honest question for those ready to hang manning and assange

[RLENT]

Yay RLENT smiled - thats better

Smiling is good .... it's an expression, that generally, I'm more likely to be wearing than a frown or anything of that nature.

I offered up another angle is all. Though from the many sites I have searched they all seem to have the "disgruntled employee" theme for his motive.

Fair enough ....

As all of this is conjecture at the moment I answered IMO correctly that when it goes to trial we may all be wrong as to why he did it.

Reasonable premise and I do not disagree.

I did - but we are talking Manning on this thread aren't we?

No, not really - at least if you are talking about the questions posed by pjjjj in the initial post.

The questions she asked (which, btw, I haven't replied to yet, but will shortly - sorry pjjj ) were actually posed in the abstract .... probably I suspect to address what are the real issues at their most basic or fundamental level (which was a very smart way to it) - removing the taint of the rather obvious disgust and loathing that many probably have for what may be this guy's sexual orientation (which as far as I can tell is more of a sexual confusion, than a real orientation), and the disgust and anger for what he is alleged to have done ...

Since Manning was brought into the conversation, moving the conversation from the abstract to the real world, the issues surrounding this whole affair, and particularly those that relate to Manning and how it is that he came to be arrested and accused as the Wikileaks source are very relevant.

You said above that we may ultimately find that Mannings reasons or motivations are far different than what we believe. That, of course, assumes that Manning is actually guilty of anything.

Please consider these two items, which are known and indisputable facts:

The source of the evidence against Manning is apparently Adrian Lamo - someone who is a convicted felon - a documented fact.

The person that "broke" this story, Kevin Poulson, is also a convicted felon - a documented fact.

Now, I'm not saying that anything of the following is necessarily true or that I even believe it in the slightest - just that it's possible - and often the actual truth is far, far stranger than any fiction you'll ever read.

People that are caught doing crimes are often leveraged to doing various things for the state - many times they are pressured, forced, or otherwise coerced to become informants. In both the case of Lamo and Poulson, the both have talents (hackers) which might be very interesting to intelligence agencies or the military. They are potential assets ....

The following is also a fact: On March 15, 2010 Wikileaks released a document which was (purportedly) a secret investigation and analysis of Wikileaks, originally published on March 18, 2008 by Michael D. Horvath of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center, which identifies Wikileaks as a potential threat and, in the final analysis, lays out how the organization can be fatally marginalized.

It is classified as "Secret/NOFOR" but if you aren't too squeamish about that sorta thing, you can read it here:

U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks

So here's the question: What do we really know of any evidence beyond the allegations of one convicted felon (a gloryhound and hacker who I would imagine could easily manipulate IM logs), and the other convicted felon, who functions as the formers publicity agent and "broke the story" to the public ?

Just a couple of data points to consider and a little food for thought. Like I said, it ain't anything that I necessarily believe, but anything is possible.

LOL I would not even pretend to know the Philosphy of Law - I, as I am sure nearly everyone here uses "their opinion" only.

Yup ... largely true I would imagine .... although there is one here that I believe graduated law school.

Opinions vary, some are more informed than others.

According to Mr Assange the set up that WikiLeaks has for receiving whistle blower info is not designed to receive the senders information - which apparently is why Mr Assange had not heard of Pvt Manning.

That is true - however that doesn't preclude including the request (to withhold from release or publication until material could vetted and redacted) to Wikileaks as part of the submission.

And if the government can prove that Manning was indeed the one who submitted it ...... well then ... sure smells exculpatory to me .....

That is a brilliant statement - and worthy of its own thread

Ben was a pretty smart dude .... and a real party animal to boot ..... my kinda guy

Please say you are still smiling

Always .... well, almost .....

 

[Turtle]

Please consider these two items, which are known and indisputable facts:

The source of the evidence against Manning is apparently Adrian Lamo - someone who is a convicted felon - a documented fact.

Known and indisputable, yet qualified with "apparently"?

The following is also a fact: On March 15, 2010 Wikileaks released a document which was (purportedly) a secret investigation and analysis of Wikileaks, originally published on March 18, 2008 by Michael D. Horvath of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center, which identifies Wikileaks as a potential threat and, in the final analysis, lays out how the organization can be fatally marginalized.

That implies the US did the investigation to figure out how to take Wikileaks down, but that's not what that document is about at all. One point of conclusion points out how Wikileaks can be fatally marginalized, but another conclusion point shows it won't make any difference since one Wikileaks goes down and another one (or several) will take its place. The document concludes that there's nothing the government can do about Wikileaks and/or sites like it, so they'd (the government) had better get their sh*t together.

So here's the question: What do we really know of any evidence beyond the allegations of one convicted felon (a gloryhound and hacker who I would imagine could easily manipulate IM logs), and the other convicted felon, who functions as the formers publicity agent and "broke the story" to the public ?

We know very little, other than for several months before Manning was finally arrested, after the military became aware of what he might be doing, they monitored his computer activity, logging all keystrokes and file accesses and transfers. We have no idea what's in those logs.

What I find both hilarious and deplorable is that the military has to become aware of something like this before they start logging all activity on a secure computer, yet Panther logs every keystroke and page view on all of their computers all the time. And you know how I feel about the "competency" of Panther on many issues. Imagine what I'm thinking about the military. I'm a little surprised that somebody like Costa Rica hasn't just taken us over. <snort>

At least the military, just a few weeks ago, instituted a "no removable media" policy for it's secure computer networks. Good job, guys. Barn door? Horses? What horses? We have horses?

 

[RLENT]

Known and indisputable, yet qualified with "apparently"?

Good eye

And my bad - poor sentence structure.

What is known and indisputable is that they are both felons.

Lamo is the apparent source.

 

[Turtle]

I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist.

 

[RLENT]

That implies the US did the investigation to figure out how to take Wikileaks down, but that's not what that document is about at all.

You wanna bet that that wasn't what it was all about for whoever commissioned it ?

One point of conclusion points out how Wikileaks can be fatally marginalized, but another conclusion point shows it won't make any difference since one Wikileaks goes down and another one (or several) will take its place.

That "it won't make any difference" .... is that your own conclusion ...... 'cause if it was the authors, I sure didn't see it anywhere in the document.

The document concludes that there's nothing the government can do about Wikileaks and/or sites like it, so they'd (the government) had better get their sh*t together.

Again - your conclusion - or the authors ?

We know very little, other than for several months before Manning was finally arrested, after the military became aware of what he might be doing, they monitored his computer activity, logging all keystrokes and file accesses and transfers. We have no idea what's in those logs.

Interesting .... yeah .... there's no tellin' what he got ....

Imagine what I'm thinking about the military. I'm a little surprised that somebody like Costa Rica hasn't just taken us over. <snort>

Viva Costa Rica ... Long Live The Revolucion !!!

At least the military, just a few weeks ago, instituted a "no removable media" policy for it's secure computer networks. Good job, guys. Barn door? Horses? What horses? We have horses?

Hey man ..... give 'em a break .... afterall, it's the government .....

 

[RLENT]

I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist.

Yeah, I figured .... that's fine - I had it comin' ....

 

[RLENT]

Just to be pedantic and obnoxious, I offer the following from Wikipedia.

Yup - yeah, knew it when I posted it, no worries

I just like the paraphrased version, since it reads a little better today than the original does - and it captures the essence of the concept.

 

[RLENT]

Susie Q,

Here's a couple of must reads related to the Lamo/Poulson circus (don't think I've already posted links to these) - they are by Glenn Greenwald and IMHO very well written and raise some interesting points and alot of questions, some of which I touched on earlier. They are in sequential order, with the first link the earlier piece, and the second the later.

BTW, Glen Greenwald is an openly gay man, just to get that out of the way at the outset. Some on here will no doubt be unwilling, or even utterly incapable, of considering the piece on it's merits, letting that single fact alone cloud their vision (and you know who you are)

And without further adieu:

The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks

and

The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired

I'm just starting to read the second, which was published yesterday/today (Monday the 27th), as I type this.

 

[Turtle]

You wanna bet that that wasn't what it was all about for whoever commissioned it ?

Possibly that's the case, but it would be negligent not to investigate pretty much anything that could have a positive or negative effect on the DOD, assess it, then formulate a plan to deal with it, good or bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
One point of conclusion points out how Wikileaks can be fatally marginalized, but another conclusion point shows it won't make any difference since one Wikileaks goes down and another one (or several) will take its place.

That "it won't make any difference" .... is that your own conclusion ...... 'cause if it was the authors, I sure didn't see it anywhere in the document.

My wording, their conclusion.

"It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. In addition, it must also be presumed that foreign adversaries will review and assess any DoD sensitive or classified information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site. Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future."

Originally Posted by Turtle
The document concludes that there's nothing the government can do about Wikileaks and/or sites like it, so they'd (the government) had better get their sh*t together.

Again - your conclusion - or the authors ?

The author's. See above (last line in particular) and below.

"The unauthorized release of DoD information to Wikileaks.org highlights the need for strong counterintelligence, antiterrorism, force protection, information assurance, INFOSEC, and OPSEC programs to train Army personnel on the proper procedures for protecting sensitive or classified information, to understand the insider threat, and to report suspicious activities. (that's the getting their sh*t together part) In addition, personnel need to know proper procedures for reporting the loss, theft, or comprise of hard or soft copy documents with sensitive information or classified information to the appropriate unit, law enforcement, or counterintelligence personnel. (here comes the "it won't make any difference", part II) Unfortunately, such programs will not deter insiders from following what they believe is their obligation to expose alleged wrongdoing within DoD through inappropriate venues. Persons engaged in such activity already know how to properly handle and secure sensitive or classified information from these various security and education programs and has chosen to flout them."


They know they're whipped, and all they can do is circle the wagons and hope for the best. Other conclusion points note that as hard as it is now to deal with something like Wikileaks, ever-advancing technology will make it quite impossible to deal with any of it after the fact, so they have to really stay on top of things to shore up their counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC defenses. That won't do any good, either.


After never even having heard of them before last night, I walk into Walmart and within 10 seconds all I see are bags and bags and bags of Athenos pita chips. Picked up a bag of garlic and herb. Dogs barking, can't fly without umbrella. The key is the key. This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

 

[RLENT]

Possibly that's the case, but it would be negligent not to investigate pretty much anything that could have a positive or negative effect on the DOD, assess it, then formulate a plan to deal with it, good or bad.

Yup.

My wording, their conclusion.

Right, get your point.

My wording was probably not as clear as it should have been - the document does not lay out an operational plan to take them out - what it does do however is suggest in what ways they could potentially be "fatally marginalized".

They know they're whipped, and all they can do is circle the wagons and hope for the best.

Yup.

Other conclusion points note that as hard as it is now to deal with something like Wikileaks, ever-advancing technology will make it quite impossible to deal with any of it after the fact, so they have to really stay on top of things to shore up their counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC defenses.

Given the widespread need for info particularly in national security/military ...... and how the government (generally speaking) tends to trail behind the private sector in terms of technology .....

(And yes, for those who are just itching to point it out: I'm quite aware that national security/military is a very different animal than say, the Agriculture Department or the National Park Service)

That won't do any good, either.

Yup

Probably one of the most dangerous things that Assange has - and he's sharing it with others - is just a simple idea:

Courage is contagious .....

After never even having heard of them before last night, I walk into Walmart and within 10 seconds all I see are bags and bags and bags of Athenos pita chips. Picked up a bag of garlic and herb.

Excellent !

Dogs barking, can't fly without umbrella. The key is the key. This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

ROTFLMAO ........