As it turns out, there are very few passages in these logs that could arguably qualify as national security secrets.And amazingly, Hansen admits: "We have been satisfied now published the portions of the chat logs dealing with deeply personal matters -- such as Manning's gender identity struggles and desire to transition to female -- to be less than persuasive.It's nice that Hansen finally realized this, albeit a year late.Then there's the national security secrets Poulsen claimed to be valiantly safeguarding until he could "vet" them. Did until yesterday, that "approximately 85-90% of global transmissions are sifted through by NSA" or that " 85% of [U. aid to Pakistan] is for F-16 fighters and munitions to aid in the Afghanistan effort, so the US can call in Pakistanis to do aerial bombing instead of americans potentially killing civilians and creating a PR crisis")?As it turns out, while some of what withheld was certainly personal information about Manning of no newsworthy relevance (and nobody, including me, ever objected to that material being withheld), substantial portions of what they withheld do not even arguably fall within those categories, but instead provide vital context and information about what actually happened here. Whatever else is true, in light of these fascinating, relevant passages, can anyone argue that Poulsen told the truth when claiming that the only material that were hand-picking which passages to release and conceal in order to shield Lamo's conduct and claims from scrutiny and make Wiki Leaks look as bad as possible: the concern that those of us had in the first place in allowing Poulsen of all people to arbitrate what gets released and what gets disclosed?To say that Poulsen's claims about what MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. last December that Manning "did an actual physical drop-off when he was back in the United States in January of this year" -- something we now know Manning never even alluded to, let alone told Lamo.
a Saturday night in the summer of 1998, an undercover officer logged in to a child-pornography chat room using the screen name Indy-Girl.
He began downloading child pornography after watching a television special about how Internet child porn had become epidemic. In the five months since he’d seen the show, he had downloaded more than two thousand images from child-pornography news groups. Two weeks after their first conversation, John drove three hours to the appointed meeting spot. The Military Police Investigations unit, working with the F. I., had recruited two young officers to play the roles of the two sisters.
In the anonymous chat rooms, he felt free to adopt a persona repugnant to society. They arrived early, spread a blanket on the grass, and waved at John, who was sitting at a picnic table, writing in his journal.
To the contrary -- as the quotes above demonstrate -- I repeatedly argued that such purely personal material was properly withheld.
Rather, the controversy was over 's obvious concealment of matters outside of the scope of Manning's personal issues, ones that were plainly relevant to newsworthy matters and, in particular, to Lamo's claims about what Manning told him.