What's in the Manning/Lamo WikiLeaks Chat Logs?

Glenn Greenwald has been warring with Wired over Wired's supposed responsibility to release more of the chat logs between arrested-but-not-convicted alleged WikiLeaker Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo, the man to whom he supposedly confessed his crime and who turned him in.

Here is Wired explaining why they have released all they ought, and why Greenwald is a hypocrite, a bad journalist, and any number of other yucky things. Here is Greenwald's response to Wired (including suggestive accusations of long-time collusion between Lamo and Wired's lead reporter on the matter, ex-hacker Kevin Poulsen).

Here's Greenwald's latest on the matter, explaining the nub of why he thinks Wired is holding back stuff of likely enormous relevance, after reporting in great detail on many contradictions in Lamo's own public statements on what Manning said to him and why:

I could spend the rest of the day -- literally -- documenting bizarre facts in this story and contradictory assertions from Lamo about the most serious of matters.  Just by herself, Marcy Wheeler -- who has repeatedly proven herself to be one of the most thorough forensic examiners of raw data in the country -- has raised all kinds of serious questions aboutwhen Lamo really began working with federal authoritiesunexplained discrepancies in the Wired chat logs, and whether Lamo received actual classified information from Manning beyond the chats....

Wired's principal goal in responding to what I wrote was to raise all sorts of questions about my motives.  My motive could not be any clearer or more obvious.  Bradley Manning is being incarcerated in extremely oppressive conditions and charged with crimes that could send him to prison for the rest of his life.  The DOJ is threatening to do the same with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, based largely on statements they want to extract from Manning. 

The chat logs that Wired has but is withholding -- and about which they are refusing to comment -- are newsworthy in the extreme.  They cannot but shed substantial light on what really happened here, on the bizarre series of events and claims for which there is little evidence and much cause for doubt. 

At FireDogLake, they have conveniently gathered together the statements from various officially released portions of the original chats (from Wired, Washington Post, and BoingBoing), which Wired holds all of. They also list the various things that Lamo has said publicly that do not seem to be supported by the released portions of the chats--including such matters of great relevance to the case as:

Wired, 6/10/2010: “He said that Julian Assange had offered him a position at Wikileaks. But he said, ‘I’m not interested right now. Too much excess baggage.’”....

AOL, 7/21/2010: “Their [Army counterintelligence's] immediate response when I related the code name for one of the operations was ‘Never say those words again,’ ” Lamo told me. “Literally, ‘Forget you ever heard those words.’ And when I met with two federal agents to discuss them, they had me write it down on a piece of paper rather than say it aloud.”...

CNN.com, 7/30/2010“[Lamo] also said that the logs contained personal information that he does not want exposed. And that there’s information that he has that no one has seen, that could compromise National Security.....

Boston Globe, 8/1/2010: “Adrian Lamo, a former computer hacker who traded instant messages with Manning and later turned him in to authorities, said he knew of five people whom Army officials have interviewed over the past few months in the Boston area…Lamo said he doubts Manning had the technical savvy to copy all the data on his own. He thinks Manning received help from hackers in the area who provided him with encryption software to send the classified information to WikiLeaks, and who helped him ensure those leaks were featured prominently on the website….Lamo said he thinks the group in Boston provided Manning with software that allowed him to download thousands of documents without alerting network monitors at the Defense Department. He added that Manning had one of his associates in Boston physically provide WikiLeaks with documents he downloaded on CDs.”

CNN.com, 8/4/2010“Lamo confirmed he told Manning the soldier’s online conversations could be protected under the California shield law because it could be seen as a conversation with a journalist.  Lamo says he does consider himself a journalist and that he made the offer in good faith.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dello||

    "‘Never say those words again,’ ” Lamo told me. “Literally, ‘Forget you ever heard those words.’ And when I met with two federal agents to discuss them, they had me write it down on a piece of paper rather than say it aloud.”

    "Amazing: My name is one of the words of power..."

    Or

    "He who shall not be named!"

    Paraphrased from Dune and Harry Pothead.

  • Frank||

    I am amazed Wired responded. I understand the need to try and protect the rep of your publication and your "journalist" but, if your response is so weak it makes the piece your responding seem more damning, its probably better to pretend you never saw it.

    Wired's 2 replies do much more damage to the own credibility than either of Greenwald's pieces. I don't understand what they were trying to accomplish.

  • ||

    Glenn Greenwald won in the end. Wired has admitted that there are no additional references to any collaboration between Assange and Manning in the unreleased portion of the chat transcripts. What's there is weak, and just sounds like (1) speculation in Manning's part, and (2) normal interaction between source and journalist.

  • ||

    Regardless of the motives of Greenwald or Wired, they should release all of the chat logs. Manning's future could depend upon it.

  • Kolohe||

    His future was sealed if and when he decided to break his sworn oath and signed contractual obligation to deliver classified data to unauthorized personnel.

    Everything else is a process to eliminate the 'if' from the above sentence - or to add a 'did not' with other grammatical corrections.

  • ||

    He deserves the best defense he can get, like anyone else. That is all.

  • ||

    He will get it. His defense attorney can and I am sure will subpoena the chat logs. They owe them to the court not to Greenwald.

  • ||

    Nonsense. Manning's future depends on what his *attorneys* have access to, not what the public can see. They know full well that Wired has the chat logs, and can easily subpoena them if Wired is reluctant to share when asked. Not to mention the fact that if the prosecutor (assuming they ever get around to CHARGING Manning with anything) wants to use them as evidence, he will have to share them with the defense.

    Now, that being said, if the chat logs do exonerate Manning in some way, releasing them could create enough public pressure to force the government to charge him and change his custody to something that doesn't amount to torture. (IMO Manning is a true hero... and like most heroes, his "reward" is going to involve taking the consequences of his actions.)

    The real problem with the chat logs is that the government wants to find something in them they can use to charge Julian Assange with espionage and/or conspiracy, and Assange's lawyers will need access to them.

  • Mike M.||

    assuming they ever get around to CHARGING Manning with anything)

    I made this same mistake myself once, but Manning has in fact formally been charged with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 92 and 134. You can read the full document (with a couple of names redacted) here.

  • Rrrooow!||

    Here is Wired explaining why...Greenwald is a hypocrite, a bad journalist...

    Here's Greenwald's latest on...why he thinks Wired is holding back stuff

    Cat fight!

  • ||

    I confess to being stupid, a bad person, and a neanderthal who does not even know about chat logs.

    So, how does release of a chat log help or hurt anyone?
    For example, say I said on a chat log that the Giants always choke, and if they choke one more time I am going to kill me a giant.
    Could that be used in court if a Giant was found murdered?

    I assume that there is some conspricy theory that Manning was "set up"? and that Lamo was the guy setting Manning up?
    But so what? The question will be did Manning release classified material. And if he released it to Lamo, the question will be if Lamo will testify to that effect.

    If the point is that Lamo is a bad guy, I can go along with that. But if you leak, maybe you should be aware of who you are leaking to.

  • Jenn Sterger||

    So wait was it Eli who told the NFL about the Favre cock shots i chatted with him about?

  • ||

    "I assume that there is some conspricy theory that Manning was "set up"? and that Lamo was the guy setting Manning up? But so what? The question will be did Manning release classified material. And if he released it to Lamo, the question will be if Lamo will testify to that effect."

    Yes, one of the questions is: did Manning release classified material?

    But an even bigger question, from the government's perspective, concerns the role that Wikileaks played in Manning's alleged release of classified material. Was Wikileaks a relatively passive recipient of this classified material? Or did Wikilieaks actively and directly assist Manning in allegedly misappropriating this classified material (providing Manning with technical assistance, for example)?

    The government is attempting to build a case that it is the latter, so as to be able to criminally prosecute Wikileaks and/or Julian Assange. Indeed, the punitive circumstances of Manning's detention seem designed to inspire Manning to testify to the latter. And Lamo has been running around for the last several months, declaring that Manning has declared the latter to him personally... a declaration which would be recorded on those chat logs, since (according to Lamo), those chats were the only form of communication between Manning and Lamo.

    For the past several months, wired.com has had the ability to tell us all whether or not those chat logs substantiate Lamo's claims that Manning has declared that Wikipedia provided active material support to Manning's alleged misappropriation of classified material. Which is also to say that, for the past several months, wired.com has had the ability to tell us all whether or not the specific piece of potential testimony that federal prosecutors are currently attempting to coerce Manning into providing would be factually accurate (as compared to being a legally-convenient falsehood). And unfortunately, for the past several months, wired.com has simply refused to say.

    That's why this all matters. It goes to whether or not the federal government is currently trying to force a U.S. citizen to testify to something untruthful, in order to strengthen the federal government's ability to prosecute others based on that falsehood. Presumably that's something that libertarians might care about. Reason *is* where the libertarians hang out, right?

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Pip||

    DRINK!!!

  • ||

  • Joel||

    @fresno dan

    you are so far off base it is not even funny.

    Go read up on the linked articles and then come back to make an informed comment.

  • Kolohe||

    how is he off base? The crime that Manning is accused of at present only depends on Manning's actions, not a conspiracy. The only way it would be ammeliortive is if it was shown that Manning acted under durress (if he did). Is anyone inferring that Lamo (or someone else) coerced Manning, for instance threatening his life of bodily harm?

  • Just Sayin'||

    if it was shown that Manning acted under duress...

    He had just broken up with his boyfriend...

  • cynical||

    There are more constructive ways of dealing with that. Like grabbing a drink or two, sliding down an airplane escape chute, and heading out to get laid.

  • Inmate Manning||

    Now you tell me!

  • ||

    "how is he off base? The crime that Manning is accused of at present only depends on Manning's actions, not a conspiracy."

    Thing is, the federal government wants to prove a conspiracy so that it can take down Wikileaks and/or Assange... a far bigger fish (from the federal government's perspective) than Bradley Manning.

    And so for the past several months, a federal informant (Lamo) has been publicly alleging that Manning personally told him (via online chat) that Wikileaks and/or Assange conspired with him to misappropriate classified material, just as the federal government currently wishes to establish. And for the past several months, wired.com has been sitting on evidence that (we now know) proves that that federal informant's assertions wrt this matter have been bald-faced lies, and that the federal government's conspiracy accusation (vis a vis Wikileaks) is based on hot air, and that the federal government's "softening" of a U.S. citizen in a Quantico stockade appear designed to induce him to testify to a falsehood so as to enable the federal government to move forward with false charges against another.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Pip||

    Do you repeatedly say your own name aloud while masturbating?

  • zoltan||

    You sucked in Great Expectations. Spineless little punk.

  • ||

    Even more importantly: does he announce his location while doing so?

  • Bobby||

    Wired's 6/10/2010 statement is especially interesting, since Wired itself has published a claim that is not supported by the chat logs they've released

  • digamma||

    But Michael Moynihan said Wikileaks was evil!

  • ||

    Greenwald is a hypocrite, a bad journalist, and any number of other yucky things.

    In other news: a bear shits in the woods.

  • ||

    Why doesn't Greenwald do some actual reporting and go get the chat logs himself? Oh right.. that would actually require some real work. Better to just demand that others do the work for him. What a pr!ck.

  • Perplexed||

    "Reporting"? Does not compute. What is this "reporting"? Is that what "dead tree" journalists used to do back in the day? My Grampa used to repeat that word over and over before we had him committed. We just assumed he was insane.

  • Les||

    The point is about Wired doing what journalists ought to do, which is release pertinent information they have. Unless Greenwald knows someone at Wired or the State Dept. who can leak these docs to him, he's not going to get them.

    I think you've missed the point of this, entirely.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    I have RTFA and responses, and responses to responses, and if what Greenwald writes about all the who's-who with Wired and their sources and friends, and prosecutors, and black bag men, is it reading too much between the lines to see that the take-home message of all this is that Wired.com is essentially a government publication? Or am I a total fucking idiot? I could go either way...

  • Old Bull Lee||

    Like all left-wing publications, Wired went from pro-freedom to pro-state as soon as the people they voted for got into office.

  • Spur||

    Or as soon as they got bought by Conde Nast

  • cynical||

    I thought the takeaway was that the journalists at Wired betrayed one of their sources to the authorities, although I admit that was more of a guess than an understanding -- I didn't quite follow all the implications and allegations.

    Still, you can see why it would be problematic for Wired if that came to light -- they cover tech, a lot of tech issues exist in legally contentious areas, so why should anyone risk giving a story to an outlet that will sell them out to the po-po?

    Someone complained about "government official, speaking only on condition of anonymity" earlier today. It's the same situation with people in the legal grey zone (or black zone) -- if you don't protect the anonymity of your sources, you lose access to a lot of sources. And, since journalism is still a free market scenario, the outlet that does protect its sources gets those scoops instead.

  • ||

    You misunderstand.

    The issue is that wired.com has been deliberately hiding the fact that their source has spent the past several months egregiously lying about something that directly impacts the current punitive conditions of a U.S. citizen's pre-trial imprisonment, as well as the legal basis of the federal government's case against Wikileaks/Assange.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • zoltan||

    Anyone see the Floyd Abrams article at WSJ.com? What's with all the government cock-suckers commenting there?

  • DaCuckoo||

    Screw Greenwald. Ok, the hard lefties are all butthurt and pissed (no slur intended)

    I go out of my way to avoid both Greenwald and FDL (used to be an avid reader of both, can't stand them anymore), HitAndRun is one of the last bastions of sanity, please, no more from them.

  • Les||

    And HitAndRun considers Greenwald to be a bastion of sanity, as he's consistently been critical of the Obama administration. He's also more pro-freedom (civil rights, war issues) than a lot of posters here.

  • DaCuckoo||

    Well, I'm not dogging anyone but I don't think it's fair to say "HitAndRun" There's one lefty loving libertarian here who loves him ;-)

  • Thomas Ellers||

    Greenwald is more libertarian than all the posters here.

  • Tman||

    I don't understand why Greenwald thinks he has the right to demand that Wired release everything they have and expose themself willingly to potential liability.

    And if Greenwald is so worried about Manning, then he should come down to his jail cell and ask to get him bailed out or moved to non-soliitary cell, or STFU.

    No one other than Manning is responsible for Manning breaking his sworn oath with the military.

  • ||

    "I don't understand why Greenwald thinks he has the right to demand that Wired release everything they have and expose themself willingly to potential liability."

    Greenwald never demanded that Wired "release everything they have".

    Greenwald demanded that Wired, at the very least, release the very specific portions of the chat logs relevant to Lamo's claims of the past several months, or else confirm that Lamo's claims are unsubstantiated in the chat logs.

    That's all he asked, and Wired, as of this morning apparently, have done exactly that. They've essentially confirmed that Lamo's claims are unsubstantiated in the chat logs. Or put simpler: Lamo is lying.

    See? That wasn't so hard.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Tman||

    Greenwald demanded that Wired, at the very least, release the very specific portions of the chat logs relevant to Lamo's claims of the past several months, or else confirm that Lamo's claims are unsubstantiated in the chat logs.

    Why should they do this for Greenwald?

    That's all he asked, and Wired, as of this morning apparently, have done exactly that. They've essentially confirmed that Lamo's claims are unsubstantiated in the chat logs. Or put simpler: Lamo is lying.

    Can you link to this? Wired still appears to hold the opinion that they have released all the relevant information. Do you have a link showing that they admitted that Lamo was lying?

  • ||

    They shouldn't do anything for Greenwald. For their readers, however, they should report newsworthy information in their possession, because that's what journalists do.

    And in the link below, you'll find that (as of today) wired confirms that they have already released all the portions of the chat logs which concern Manning's purported relationship/contacts with Assange/Wikileaks.

    That's a big deal because Lamo has spent the past several months publicly alleging that Manning made particular mentions (in their online chats) of aid/assistance from Assange/Wikileaks... mentions which were not substantiated by the chat log excerpts which wired had previously released. This meant that either a) wired possessed additional relevant sections of the chat logs that would have substantiated Lamo's allegations, or b) wired possessed no additional relevant sections, meaning that Lamo has been lying for the past several months (and that wired has known it all along, and has done nothing).

    As the link below demonstrates, the answer has turned out to be b).

    http://tinyurl.com/36ntvvk

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Tman||

    For their readers, however, they should report newsworthy information in their possession, because that's what journalists do.

    They should publish what they feel is necessary to publish, and what they want to publish. They are under no obligation to publish something that would cause them to assume liability. They are a news outlet yes, but they are alos a business with employees who are dependent on their business for their livelyhood.

    wired confirms that they have already released all the portions of the chat logs which concern Manning's purported relationship/contacts with Assange/Wikileaks.

    The ones that THEY had. Lamo had his all of his computer equipment seized by the FBI. Neither you nor I know what Wired has and what they don't have.

    This meant that either a) wired possessed additional relevant sections of the chat logs that would have substantiated Lamo's allegations, or b) wired possessed no additional relevant sections, meaning that Lamo has been lying for the past several months (and that wired has known it all along, and has done nothing).

    Or C.) Neither Wired nor Lamo have the remaining chat logs that may or may not indicate Assange being an accomplice, nor did Wired ever get them. You don't know the whole story, and neither does Greenwald.

    But that clearly hasn't stopped either of you from accusing Wired and Lamo of being guilty.

    I'll wait to see what the Feds have before accusing Lamo of lying about the Assange accomplice aspect of Mannings guilt.

  • Kolohe||

    Greenwald never demanded that Wired "release everything they have".

    How do you this:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

    esp this

    In interviews with me in June, both Poulsen and Lamo confirmed that Lamo placed no substantive restrictions on Poulsen with regard to the chat logs: Wired was and remains free to publish the logs in their entirety

    as not being a call from Greenwald to Wired for the latter to release everything they have

    (one thing I'll give credit to Greenwald is that he can't be accused of hypocricy; I've always seen him link to the full mp3's and/or videos whenever he does an interview)

  • ||

    Saying that someone is "free to publish the logs in their entirety" is not the same as "demanding that (someone) release everything in their entirety."

    Greenwald has said (on many, many, many occasions) that Wired has been acting correctly in refusing to reveal any intimate, personal information which Manning may have divulged in his private online chats with Lamo.

    It's the non-private, newsworthy stuff in the chat logs that Greenwald has called on wired to release, given wired purported status as a journalistic outlet, and especially given their source's assertions of the past few months which wired (by virtue of their possession of the chat logs) has had the ability to either confirm or refute.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • ||

    It's amazing how the Bush years have led everyone to think that torture is just par for the course.

    People like you are water-carrying toolbags for the American Empire.

  • Tman||

    First of all, where do you get the idea that I think that torture is just par for the course?

    And second of all, how does what I have written equate to me being a "water-carrying toolbag for the American Empire"?

    A little less ad hom, a little more facts please.

  • ||

    You indicated you support the ongoing torture of Pfc Manning.

  • Tman||

    Where did I indicate I support torturing Manning ongoing or otherwise?

    I did say that Manning is responsible for the consequences of breaking his oath. I did NOT say that Manning should therefore be tortured.

  • Spur||

    Greenwald's a bit over the top on this but he does have a point but Wired's response was pretty juvenile and lame and never addresses the core issue Greenwald raises and instead is mainly name calling...

  • ||

    It's amazing how the Bush years have led everyone to think that torture is just par for the course.

    People like you are water-carrying toolbags for the American Empire.

  • ||

    Whoops, that wasn't meant to respond to you!

    Sorry!

  • Spur||

    Apology Accepted ;)

  • ||

    The main rub here really doesn't have anything to do with Manning, but rather Wired and their journalistic integrity. The information that has leaked so far seems to suggest Wired was in cahoots with a paid government rat and essentially used the promise of source confidentiality to run a sting operation for Feds. They were like Woodward and Bernstein except instead of publishing the papers and protecting their source they immediately turned him in to Nixon, gave the government all their notes, and then wrote a heavily redacted and incomplete story about it after the fact.

  • johnl||

    Yes.

  • ||

    Greenwald has more honest and integrity than 99.9% of the Village corporate media.

  • ||

    Wow. You must really hate those guys.

  • ||

    Just look at the WaPo or NYT editorial page sometime, and tell me with a straight face which one is better than Greenwald.

    They're all corporatist apologists for War and Empire, and people will always be after Greenwald because he's one of the few people in the media against PermaWar and Empire.

  • Les||

    It's hard to fight the willful ignorance and mental density that comes with reflexive Greenwald hatred.

  • DaCuckoo||

    Right, that's all it is. Reflexive. THere's no principled position against the guy. Damn it sucks to be outed like that.

  • Thomas Ellers||

    They don't admire my Greenwald's superior intellect and personal integrity as the best opinion jpuralist working today

  • DaCuckoo||

    Not sure I agree with that. I'm not going to defend anything the village media do, but not sure I'm willing to sing his praises either. Same sh*t, different smell

  • Rick Ellensburg||

    Make that 100%

  • question||

    Does anyone know if other credit card companies - namely AmEx and Discover - will process wikileaks payments? Is there any way to still donate electronically?

  • ||

    They won't, which goes to show you the kind of totalitarian power our Corporate Owners have over us, more power than any 20th Century despot ever did.

  • Kolohe||

    The 30 million+ lives extinguished by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc say 'Whah?'

  • ||

    Capitalism has killed far, far more people over the span of world history than Communism OR Fascism combined.

    Chomsky has a great article on it. Count the number of people killed by corporate pollution, colonialism, industrial accidents, the genocide of the native americans etc, etc, and they far outdo Mao or Stalin.

  • SIV||

    Chomsky didn't count all the lives created or saved by capitalism.

    You can subtract ((% of those "native american" deaths too. Having a low resistance to disease isn't caused by "capitalism".

  • ||

    Do you count all the lives "saved" by the fact that the USSR under Stalin and Communism had a higher standard of living than it did under fuedalism and the Tsars?

  • SIV||

    You're a regular Walter Duranty Jr. aren't you?

    Can you say Holodomor comrade?

  • ||

    Bit me, dipshit. I'm a Trotskyist.

  • ||

    And you think they never had famines under the Tsars, queefbait?

  • The Tsars Did it Too...||

    Genocidal man made famines?

    This is excellent trolling.
    The "Red relic" persona is fucking classic

  • hurdur||

    Ah yes, listen to the sqwacking of the proud IS Trotskyite, and watch in amazement as he collectively purges from his leftist conscience any memory of ever supporting any revolutionary movement that ended in massive state-sponsored purges and "liquidation" (which have been all of them, by the way).

    And yes, the Soviet Union - at least under the period of Stalin - was far far worse than conditions under even the worst Romanov excess. Just as a Bourbon will always be preferable to a Robespierre. The old Feudal orders certainty had their problems, but were in almost all ways preferable to the patient-killing "cures".

    Neither Washington nor Moscow, but fence-sitting and stupidity. Bite me faggot.

  • hurdur||

    Here's a nice reading piece people here should enjoy:

    “In your journal you mock the Tsarist ministers and the Tsar in such a way that you show your stupidity. You have done nothing in the past ten years to show your intelligence. What good, and for whom, has the Soviet power brought? Industry has dropped to nothing. Unemployment has increased by 100%. We workers were never without fish in Astrakhan’, and now we don’t see it anymore. Where did the fish go, dear comrades? Where is the gold of Russia? All the workers know that Soviet bastards have destroyed Russia. You show in your journal that the Tsar’s ministers drank a lot, but at least they were doing their job. Now everyone drinks and steals and does nothing. Everywhere they sit in other peoples’ places...Dear comrades, you should learn from the bourgeoisie, not mock them...I ask you to print this letter in your magazine. It is of greater interest than all your caricatures. Our Moscow workers will read it with pleasure.” (Astrakhan’ workers, a letter to Gudok newspaper, Apr-1927)

    (Jennifer Clibbon, The Soviet Press and Grass-roots Organization: The Rabkor Movement, NEP to the First Five-Year Plan (PhD thesis, University of Toronto manuscripts, 1993

  • Mike M.||

    You and Chomsky are both stark raving lunatics.

  • ||

    Wow, you really showed me with that well-reasoned retort!

    Go jerk off to your Ayn Rand poster and let the adults talk.

  • zoltan||

    Corporate pollution isn't caused by capitalism; it is caused by a system of government that does not respect and enforce property rights.

    Colonialism isn't caused by capitalism either...it's usually a government-funded endeavour where again, basic rights of equality and property are not respected.

    Genocide of Native Americans? Are you talking about Indians who killed each other before or after white Europeans arrived? How much are they responsible for genocide? How about afterward, when government paid Indian groups to kill other Indian groups?

    You must be confusing government/corporatism with capitalism/free markets.

  • cynical||

    You have to add the people killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao too. Their motivations were as capitalistic as the expansionists that murdered the native americans and mercantilist imperial powers that created the colonies you speak of.

    And corporate pollution? Really? Capitalism has produced pollution, sure, but so did socialist industry -- and probably moreso, from everything I've heard about it. We've had nuclear problems, too, but we haven't had a Chernobyl.

    You religious nutters are a trip, man.

  • cynical||

    Are you suggesting that they're doing this of their own volition, and not at the behest of a government that has shown itself perfectly willing to imprison executives that won't help it oppress its citizens while pardoning the illegal activities of those that do (telecom wiretapping, if you'll recall)?

    Governments have hard power, businesses have soft power. Whining about corporations sounds a lot like a man bitching about the power of women back in the days of bona fide patriarchy. Businesses can deceive, socially manipulate, or seduce. Government can just deliver a fucking brutal beatdown without fear of punishment. Who do you think holds the power?

  • marlok||

    "... the kind of totalitarian power our Corporate Owners have over us, more power than any 20th Century despot ever did."

    Yeah, too bad we don't have someone supportive of the individual like Trotsky on the throne looking out for us.

  • SIV||

    "99% of those"

  • ||

    Today's entry in Wired's Rhetoric to English Dictionary:

    Accountability: holding public officials and private companies responsible for their misdeeds

    Chilling Effect: holding journalists responsible for their misdeeds

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement