

I don't doubt that Manning really did contact Lamo, seeking a connection with a like-minded soul. However, I do wonder if he really did leak the helicopter footage or any of the other docs he bragged about. Wikileaks claims they have seen no such documents as the 250,000+ State Dept. memos which Manning claimed to have leaked. Some of the stuff he described to Lamo on AIM is nowhere to be found on the Wikileaks site. This is what investigations are for. I'm assuming the prosecutors have more evidence than just the word of an attention-seeking convicted felon. If Manning does get acquitted, hopefully he'll get the psychological counseling he obviously needs.

My main point about it was that I call bullshit on Lamo's claims about Manning refusing protection under shield laws.

Yeah, that does seem highly suspicious. If Manning did indeed refuse such protection, then why did Lamo edit that important exchange out of the chat logs he released? My guess is, it didn't happen at all and he's lying about it.

Of all parties involved in this case, Lamo appears to be the least trustworthy for a number of reasons.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's possible that Manning was framed, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to support that hypothesis. Not knowing stuff about the case does not constitute evidence to support any scenarios we can dream up.

There is no evidence that Manning was on the other end of that chat, and much of what was said and attributed to Manning doesn't seem to be accurate. No one needs to dream up anything, those are the only facts available.

BTW, what did the military lie about? I'm not aware of them having changed their account of events.

They originally lied about how the Reuters employees were killed, so why we are taking their word for anything now is beyond me. Another reason why what I'm saying is far from baseless conjecture.

Wikileaks has a stated obligation to protect the anonymity of their sources. Provided the source took precautions to hide his or her identity (like using a public Internet access point, spoofing their MAC address, routing through anonymous proxies, etc.) I don't see why it would be in Wikileaks' interest to investigate their sources' identities. Of course they don't know, or at least that's what I'd expect them to say publicly.

Of course, which obviously wasn't my point. My point was that we have no evidence that Manning released the video, and the diplomatic cables appear to be non-existent. Which is why I'm wondering what's going on. I'm certainly not just going to take the word of the Military.

I didn't need to scour the Internet to find these AIM chat logs with Manning's soon-to-be-ex-wife: http://www.dailytech.com/EXCLUSIVE+The+Complete+Chats+Logs+of+Manning+Lamo+Published+for+the+First+Time/article18841.htm

That is Adrian Lamo's wife, not Bradley Manning's.

As for the stated goal of discrediting Wikileaks, the military did issue that report (which in turn got leaked to Wikileaks) and they've even copped to its authenticity. But the fact that Wikileaks may be hurt by this whole fiasco doesn't prove anything either. It's not uncommon for people and organizations to benefit from events unfortunate to others, without having engineered those events. If I get a great deal on dining room set from an estate sale, that doesn't prove I'm a murderer.

So they want to discredit Wikileaks, but then just sit on their hands? They wanted to make it appear to be an unsafe place for whistleblowers to go.

If you threaten to kill someone and they wind up murdered, you look like a good suspect. I don't know why you are so hung up on this, using words like "prove," etc. When did I say i was trying to prove anything?

You seem to not be at all skeptical regarding what the Military is claiming, and they already lied about it. This is too funny.

But I'm glad to know that you believe 100% in this guy's guilt based on nothing more than a chat log which contains false info.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the military claiming?

What parts of the chat logs attributed to Manning appear to be inaccurate, and what basis do you have to judge their accuracy?

You're assuming the charges are based solely upon a chat log, but what do you know about the extent of the prosecution's evidence? Don't you think they must have a lot more evidence than AIM logs if they've charged him and are going ahead with prosecuting the case?

I really don't understand the extent of your denialism about this. You just dismiss everything the government says out of hand, just because it's the government? You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "BLAH BLAH BLAH!" all you want, but the facts are the facts and the Truth is the Truth.

I agree that the helicopter crew in the "Collateral Murder" video should stand trial for what they did. That appeared to me as a case of, if not murder then at least manslaughter due to gross negligence and/or incompetence. But then again, that video is the only evidence we have regarding the matter. There may have been mitigating circumstances which we're unaware of.

Though it may be tangentially related, the Bradley Manning case is an entirely different matter. If you read the charge sheet, you'll see that they're charging him with copying the video--along with other classified docs--to his own personal computer, installing unauthorized software onto a military-owned network router, and accessing government databases unauthorized. If they can prove he did all that, then that's all they need to convict him of the crime. Wikileaks is not even mentioned in the charges.

Regardless of how good his intentions may have been, what Manning did is a crime. He should have kept his big mouth shut about it. Especially when talking to an opportunistic sleazebag like Adrian Lamo.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the military claiming?

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/61873,news-comment,news-politics,alexander-cockburn-lies-damned-lies-and-us-military-cover-ups-iraq-shooting-photographers

It's not like this is an isolated incident, either. Remember Pat Tillman? And what recently "retired" General Stanley McChrystal said at the time?

What parts of the chat logs attributed to Manning appear to be inaccurate, and what basis do you have to judge their accuracy?

260,000 diplomatic cables, which Wikileaks claims to not have. That part is a pretty big deal because Lamo turned this guy in over it, and Lamo admits as much.. Well, as much as Lamo "admits" anything, but his statements about why he did what he did certainly steer in that direction.

You're assuming the charges are based solely upon a chat log, but what do you know about the extent of the prosecution's evidence? Don't you think they must have a lot more evidence than AIM logs if they've charged him and are going ahead with prosecuting the case?

All I see is that they claim he had a few files on his personal computer. Neither you, nor I, know how they got there or why they were there. Other than that, the rest of the charges look to be taken from the chat logs. So you can assume all you like that they "must have a lot more evidence." They will only need to play show and tell if Manning stands trial. I'm certainly skeptical that it will come to that.

Point is, he was charged based on the chat logs, and a few files on his computer. Why in the world would they still be on his computer, anyway?

I really don't understand the extent of your denialism about this. You just dismiss everything the government says out of hand, just because it's the government? You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "BLAH BLAH BLAH!" all you want, but the facts are the facts and the Truth is the Truth.

LMAO! Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? I guess when you can't argue the point, you just invent absurdities. Well, I don't know what to tell you, sorry.

Though it may be tangentially related, the Bradley Manning case is an entirely different matter. If you read the charge sheet, you'll see that they're charging him with copying the video--along with other classified docs--to his own personal computer, installing unauthorized software onto a military-owned network router, and accessing government databases unauthorized. If they can prove he did all that, then that's all they need to convict him of the crime. Wikileaks is not even mentioned in the charges.

Obviously they wouldn't mention Wikileaks. If he sent it to you and you sent it to Wikileaks on his behalf, and that could be proven, the charge would get thrown out. "A person not entitled to receive it" is what it says. And that is referring to Wikileaks and Adrian Lamo, depending on the context.

But anyway, I doubt they have any logs of what was accessed and when and if it was copied on to his personal computer. If they did, Manning would have probably been caught already. I'm sure they were interested in how Wikileaks got the "collateral murder" video way before Lamo jumped on the scene.

But what a stroke of luck! Manning kept all the shit on his box, and he spilled his guts to some fuckface who up and decided to turn him in! But, of course, I "just dismiss everything the government says out of hand, just because it's the government." Yeah, of course, of course. What, exactly - other than "stick(ing) your fingers in your ears and yell(ing) "BLAH BLAH BLAH!"" - causes you to come to that conclusion?

I really don't understand why you get so bent out of shape because I'm not buying everything the military says about this. I'm not making any assertions or attempting to prove anything. I'm asking questions because there are like a thousand things that don't look right. Your attempting to characterize that as me just distrusting the gov't for the hell of it is fucking retarded.

I will say this, though; We are in complete agreement on two very important points - Adrian Lamo is a fucking asshole, and, based on the available evidence, the psychopaths in that helicopter should stand trial for at least manslaughter.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point is, he was charged based on the chat logs, and a few files on his computer. Why in the world would they still be on his computer, anyway?
But what a stroke of luck! Manning kept all the shit on his box, and he spilled his guts to some fuckface who up and decided to turn him in!

Actually, according to the IM logs:

(1:46:01 PM) bradass87: i dont know... theres so many... i dont have the

original material anymore

I dunno. The whole thing reeks to me. I don't know any of the facts, and most of the things presented as the facts paint a really incomplete picture at best. I feel bad for Manning, he seems to be way out of his league with all of this. I think it is also shameful for Lamo and Poulsen to be self promoting using this, regardless of if it was right to turn in Manning in the first place. As for the rest of it, I don't really know. I tend to lean towards thinking that Lamo is a rat. I sure as hell wouldn't trust him even if there is some really good reason why he did what he did. Seems to me it would have been just as easy for him to have ignored the whole thing. My take on it was that it was too good of an opportunity for self aggrandizement for him to turn down, but again: that's just my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the gunning down of Reuters journalists in Iraq is a separate incident from the intelligence officer leaking documents to the Internet. What we're talking about here is the Bradley Manning case. I don't understand how you've arrived, without any proof whatsoever, at the conclusion that the military has somehow trumped up the Manning thing just to discredit Wikileaks. If they'd really orchestrated this entire thing right from the start in an effort to discredit Wikileaks, why would they even bother implicating a schmuck like Lamo? Why not engineer it to look like a flaw in Wikileaks' security, so that nobody will ever feel safe submitting information to them again?

But even entertaining such a notion is an exercise in futility, because there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the military knowingly framed Manning for a crime he didn't commit. Sure he's innocent until proven guilty, but that's no excuse for inventing conspiracy theories around the case.

As far as we all know, Manning contacted Lamo and bragged/confessed his crimes, then Lamo turned him in to the authorities. We have absolutely no evidence to believe otherwise, and disparaging the credibility of Lamo and the US military does not constitute evidence either.

What parts of the chat logs attributed to Manning appear to be inaccurate, and what basis do you have to judge their accuracy?

260,000 diplomatic cables, which Wikileaks claims to not have. That part is a pretty big deal because Lamo turned this guy in over it, and Lamo admits as much.. Well, as much as Lamo "admits" anything, but his statements about why he did what he did certainly steer in that direction.

Before I read the official document stating those charges against Manning, I was willing to entertain the notion that maybe he was just some attention-seeking noobie lying about a lot of stuff he never even did. Now that I've seen the charges, it seems apparent he did something. Prosecutors generally don't take a criminal case to court unless they have material evidence to back up their allegations, and not just hearsay.

As for Wikileaks and the docs, I can think of quite a few reasons why Wikileaks might not want to release them or acknowledge their existence. Wikileaks might be seeking to protect a source by withholding evidence that could damage Manning's case at trial. They might be trying to protect their own interests by distancing themselves from this case as much as possible. They might not have even processed the documents yet, or may not have received them at all. Even if Manning never got around to sending all 260,000+, he still committed a crime by transferring them to an unauthorized device (his own personal computer).

All I see is that they claim he had a few files on his personal computer. Neither you, nor I, know how they got there or why they were there.

Other than that, the rest of the charges look to be taken from the chat logs. So you can assume all you like that they "must have a lot more evidence." They will only need to play show and tell if Manning stands trial. I'm certainly skeptical that it will come to that.

What charges were taken from the chat logs? How do you know this?

All we have to go on is the information published in the news. Given the facts as reported by some of the principle players in the story, Manning contacted Lamo via AIM and bragged/confessed his crimes, then Lamo turned him in to the authorities. The authorities confiscated and examined his computer equipment and discovered evidence of crimes, so they charged him.

I don't understand why you seem to be in denial about that. I think by the chain of events it's pretty believable that Manning did this, then talked about it to the wrong person who turned him in. It's an extremely common pattern that happens every day to criminals everywhere.

The difference between our positions is that I'm trying to parse out the story from the reported facts, and you're dismissing the facts and inventing conspiracy tales to go in their place.

Point is, he was charged based on the chat logs, and a few files on his computer. Why in the world would they still be on his computer, anyway?

They probably were deleted, but recovered by the authorities. You know the military and the US Justice Dept have some pretty good computer forensics technology at their disposal.

I still haven't seen any evidence that Manning has been framed by the military in an effort to discredit Wikileaks. From everything I've read, it looks like he did the crime and then fucked himself. I'm interested to see the outcome of the trial though.

Obviously they wouldn't mention Wikileaks. If he sent it to you and you sent it to Wikileaks on his behalf, and that could be proven, the charge would get thrown out. "A person not entitled to receive it" is what it says. And that is referring to Wikileaks and Adrian Lamo, depending on the context.

Doesn't matter who he sent it to. The charge would not get thrown out, because he wasn't authorized to have the file in the first place. Obtaining unauthorized access is one charge, transferring the files to an unauthorized device is another charge, passing it to unauthorized person(s) is another charge.

But anyway, I doubt they have any logs of what was accessed and when and if it was copied on to his personal computer. If they did, Manning would have probably been caught already.

This isn't necessarily true. Maybe they could see in the logs when the files were transferred, but had no knowledge of who received them until Lamo tipped them and they examined Manning's computer

Do you doubt that the US government's secured networks are capable of monitoring traffic and logging transactions? I do that on my home network in my apartment! I think it's fairly certain they have detailed records of every file transfer that took place. I'm sure they have plenty of evidence, or they never would have brought charges. Criminal prosecutors generally like to have evidence before they take a case to court.

I'm sure they were interested in how Wikileaks got the "collateral murder" video way before Lamo jumped on the scene.

I bet they were.

I will say this, though; We are in complete agreement on two very important points - Adrian Lamo is a fucking asshole, and, based on the available evidence, the psychopaths in that helicopter should stand trial for at least manslaughter.

Yeah, it'll never happen though. All they have to do is present a convincing case that those guys believed they were under attack during a military operation, and they're not going to be charged with anything. It's been written off as a "reasonable response to a perceived threat." For analysis of the "Collateral Murder" from a military perspective, check this out: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

It sucks that all those people got killed, but let's face it. That kind of thing happens and is expected to happen during war. It's just one good reason out of a million why we ought not to be so quick to enter into war in the first place.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between our positions is that I'm trying to parse out the story from the reported facts, and you're dismissing the facts and inventing conspiracy tales to go in their place.

That's odd because you story you've arrived at happens to perfectly mesh with the one provided by the military. I don't know what caused you to arrive at that, other than buying everything they're selling.

I don't just automatically believe them - they lie about all sorts of things as a matter of course - and you call it a "conspiracy tale."

Yes, everything they tell you is true. Sleep tight, rest assured, Bradley Manning will be treated fairly, no one is ever indicted on "hearsay," even though you can just go read on Wikipedia how all of the examples in this case are actually not considered hearsay.

That kind of faith is inspiring.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying it's OK to just make shit up and promote it as truth, as long as it maligns the military and the government?

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying it's OK to just make shit up and promote it as truth, as long as it maligns the military and the government?

I have to assume you're just skimming and not actually reading (as may be evidenced by when you pointed to the chat logs of Lamo's wife and thought it was Manning's wife). I'm certainly not promoting anything as truth (it's hilarious that you think so), nor am I making anything up. Quite ironically, you're promoting things as absolute truth, just because the military says it's true.

As I said, sleep tight, rest assured, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from what I gathered, you're saying the military lied about the death of the Reuters journalists, therefore nothing they say is trustworthy, therefore it's doubtful Bradley Manning was the person Lamo was talking to, or he might not even exist at all.

Is that accurate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closer.

I'm saying that the military lied about their deaths - hey, I might do the same thing in that situation, it's a tough call, war isn't a stroll in the park - and they also lie about all sorts of other things to cover their asses, so I take their claims with a grain of salt. A big grain.

Add to to that the counterintelligence report about wanting to fuck up Wikileaks. It's relevant.

Throw Adrian Lamo into the mix, who had just been released from a 9-day involuntary stint in a mental ward. Also relevant. Maybe just a coincidence. Maybe not. Poulson wrote a little story about it on Wired before this whole Bradley Manning thing. That's also relevant, and fucking weird to begin with, the Manning case nonwithstanding.

Then, someone claiming to be Bradley Manning gets on AIM with a total stranger and spills his guts. I'm not making any rock-solid assertions, but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that Adrian Lamo was not talking to Bradley Manning. Just a hunch, and I never presented it as anything more than that. Even you pointed out, rightfully, that we probably will never have many of the details. All we are ever going to be left with is speculation, and figuring out what might make sense. What doesn't make any sense is just blindly buying the story of the military, or Adrian Lamo.

Read that charge sheet again. Specification 4 is in relation to some unauthorized (unnamed) software that Manning allegedly uploaded on to a secure military computer. You know what that usually means when they don't say that it was dangerous, etc.? It means it was probably firefox, or some chat client, or something relatively benign. That's what prosecutors do; they try to paint everything in the worst light possible, and more times than not, it involves some level of dishonesty.

Also very interesting is the fact that nothing was specified in the charge sheet that wasn't already known by anyone who looked at the chat logs. I start to think twice about what the prosecution has. I certainly don't just assume that they must have an open and shut case against this kid.

Hmmm, so Manning showed his entire hand to Lamo, a total stranger? Nothing else on his computer? Just the stuff mentioned in the chat logs? Collateral Murder, Reykjavik 13, a PowerPoint presentation, and 50 (out of 260,000) mystery cables. Shit, probably hundreds of thousands of people had the first 3 items on their hard drives before this story broke.

So yeah, I don't always accept their version of events as gospel, particularly when there is all sorts of screwy shit going on.

What's the truth? What are the real facts? We probably won't ever know. Neither you, nor I have the resources nor the inclination nor the authority to officially investigate this shit, and unless someone does, all we have is our best guesses.

My best guess is that much of the military's version of events is probably bullshit. Of course, it's based on circumstantial evidence, some of it indirect. You choose to buy their story, based on an AIM chat log and the notion that if he's being prosecuted then it must all be true and they must have rock-solid evidence. That's the difference.

This might be settled if he goes to trial, and relevant details are public. I suggest that neither of us hold our breath.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story that has emerged in the media is certainly weird, but it still seems plausible to me.

Historically, many criminal "hackers" have been arrogant, narcissistic individuals who sought recognition for their exploits. It's also common for arrogant criminals to get caught because they bragged about their crimes. We hear about this happening all the time.

The character snapshot of Manning we see through the chat logs (socially maladjusted, seeking approval and/or recognition, confused about his own self-identity and personal allegiances) seems quite consistent with a person who would leak classified information and then brag about it online.

The actions of Lamo seem wholly consistent with a person with a history of perpetrating computer crimes and other dishonest activities in the interest of gaining notoriety, who's now trying to break into tech journalism.

Believing the story is not contingent upon the military telling the entire truth about the case.

It's a lot more plausible than the idea of the Army trumping the whole thing up out of the blue just to 'discredit' Wikileaks.

Why?

  1. All the available evidence supports the version of events reported in the media.
  2. The 'military conspiracy' theory would require rejecting almost all of the reported facts as false, and supplanting them with no new evidence (only stuff you made up).
  3. Discrediting the story with accusations such as "the media is unreliable" and "the military always lies" and asserting that "we'll never know the facts anyway, so all we have is supposition" offer absolutely nothing to support accusations of a conspiracy.
  4. Just because the military denounced Wikileaks and posited strategies to damage its credibility, that doesn't mean they railroaded Manning for this purpose. It's a common flaw of conspiracy theories to posit that benefiting from a tragedy is indicative of having engineered the tragedy. Like I stated earlier, if I got a good deal on furniture at an estate sale--even if I'd speculated before the guy's death on various schemes to obtain his furniture--that still wouldn't prove I murdered him for his dining room set.
  5. If it was a conspiracy by the US military to discredit Wikileaks, it was a ridiculously ill-conceived one. It's needlessly complex and doesn't even achieve the aim of discrediting Wikileaks. Manning basically dug his own grave through no fault of Wikileaks. The only person who's really been discredited is Adrian Lamo. He's pretty much fucked himself for a career in investigative journalism by narking out his source. Who's ever going to trust that guy with confidential information after this?
    If this whole thing was all planned out beforehand by the military, how could they be certain that Lamo would act in the prescribed way and inform on the fake Manning? What if Lamo decided to keep the confession a secret? That simple variable would ruin their entire elaborate plan!
  6. If the military really wanted to discredit Wikileaks, why wouldn't they just bust Manning and then blame it on an anonymous source within (or close to) Wikileaks itself? That would not only ruin Wikileaks' credibility, but it would likely cause a mad panic within Wikileaks as they try to root out the rat. Such internal conflict might even have a destabilizing effect on the whole organization.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the known facts is that a mentally unstable, publicity-seeking tech geek in the Army abused his security clearance, then sought out another like-minded, mentally unstable tech geek to confess to, and that geek saw an opportunity to grab himself some publicity. It's simple and straightforward. It makes sense. On numerous occasions I've chatted with folks just like this on IRC, who've bragged about the illegal shit they've done with computers. It just rings true.

Hopefully the Internet tech media will continue to cover this case. I'm interested to see how it'll turn out.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really believed in psychic abilities until I noticed that every time I see one of your posts and attempt to respond, you edit out the fun parts. We must be on the same fucked up schedule or something.

Don't get so upset about it, man. I don't think you're a disinfo agent, but I do suppose that you don't know what Occam's razor is. :thumbsup:

I also think that you aren't really reading my posts, though. I'm not trying to prove anything. My position is very simple; I do not automatically believe the military, for reasons I have already stated. Their deception may be a matter of course, but my distrust is certainly not. I don't automatically think they are always lying, either.

There are actually a few things in your post (if they're still there) that I wanted to respond to, but I don't have it in me now. Maybe later.

But, seriously, don't make it so personal. A few cameramen and a couple of children in Iraq were shot to death from a fucking military helicopter that they didn't even see, and some poor, confused kid is probably going to be locked up for a very, very long time. Let's try to keep things here as light-hearted as possible and stick to what's important; like talking shit about Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulson.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to keep things here as light-hearted as possible and stick to what's important; like talking shit about Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulson.

Amen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to keep things here as light-hearted as possible and stick to what's important; like talking shit about Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulson.

Amen

any one know if that douche showed up at hope today? i only got here about 6pm myself...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any one know if that douche showed up at hope today? i only got here about 6pm myself...

How about Julian Assange? Did he Skype in his presentation? I read in the news that the DHS were there looking for him yesterday.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20010861-83.html

@ Decoder, I didn't mean any offense or disrespect. It's nothing personal, of course. Just Internet banter. Next time you come to Chicago, send me a message. We'll hang out and I'll buy drinks.

(BTW, Occam's Razor means when formulating an hypothesis, you eliminate all unnecessary postulations and all assumptions unsupported by evidence.)

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any one know if that douche showed up at hope today? i only got here about 6pm myself...

How about Julian Assange? Did he Skype in his presentation? I read in the news that the DHS were there looking for him yesterday.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20010861-83.html

I think he's actually scheduled to speak tonight (Saturday).

@ Decoder, I didn't mean any offense or disrespect. It's nothing personal, of course. Just Internet banter. Next time you come to Chicago, send me a message. We'll hang out and I'll buy drinks.

It's tempting, I haven't been to Chicago in like 10 years. But a kindly offer.

Funny, because I was going to extend the same offer towards you if you happened to be in NY for HOPE this weekend, but then I remembered the other thread about the Hotel Penn. and assumed that you weren't attending. :lol:

(BTW, Occam's Razor means when formulating an hypothesis, you eliminate all unnecessary postulations and all assumptions unsupported by evidence.)

And that's why I didn't think it applied to this. I consider the counterintelligence plan against Wikileaks to be a huge piece of evidence, upon which some of my assumptions are based. But it's all assumptions at the end of the day. Is the person typing this the same person posting as "decoder" yesterday? That's a necessary assumption which we all make.

But, back to the dirty business.... ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was there, but I've been too busy to attend this year.

My girlfriend and I will probably be in NY later in the year, almost certainly around the holidays if not sooner. I'll let you know in advance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story that has emerged in the media is certainly weird, but it still seems plausible to me.

Oh, no question, it seems plausible to me too, in and of itself. But I strongly believe that a handful of related events - most importantly the plan to discredit Wikileaks - also should be considered as relevant to the story. This end result of the Lamo/Manning situation is precisely what the military wanted, and I have a really hard time believing that it's all just dumb luck. That's where it starts to sound implausible.

It's a lot more plausible than the idea of the Army trumping the whole thing up out of the blue just to 'discredit' Wikileaks.

This, I have a problem with.

Army counterintelligence draws up a report on Wikileaks, and the wet dream of this report is the successful identification and prosecution of one of their sources. Then, the intel guys sit around twiddling their thumbs while a whistleblower gets on AIM with a stranger, and spills his guts about the single most important thing to ever appear on Wikileaks.

But not just any stranger, mind you. Adrian Lamo. Fresh out of the loony bin under very strange circumstances; a guy who managed not not spend a day in jail on some pretty serious charges, and a guy who loves to see his name in lights.

That's plausible?

Why?

All the available evidence supports the version of events reported in the media.

The 'military conspiracy' theory would require rejecting almost all of the reported facts as false, and supplanting them with no new evidence (only stuff you made up).

What evidence? Chat logs? And what did I make up? (Besides theorizing the reality of Manning's very existence; I might have to back off on that one, even though I wasn't terribly serious about it to begin with.)

Discrediting the story with accusations such as "the media is unreliable" and "the military always lies" and asserting that "we'll never know the facts anyway, so all we have is supposition" offer absolutely nothing to support accusations of a conspiracy.

Even though I don't think I mentioned anything about the reliability of the media, we have to bear in mind that "the media" in this case means Lamo & Poulson. And edited chat logs.

Just because the military denounced Wikileaks and posited strategies to damage its credibility, that doesn't mean they railroaded Manning for this purpose. It's a common flaw of conspiracy theories to posit that benefiting from a tragedy is indicative of having engineered the tragedy. Like I stated earlier, if I got a good deal on furniture at an estate sale--even if I'd speculated before the guy's death on various schemes to obtain his furniture--that still wouldn't prove I murdered him for his dining room set.

Man, I thought we went over this. If you threatened to kill him, and he wound up dead, you'd be a pretty good suspect. And this beautiful furniture of his, which you acquired after his demise would be used as the motive. It doesn't prove you killed him, but you can tell it to the judge, buddy!

And you can talk about "conspiracy theories" all you want, but in this case, it isn't merely a case of those that benefited from a tragedy which makes it look like they engineered it; it's those who also planned a good way for the tragedy to transpire. And then it did.

Incidentally, it wasn't conspiracy theorists who invented that shit. It was Cicero. Cui Bono?

Wait, just looked it up, it wasn't Cicero. He was quoting someone else.

L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.

The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'

Et tu, Lucius Cassius? You fucking conspiracy theorist!

If it was a conspiracy by the US military to discredit Wikileaks, it was a ridiculously ill-conceived one. It's needlessly complex and doesn't even achieve the aim of discrediting Wikileaks. Manning basically dug his own grave through no fault of Wikileaks. The only person who's really been discredited is Adrian Lamo. He's pretty much fucked himself for a career in investigative journalism by narking out his source. Who's ever going to trust that guy with confidential information after this?

If this whole thing was all planned out beforehand by the military, how could they be certain that Lamo would act in the prescribed way and inform on the fake Manning? What if Lamo decided to keep the confession a secret? That simple variable would ruin their entire elaborate plan!

For one thing, it isn't very elaborate if what I'm supposing happens to be the truth. Some guy gets on AIM and pretends to be someone else. Fairly simple.

But, indeed, what if Lamo just kept the whole thing to himself? Two for the price of one, that's what. Adrain Lamo: Accessory to the Crime.

If the military really wanted to discredit Wikileaks, why wouldn't they just bust Manning and then blame it on an anonymous source within (or close to) Wikileaks itself? That would not only ruin Wikileaks' credibility, but it would likely cause a mad panic within Wikileaks as they try to root out the rat. Such internal conflict might even have a destabilizing effect on the whole organization.

I don't think that would actually work. Wikileaks has no idea - or they should have no idea - as to the identities of the whistleblowers.

You also have to bear in mind that we here are a little more savvy regarding how this tech stuff works. The plan was to make it appear that Wikileaks wasn't a safe place to leak stuff to. Someone being outed and prosecuted, whatever the circumstances, still makes Wikileaks look like a risk to the average Joe (whistle)Blow(er).

I'm going to state this again just to make it clear: My theorizing isn't an attempt to prove something. It's just my best guess.

So, if I had to guess, I would say that the military already had their eye on Bradley Manning as the source of Collateral Murder, and they needed a way to go about it. Fake Bradley Manning gets on AIM with Lamo, who seemed like a good choice as an informant. I have personal knowledge of this tactic being used by investigators in the past. It's a good one, and it works.

On the other hand, if i had to bet - like with money - I would wager that we are both wrong. The problem is that no bookie would give me good odds on that one. ^_^

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was there, but I've been too busy to attend this year.

My girlfriend and I will probably be in NY later in the year, almost certainly around the holidays if not sooner. I'll let you know in advance.

How are we both always on this fucking place at the same time?!

I wasn't going to even show up at HOPE either, but I got a call so I suppose I'll show my face for a minute. I'm too close, so I have no good excuse.

I'll say hi to those DHS guys who wasted their good money to attend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say hi to those DHS guys who wasted their good money to attend.

So a couple government agents paid $200 of the taxpayer's money to stand around a roach hotel gawking at a bunch of computer nerds. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.

I wonder if Assange is going to cancel his talk, or just 'phone it in' to a packed room.

Do they still play 'Spot the Fed' at HOPE?

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say hi to those DHS guys who wasted their good money to attend.

So a couple government agents paid $200 of the taxpayer's money to stand around a roach hotel gawking at a bunch of computer nerds. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.

I wonder if Assange is going to cancel his talk, or just 'phone it in' to a packed room.

Do they still play 'Spot the Fed' at HOPE?

Assange did not show.. as expected, but he did not do a talk via video feed either, as i had hoped for... instead someone else spoke on behalf of wikileaks, and addressed the lamo/manning issues.... the guy who spoke for wiki leaks wore a shirt that said "stop snitching"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now