HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Manning says he first tri...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:48 PM

Manning says he first tried to leak to Washington Post and New York Times

Source: Guardian

Manning says he first tried to leak to Washington Post and New York Times

Soldier reads 35-page personal statement revealing how he came to leak information to WikiLeaks after failing elsewhere

Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 February 2013 13.12 EST

Bradley Manning has revealed to his court-martial at Fort Meade, Maryland, that he tried to leak US state secrets to the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico before he turned in frustration to the new anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Manning, the US solider accused of the biggest leak of state secrets in US history, read out a 35-page statement to the court that contained new detail on how he came to download and then transmit a massive trove of secrets to WikiLeaks. It contains the bombshell disclosure that he wanted to go to mainstream American media but found them impenetrable.

While he was on leave from Iraq and staying in the Washington area in January 2010 he contacted the Washington Post and asked would it be interested in receiving information that he said would be "enormously important to the American people". He spoke to a woman who said she was a reporter but "she didn't seem to take me seriously".

The woman said, according to Manning's account, that the paper would only be interested subject to vetting by senior editors.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/manning-washington-post-new-york-times

14 replies, 2472 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:09 PM

1. OMG! The conspiracy goes even deeper than imagined!



And Manning objected to anyone vetting the documents first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:18 PM

2. Makes you wonder why he objected to vetting first.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pararescue (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:43 PM

4. Maybe because he shared Assange's view about Afghani's who fought against the Taliban:



By Kris Jepson

Updated on 29 July 2010
.
Thousands of Afghans have downloaded the Wikileaks document the Afghanistan Human Rights Commissioner tells Channel 4 News, raising fears over informants' safety where personal details may be revealed.

In a newspaper article Jullian Assange insisted that the release of the Afghan war logs on his website is justified. Mr Assange claims that many informers were "acting in a criminal way" by sharing false information with Nato authorities, that the White House did nothing to help Wikileaks vet the documents despite being asked and that the risk to informants' lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing information.


But Ahmad Nader Nadery, the Commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) told Channel 4 News the damage is already done, because thousands of Afghans have already downloaded the files.

He said: "Release of names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces is an absolute irresponsibility. There is no protection mechanisms for these people, be it informant or other community members who as part of the role as an elder meets with the officials or international forces, while wikileaks served greatly in brining to public some of the unspoken files, it certainly also acted against the principle of “Do No Harm” that all civil society and watchdogs have to adhere to."


http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677.html


]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:47 PM

5. From what I've learned, this Bradley Manning didn't even read what he was giving to Wikileaks.

 

And that none of the names were redacted before being released, is this true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pararescue (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:51 PM

7. Yes--in particular, the Afghan war logs were not redacted, and used by the Taliban for retribution--

see my post below where Amnesty International critiqued Assange for this move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:03 PM

8. Very informative, and chilling if what he said about the informants is true,

 

which I lean towards believing.
Thanks for the document, I need to learn much more about this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pararescue (Reply #2)


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:42 PM

3. guess he didn't know that they're just guardians for the establishment..

poor foolish kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:50 PM

6. Right...because wanting to review documents before publishing them is the same as suppression?

They didn't want to get people killed, like Amnesty International warned---

•WikiLeaks founder told reporters files should not be censored before they were published, new book alleges
•Amnesty International said naming Afghans risked 'deadly ramifications'
•Assange so scared of the CIA he disguised himself as a woman


Amnesty International said in a letter to WikiLeaks last year that all names in Afghan war logs should be redacted.

'We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces,' it said.


Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.


The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:13 PM

9. As long as Assange gets his glory...

 

... fuck everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:18 PM

11. So if 'informants' deserve to be killed, so should news reporters? Inconsistent take on disclosure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:28 PM

13. What? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:34 PM

12. does anyone sense an ax to grind?

I see the posters are accepting this book, WikiLeaks: Inside Assange's War on Secrecy, published by the Guardian, as the gospel truth. Odd.

Who wrote this book?

"The 304-page title has been written by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who was the co-founder of the whistle-blowing which started in 2006.
An advanced copy of the publicity blurb said: 'The fact that a project this powerful is under the sole control of someone with Julian Assange’s personality structure is a tangible danger to informants and collaborators.
‘Our trust was abused, we were threatened, misled and intentionally kept in the dark. It is not for nothing that many who have quit refer to him as a “dictator” . . .
‘Justified, even internal, criticism – whether about his relations with women or the lack of transparency in his actions – is either dismissed with the statement, “I’m busy, there are two wars I have to end” or attributed to the secret services’ smear campaigns.’
Domscheit-Berg has set up his own website OpenLeaks which is supposed to be more transparent."

the Guardian piece is basically a personal attack on Assange, going from one schoolyard level smear to another, and entirely relying on the words of Domscheit-Berg. No vetting, and this is a giveaway for a smear piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azureblue (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:46 PM

14. I know many Assangists think the world revolves around St Julian the Blessed Martyr, but this thread

is about the statement the Manning made in association with his offer to plead guilty and serve up to 20 years

The Guardian article in the OP, far from being "basically a personal attack on Assange, going from one schoolyard level smear to another," that you claim it is, mentions Assange only once:

... Manning .. revealed that he had .. discussions with a senior member of WikiLeaks codenamed Ox, whom he went on to name after an author of a book he had read in 2009: Nathaniel Frank. He said he assumed that "Nathaniel" was Julian Assange – whom Manning pronounced as Ass-angy ...


Personally, I don't know why anyone would care how Manning pronounces or mispronounces various people's names, and I even think it's somewhat silly to mention Manning's pronunciation, but the article certainly does not qualify as a "smear" of Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread