* That Kevin Poulsen was untrustworthy because he'd been caught hacking in 1990.
* That Wired had helped orchestrate Manning's arrest (Lamo turned Manning in; Lamo doesn't work for Wired).
* That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters.
* That Wired had refused to respond to Greenwald's request when that request was in fact issued with a 24 hour deadline on Christmas day.
* That Wired had concealed material details of the supposed Manning leaks when in fact the details they were alleged to have concealed were in fact referenced directly in the the chat logs they released.
* That Wired is responsible for Manning/Lamo/Assange stories they themselves didn't report on.
* That Poulsen is Lamo's "personal media voice" despite the fact that Lamo received significantly more coverage outside SecurityFocus (Poulsen didn't meet Lamo while working at Wired) than in it.
* That Mark Rasch prosecuted Poulsen for computer hacking when in fact he left federal government service in 1991, before Poulsen was tried (by two unrelated state prosecutors).
* That all the time Greenwald accused Wired of bias, he was using Jacob Applebaum (Wikileaks' US spokesperson) as a primary source without disclosing the affiliation, was privately trying to hire an attorney for Manning, and was carrying on daily off-the-record conversations with Assange.
Yeah, I can see how Wired might "get up in arms" about this.
One of the issues Greenwald brings up is that the logs are the only evidence to understand what happened in the Manning case.
Greenwald that Lamo makes statements to the press, regarding his interactions with Manning. He points out that some statements made have even contradicted themselves.
The only evidence are the chat logs themselves, which are not available.
I know that's essentially paraphrased from Wireds response, like everything else you called out - but is that actually what Greenwald has done? What I've seen is two fold:
1- Greenwald calling out news organizations for presenting Assanges displeasure at his own privacy breaches as hypocrisy when it actually isn't hypocrisy for a democratic govt to have limited privacy and an individual to have maximum privacy.
2- Assange calling out the Swedish govt for leaking information about the case when the govts own laws dictate that the information remain private.
So although Wired eloquently said one thing, and you helpfully repeated it, is it even true? I haven't seen it, perhaps you could provide a link to Greenwald where he said it. And maybe there are a few more items on your cheerleading list that would be better served with some citations.
I believe Poulsen more than I believe Greenwald, but that's neither here nor there. Unless you think I've misrepresented the article, leave me out of it.
You missed at least one other, that part where Poulsen "refuted" Greenwalds accusation that Poulsen notified the NYTimes re: Lamos breach and then wrote an article about it by correcting Greenwald in that Poulsen actually notified the NYTimes about Lamos breach and then wrote an article about it ... with a quote from the NYTimes.
Thanks for your summary, though.
Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.
It is not interesting or insightful to point out that everyone wants the chat logs and will not be satisfied with anything but the chat logs. Yes. You are on record: you demand the chat logs. It is clearly obvious that you would want the chat logs.
Wired says: no. They gave their reasons.
You are not going to agree with any of those reasons, because you want to read the chat logs, and you are a commenter on a nerd message board and as such you see all those reasons as a logical system to be gamed to achieve the outcome you desire. I don't blame you because I too am commenting on a nerd message board. But: be self aware about it.
You might think it's not interesting to demand that the substantive issues raised by Wired's very selective posting of those logs be resolved. That doesn't make it so, and neither do personal attacks. Please note that I've refrained from attacking you.
People should just admit it. They don't want the chat logs because it will make them believe Wired more. They want the chat logs because the chat logs are fun drama. It doesn't make you a bad person to concede that; it just makes you a human being.