• This is what a defendant would do in conjunction with a plea deal, reached in conjunction with prosecutors. If that’s not the case, then it’s just giving the prosecution a free ride, otherwise they would have to prove the facts stipulated beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not a huge believer in educating the prosecution, so I hope that the former is the case, that a plea deal has been reached.

    As for Assange, it was Manning’s duty to protect the classified information from disclosure, not Assange’s duty to not seek it. As a foreign national, it is debatable whether Assange has any duty towards the US government.

    Some of the information in the Collateral Murder video depicts war crimes (shooting wounded enemy personnel, defiling their bodies, shooting noncombatants) proscribed by the Geneva Convention to which both Iraq and the US are signatories and therefore bound. Manning may have had a duty to show this information to his chain of command, and if his chain of command gave him the brush-off, he may have had a duty to expose this information to the International Criminal Court or other higher authority and may have chosen WL to do so. Assange may also have had this duty, or at least the right to make this information public.

  • The Swedes refused to send a representative to question him at the Ecuadorian Embassy, and what’s more, Assange could exercise his right to remain silent, thus making this whole “questioning” controversy moot. If a case is fully dependent on self-incrimination by the suspect, then that’s not much of a case to begin with, which is probably why he hasn’t been charged in the first place.

  • streamfortyseven and Jane Hamsher are now friends

    2011-01-09 10:29:44View | Delete
  • The Twitter evidence is as discoverable as email, complete with full headers. Email, unless encrypted, is *not* private, since it passes through many computers on its way to its final destination, and is available to the sysadmin for inspection. It may contain material evidence which is exculpatory as regards Manning or Assange or both, but the physical machines at both ends (Manning and Assange) would have to be seized as well, to get the MAC addresses – and then the prosecution would have to show exclusive control and possession by both Assange and Manning in the given time periods.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the diary post Requiem For Project Vigilant by strandedwind.

    2011-01-03 03:23:32View | Delete

    right, and “strandedwind” seems to have disappeared… however, from http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/08/06/bbhc-global-and-project-vigilant-wheres-the-money-2/ I find: “Who owns BBHC Global? Steven Ruhe shows as the registrant for the domain name but the email address he provides is chet.uber@mac.com. Ruhe’s LinkedIn profile says his present job from 2004 to the present is as the owner of T.G.B.S. Construction in Lincoln, [...]

  • streamfortyseven commented on the diary post Project Vigilant’s Initial Funding by strandedwind.

    2011-01-03 03:06:59View | Delete

    FWIW, here’s a rather more complete look into “Project Vigilant”: http://www.bestvirusremoval.org/15176/project-vigilant-is-a-publicity-stunt/ “Steven Ruhe Owner, T.G.B.S Construction, Managing Member – BBHC Global Lincoln, Nebraska Area OwnerStevenConstruction industryJanuary 2004 – Present (6 years 8 months)I’ve wanted to be a business owner for as long as I can remember… I work for me I build my dreams, work [...]

  • streamfortyseven commented on the diary post Water Cooler – Take Me Back To The Gold Old Days by Bill Egnor.

    2011-01-03 02:44:58View | Delete

    the exact quote from your article is: “that was an artifact of there being no paper money in existence at the time” not “Of course, there was no paper money at the time…” – but the two are equivalent in meaning – and inaccuracy. Also, most of the specie was printed by Hall and Sellers [...]

  • streamfortyseven commented on the diary post Water Cooler – Take Me Back To The Gold Old Days by Bill Egnor.

    2011-01-03 02:39:22View | Delete

    “Of course, there was no paper money at the time…” Nonsense. Ever heard the saying “Not worth a Continental”? It’s about the paper money that was printed up by Congress to pay for the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin printed up a lot of it (see http://www.founderspatriots.org/articles/continental.htm): “The sad tale of the Continental Currency thereafter was [...]

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 15:26:07View | Delete

    Looks like Uber, Rasch, Webster et al got their info from Lamo, it doesn’t look like there’s any pre-existing investigation by “Project Vigilant” before Lamo comes into the picture. It might be interesting to know when Lamo and his wife Lauren, married Sept. 6, 2007, separated.

    This from a Computerworld article, gets the dates spectacularly wrong: first contact between Uber and Lamo in “early June 2010″, Manning arrest on “July 29″ – when the arrest actually took place May 29.

    The important bit is that Lamo came to Uber with his story, the same thing as Lamo, “a Sacramento-based computer hacker”, coming to Webster. It appears that Uber claims to have known who Lamo should contact:

    “In early June 2010 security pro Chet Uber got a phone call from Adrian Lamo, a well-known hacker he had worked with for a year in a volunteer-run intelligence organization. Lamo had received classified documents from a U.S. Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning and wanted advice about what to do. Uber told Lamo to turn Manning in.

    “Put it in a bag, take it off your computer, wipe your drive and I’m going to call you back in 10 minutes,” Uber said he told Lamo, recalling his brush with Manning whose documents revealing secret details of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were eventually published on Wikileaks, setting off a U.S. government investigation and leading to Manning’s arrest on July 29. Uber recalled the incident during a press conference at the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas on Sunday.”

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9179998/Meet_the_man_who_helped_Lamo_turn_in_Manning_the_Wikileaker

    By Robert McMillan
    August 1, 2010 05:46 PM ET

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 12:44:15View | Delete

    It might be useful to get copies of the “press releases” and add them to the record here at FDL before they “disappear”…

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 12:35:35View | Delete

    From looking at all of this nonsense, and Lamo’s penchant for contradicting himself on material facts, unless the prosecution thinks they can put something over on Manning’s defense counsel, I’d be surprised if the prosecution were to call Lamo as a witness or use his “testimony” in any capacity whatsoever,

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 12:23:48View | Delete

    Adrian has certainly been a busy boy over the past six months or so, issuing these “press releases” and referring to himself in the third person:

    Reality Planning LLC (An Adrian Lamo Concern) Press releases
    1 – 8 of 8 Press Releases

    Wikileaks Whistle-blower Pushes for Assange Prosecution
    Nov 28, 2010
    Adrian Lamo, the former New York Time hacker-turned-threat-analyst who had turned in Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning, pushed today for all options to be kept on the table in the inevitable quest to bring Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to justice.

    Former New York Times Hacker Calls For New Charges in Wikileaks Case
    Nov 20, 2010
    Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo, whose alleged victims included Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, MCI Worldcom, SBC, America Online and others, said today that Bradley Manning was “induced and aided” by co-conspirators in what is rapidly becoming USA v. Wikileaks.

    Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Praises Manning Charges
    Jul 10, 2010
    Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo praised the charges against PFC. Bradley Manning today, commending the Department of Defense for bringing timely charges against the would-be spy.

    Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald Reneges on Distribution Deal with Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo
    Jul 10, 2010
    “… I will publish in full whatever you want to write,” said Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald to ex-hacker Adrian Lamo, a short period before reneging on the deal entirely and without cause. Lamo’s intrusions inlude The New York Times Co. & Salon.com.

    Ex-Hacker Consummates Deal With Salon.com; Refutes Conspiracy Theories
    Jul 04, 2010
    Adrian Lamo dismissed Salon.com’s Greenwald Wikileaks-related conspiracy theories; outed Greenwald’s primary source as a collaborator for Wikileaks; revealed past Salon.com hack in submission to Salon which Salon’s Greenwald agreed to see published.

    Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo Challenges Wikileaks’ Assange To Debate; Honor Conference Committments
    Jul 01, 2010
    Former hacker Adrian Lamo challenged Assange to debate him on the merits of of the facts at a conference both are scheduled to attend.

    Despite Death Threats, Adrian Lamo Maintains Resolve to Testify in Wikileaks / Bradley Manning Case
    Jun 27, 2010
    Former Microsoft, New York Times hacker will also continue to call for resignation of Julian Assange,

    Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo to Accept Salon.com’s Offer to Rebut Wikileaks / Bradley Manning Story
    Jun 26, 2010
    The story author offered Lamo opportunity to rebut content in Salon’s own pages, unedited and uncensored. Lamo is electing to accept that opportunity.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 12:12:08View | Delete

    Well, if Manning were competent to stand trial when first confined, I’ve got my doubts now…

    As to the charges brought, what evidence, other than Lamo’s, are they based on? My speculation is that Lamo made this whole thing up out of whole cloth for purposes of revenge. However, if there is other evidence in which Lamo plays *no* part, then that might present a difficulty – although Lamo’s statements about what Manning said, although hearsay, might prove pivotal in the preliminary hearing (or Board of Inquiry). If there is other evidence independent of Lamo, it might not be enough to show probable cause for Manning to be bound over at the prelim – and Lamo’s evidence might be enough to surmount that barrier.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2011-01-02 03:08:49View | Delete

    here’s something I thought up last night:

    The story offered so far leaves three really big questions hanging:
    1. How and why did Bradley Manning contact Adrian Lamo,
    2. did they have some sort of prior relationship before Manning allegedly “told all”, and
    3. what was Lamo’s motive for turning Manning in to the Army CID/NSA or whoever.

    There’s absolutely nothing that I’ve seen out in public that excludes the possibility that Adrian Lamo made the whole story up, including the “chat logs”, and got Manning arrested and imprisoned *for no legitimate reason at all*.

    Consider that no one knows how Manning and Lamo got connected – all of a sudden Manning approaches a total stranger, and at that a notorious hacker with a criminal record, and tells all and makes lots of self-incriminating statements with little or no prompting from Lamo. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

    But this might: Manning appears to be gay, and Lamo is either bisexual as well or was interested in LBGT issues sufficiently enough to be appointed to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force in San Francisco CA in 1998 when he was 17 years old.( http://www.aim.org/aim-report/homosexual-scandal-linked-to-treason/ and http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=2723 ).

    Just as speculation, consider that they met up through a social networking page, maybe one where LGBT people make contact, and had a budding web relationship, and then something happened to break up the relationship, and (say) Manning threatened to “out” Lamo or did in fact “out” Lamo, who was married in 2007 but is currently separated from his wife ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo#cite_note-0 ) although they are apparently not yet divorced.

    Because of this, Lamo decides to get revenge on Manning, and concocts the “chat logs” and gets his friend Kevin Poulsen to publish excerpts, and at the same time contacts Army CID and pops Manning on the basis of the “chat logs” which appear to exist (or at least so far as has been publicly revealed) only on Lamo’s hard drive.

    This helps Army CID, because they now “have” the guy who leaked the cables and all to Wikileaks, and they’ve apparently stopped the leaking. Now, the arrest took place within a week of the initial contact (or so it has been revealed) between Army CID and Lamo. There appears (at least as far as the Army has publicly revealed) to be no direct evidence implicating Manning as the leaker, just the “chat logs” as proffered by Lamo. *If they’re genuine*, there’s enough PC there to nail Manning and arrest him – but that’s the issue: are they genuine?

    Oftentimes law enforcement people jump the gun and don’t really do enough investigation, and thus nail the wrong guy. Prosecutors get caught up in this too, and because of things like this, 10 people on Death Row in Illinois were released from prison because they were convicted on falsified evidence. They were entirely *innocent* of the charges brought against them, but the cops and the prosecutors jumped the gun, didn’t do an adequate investigation, and convinced a jury to find at least 10 people guilty of capital offenses of which they were *entirely innocent*.

    Maybe that’s what’s going on here, if Lamo’s “chat logs” are the sole evidence against Manning, and maybe that’s why it’s taking DoJ and the Army this long to get a case going – they haven’t even had a Board of Inquiry yet, and it’s been at least six months since Manning’s arrest. One speculation is that they don’t have *any* independent confirmation for the incriminating statements in the “chat logs”, and Adrian Lamo isn’t the best witness in the world, and they don’t want to base their case solely on Lamo’s testimony and “evidence”.

    So far, I’ve seen nothing which answers the questions I’ve asked above, as to how they made contact, what the nature of their relationship was, and what motive Lamo had in turning Manning in. My purely speculative theory answers all three questions.

    Now, it’s possible the Army has direct evidence against Manning they’re not talking about for various reasons, and that there’s independent confirmation of the existence and authenticity of the “chat logs”, but I haven’t seen anything in all of the extensive kerfuffle about the “chat logs” and Lamo’s statements about their content, and so on.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the diary post Pfc. Manning: Hearsay Evidence by Humanist.

    2010-12-31 23:38:31View | Delete

    the issue here that no one has looked at is the foundation for the proffered evidence. In other words, how do we know that the “chat logs” offered as evidence are genuine and authentic? How do we know that they were not produced by Adrian Lamo? Is there any source independent of Adrian Lamo for [...]

  • Disorderly Conduct. Indecent Exposure. And it is off topic and a distractor and so your post – and this reply – should be removed by a moderator…

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops

    2010-12-31 22:03:03View | Delete

    His lawyer would have told him to shut up about the case for any number of really good reasons. I tell my clients not only to not talk about their case, I tell them to take down (preferably) or make private and sanitize their facebook/myspace/assorted social network pages, because that’s often one of the first things the DA looks at. I carry along my Ipad with 3G to the first interview, too, so I can check things out as they’re talking.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Citizen Journalism and the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs

    2010-12-30 19:02:16View | Delete

    I’m a practicing criminal defense attorney and have been in practice for about 9 years. Here’s my Miranda analysis:
    The “Manning-Lamo chat logs” are not subject to Miranda even if this was a case of civilian law enforcement. Miranda comes into play after a suspect has been placed under arrest or is being detained, i.e. is in handcuffs or is similarly restrained and is not free to go. Even if Lamo and Poulsen were deputized federal law enforcement agents, their casual conversations, putatively initiated by Manning, are not subject to the exclusionary rule, nor would they be even if Poulsen and Lamo were Federal agents and they initiated the conversation.

    What would keep the “chat logs” out of evidence is that they are documentary hearsay, offered without a proper foundation. The only authentication offered for the chat logs so far is that provided by Lamo, who is the sole source for the chat logs. Lamo is a convicted felon, moreover his crime of conviction involves dishonesty. He has a record of psychiatric treatment and a reputation for making contradictory statements about material facts in the case. Moreover, he is a hacker with sufficient expertise to have fabricated the “chat logs” and accompanying indicia on his own, and the motive to do so, based on his statements about Manning’s alleged actions. There appears to be no independent authentication of the “chat logs” outside of Adrian Lamo, such as server logs not on Lamo’s computer, hard drives, or any other physical storage media which have been in Lamo’s exclusive possession and control for any length of time. This lack of proper foundation is what should keep these “chat logs” out of evidence in a trial, should it come to that.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Citizen Journalism and the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs

    2010-12-30 02:31:54View | Delete

    I think what needs to go on before there’s any more talk about Lamo’s so-called chat logs is the authentication of those alleged chat logs. If the Army isn’t using them for its case against Manning, there’s probably good reason for that. The important thing to look at is the Army’s evidence

    … But… and a big But at that,

    what should be REALLY LOOKED AT is the CONTENT of what was LEAKED – there’s solid documentation of war crimes, namely shooting wounded people who are obviously wounded. That’s a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949, to which both the US and Iraq are signatories, and which covers and binds both of them. Even if the wounded were so-called insurgents, they were still protected persons under the Geneva Convention and their deliberate and premeditated killing was a gross violation – and should be prosecuted as such.

    Lamo and Poulsen are playing a role, not as accusers, but as distractors, keeping the eyes of the American public on things which do not implicate the Federal Government and its agents and military forces in wrongdoing.

  • streamfortyseven commented on the blog post Citizen Journalism and the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs

    2010-12-30 02:28:35View | Delete

    I think what needs to go on before there’s any more talk about Lamo’s so-called chat logs is the authentication of those alleged chat logs. If the Army isn’t using them for its case against Manning, there’s probably good reason for that. The important thing to look at is the Army’s evidence …

    But… and a big But at that,

    what should be REALLY LOOKED AT is the CONTENT of what was LEAKED – there’s solid documentation of war crimes, namely shooting wounded people who are obviously wounded. That’s a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949, to which both the US and Iraq are signatories, and which covers and binds both of them. Even if the wounded were so-called insurgents, they were still protected persons under the Geneva Convention and their deliberate and premeditated killing was a gross violation – and should be prosecuted as such.

  • Load More