It's interesting how people can read articles yet miss entirely their substance.

Greenwald has noted a number of inconsistencies in Lamo's declarations, inconsistencies which have enormous potential consequences for the evolution of the case, notably whether Assange can be considered an accomplice of Manning. Some of his further investigations also reveal that one of the Justice Department officials which investigated Poulsen has very close ties with Lamo, Poulsen and Wired in general.

All of this raises important questions regarding the validity of Poulsen's reporting and the credibility of Lamo's current public testimony. Hence he demands Wired to publish the parts of the logs which would clear those inconsistencies, redacting away the ones which deal with private aspects of Manning and Lamo's discussion.

There is nothing that would justify Wired to not want to address these inconsistencies by publishing the parts of the lags which contain the corresponding information, yet they refuse.

What could justify this refusal ? Nothing, and that's where the whole "debate" points more and more in the direction of something very fishy smelling going on between the DoJ, Lamos and Poulsen.

If they have nothing to hide, have them publish the logs which explain the factual inconsistencies of _extreme_ relevance to the case that Greenwald has pointed.

That could change radically how Manning and Assange might be (or not at all) indicted, so, sorry, that matters.

The court has the logs, they can use them however they want. How Manning or Assange is indicted is not in the hands of Wired.

I believe there is some sort of deeply personal information in the logs scattered through most of the references. Wired pulled out what they could and posted. They are sticking with their decision on what could and couldn't be published without revealing private unrelated issues.

It may be perfectly reasonable and you really should at least concede that possibility.