Wikileaks: Wired Editors Respond to Glenn Greenwald's Accusations of Negligible Journalism, More
Yesterday, Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote a withering piece about Wired magazine's refusal to publish the entirety of chat logs given solely to Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen by Adrian Lamo, the hacker who turned in Bradley Manning as Wikileaks' alleged source for thousands of government cables. Greenwald, following up on a story he'd published in June, scolded Wired for not publishing the full chat logs, particularly since most news stories are relying on “increasingly sensationalistic” interviews with Lamo to unravel what, if anything, happened between Manning and Wikileaks. Greenwald accused Poulsen of dusting over his long relationship with Lamo, while practicing bad journalism and withholding evidence that could potentially clear Manning's name, at least in the press:
Instead, he is actively concealing the key evidence in this matter -- hiding the truth from the public -- even as that magazine continues to employ him as a senior editor and hold him out as a "journalist." For anyone who cares at all about what actually happened here, it's imperative that as much pressure as possible be applied to Wired to release those chat logs or, at the very least, to release the portions about which Lamo is making public claims or, in the alternative, confirm that they do not exist.
Last night, both Kevin Poulsen and WiredEditor in Chief Evan Hansen published a comprehensive response to Greenwald, detailing their initial interactions with Lamo over the chat logs and defending their decision to publish only some of the logs. Hansen:
We have already published substantial excerpts from the logs, but critics continue to challenge us to reveal all, ostensibly to fact-check some statements that Lamo has made in the press summarizing portions of the logs from memory (his computer hard drive was confiscated, and he no longer has has a copy).
Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time.
Meanwhile, Poulsen details the history of his relationship with Lamo, which began in 2000 when Poulsen was a reporter at SecurityFocus.com and Lamo was “an expert on security issues at AOL.” Poulsen then dismisses Greenwald's piece as a “conspiracy theory,” based on his premise that cybercrime attorney Mark Rasch -- one of the people who advised Lamo in his handling of the Manning information -- not only contributes to Wired, but was also at the Justice Department when Poulsen himself was convicted for hacking and sentenced to five years in prison:
The “regularly contributes to his magazine” part is apparently a reference to this single 2004 opinion piece in Wired magazine. As for the rest? Rasch, who worked for the Justice Department in Washington D.C., left government service in 1991. I had two prosecutors in my phone-hacking case: David Schindler in Los Angeles and Robert Crowe in San Jose, California.
Today, Greenwald defended his initial stance against the Wired editors' response, saying they avoided the whole point -- that the complete chat logs should be as transparent as the cables unleashed by Wikileaks.
In a separate post, I fully address every accusation Hansen and Poulsen make about me as well as the alleged inaccuracies in what I wrote. But I'm going to do everything possible here to ensure that the focus remains on what matters: the way in which Wired, with no justification, continues to conceal this evidence and, worse, refuses even to comment on its content, thus blinding journalists and others trying to find out what really happened here, while enabling gross distortions of the truth by Poulsen's long-time confidant and source, the government informant Adrian Lamo.
Certainly this debate will continue. Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is currently being held and tortured in a supermax prison... without having been convicted of a crime.