Frontline cut the interview to prevent Assange from being able to comment on the chat logs that were focused on without scrutiny in this show. Wikileaks posted the full transcript of the interview on its page. Assange says:
We know that there are certain sections that are not legitimate. For instance, the time stamps at one point in time are reversed in this conversation. We also know that Adrian Lamo has made statements that are contradictory to each other and what is inside the conversation. We know that there are some contradictions with what Kevin Poulsen, the editor at Wired magazine, has said.
For instance, Kevin Poulsen said that all material that didn't reveal national security matters, or was purely personal issues, was released. But we can see that Adrian Lamo has spoken about other parts that he alleged to be in this conversation that are neither personal nor matters of national security that concerned things that he says are the framework of the conversation -- how the conversation started, under what conditions, etc. -- and those are not there. So there is something odd with this conversation. We don't know whether it is mostly illegitimate or partly contaminated. But there are certainly elements of it that are incorrect.
You can read more if you aren't scared to go to wikileaks:
they have good intentions but at the end of the day they have to do what they're told or else they get the boot.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"give me control of my own permaculture and I care a lot about what makes law"
latest news on Bradley Manning:
LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15
This is not about the lives of Assange or Manning or anyone else. Manning's love life is not the point. Whether Assange is a jerk is not the point.
Truth is good. More truth is better than less truth.
The people of the earth need to know what governments and other institutions are doing if consent of the governed is to have any meaning.
The old ways are dying in the 21st century and rightly so.
Very slick piece of government propaganda.
subsidizing this cloaked Pavda. It is beyond disgusting that PBS probed the personalities of those working against war and tyranny but accept as blandly valid anyone CIA/Pentagon/Politically-connected.
It is clear even through the smears that Bradley Manning is a towering ethical and courageous giant, whether the leak is ever proven to be his or not.
There was nothing new in the program, it was just a spin doctored version of events intended to cast Manning and Assange in a negative light. pBS survives on government handouts and corporate donations so they really have no choice. Adrian Lamo came off as completely unhinged.
Because Manning and Bradley are flawed, what they did is wrong, clever way to avoid the issues.
According to this program, Manning explicitly stated in his chats with Lamo that he and Assange were talking directly.
From the NY Times, five days ago:
Still, at least publicly, the whole possibility of a case against WikiLeaks has largely come to turn on a single point of fact: did Assange or close associates communicate with Manning? Establishing such a link is a necessary step in trying to prove that there was a conspiracy....
This January, there were reports that U.S. investigators “could detect no contact between Manning and Assange.” That was surprising. Manning’s confessions to Lamo make explicit references to direct communications between him and WikiLeaks. At one point, while trying to answer a question, Manning writes, “I’ll have to ask Assange.” In another burst of short notes, he says:
(2:04:29 PM) im a source, not quite a volunteer
(2:05:38 PM) i mean, im a high profile source… and i’ve developed a relationship with assange… but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little
(2:05:58 PM) it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange
Some people doubt the veracity of these logs.
Why was there ever any fuss about "detecting contact" if all along there was hard evidence that Manning admitted he talked to Assange?
Why isn't Manning's own recorded testimony good enough, if it's real? Or ISN'T it real?
The real-life characters in this story are quirky. They are all allegedly gay, and Assange is very eccentric. There are lots of rifts in his "organization" as he puts it. Most likely he has a large dose of paranoia just living day to day, as well as Lamo being paranoid for being a snitch. Manning comes off as distraught over his love life and suicidal. But that's not how he was described by his recent visitors.
What is the truth? Maybe Manning had one incident with a knife over his ex-lover and now he is labelled that way forever. Heck anyone who breaks up with someone acts out of character.
That's the story they tell in this documentary. But they leave the questions about the results of releasing the documents up to the viewer. They also don't touch on the lack of Mannings constitutional rights. They don't question it. It's critical of the three main players but not the governments role.
So why not be critical of the government? Who knows.
Sad state of affairs PBS has slipped into considering their once proud history with Bill Moyers, et al.
My impression was the "tone" of the program can be summarized as thus:
-Troubled, bullied homosexual PFC lashes out at benevolent State by passing secrets to an egomaniacal, greedy rapist.
Notice how the portrayals of the Statists are always sober and orderly while the interviews with Assange are critical and argumentative and the "hackers" are all smoking pot and afflicted with paranoia? That's what I saw, anyway.
This is propaganda. Progressive (statist) propaganda is always subtle. When the mochafrappachino, Whole Foods morons see this, the only thought they will have is "look at the poor, victimized good government who was just looking out for us and look at that bad, evil greedy Aryan doing this for his own ego".
Also, notice how virtuous the NY Times was made to appear.
WHAT A JOKE!
They are saying that the chat logs between Manning and Lamo reveal that Manning says he and Assange had been talking.
Those are Wired's chat logs, dated June 10, 2010. And they DO include dialogue where Manning says he was in contact with Assange.
Yet Glenn Greenwald, who was meticulously following this story, never mentioned that CRUCIAL part of the chat logs. In fact Greenwald said, back in December, 2010:
The need to have Manning make incriminating statements against Assange -- to get him to claim that Assange actively, in advance, helped Manning access and leak these documents -- would be one obvious reason for subjecting Manning to such inhumane conditions: if you want to have better treatment, you must incriminate Assange.
If Manning had already done that, Greenwald sure as hell would have known. So Wired must have backdated that article or something. Any thoughts? Anyone else catch this?
It could be that they talked through an intermediary
As far as I know, as of December 2010, there was nothing from Manning in those chat logs saying that he and Assange communicated with each other directly. Now, there IS.
My understanding is that that is the key piece of evidence the government has been wanting, in order to launch espionage charges on Assange. And suddenly, it's there? And they're saying it's been there all along? Then why hasn't he been extradicted yet?
....that's the entire substance of the show. They've already got Manning so they've got to try and destroy the founder of WikiLeaks. The US, using their lackeys in England to keep Assange under "house arrest" and forever fighting the deportation on a heinous charge of "nolo condomus", is working on indicting him and once they've got the indictment...he'll get deported to Sweden and then...end up in The US Gulag.
Pretty informative. It's the first time I've considered the possibility that the revolutionary unrest in the world lately may actually be somewhat attributable to Wikileaks.
and spinning them unwittingly with lies.
No doubt that western intelligence has co-opted both Wikileaks and Al-qaeda and are using them as straw men and tools for the propaganda machine. Are they outright fabrications and poor Manning got the patsy card? I don't know, but their more recent actions have been extremely suspicious in playing into the greater drama lurching the world on a footing for more war. The story is becoming real flimsy and the west's actions based on aherm, the story is starting to piss off Pak, China and Russia.
Solidarity for Manning either way.
you work hard to free bradley first!
Bradley Manning has never been tried. Nobody knows what he has done or not done. The whole story about how he confessed to Adrian LAME-O is a whitewash. So I already know Frontline is being reckless with its approach. We can expect the same old propaganda with some new music and stage effects, to keep the sheeple mesmerized.
I do hope I'm wrong, and that this is a rare (should I say miraculous?) show of rational objectivity in the MSM.
Everytime I've seen Frontline I've been impressed with their accuracy and unbiased story telling. I do think they are approaching this story from the point of view that Manning did it, but they investigated what was going on in Bradley's life surrounding the supposed time the leaks were made. I whole-heartedly agree that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and Bradley Manning should be allowed a speedy trial.
All I can say is watch the report. Frontline usually does a good job.
presumption that the war empire is valid, and that those who attempt to uncover its misdeeds should be judged by the laws of that empire.
PBS is unbiased mostly in its absence of a moral perspective. It is ethics-neutral. It accepts the status quo and views those in opposition as the deviants, rather than those whose actions are official, murderous, deceitful, tyrannical, and greedily self-promoting for power and lucre.