The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks

What really happened that led to the detention of a 22-year-old Army private as the WikiLeaks whistle-blower?

Topics: Afghanistan War Logs, CIA, U.S. Military, WikiLeaks, Washington, D.C.,

The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks

(updated below)

On June 6, KevinPoulsen and Kim Zetter of Wired reported that a 22-year-old U.S. Army Private in Iraq, Bradley Manning, had been detained after he boasted in an Internet chat with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo of leaking to WikiLeaks the now famous Apache Helicopter attack video, a yet-to-be-published video of a civilian-killing air attack in Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records. Lamo, who holds himself out as a journalist and told Manning he was one, acted instead as government informant, notifying federal authorities of what Manning allegedly told him, and then proceeded to question Manning for days as he met with federal agents, leading to Mannings detention.

On June 10, former New York Times reporterPhilip Shenon, writing in TheDaily Beast, gave voice to anonymous American officials to announce thatPentagon investigatorswere trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks [Julian Assange] for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security. Some news outlets used that report to declare that there was a Pentagon manhunt underway for Assange as though hes some sort of dangerous fugitive.

From the start, this whole story was quite strange for numerous reasons. In an attempt to obtain greater clarity about what really happened here, Ive spent the last week reviewing everything Icould related to this case and speaking with several of the key participants(including Lamo, with whom Ihad a one-hour interview last night that can be heard on the recorder below, and Poulsen, with whom I had a lengthy email exchange, which is published in full here). A definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire, largely because almost everything that is known comes from a single, extremely untrustworthy source: Lamo himself. Compounding that is the fact that most of what came from Lamo has been filtered through a single journalist Poulsen who has a long and strange history with Lamo, who continues to possess but not disclose key evidence, and who has been only marginally transparent about what actually happened here(Isay that as someone who admires Poulsens work as Editor of Wireds Threat Level blog).

Reviewing everything that is known ultimately raises more questions than it answers. Below is my perspective on what happened here. But there is one fact to keep in mind at the outset. In 2008, theU.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a classified report (ironically leaked to and published by WikiLeaks) which as the NYT put it placed WikiLeaks on the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States. That Report discussed ways to destroy WikiLeaks reputation and efficacy, and emphasized creating the impression that leaking to it is unsafe(click image to enlarge):

In other words, exactly what theU.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here: news reports that a key WikiLeaks source has been identified and arrested, followed by announcements from anonymous government officials that there is now a worldwide manhunt for itsEditor-in-Chief. Even though WikiLeaks did absolutely nothing (either in this case or ever)to compromise the identity of its source, isnt it easy to see how these screeching media reports WikiLeaks source arrested; worldwide manhunt for WikiLeaks; major national security threat would cause a prospective leaker to WikiLeaks to think twice, at least: exactly as the Pentagon Report sought to achieve? And that Pentagon Report was from 2008, before theApache Video was released; imagine how intensified is the Pentagons desire to destroy WikiLeaks now. Combine that with what both the NYT and Newsweek recently realized is the Obama administrations unprecedented war on whistle-blowers, and one cant overstate the caution thats merited here before assuming one knows what happened.


Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together. Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking:Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into TheNew York Times. When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen. Thats because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.

Despite being convicted of serious hacking felonies, Poulsen was allowed by the U.S. Government to become a journalist covering the hacking world for SecurityFocus News. Back in 2002, Information Week described the strange Lamo-Poulsen relationship this way:To publicize his work, [Lamo] often tapped ex-hacker-turned-journalist Kevin Poulsen as his go-between: Poulsen contacts the hacked company, alerts it to the break-in, offers Lamos cooperation, then reports the hack on the SecurityFocus Online Web site, where hes a news editor. WhenLamo hacked into the NYT, it was Poulsen who notified the newspapers executives on Lamos behalf, and then wrote about it afterward. Poulsen told me that the above picture was taken at a lunch the two of them had together with convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick back in 2001. When Iasked Poulsen if he considers Lamo his friend, he would respond only by saying:Hes a subject and a source.

Actually, over the years, Poulsen has served more or less as Lamos personal media voice. Back in 2000, Poulsen would quote Lamo as an expert source on hacking. That same year, Poulsen armed with exclusive, inside information from Lamo began writing about Lamos various hacking adventures. After Lamos conviction, Poulsen wrote about his post-detention battles with law enforcement and a leaked documentary featuring Lamo.As detailed below, Lamo is notorious in the world of hacking for being a low-level, inconsequential hacker with an insatiable need for self-promotion and media attention, and for the past decade, it has been Poulsen who satisfies that need.

On May 20 a month ago Poulsen, out of nowhere, despite Lamos not having been in the news for years, wrote a long, detailed Wired article describing serious mental health problems Lamo was experiencing. The story Poulsen wrote goes as follows:after Lamos backpack containing pharmaceutical products was stolen sometime in April (Lamo claims they were prescribed anti-depressants), Lamo called the police, who concluded that he was experiencing such acute psychiatric distress that they had him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for three days. That 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold was then extended by a court for six more days, after which he was released to his parents home. Lamo claimed he was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, a somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed. In that article, Poulsen also summarized Lamos extensive hacking history. Lamo told me that, while he was in the mental hospital, he calledPoulsen to tell him what happened, and then told Poulsen he could write about it for a Wired article. So starved was Lamo for some media attention that he was willing to encourage Poulsen to write about his claimed psychiatric problems if it meant an article in Wired that mentioned his name.

It was just over two weeks after writing about Lamos Aspergers, depression and hacking history that Poulsen, along with Kim Zetter, reported that PFC Manning had been detained, after, they said, he had contacted former hacker Adrian Lamo late last month over instant messenger and e-mail. Lamo told me that Manning first emailed him on May 20 and, according to highly edited chat logs released by Wired, had his first online chat with Manning on May 21; in other words, Manning first contacted Lamo the very day that Poulsens Wired article on Lamos involuntary commitment appeared(the Wired article is time-stamped 5:46 p.m.on May 20).

Lamo, however, told me that Manning found him not from the Wired article which Manning never mentioned reading but from searching the word WikiLeakson Twitter, which led him to a tweetLamo had written that included the word WikiLeaks. Even if Manning had really foundLamo through aTwitter search for WikiLeaks,Lamo could not explain why Manning focused on him, rather than the thousands of other people who have also mentioned the word WikiLeakson Twitter, including countless people who have done so by expressing support for WikiLeaks.

Although none of the Wired articles ever mention this, the first Lamo-Manning communications were not actually via chat. Instead, Lamo told me that Manning first sent him a series of encrypted emails which Lamo was unable to decrypt because Manning encrypted it to an outdated PGP key of mine [PGP is an encryption program]. After receiving this first set of emails, Lamo says he replied despite not knowing who these emails were from or what they were about by inviting the emailer to chat with him on AOLIM, and provided his screen name to do so. Lamo says that Manning thereafter sent him additional emails encrypted to his current PGPkey, but that Lamo never bothered to decrypt them. Instead, Lamo claims he turned over all thoseManning emails to theFBI without ever reading a single one of them. Thus, the actual initial communications between Manning and Lamo what preceded and led to their chat are completely unknown. Lamo refuses to release the emails or chats other than the small chat snippets published by Wired.

Using the chat logs between Lamo and Manning which Lamo provided to Poulsen the Wired writers speculated that the Army Private trusted Lamo because he sensed a kindred spirit in the ex-hacker. Poulsen and Zetter write that Manning confessed to being the leaker of the Apache attack video very quickly in the exchange, and then proceeded to boast that, in addition,he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables toWikiLeaks. Very shortly after the first chat, Lamo notified federal agents of what Manning told him, proceeded to speak to Manning for the next several days while consulting with federal agents, and then learned that Manning was detained in Iraq.


Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they could do serious damage to national security? Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to quickly confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life?And why would he choose to confess over theInternet, in an unsecured, international AOLIMchat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.

All that said, this series of events isnt completely implausible. Its possible that a 22-year-old who engaged in these kinds of significant leaks, sitting in isolation in Iraq, would have a desire to unburden himself by confessing to a stranger; the psychological compulsion to confess is not uncommon (see Crime andPunishment), nor is the desire to boast of such acts. Its possible that he would have expected someone with Lamos hacking and journalistbackground to be sympathetic to what he did and/or to feel compelled as a journalist not to run to the Government and disclose what he learns from a source.Still, the apparent ease with which Manning quickly spilled his guts in such painstaking detail over an Internet chat concerning such serious crimes and then proceeded to respond to Lamos very specific and probing interrogations over days without ever once worrying that he could not trust Lamo is strange in the extreme.

If one assumes that this happened as the Wired version claims, what Lamo did here is despicable. He holds himself out as an award-winning journalist and told Manning he was one (I did tell him that I worked as a journalist, Lamo said). Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesnt appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under Californias shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Mannings talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential(early on in their chats, Manning said:Icant believe what Im confessing to you). In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential perhaps legally required to be kept confidential only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.

Worse, Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security. Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security. And Mannings capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was pending discharge for adjustment disorder, and no longer had access to any documents (Lamo: Why does your job afford you access? Manning: because i have a workstation . . . *had*).

If one believes what the chat logs claim, Manning certainly thought he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. And if he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what our wars entail then hes a national hero similar to DanielEllsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning just yesterday on Democracy Now:

The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that hes not a lawyer, but Ill guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least its very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And thats enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

And so, what it comes down, to me, is and I say throwing caution to the winds here is that what Ive heard so far of Assange and Manning and I havent met either of them is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why thats so, just review some of what Manning said about why he chose to leak, as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: whats your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] and god knows what happens now hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms if not, than [sic] were doomed as a species i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNNs iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . i want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi insurgentswho had been detained for distributing insurgentliterature which, when he had it translated, turned out to benothing more than a scholarly critique against PM Maliki:

i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled Where did the money go? and following the corruption trail within the PMs cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didnt want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth but that was a point where i was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against

And he explained why the thought of selling this classified information he was leaking to a foreign power never entered his mind:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i couldve sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didnt you?

Manning: because its public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free it belongs in the public domain because another state would just take advantage of the information try and get some edge if its out in the open it should be a public good.

Thats a whistleblower in the purest form:discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world notfor profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.Thats the person that Adrian Lamo informed on and risked sending to prison for an extremely long time.

Making Lamos conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention. Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known hacker of theTorProject who has known Lamo for years, said that Lamos only concern has always been getting publicity forAdrian. Indeed, Lamos modus operandi as a hacker was primitive hacking aimed at high-profile companies that hed then use Poulsen to publicize. As Appelbaum put it: if this situation really fell into Adrians lap, his first and only thought would have been: how canIturn this to my advantage?He basically destroyed a 22-year-olds life in order to get his name mentioned on the blog. [There are efforts underway to help secure very competent legal counsel for Manning, including a legal defense fund for him; assuming the facts are what the current narrative suggests, I intend to post more about that shortly].

None of Lamos claims that he turned informant out of some grave concern for national security and the lives of his fellow citizens make any sense. Indeed, Lamo several months ago contributed $30 to WikiLeaks, which hes use to tout his support for whistle-blowing, and told me has has long considered himself on the far left.Yet in the public statements hes made about what he did to Manning, hes incoherently invoked a slew of trite, right-wing justifications, denouncing Manning as a traitor and a spy, while darkly insinuating that Manning provided classified information to a so-called foreign national,meaning WikiLeaks Assange. Lamo told me that any embarrassment to the U.S. Government could cause a loss of American lives, and that he believes anyone who breaks the law with leaks should be prosecuted. Yet he also claims to support WikiLeaks, which is run by that very same foreign national and which exists to enable illegal leaks.

Then theres the fact that, just in the last two weeks, Lamos statements have been filled with countless contradictions of the type that suggests deliberate lying. Lamo told me, for instance, that Manning first contacted him with a series of emails, but told Yahoo! News that Manning contacted him via AOL Instant Messenger out of the blue on May 21.Lamo toldYahoo! that he spelled out very clearly in his chats with Manning that he wasnt acting as a journalist,that it was clear to Manning that he had taken his journalist hat off for the purposes of their conversation, and that Manning refused a confidentiality offer, but last night he said to me that he told Manning their conversations would have journalist-source confidentiality and that Manning never refused or rejected that. Just listen to the interview Lamo gave to me and make your own judgment about his veracity.


And what about Wireds role in all of this?Both WikiLeaks as well as various Internet commentators have suggested that Poulsen violated journalistic ethical rules by being complicit with Lamo in informing on Manning. Idont see any evidence for that. This is what Poulsen told me when Iasked him about whether he participated in Lamos informing on Manning:

Adrian reached out to me in late May to tell me a story about how hed been contacted by an Army intelligence analyst whod admitted to leaking 260,000 State Department diplomatic cables to a foreign national. Adrian told me he had already reported the matter to the government, and was meeting the Army and FBI in person to pass on chat logs. He declined to provide independently verifiable details, or identify the intelligence analyst by name, because he said he considered the matter sensitive.

Several days passed before he was willing to give me the chat logs under embargo. I got them on May 27. Thats when I learned Mannings name and the full details of his claims to Adrian. . . . If youre asking if I informed on Manning or anyone else, the answer is no, and the question is insulting.

At the time when Lamo was conspiring with federal agents to induce Manning into making incriminating statements, Poulsen, by his own account, was aware that this was taking place, but theres no indication he participated in any way with Lamo. What is true, though, is that Lamo gave Wired the full, unedited version of his chat logs withManning, but Wired published only extremely edited samplings of it. This is what Poulsen told me when Iasked if Lamo gave him all of the chat logs:

He did, but I dont think well be publishing more any time soon. The remainder is either Manning discussing personal matters that arent clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that Im not throwing up without vetting first.

This part of Wireds conduct deserves a lot more attention. First, in his interview with me, Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manningthat are (a)extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Mannings personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c)are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired.That means either thatLamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions.Included among that is Mannings explanation about how he found Lamo and why he contacted him, Mannings alleged claim that his intention was to cripple the United States foreign relations for the foreseeable future, and discussions they had about the capacity in which they were speaking.

Second, one cant help but note the irony that two hackers-turned-journalists Poulsen andLamo are now the self-anointed guardians of Americas national security, the former concealing secrets he learned as a journalist on vague national security grounds and the latter turning informant by invoking the most extreme, right-wing platitudes about traitorsand spiesand decrees that his actions were necessary to save American lives.

Third, Wired should either publish all of the chat logs, or be far more diligent about withholding only those parts which truly pertain only to Mannings private and personal matters and/or which would reveal national security secrets. Or they should have a respected third party review the parts they have concealed to determine if there is any justification for that. At least if one believes Lamos claims, there are clearly relevant parts of those chats which Wired continues to conceal.

Given Poulsens mutually beneficial and multi-layered relationship with Lamo, they have far more than a standard journalist-source relationship. None of Poulsens articles about the highly controversial Lamo is ever even remotely critical of him, in any sense of the word. From the start, there were countless bizarre aspects to Lamos story which Poulsen never examined or explored, at least not when writing about any of this. I see no reason to doubt Poulsens integrity or good faith. Still, in light of the magnitude of this story on several levels and his long relationship with Lamo, Kevin Poulsen should not be single-handedly deciding what the public is and isnt permitted to know about the Lamo-Manning interaction.


The reason this story matters so much aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term is the unique and incomparably valuable function WikiLeaks is fulfilling. Even before the Apache helicopter leak, I wrote at length about why they are so vital, and wont repeat all of that here. Suffice to say, there are very few entities, if there are any, which pose as much of a threat to the ability of governmental and corporate elites to shroud their corrupt conduct behind an extreme wall of secrecy.

What makes WikiLeaks particularly threatening to the most powerful factions is that they cannot control it. Even when whistle-blowers in the past have leaked serious corruption and criminal conduct to perfectly good journalists at the nations largest corporate media outlets, government officials could control how the information was disclosed. When the NYT learned in 2004 that the Bush administration was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, GeorgeBush summoned the papers Publisher and Executive Editor to the Oval Office, demanded that the story not be published, and the paper complied by sitting on it for a full year until after Bush was safely re-elected. When The Washington Posts Dana Priest learned that the CIA was maintaining a network of secret prisons black sites she honored the request of senior U.S. officialsnot to identify the countries where those prisons were located so as to not disrupt the U.S.s ability to continue to use those countries for such projects.

Both WikiLeaks and Manning have stated that The WashingtonPosts DavidFinkel, when writing his book on Iraq two years ago, had possession of the Apache helicopter video but never released it to the public(Manning:Washington Post sat on the video David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here). As Columbia Journalism Review reported, both the Post and Finkel were quite coy and evasive in addressing that claim, pointedly insisting that the Post had never possessed that video while refusing to say whether Finkel did. The same thing happened when, on the same day, I called Finkel to ask him about WikiLeaks claim that they possessed but never released that video. He very curtly told me, using careful legalistic language, that thePost never had the video,but before Icould ask whether Finkel himself did, he abruptly told me he couldnt talk anymore and had nothing else to say, and then hung up on me. My inquiries to the Post were met with a pro forma response that The Washington Post did not have the video, nor did we sit on anything, but these Journalistic Crusaders for Transparency refused to answer my question as to whether Finkel himself did.

By stark contrast, WikiLeaks isnt interested in helping governments, militaries and corporations keep secrets. Theyre interested in the opposite:forcing transparency on institutions which conduct the vast, vast bulk of their substantive conduct in the dark. Theyre not susceptible to pressure from political and corporate officials; rather, they want to hold them accountable. Thats what makes WikiLeaks so uniquely threatening to elite institutions, and anyone who doubts that should simply read the 2008 Pentagon Report discussing ways to destroy it, or review theObama administrations unprecedented and rapidly escalating war on whistle-blowers generally.

Any rational person would have to acknowledge that government secrecy in rare cases is justifiable and that its possible for leaks of legitimate secrets to result in serious harm. Im not aware of a single instance where any leak from WikiLeaks has done so, but its certainly possible that, at some point, it might.But right now, the scales are tipped so far in the other direction toward excessive, all-consuming secrecy that the far greater danger comes from allowing that to fester and grow even more. Its not even a close call. Any efforts to subvert that secrecy cult are commendable in the extreme, and nobody is doing that as effectively as WikiLeaks (and their value is not confined to leaking, as they just inspired a serious effort to turn Iceland into a worldwide haven for investigative journalism and anonymous whistle-blowers).

This Manning detention whether it was by design or just exploited opportunistically is being used to depict WikiLeaks as a serious national security threat and associations with it as dangerous and subversive.Just in the last week alone, several people have expressed to me fears that supporting or otherwise enabling WikiLeaks could subject them to liability or worse. Theres no reason to believe thats true, but given the powers theU.S. Government claims lawless detentions, renditions, assassinations even of American citizens thats the climate of intimidation that has been created. This latest incident is clearly being used to impede WikiLeaks vital function of checking powerful factions and imposing transparency, and for that reason alone, this is an extremely serious case that merits substantial scrutiny, along with genuine skepticism to understand what happened.


My one-hour discussion withLamo last night can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorders below. It is in two segments (the first roughly 40 minutes, the second roughly 20) because Lamo requested at one point that we go off the record, which we did for 1 minute or so to discuss the parts of Mannings chat that Lamo claims are too personal to publish(Lamo spoke only in generalities about that and I learned nothing specific). The only other part that is edited out is the first two minutes or so of the discussion, before the interview begins, where Lamo for some reason insists that I respond to a Tweet of his before we begin, which I then did.

Part 1:

[audio src='']

Part 2:

[audio src='']

UPDATE:Four relevant items from today: (1)The Washington Posts JeffStein reports on Julian Assanges fear of being arrested by U.S. authorities, as well as what appears to be the imminent release by WikiLeaks of a video showing a horrendous U.S. air strike in Afghanistan that killed far more civilians than the U.S. military acknowledged;(2) After interviewing Poulsen, Columbia Journalism Review publishes a timeline reporting that, shortly before Lamos scheduled May 27 meeting with FBI agents about Manning, Poulsen traveled on that date to Sacramento and spent a few hours with Lamo; (3) Judging by this June 10 article, The Washington Post obtained at least some of the Lamo-Manning chats, and quoted parts which Wired has not published proving thatWired is withholding more than just personal issuesand national security secrets; and (4)GawkersAdrian Chen has an excellent post demanding that Wired provide far more transparency regarding the parts of the Lamo-Manning chats they continue to conceal.

Glenn Greenwald

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.

Next Article

Featured Slide Shows

The week in 10 pics

close X
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 11
  • Ballet star Pavel Dmitrichenko, center, appears in Moscow court Thursday. Dmitrichenko admitted to organizing an attack on the Bolshoi artistic director, but denied having sulfuric acid thrown at his face. No word yet as to whether Darren Aronofsky will adapt this twisted psychodrama to the big screen.
    Credit: AP/Alexander Zemlianichenko

  • A supporter of Hugo Chavez cries as she holds a sign that reads in Spanish "I am Chavez." The Venezuelan president died Tuesday, leaving behind a polarizing legacy.
    Credit: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos

  • Kenyans line up to vote at a polling station in Nairobi's Kibera slum for their country's presidential election, the first since 2007 when tribal violence left more than 1,000 people dead and displaced another 600,000.
    Credit: AP/Jerome Delay

  • South Korean army soldiers patrol along a barbed-wire fence at the Imjingak Pavilion near the border village of Panmunjom, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War. Relations between the two countries, always tense, took another hit Friday when North Korea announced it was canceling its nonaggression pact with South Korea in response to the U.N.'s decision to impose new sanctions on Pyongyang. It's been a busy, hostile week for Kim Jong Un, who also threatened to turn Washington D.C. into a "sea of fire."
    Credit:AP/Lee Jin-man

  • On Thursday, President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act at the Interior Department before a bipartisan melange including Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif.
    Credit: AP/Susan Walsh

  • Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks on the floor of the Senate Wednesday night. His filibuster of John Brennan over the use of unmanned aerial drones lasted 13 hours and only ended after Paul admitted he needed to use the restroom.
    Credit: AP/Senate Television

  • Mitt and Ann Romney sit down for the their first post-election interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace. Ann told Wallace "I'm happy to blame the media. It was not just the campaign’s fault, I believe it was the media’s fault as well. He was not being given a fair shake." Never change, you two.

  • A snow storm slammed into Washington D.C. Thursday, inspiring the single dumbest nickname ("the snowquester") in recent memory.

  • Vice President Joe Biden leads a group across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., Sunday to commemorate the 48th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when police officers brutally attacked civil rights activists marching from Selma to Montgomery.

  • The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed Thursday at its highest level since 1896, increasing the net worth of the wealthiest 100 people on the planet a mind-numbing $28.7 billion.

  • Recent Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 11

More Related Stories



Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( profile | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>