5 ms·

> On the other hand, he was a traitor, and he betrayed the trust of a true hero I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he wa

> On the other hand, he was a traitor, and he betrayed the trust of a true hero I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he was complicit with the crime being committed and would have been sent to the same horrible hole Manning was sent to. It was irresponsible of Manning to put Lamo in this situation, as an ex-convict he would have gotten life in prison, probably solitary confinement if not worse. I don't think I can blame Lamo for doing what he did. It was a horrible situation for both of them. When you're about to commit a crime as severe as treason or murder, you don't call a friend or let alone a stranger and tell him "I'm about to commit the most severely punished crime in the country, could you advise me please?" and expect that person to be complicit.

CydeWeys 9y ago
> I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he was complicit with the crime being committed Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.
- VectorLock 9y ago
  Does that also apply to Manning?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    It more so applies to the tens of thousands of people who knew about these various crimes and did nothing. Snowden is a better example of how to handle responsible disclosure than Manning, however.
    - danso 9y ago
      Worth pointing out that Manning had apparently tried to leak to the WaPo and NYT but was ignored: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-giving-trove-of-military-data-to-wikileaks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-... > Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment. > He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.
- checkyoursudo 9y ago
  I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. In not all cases will knowledge alone necessarily be enough to convict you, but that doesn't mean a prosecutor might not try. An ex-con should probably not take the chance that a prosecutor will ignore prior knowledge of a criminal act. Edit: I shouldn't say "knowledge alone." I should rather say that knowledge alone plus a zealous prosecutor. And then throw in prior conviction... Just a risky proposition. Knowledge alone with no other factors to tempt a prosecutor will probably not put you at any greater risk.
  - danso 9y ago
    Lamo talked to Manning under the guise of being a journalist. Here's what Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2011, after WIRED published the full logs between Lamo and Manning (it must be pointed out that Greenwald was one of the loudest critics of WIRED and its editors, but I use this link since it quotes from the logs): https://www.salon.com/2011/07/14/wired_7/ https://www.salon.com/2011/07/14/wired_7/ > MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning > LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection. Lamo didn't stumble upon evidence of a crime. He got it by claiming to be a journalist. And as a journalist, he would've had plenty of leeway in not revealing a source, even a source that admits to a crime.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Yes, this is it exactly. Keeping sources confidential is the norm for reporters in the US. Some have spent time in prison for refusing to reveal sources. Judith Miller, for example.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. This is incorrect. Being an accomplice generally requires active counsel or assistance to a crime before it happens (the usual “accomplice before the fact”, or “aiding and abetting”) or active concealment (which goes by a number of terms, including “accomplice after the fact”.). There are a few special cases where particular people have special duties to report specific crimes, but that is not the norm in general.
- heyyyouu 9y ago
  You need to brush up on your criminal law, at least in the US and especially when it comes to federal crimes.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > You need to brush up on your criminal law, at least in the US and especially when it comes to federal crimes. You should provide your argument rather than waving your hands non-specifically at federal criminal law.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. On its face, the federal misprision statute might appear to require exactly that, but it requires active concealment, not mere failure to report.

CydeWeys 9y ago

> I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he was complicit with the crime being committed Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.

VectorLock 9y ago
Does that also apply to Manning?
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  It more so applies to the tens of thousands of people who knew about these various crimes and did nothing. Snowden is a better example of how to handle responsible disclosure than Manning, however.
  - danso 9y ago
    Worth pointing out that Manning had apparently tried to leak to the WaPo and NYT but was ignored: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-giving-trove-of-military-data-to-wikileaks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-... > Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment. > He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.
checkyoursudo 9y ago
I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. In not all cases will knowledge alone necessarily be enough to convict you, but that doesn't mean a prosecutor might not try. An ex-con should probably not take the chance that a prosecutor will ignore prior knowledge of a criminal act. Edit: I shouldn't say "knowledge alone." I should rather say that knowledge alone plus a zealous prosecutor. And then throw in prior conviction... Just a risky proposition. Knowledge alone with no other factors to tempt a prosecutor will probably not put you at any greater risk.
- danso 9y ago
  Lamo talked to Manning under the guise of being a journalist. Here's what Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2011, after WIRED published the full logs between Lamo and Manning (it must be pointed out that Greenwald was one of the loudest critics of WIRED and its editors, but I use this link since it quotes from the logs): https://www.salon.com/2011/07/14/wired_7/ https://www.salon.com/2011/07/14/wired_7/ > MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning > LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection. Lamo didn't stumble upon evidence of a crime. He got it by claiming to be a journalist. And as a journalist, he would've had plenty of leeway in not revealing a source, even a source that admits to a crime.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Yes, this is it exactly. Keeping sources confidential is the norm for reporters in the US. Some have spent time in prison for refusing to reveal sources. Judith Miller, for example.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. This is incorrect. Being an accomplice generally requires active counsel or assistance to a crime before it happens (the usual “accomplice before the fact”, or “aiding and abetting”) or active concealment (which goes by a number of terms, including “accomplice after the fact”.). There are a few special cases where particular people have special duties to report specific crimes, but that is not the norm in general.
heyyyouu 9y ago
You need to brush up on your criminal law, at least in the US and especially when it comes to federal crimes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > You need to brush up on your criminal law, at least in the US and especially when it comes to federal crimes. You should provide your argument rather than waving your hands non-specifically at federal criminal law.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. On its face, the federal misprision statute might appear to require exactly that, but it requires active concealment, not mere failure to report.