New (22/6) Julian Assange(WikiLeaks) Interview & Cryptic Reply to "What's next?" ...

For anyone interested in this whole case, here is an interesting piece on the Lamo/Manning/Wikileaks saga:

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

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 Manning's detention.

...


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 (I say that as someone who admires Poulsen's work as Editor of Wired's Threat Level blog).

This guy smells so bad Assange could probably smell him from Melbourne... very shifty character, him and the Poulson fellow. I don't trust ONE SINGLE WORD from those alleged 'transcripts'. Not to mention the fact that Lamo has been caught lying red handed, first claiming the conversations took place via email and then later he said it all happened via AIM... this is all a massive farce. Go Wikileaks.

[edit on 23/6/2010 by serbsta]

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by serbsta

 

I'll delete mine then. Cheers.

Does anyone know what site that is?

Just by looking at the format and taking the context into account, probably some kind of alternative news real-time site, or something of the sort.

Originally posted by serbsta... this is all a massive farce. Go Wikileaks.

[edit on 23/6/2010 by serbsta]

What Wikileaks is Becoming.

Funny you said that. You've come to a fair point, but regardless, can Wikileaks be trusted?

I don't think that Manning ever had any cables, sent any cables, or much anything else.

Manning is probably doing his job, as an analyst turned OPERATIVE - they are holding him so no one can speak to him - so no one can SPEAK to him - indefinitely?

Manning could just disappear and become someone else. Wikileaks would be stunted, because now 1/2 of the people that happen to watch this stuff are thinking that wikileaks is bad and can get you thrown in prison, and EVERYONE is ya-ya'in about Obama arresting and even KILLING whistleblowers and LYING about protecting them like he said on the campaign trail.

I might be wrong on any of the details, but the whole thing seems like psyops to me - maybe the operative manning did really contact Lamo. Surely the govt. has a really good personality profile of that asphat Lamo and would know he'd LOVE just to be involved with this level of publicity.

Julian is just too cool though, and whatever they think they are doing - we know what they wanted to do - arrest a high profile leaker- well it working about 50%, but the other 50% are seeing him (Julian) more and more as a hero.

Bad plan. I wish there were cables but I doubt there are. I don't even think there is a Manning per say. I don't think this supposedly arrested guy is the real leaker of anything. Seriously.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hadriana]

Originally posted by hadriana


Julian is just too cool though, and whatever they think they are doing - we know what they wanted to do - arrest a high profile leaker- well it working about 50%, but the other 50% are seeing him (Julian) more and more as a hero.

And that's where Wikileaks goes bad in my honest opinion.

reply to post by serbsta


Really interesting post thanks. I really don't trust this "Lamo" character as far as I can throw him. He's obviously a disinformation agent or just someone looking to get their 15 seconds of fame. Either way, his name says it all.

(delete double post)



[edit on 23-6-2010 by MarlboroRedCowgirl]

reply to post by Portugoal


How so?

What about the govt. going bad? Going...lol
(Actually I blame the ineffective press the most for everything.)

Julian might make wikileaks seem as there is a lot of ego involved, but he's NOT wikileaks in and of itself.

One thing that never made sense to me is that particular IRC that Lamo claimed Manning said he was meeting Julian Assange on. That was weird to me.

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by Portugoal

 

How so?

How so:

What Wikileaks is Becoming.

As much as I wish he was who he plays to be (a hero of the sheeple and already enlightened), the amount of evidence of him being a government front is piling up.

reply to post by hadriana

Originally posted by hadriana
I don't think that Manning ever had any cables, sent any cables, or much anything else.

...

Bad plan. I wish there were cables but I doubt there are. I don't even think there is a Manning per say. I don't think this supposedly arrested guy is the real leaker of anything. Seriously.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hadriana]

That's exactly what I'm saying, this complete thing is a farce. The WHOLE situation has been made up in order defame Wikileaks and misinform the public about the consequences of cooperating with them. Wikileaks already claimed they don't have the cables... of course this could be them just protecting Manning's case OR they really do not have the cables.

reply to post by Portugoal

Originally posted by Portugoal

As much as I wish he was who he plays to be (a hero of the sheeple and already enlightened), the amount of evidence of him being a government front is piling up.

What evidence is this? That they are systematically being defamed is evidence of what?

I can only say what I know, but I'll read that.

When you get into the realm of computer security and hactivism, things get really weird anyway. Things get subcontracted to infinity and beyond - it can get hard to say WHO anyone is working for ultimately.

What you have to keep in mind - I found - is the character of the people you are dealing with.

I was at a big convention years ago, and this really tall, white haired guy walks in. He sits in a chair almost in front of me, and I watch as a lot of my highly intelligent, used to being top of the heap -friends gather at his feet like minions. I listened to him answer questions - deeply technical questions - and he deserved the respect he was getting.

I know some of my friends DO work for the govt. I know they are good people. Personally I don't think even if wikileaks WAS a CIA front, that would make it bad. CIA isn't bad because it is CIA. lol. POLITICS telling the CIA what to do can be bad. An organization with corrupt warmongering people at the top, trying to further the careers of people JUSt like themselves, that is bad.

But when one gets into the areas that require true brilliance, that brilliance will shine, and if **WE** here at ATS, in all our brilliance, can figure things out, and want to see things change, think some of those folks can't to?

I only can agree with those, who doubt, that the chatlogs are what they are said to be.

This alleged leaker does not mention anything, that proves his insider knowledge at all.

He has leaked the Bagdad video? - Anybody could state that.

He also leaked a video of the Afghanistan massacre? - Since the release of the Bagdad video it was also known, that wikileaks had this one, too, as we can read in the very last sentence of this article of April: Wikileaks release video of attack in Baghdad.

Can he tell anything about the cables? - From the chatlogs: "i dont know… theres so many… i dont have the original material anymore".
Then he mentions "the Vatican sex scandals" and the "grilling in Germany", nothing special and nothing you could not read in the paper.
And finally he claims to have leaked the Reykjavik-document, which can be found on the wikileaks site since month.

The most fishy thing could be read in the Washington Post:

In his exchanges with Lamo, Manning said he had sent files to a "white haired aussie," whom he later identified as Julian Assange, the peripatetic founder of Wikileaks.

Washington Post, June 15 2010

Pardon? How did he know his look, but not his identity? Did he find his photo in the internet together with an email address and thought: I will send some top secret stuff to this guy with the white hair?

As long as Manning is only a virtual person I don't believe too much of this story at all. No wonder, they don't allow the lawyers of wikileaks to get in contact with him...

Pardon my ignorance, but I was wondering (and figured others would wonder as well):

What are these "cables" you guys speak of?

Recordings? Messages?

reply to post by Siddharta

Definitely sounds suspect.

And TarratraTa, who knows? My guess would be on documents and emails...

Originally posted by TattarrattaT
What are these "cables" you guys speak of?

Recordings? Messages?

From the chatlogs:

(02:16:26 AM) Manning: oh no… cables are reports
(02:16:34 AM) Lamo: ah
(02:16:38 AM) Manning: State Department Cable = a Memorandum
(02:16:48 AM) Lamo: embassy cables?
(02:16:54 AM) Manning: yes

Source

I wouldn't get your hopes up, I for one am not holding my breath. If this person planned to release these cables to the public we would have seen an inkling of them by now. Instead this is going to turn the spotlight to WIKILEAKS and raise its profile until that day when everyone gets bored and moves on to another dangling carrot.

reply to post by TattarrattaT

Originally posted by TattarrattaT
Pardon my ignorance, but I was wondering (and figured others would wonder as well):

What are these "cables" you guys speak of?

Recordings? Messages?

I'll help as best I can.

It all started here: www.wired.com... , from that one single link. It will take you a while to read but in it are the alleged trascripts of the suppsoed conversations that took place between Lamo (a so called 'journalist') and Bradley Manning, a soldier (rank?) who allegedly revealed only to Lamo himself that he was in fact the leak who released the Baghdad video. Now keep in mind, we still haven't heard from Manning as he's being held indefinitely, these are only the words of Lamo.

LINK to the transcript: www.wired.com...

Included in the conversation as well is the mention of these cables:

(02:16:10 AM) Lamo: So how would you deploy the cables? If at all.
(02:16:26 AM) Manning: oh no… cables are reports
(02:16:34 AM) Lamo: ah
(02:16:38 AM) Manning: State Department Cable = a Memorandum
(02:16:48 AM) Lamo: embassy cables?
(02:16:54 AM) Manning: yes
(02:17:00 AM) Manning: 260,000 in all
(02:17:10 AM) Manning: i mentioned this previously
(02:17:14 AM) Lamo: yes

...

(01:52:30 PM) Manning: funny thing is… we transffered so much data on unmarked CDs…
(01:52:42 PM) Manning: everyone did… videos… movies… music
(01:53:05 PM) Manning: all out in the open
(01:53:53 PM) Manning: bringing CDs too and from the networks was/is a common phenomeon
(01:54:14 PM) Lamo: is that how you got the cables out?
(01:54:28 PM) Manning: perhaps
(01:54:42 PM) Manning: i would come in with music on a CD-RW
(01:55:21 PM) Manning: labelled with something like “Lady Gaga”… erase the music… then write a compressed split file
(01:55:46 PM) Manning: no-one suspected a thing

I don't know what it could be... if its real, that is. I still believe its a farce, but I'm willing to eat my words (and I hope I do).

[edit on 23/6/2010 by serbsta]

reply to post by Siddharta

Originally posted by Siddharta

The most fishy thing could be read in the Washington Post:

In his exchanges with Lamo, Manning said he had sent files to a "white haired aussie," whom he later identified as Julian Assange, the peripatetic founder of Wikileaks.

Washington Post, June 15 2010

Pardon? How did he know his look, but not his identity? Did he find his photo in the internet together with an email address and thought: I will send some top secret stuff to this guy with the white hair?

DING DING DING! My bulls*** detector has just gone through the roof. Yet one more thing that can be added to the already long list of 'What Lamo and Poulson got wrong', this is such a farce its almost laughable. Let's for a second, imagine that there was never a conversation taking place between Manning and Lamo and that the 'transcripts' weren't just twisted but completely and utterly fabricated from scratch. What's Manning being held for?

"The white haired aussie... " Lamo = fail. In fact, his name says it all.

My instincts are telling me that the impact of the material to be released - if ever - will now be in direct inverse proportion to how anticipated it becomes.

Sorta like the phantom menace (note the lack of caps).

I'd be willing to bet a whole mighty dollar that the world will go "That's it? That's all? That's what wikileaks was holding onto? THAT is what we've been holding our breath over? Pah, we get worse from our senators HERE in airport bathrooms. Another let-down. Yay. Grumble."

Those are my thoughts, of which you did ask for.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that personally, after reading the chat transcripts, that I FELT the conversations unnatural. I found Lamo's questions unnecessarily prying to where, if I were Manning, I'd have started feeding Lamo a mess of disinfo.

I think the whole thing stinks and I don't know from whence the stink emanates.

Wikileaks cannot admit to having come by anything from Manning at the moment. They must deny this publicly.

Wikileaks are due to release a video of a load of civilians being killed in the middle east.

However ,in this interview he seems to be alluding to something much bigger. He is refering to a lot of people being affected by it. being decieved. Has he the proof that there has been a mass deception of the general public.

If so it will have to be dealt with very carefully to avoid complete anarchy. Also those exposed would do ANYTHING to prevent this from happening.


Suppose he could be talking about governments? or maybe even the Vatican?


[edit on 23-6-2010 by JohnySeagull]