U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe
wired.com
wired.com
I personally wouldn't trust Lamo with any information, from past experience.
Few things you should know about Lamo:
1) He loves attention, he will go to some length to make noise so that people will talk about it/him.
2) He was responsible for leaking his own movie on bit-torrent.
3) Lamo was responsible for leaking wikileaks donor list and he bragged about it to me.
I personally don't have high regard for Wikileaks either, as they have their own biased spin on their leaks.
Bottom line. If you are responsible for seriously damaging leaks on the most powerful government in the world the last thing you want to do is to talk about it with someone who has questionable ethics. I also think Bradley Manning is an idiot.
Leaking a single controversial guncam footage because his conscience gave in is one thing, but continuing to leak documents and material and then boast about it to someone like Lamo is another. As a former Marine, I have seen and done things that keep me awake at night, but I will never violate my own integrity by doing what Manning did and end up endangering more lives.
Lamo ended up turning Manning in for another 15 minutes of fame. Anyone ethical with real national interest in mind would distance himself from this mess. Either way the leaked material will end up doing nothing but costing more lives.
Has it ever occurred to you that sacrificing some more lives is not necessarily a bad thing? As far as I know, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was (highly) illegal. The U.S. citizens do not know what their military is doing, and do not care. The only deterrent preventing U.S. government from engaging in "nation-building" around the world is the political cost of a few hundreds / thousands of flag-draped caskets. Sometimes one must sacrifice a few to save many.
It's possible that Manning's actions would cost lives. It's also possible that Manning's actions would save lives, perhaps by aborting pending military actions.
Actual metrics are impossible to calculate, but we should acknowledge that both possibilities exist.
I also think it's useful to consider that you can betray a nation or government, but net a positive for the world as a whole. Many people believe that the US government has overused classification of documents which could prove embarrassing to those in positions of power. Perhaps people like Manning act as a natural counterweight, ensuring that those in power never believe that their actions will remain secret for eternity; someday, some loudmouth kid might spew your secrets to the world.
Do people really think that this video will enrage Iraqis further? Well, think about it. Iraqi citizens have endured decades of opression under Saddam, they had their country bombed to the ground in 1991, they endured a decade of embargo, they were bombed and invaded again in 2003, and have lived the past 7 years in chaos. I think the Iraqis are pretty jaded about violence by now. If someone is going to be upset about that video, that someone is the U.S. citizen who pays taxes and, unwillingly, subsidizes such slaughter.
I don't oppose Wikileaks leaking the video. What I oppose is Wikileaks editing for propaganda purposes. A raw video would have been more than enough.
GP probably means the diplomatic cables. Sure they can be abused, but generally speaking, they are secret for good reasons.
"I hope that Manning gets the same chance as I did - the same chance to take his punishment as I did and start a new life as I did."
"I like to think I prevented him from getting into more serious trouble."
I'm not a fan of Lamo or anything, but this seems dead on.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's a serious question. He had a very high security rating, and was dumping highly classified documents -- the work of tens of thousands of man hours and billions of dollars of intelligence -- on to the web.
What's the next step past that?
EDIT: wrong guy -- changed name to be what I meant and not what I typed
You mean Manning, not Lamo?
Thanks. Typo fixed and annotated.
Aside from the "accidentally" part, I don't know know could you prove that a particular document created an operational problem without knowing everything other people have to make decisions with and how they made them. I think with this standard of "worse" it's an extremely difficult thing to know with any certainty.
With the size of the information he dumped, I don't know how anybody would be able to walk back which operational problems he caused where. That's how intelligence works -- lots of little pieces making a case one way or another. Do we really want to have a trial that cross-references all TSSCI operations with the information in his leaks?
I understand that if there were operation X in which we knew enough about how it crashed that we could show it was a result of his action -- that might make a better legal case. But the amount of damage he's done isn't directly measurable like that. It's not like knocking over a liquor store. He didn't do less or more damage because it's more or less easily demonstrable. And I'm still trying to figure out how doing something accidentally -- without intent to harm -- is worse than doing something intentionally.
The "accident" I'm talking about is handing over documents without fully comprehending what their operational impact is. I'm not letting the kid off the hook here.
But you combine a moron, access to information, lax security policies, and Julian Assange and what you have is a recipe for something far worse than a PR black eye. And I doubt very highly that Assange was thinking too carefully about this dumb kid's welfare before publishing the stuff he was getting.
Unfortunately, morons can kill people. I hope there are serious changes in the psych tests for these positions. People who are careless playing with explosives shouldn't be allowed around them -- but that doesn't make them any less dead when they go off.
1) If SPC Manning was talking recklessly to Lamo, Lamo had to assume he was also talking to other people, and generally behaving recklessly. Manning was going to get caught. If Lamo didn't say anything, but Manning later was caught, it would be likely discovered that he'd confessed to Lamo as well. This would not be good for Lamo, especially if that information were not yet public knowledge. An investigator might suspect conspiracy, and might suspect Lamo had data -- he could then be subject to intelligence activity or law enforcement activity himself.
2) If he cooperated with authorities in secret, it's likely his involvement would become known later once the trial happened (or at any time of Manning's choosing). People who interacted with Lamo between his initial contact with Manning and the eventual disclosure would be afraid they had been compromised as well.
I think Lamo was in a difficult situation even if he didn't want to turn the guy in.
Encountering a boastful liar on the internet isn't a freak occurrence by any means. Whether or not this is a viable defense is another matter.
Does this mean Assange broke the AES-256 encryption on a ZIP file in 6 months? I mean, I'm sure the password didn't have 256 bits of entropy, but dang that's scary!
Addressing the decryption question, the author writes, "Assange, a cryptographer of exceptional skill, told me that unlocking the file was 'moderately difficult.'"
i.e., he's fucked.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Civilian juries are based on English civilian common law juries. I would strongly suspect military court-martial juries have the same basis, although Wikipedia notes "Members of a court-martial are commissioned officers, unless the accused is a warrant officer or enlisted member and requests that the membership reflect their position by including warrant or enlisted members."