Bradley Manning transcript of testimony

http://www.ibtimes.com/bradley-manning-news-transcript-soldiers-personal-statement-pretrial-hearing-1109173

Some concerns about drones and the crews operating them seem to have contributed a great deal to his decision to release this information. T has provided a great deal of concern, and Manning saw the worst behavior.

He's a traitor through and through and has signed the same non-disclosure forms that all of us have when dealing with this sort of information in our careers.

He committed these acts during wartime and that brings the steepest penalty of them all due to the fact that he PURPOSELY and WILLINGLY put out information to the public that jeopardized the lives and men and women serving across the world. His is more egregious because of his clearance level, TS/SCI.

How many of you know what caused him to do this deed? It wasn't out of some desire to be a WHISTLEBLOWER or a WHITE KNIGHT. It was because he was facing previous charges of striking a non-commissioned officer (his boss). Unfortunately for Specialist Manning, he didn't have the ability to complete the task (whupping this NCO) and SHE did have it in her to pretty much clean the floor up with him in the SCIF where they worked. Yes, this is not a typo, he got it handed to him by a female soldier for trying to strike her. THAT was his catalyst for doing what he did. Manning is a gutless loser who decided that he could not take the punishment that was coming and the facing of his fellow soldiers after being made an example of by a girl. He chose to try and get back at everyone by sending this stuff to Wikileaks.

HE ought to be shot by a firing squad on national TV.

I guess that is all it takes.....being a homosexual, and getting beat up by a girl. What he did is wrong. The rest is smoke. He will be punished. However, I think he did a great service to his country indirectly. He exposed how easily so much data can be hacked and copied. I think this case alone will close some of the loopholes and make our country far better prepared. I am making no excuse......but his testimony is very convincing. He was angry about the drone strikes and the callous indifference to children being killed. I do not know how I would respond if I saw mistakes being made repeatedly and a callous indifference whether it was Reuters reporters, or children .......you would think we could sensitize those folks in operations to be more careful in both their targets and how they react to killing human beings. I do not thinks I would have done what he did.....I lack the courage, and would be too afraid of the consequences. However, I am not happy where we kill children or innocent reporters and have folks joking about it.......this case will hopefully bring constructive changes.....and yes he must be punished.

2seaoat wrote:I guess that is all it takes.....being a homosexual, and getting beat up by a girl. What he did is wrong. The rest is smoke. He will be punished. However, I think he did a great service to his country indirectly. He exposed how easily so much data can be hacked and copied. I think this case alone will close some of the loopholes and make our country far better prepared. I am making no excuse......but his testimony is very convincing. He was angry about the drone strikes and the callous indifference to children being killed. I do not know how I would respond if I saw mistakes being made repeatedly and a callous indifference whether it was Reuters reporters, or children .......you would think we could sensitize those folks in operations to be more careful in both their targets and how they react to killing human beings. I do not thinks I would have done what he did.....I lack the courage, and would be too afraid of the consequences. However, I am not happy where we kill children or innocent reporters and have folks joking about it.......this case will hopefully bring constructive changes.....and yes he must be punished.

He showed how info can be hacked? Really? Do you think without his secure passwords/keycards/tokens for his operating systems and the ability to enter a facility that is highly secure that he could have had access to those forms of info? You've got a lot to learn about how we safeguard information. No, he was angry that a girl whupped him in front of his peers. That's why he was angry. You've bought into the BS that he was trying to enlighten the world and that is HOGWASH Seabass.

You've got a lot to learn about how we safeguard information.

lol......yes I do.......get a 20 year old kid.....give him unlimited access to the database......but do not have a firewall on the database which allows folks to copy the database in its entirety.......you have got to be kidding......this is such an elementary step in the private sector to lock up your databases.....this guy had free access to tables.....he copied them, and he most certainly could have corrupted them......talk to someone who is completely brain dead about how "we" safeguard information.......the local bank has better protocols.......and that is why this is such a big deal.......a poorly designed security system has been exposed.....and Bradley.....a rookie kid........busted this system, and wiki has the database........my friend you are the one who has to understand how a database works, and how access to tables........IS NEVER............able to be copied......but being that you consider yourself part of that "we"..........I cannot argue.......the proof is in the pudding.

2seaoat wrote: You've got a lot to learn about how we safeguard information.

lol......yes I do.......get a 20 year old kid.....give him unlimited access to the database......but do not have a firewall on the database which allows folks to copy the database in its entirety.......you have got to be kidding......this is such an elementary step in the private sector to lock up your databases.....this guy had free access to tables.....he copied them, and he most certainly could have corrupted them......talk to someone who is completely brain dead about how "we" safeguard information.......the local bank has better protocols.......and that is why this is such a big deal.......a poorly designed security system has been exposed.....and Bradley.....a rookie kid........busted this system, and wiki has the database........my friend you are the one who has to understand how a database works, and how access to tables........IS NEVER............able to be copied......but being that you consider yourself part of that "we"..........I cannot argue.......the proof is in the pudding.

It's about TRUST Seabass. He was given codes and keycards because of the trust put into him by the government due to a TC/SCI clearance that was granted. Without those passwords and keycards, his computer was an expensive electronic gadget sitting on a desk and worthless. It doesn't matter what protocols were in place when it is an inside job and the insider does the file sharing. Our government entrusted him with information that he chose to try and use against the very country who gave him an important job that pretty much entails a six figure salary after just one enlistment in the military. Again, you are clueless.

2seaoat wrote: You've got a lot to learn about how we safeguard information.

lol......yes I do.......get a 20 year old kid.....give him unlimited access to the database......but do not have a firewall on the database which allows folks to copy the database in its entirety.......you have got to be kidding......this is such an elementary step in the private sector to lock up your databases.....this guy had free access to tables.....he copied them, and he most certainly could have corrupted them......talk to someone who is completely brain dead about how "we" safeguard information.......the local bank has better protocols.......and that is why this is such a big deal.......a poorly designed security system has been exposed.....and Bradley.....a rookie kid........busted this system, and wiki has the database........my friend you are the one who has to understand how a database works, and how access to tables........IS NEVER............able to be copied......but being that you consider yourself part of that "we"..........I cannot argue.......the proof is in the pudding.

That's his frickin job and what he was trained and paid to do. Why would the Army spend all that money on training, let alone the cost of the background investigation just to deny him access to the tools required to perform his job.

SO, you obviously do not know the meaning of a TS/SCI. This, along with his MOS gave him full access to the databases that he had to use in his daily business. If you use your logic then a military person with only a Secret clearance working on a Humvee in the motor pool would have access to the same information that Bradley did.

FYI, databases can be copied from one drive to another with little or no problem. If I am logged on to my secure computer I can copy any database I want to a USB stick, external hard drive or whatever. The results will show what was done and who performed the operation just by virtue of my log on information.

I guess I just want to laugh now with the lecture I am getting about how everybody can copy a database.......I will be polite as I try to always be.......there are simple standards on your local banks database which are followed which do not allow a bank officer, or a president of the bank to have access to a database table, let alone any part of the back end.

You want to tell me how you can copy an access database or SQL server database on your computer......and you have obviously no idea of the security protocols which are put in place in every major business. The commodity exchange markets have typically 60 people whose only job is maintaining absolute security on those portals which have high level clearance. It can start with a simple limit on access to the front end by so many attempts in so much time. It involves monitoring of access of the front end by portal. Now if Bradley had been a high level IT guy, I would partially buy into your argument that is why we trained him with skills, but to use the analogy of a commercial environment.....this would be like a really bright commercial loan VP being able to access the back end of the database and transfer the tables. Impossible in a properly designed system......Absolutely impossible. That is even before the portal monitoring takes place by security........but let us assume that Bradley was something other than he was......a low ranking intelligence officer with a portal to the database......let us assume that he is in the Pentagon, at the server location, with back end design clearance..........do you think they allow a backup of their system from a remote portal? Really, I do not know what I am talking about? Really.....is this your argument? Absurd on the face of it. I do not even know if the folks reading Tex's link even understand how utterly exposed the database was to the back end. The reason that this has been a blockbuster case is how utterly exposed this database was.......and how many others are in the same position. The local Macdonald's franchise has a better security protocol than our military has proven it lacks............An analyst in the field in any business or government does not have back end access to a database, or its tables.......a seventh grade class could design in Access and SQL a more secure network than this article exposes.

First, any laptop or desktop in the network must have

2seaoat wrote:I guess I just want to laugh now with the lecture I am getting about how everybody can copy a database.......I will be polite as I try to always be.......there are simple standards on your local banks database which are followed which do not allow a bank officer, or a president of the bank to have access to a database table, let alone any part of the back end.

You want to tell me how you can copy an access database or SQL server database on your computer......and you have obviously no idea of the security protocols which are put in place in every major business. The commodity exchange markets have typically 60 people whose only job is maintaining absolute security on those portals which have high level clearance. It can start with a simple limit on access to the front end by so many attempts in so much time. It involves monitoring of access of the front end by portal. Now if Bradley had been a high level IT guy, I would partially buy into your argument that is why we trained him with skills, but to use the analogy of a commercial environment.....this would be like a really bright commercial loan VP being able to access the back end of the database and transfer the tables. Impossible in a properly designed system......Absolutely impossible. That is even before the portal monitoring takes place by security........but let us assume that Bradley was something other than he was......a low ranking intelligence officer with a portal to the database......let us assume that he is in the Pentagon, at the server location, with back end design clearance..........do you think they allow a backup of their system from a remote portal? Really, I do not know what I am talking about? Really.....is this your argument? Absurd on the face of it. I do not even know if the folks reading Tex's link even understand how utterly exposed the database was to the back end. The reason that this has been a blockbuster case is how utterly exposed this database was.......and how many others are in the same position. The local Macdonald's franchise has a better security protocol than our military has proven it lacks............An analyst in the field in any business or government does not have back end access to a database, or its tables.......a seventh grade class could design in Access and SQL a more secure network than this article exposes.

First, any laptop or desktop in the network must have

Then please tell me why most of the banks and other secure businesses use military grade security encryption standards? One of my neighbors is a branch manager of one of the local offices of a major bank. He and I were talking not too long ago and we got onto the subject of encryption software. He said that their bank uses MIL-STD software.

Now as for Manning, he had MOS 35F - Military Intelligence Analyst. His duties include(as this is at skill level 1):

Prepare all-source intelligence products to support the combat commander. Establish and maintain systematic, cross-referenced intelligence records and files. Receives and process incoming reports and messages. Determine significance and reliability of incoming information. Integrate incoming information with current intelligence holdings and prepares and maintains the situation map. Conduct analysis and evaluation of intelligence holdings to determine changes in enemy capabilities, vulnerabilities, and probable courses of action. Conduct IPB using information from all sources.

Encryption would be analogous to the lock on your front door. As packets are sent through the internet they are exposed. You can create a pipeline which completely isolates that data from others.....encryption protocols start with a vpn, but even that does not go far enough, so the individual packets are encrypted and make it virtually impossible in a normal time frame for somebody to break that front door lock. However, you are mixing apples and oranges. The front door look is easy. It is secure. However, once in the front door, If I walk over to your computer.......even a home computer will have an access code to get to certain files.......No problem....Bradley had the credentials, but the problem is in database design on that network.

A database must have its own separate backdoor lock. When you access a database with a query, you can get data.....you can get reports, but from your portal........YOU SHOULD HAVE NO ACCESS to the backdoor design criteria and tables of that database. A simple access database or SQL used on the typical commerce site or small business or government unit, has the back end locked up tighter than the front door, because more damage can be done with access to those tables, than some kid cracking mom's bank codes and getting money at the ATM.........the back end you own the whole kit and caboodle...........If Bradley's testimony is accurate, our entire database had no backend protection. Bradley makes no admission of needing to steal codes......he makes no admission to breaching a limited access portal........he makes no admission to compromising a vpn........nope he had access to the back end of a national database from any of many access points which he reported........Even more shocking was the utter lack of knowledge by portal and time spent on the database.......mind boggling, and across America when technical people read Bradley's admissions......you begin to question if any of our weapon system databases were protected any better. This story is not about Bradley. This is about fifth grade security protocols on the backdoor of a national database...........it is utterly stunning.

2seaoat wrote:Encryption would be analogous to the lock on your front door. As packets are sent through the internet they are exposed. You can create a pipeline which completely isolates that data from others.....encryption protocols start with a vpn, but even that does not go far enough, so the individual packets are encrypted and make it virtually impossible in a normal time frame for somebody to break that front door lock. However, you are mixing apples and oranges. The front door look is easy. It is secure. However, once in the front door, If I walk over to your computer.......even a home computer will have an access code to get to certain files.......No problem....Bradley had the credentials, but the problem is in database design on that network.

A database must have its own separate backdoor lock. When you access a database with a query, you can get data.....you can get reports, but from your portal........YOU SHOULD HAVE NO ACCESS to the backdoor design criteria and tables of that database. A simple access database or SQL used on the typical commerce site or small business or government unit, has the back end locked up tighter than the front door, because more damage can be done with access to those tables, than some kid cracking mom's bank codes and getting money at the ATM.........the back end you own the whole kit and caboodle...........If Bradley's testimony is accurate, our entire database had no backend protection. Bradley makes no admission of needing to steal codes......he makes no admission to breaching a limited access portal........he makes no admission to compromising a vpn........nope he had access to the back end of a national database from any of many access points which he reported........Even more shocking was the utter lack of knowledge by portal and time spent on the database.......mind boggling, and across America when technical people read Bradley's admissions......you begin to question if any of our weapon system databases were protected any better. This story is not about Bradley. This is about fifth grade security protocols on the backdoor of a national database...........it is utterly stunning.

There will be things about Manning that the general public will never ever learn because we do not have a need to know. So what really happened and how it happened is a moot point to be discussing.

moot.....in what way? Did you read his testimony? There is nothing moot about it..........that would require the issue being considered moot if the military would fully explains this horrible breach of design...they certainly cannot.......if all a nation has to do is get one smart 20 year old kid to get on any secured access point and have the back end of our entire transactional history of operations.......there is nothing about this Bradley matter which is moot. This requires congressional hearings......closed door hearings......because we are in for a ton of hurt.....until I read this link, I never realized how serious this breach was.........mind boggling.

The part that is most important is to not let this become a discussion about a rogue kid.....these are design flaws.....plain and simple. Now this link may be a total fabrication. I have not seen a confirmation or read any of this but here.....so I will hold my judgment until this story is checked out.....but moot......not a chance.

2seaoat wrote:moot.....in what way? Did you read his testimony? There is nothing moot about it..........that would require the issue being considered moot if the military would fully explains this horrible breach of design...they certainly cannot.......if all a nation has to do is get one smart 20 year old kid to get on any secured access point and have the back end of our entire transactional history of operations.......there is nothing about this Bradley matter which is moot. This requires congressional hearings......closed door hearings......because we are in for a ton of hurt.....until I read this link, I never realized how serious this breach was.........mind boggling.

The part that is most important is to not let this become a discussion about a rogue kid.....these are design flaws.....plain and simple. Now this link may be a total fabrication. I have not seen a confirmation or read any of this but here.....so I will hold my judgment until this story is checked out.....but moot......not a chance.

Intel analysts aren't the knuckle dragging group of kids joining the military Seaoat. I'm with a group of kids who I know are far smarter and more tech savvy than all I will ever be. While I can teach them the workings of the military with my 20+ years experience, their tech ability will make them far more valuable to the government than I might ever be. Manning is of that same mold.

There's nothing wrong with the systems in place as they are. He is ONE out of thousands. Just in the AF, there are over 800 3-level analysts that graduate each year. There are always those who buck the system and think that they can "beat the man" at his own game. Had someone outed Manning before DADT expired, he would have never got the option to do what he did. Unfortunately, nobody could ASK and he could not TELL. Homosexuality in itself was one thing that always disqualified an analyst once outed because of the blackmail factor involved. Maybe DADT had some good points, eh?

All a clearance can do it put a person in a place to do a job. It's 50-75k for each TS/SCI completed. It's not a light process. Unfortunately, with sequestration, I know a lot of investigators are getting furloughed because of the cuts. It doesn't mean people will get pushed through because the military is famous for doing MORE with LESS and that is what the mil will do with fewer analysts getting processed for their clearances.

It requires not one Congressional hearing which is a dog and pony show of pontificating hot air ballons and a waste of taxpayer money. It requires one live, TV execution of Manning. Make an example of him and you nip in the bud everyone else who thinks that they want to go this route.

You are great at spinning things how you think that they might be. There are those of us who know his story and know that he is being a spiteful, vindictive little man who wanted to try and make a fool of his country just because he was insecure with the person he was after getting pounded by a female soldier who called him out.

2seaoat wrote:Encryption would be analogous to the lock on your front door. As packets are sent through the internet they are exposed. You can create a pipeline which completely isolates that data from others.....encryption protocols start with a vpn, but even that does not go far enough, so the individual packets are encrypted and make it virtually impossible in a normal time frame for somebody to break that front door lock. However, you are mixing apples and oranges. The front door look is easy. It is secure. However, once in the front door, If I walk over to your computer.......even a home computer will have an access code to get to certain files.......No problem....Bradley had the credentials, but the problem is in database design on that network.

A database must have its own separate backdoor lock. When you access a database with a query, you can get data.....you can get reports, but from your portal........YOU SHOULD HAVE NO ACCESS to the backdoor design criteria and tables of that database. A simple access database or SQL used on the typical commerce site or small business or government unit, has the back end locked up tighter than the front door, because more damage can be done with access to those tables, than some kid cracking mom's bank codes and getting money at the ATM.........the back end you own the whole kit and caboodle...........If Bradley's testimony is accurate, our entire database had no backend protection. Bradley makes no admission of needing to steal codes......he makes no admission to breaching a limited access portal........he makes no admission to compromising a vpn........nope he had access to the back end of a national database from any of many access points which he reported........Even more shocking was the utter lack of knowledge by portal and time spent on the database.......mind boggling, and across America when technical people read Bradley's admissions......you begin to question if any of our weapon system databases were protected any better. This story is not about Bradley. This is about fifth grade security protocols on the backdoor of a national database...........it is utterly stunning.

Bradley doesn't have to have a code fool if he was cleared for the SCIF in his facility.

You do not even understand this elementary problem.......I would not expect anything different. Have you even worked with or built a database? Or is this about security clearances......you are clueless. The issue with Bradley is that he was working in a completely broken unsecure database environment, and now the President on down is warning of huge cyberspace vulnerabilities, and if this article is correct it is worse than anyone could have imagined. Back end access from an analyst.......yep and you are calling folks fools.......lol.

As usual, you can't see the forest for the trees. You're a businessman allegedly, right? Do you ever sign paperwork that guarantees you will follow certain procedures? Manning did the same. Manning didn't access things he wasn't supposed to with his clearance. He had access to all of it and then, after getting a beat down by a female NCO he picked a fight with, he decides to be vindictive and start sending accessible info from his government SIPR/JWICS PC.

No, he breached a trust that the government had in him. He is a vindictive little man who was trusted to not disclose government info and he violated that trust because he was angry. It wasn't like he was accessing things that he didn't have a clearance to see. He is a liar and people like you are now believing in his "blame game". He is a traitor and he's as bad as the Walker father and son who betrayed America as well. As for his clownish behavior while locked up, oh well. He should have been put in gen population. In my perception, his breach of trust involving the United States ranks right up there with being a perv.

This has little to do with "trust". Do you remember what Ronald Reagan used to say.........Trust.....yes, but verify. Do you understand that the security protocols as testified by Dweasle, had no verifications......allowed access to the back end of this critical database from any portal without any verification as to where those folks were going. Do you understand how ass backward this system was? It is shockingly vulnerable. You want to make this about the analyst.....yet with this poor system design, hell, there are probably at least two or three foreign agents who are working in our military who have already accessed this wide open system to copy information, and God help us if the design and security of our weapon databases are as vulnerable as this transactional database was. Do you understand that folks are actively trying to compromise our secure information.....the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, Iranians, and others are every day seeking to compromise our information, and as the debate of our nation focus on cyber vulnerability, you want to act like one analyst went haywired......nope......we have a problem Houston.

2seaoat wrote:This has little to do with "trust". Do you remember what Ronald Reagan used to say.........Trust.....yes, but verify. Do you understand that the security protocols as testified by Dweasle, had no verifications......allowed access to the back end of this critical database from any portal without any verification as to where those folks were going. Do you understand how ass backward this system was? It is shockingly vulnerable. You want to make this about the analyst.....yet with this poor system design, hell, there are probably at least two or three foreign agents who are working in our military who have already accessed this wide open system to copy information, and God help us if the design and security of our weapon databases are as vulnerable as this transactional database was. Do you understand that folks are actively trying to compromise our secure information.....the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, Iranians, and others are every day seeking to compromise our information, and as the debate of our nation focus on cyber vulnerability, you want to act like one analyst went haywired......nope......we have a problem Houston.

Regardless, it is about the analyst. Just because Manning had access to a vulnerability does not give him Carte Blanche to exploit it. If anything he should have brought this vulnerability(if in fact there was one) to those in charge and not publish it to Wikileaks.How may other analysts has access to the same information as he, but chose to do the honorable thing and not abuse it. Manning is a traitor, pure and simple and IMHO should be executed. It is about one and only one analyst regardless of what you think, Just because he had the information does not mean he should use it.

I agree that he may be a traitor, especially if this database has any information which could lead to harm to one of our service people, or covert operations. If they show at his court martial the same type of exposure and harm to any of our people.....I agree completely. If however, this is not shown, a long prison term will be just fine, but the truth is if he is exposing bad behavior and is a true whistle blower.........therein lies the problem. The good news is that this entire episode may make our systems more secure, but I doubt it. I think the Chinese are already in......I have daily ip attacks from China on my server........they are winning the cyber war, and it is just people like Bradley who will be our new frontline heroes in the new battlefield. We need to be recruiting the best and brightest in the miltiary, and worrying less about somebody failing basic training like Bradley, and getting folks who do not allow such bone chilling stupid vulnerabilities in our systems. I am convinced that our military advantage in this world has been compromised by incredibly vulnerable systems, and instead of executing Bradley......we should be getting as much information as to how easy this was to compromise an entire transactional database.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:This has little to do with "trust". Do you remember what Ronald Reagan used to say.........Trust.....yes, but verify. Do you understand that the security protocols as testified by Dweasle, had no verifications......allowed access to the back end of this critical database from any portal without any verification as to where those folks were going. Do you understand how ass backward this system was? It is shockingly vulnerable. You want to make this about the analyst.....yet with this poor system design, hell, there are probably at least two or three foreign agents who are working in our military who have already accessed this wide open system to copy information, and God help us if the design and security of our weapon databases are as vulnerable as this transactional database was. Do you understand that folks are actively trying to compromise our secure information.....the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, Iranians, and others are every day seeking to compromise our information, and as the debate of our nation focus on cyber vulnerability, you want to act like one analyst went haywired......nope......we have a problem Houston.

Regardless, it is about the analyst. Just because Manning had access to a vulnerability does not give him Carte Blanche to exploit it. If anything he should have brought this vulnerability(if in fact there was one) to those in charge and not publish it to Wikileaks.How may other analysts has access to the same information as he, but chose to do the honorable thing and not abuse it. Manning is a traitor, pure and simple and IMHO should be executed. It is about one and only one analyst regardless of what you think, Just because he had the information does not mean he should use it.

.........................................

What exactly did he expose...?

This case has been going on and on. What has been the fallout from his less than stellar actions...? Has it affected our National Security...? Better yet, has it hobbled our efforts of hegemony...?

I have until yet to read a succinct explanation why this pizzant should be killed for his actions, so it comes off as Spy vs. Spy...Mad Magazine on steroids.

2seaoat wrote:Some concerns about drones and the crews operating them seem to have contributed a great deal to his decision to release this information. T has provided a great deal of concern, and Manning saw the worst behavior.

Manning saw the worst behavior from behind a PC screen and video feed? Really? He was never a door kicker. All this from Seaoat who was making fun of the new medal created for the military for Drone and Cyber Ops. Remember that post Seaoat? You were making fun of these folks saying that they felt no stress in their jobs based on the idea that there was no actual combat to give them stress, yet here you say Pvt Manning got so stressed out watching video feeds (of which it was not his job) and he capitulated into turning over all those files to wikileaks. So which is it man? Do you see the double standard? BTW, what is your own combat record? Have you ever been shot at to make that distinction? I mean if you're going out there on that limb, please clarify any experience you might have to base your opinion on, if at all.