@ggreenwald Since my #wikileaks comments are censored by @kpoulsen, I'll put it here. Furthermore, I've just finished setting up space on the web for me to help document more fully Wired's journalism malfeasance + more. Here is the comment I posted on Wired:
Is this supposed to convince anyone who is halfway paying attention?
It has been clear for some time that Threat Level has acted almost at the level of junior high school maturity, coming out with slam pieces about Wikileak's *HTML forms* during one of the most historic achievements in journalism's history while kpoulsen and rsingel snicker and giggle like children on their Twitter accounts.
I, too, wondered about Greenwald's assertions about whether manning allegedly discussed Assange or a secure server.
And, Kevin, you sure drew that out.
How about some other disclosures that have never been made on this website:
1- Adrian Lamo has been caught, repeatedly, lying to reporters by myself and others working on doing the volunteer legwork of finding out the ways and means that the public has been deceived by Wired.
2- What IS a chat log, Hacker Kingpin? I wonder if Glenn Greenwald even knows this -- I doubt it. A "CHAT LOG" is an absurd way of making an ASCII TEXT FILE sound more important than it is. But the story doesn't sound anywhere near as sexy when you tell the truth, right? "Chat log" sounds official, like it is a confirmed chat that had to have been a chat between two internet peers. In reality, you couldn't have had anything more than a text file filled with dialogue that could have been WRITTEN BY ANYONE. Does AOL keep records of chat logs? Has Wired looked into it to confirm the ASCII text files handed over to them by a guy with absolutely no credibility whatsoever was telling the truth?
Kevin: in all your years as a hacker, did you ever run across the elite hacking tool known as vi? Isn't it true that vi is all anybody would need to produce an exact replica of the so-called "Chat Logs" you refer to all the time?
Kevin: why arent YOU suspicious of Lamo? That's the real clincher here. The biggest mistake you could make in attempting to smooth this over is your non-stop, absurd defense of the most indefensible source ever. Someone who is on videotape saying one thing one day to one reporter and saying another thing another day to another reporter. But he's stalwart and historically courageous to you! Julian Assange? No-- he's a coward who has only faced off against the largest and most corrupt and most violent military/government industry to ever exist in human history. You whine for sympathy regarding your own pretrial detention while simultaneously joining in a mob attack on a man whose done nothing more than expose war crimes that your magazine and all other media outlets should have been covering, instead of blah blah Apple gadget this.
I don't know why I even bother writing this here since Wired has had a policy of censoring my comments ever since I embarrassed them so thoroughly on the very first article they ran on this story. You can go find it and watch the tone of the comments change after I stated what should have been obvious to anyone. Since then, my comments have been censored via prior restraint. Cowards.
Glenn Greenwald, many many months ago, gave you the answer to your so-called desire to "protect PFC Manning" and his privacy: agree on a third-party, have that person review the chat logs under obligation of confidentiality, and let that independent party determine if there is anything relevant in there. And let's go from there.
You have NO argument against that proposal which he made forever ago. NONE.
Furthermore, these refutations above ignore the most significant points raised by Glenn Greenwald and many others who are not even professional journalists ... people like me who will continue following through on this and documenting it and detailing for all to see in perpetuity the manner in which Wired continues to spit in the face of its readership and everything that is noble about the tradition of journalism.