Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Bradley Manning’ Category

2:51 PM EST       Thursday December 15, 2011

More than one and a half years have passed since a boyish-looking 22-year-old Army private was arrested, suspected to be behind the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

Much has been written about him. Politicians, pundits, celebrities and protesters have had something to say.

But the single voice that could tell the real story has never been heard.

Bradley Manning, are you finally going to speak?

Will you say anything when a military arraignment begins on Friday at an Army base in Maryland, the first step in the government’s case that intends to figure out how hundreds of thousands of its classified Afghan, Iraq and diplomatic documents came to be published onWikiLeaks.org?

Manning is facing 22 charges of violating military code, ranging from theft of records to aiding the enemy. The latter charge is likely, experts say, to land Manning in prison for life. But, if a general sees fit, the law allows that Manning could be eligible for the death penalty, a historic turn in a case that is already unprecedented.

So what has this young soldier from small-town Oklahoma got to say for himself?

Defense attorney David Coombs isn’t saying whether his client will speak at the Article 32 hearing, held to determine whether there’s enough evidence to merit a court-martial, which is expected to last a week.

Manning has been held at Kansas’ Fort Leavenworth prison and will be transported for the hearing to Fort George Meade, where, incidentally, the National Security Agency has its offices. Security for media will be intense; there are only 10 spots for reporters in the tiny courtroom, so most will be relegated to a media room with a single closed-circuit television showing the hearing. The military has said it will cut that feed whenever material it deems classified is discussed in the courtroom.

An Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, Coombs has a reputation for cutthroat and creative military lawyering, his contemporaries tell CNN. He is also an active blogger. He’s been posting about the Manning case, including his client’s alleged mistreatment at Quantico, since taking the case in 2010. An attorney for the Bradley Manning Support Network says the group has paid about $150,000 in expenses toward Manning’s defense, money raised mostly in small donated increments online.

Earlier this month, Coombs hinted on his blog at how he might defend Manning. He filed in court record, and then blogged, a kind of witness wish list. Coombs said it described military personnel who, if he could call them, would testify that Manning behaved like anunhinged, potentially dangerous soldier on base in Iraq. Manning’s superiors repeatedly missed chances to either remove him from his intelligence job or revoke his security clearance, the document said.

Read the entire witness filing

A few days later, Coombs posted another filing protesting the military’s apparent rejection of all but 10 of his requested witnesses. The military told CNN that it will not comment until Friday’s hearing.

“If Coombs uses the defense — the ‘It’s not my fault, they didn’t stop me’ — that’s not going to fly with a military jury. That’s not even a defense,” said Michael Waddington, a criminal defense attorney who has tried at least 150 Article 32 hearings and many court-martial trials.

“The problem is that (the defense) is not really addressing the charges themselves. You’re not saying ‘I didn’t leak anything, you can’t prove it,'” explained Waddington, who served two tours as an Army defense lawyer and has worked as a special assistant United States attorney and as an Army chief of military justice.

Psychological problems

Military juries typically don’t respond well to defense strategies that try to evoke sympathy for a defendant based on his or her alleged psychological problems, he said.

“To them, psychological problems are, like, ‘Who cares?’ The military takes a lot of people who have psychological problems, (then) they turn away and act like they don’t see it. It’s common. It will not be a shock to a military panel — the jury — and they aren’t going to be appalled by that.”

Waddington said he’s tried several cases in which his clients’ mental instability was known by military co-workers and superiors, yet those in power did little or nothing before a crime occurred.

Waddington pointed to the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan to illustrate his point. Hasan was an Army psychiatrist who will face a court-martial in March. Hasan is accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens in a shooting November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas.

Senate report earlier this year found that various federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies missed an opportunity to prevent the rampage, even though they had information that Hasan supported Islamic extremism, had communicated with a terrorism suspect, and acted in a way that waved red flags about his mental stability.

The report mirrored a Pentagon review which said that Hasan continued to advance despite concerns from others around him.

In early November, victims’ families filed suit asking $750 million from the military for failing to prevent the bloodbath.

In Manning’s case, if the prevention argument won’t work, Waddington says, neither will painting him as a whistle-blower. In the opinion of some observers, including Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, the documents published by WikiLeaks deserved to be brought to light and Manning was “brave” — in Ellsberg’s words — to leak the information. Others who support Manning’s actions contend that, at worst, war crimes and an effort by the U.S. and its allies to cover up atrocities were revealed by the leaks. That was the general thrust of The Guardian’s coverage on the intelligence, which The Guardian independently examined. Numerous reports, including those in The New York Times, which also independently analyzed the documents, said that the WikiLeaks disclosures revealed widespread corruption in both wars, a gross waste of money and mistreatment of detainees.

“If you’re going to appeal to a military jury, whistle-blower doesn’t work,” Waddington said. “The thinking they have is that when you sign up for a certain job in military intelligence and you manage data that is secret, you have a duty to protect that information.”

Overclassified, overcharged

Coombs may have better luck if the defense concentrates on four other arguments, the attorney suggests.

First, Coombs should try to demonstrate that the documents Manning allegedly downloaded were not marked individually as classified, and therefore he could not be held accountable for knowingly taking secret intelligence. He might also want to present the argument, bandied in numerous media reports, that the information Manning had access to has been overclassified. In other words, it’s not necessary that a cable about Saudi royals having wild parties be classified in the same way as a cable about Tehran’s nuclear activity.

The defense attorney should also drive home the idea that the government has gone overboard with its charges — especially aiding the enemy — without proving that any actual harm was caused by the leaks, Waddington said.

“This isn’t a case of someone sneaking behind enemy lines and handing over passwords to the computer system or giving a key to the back entrance to the military base,” said Waddington. “This is someone who downloaded some information he shouldn’t have, which has not been proven to have harmed anyone or national security.”

Third, the defense can try to show that Manning won’t get a fair trial due to comments President Barack Obama made last year at a fundraiser. Obama said that Manning broke the law.

“I have to abide by certain classified information,” Obama said on avideo posted on YouTube. “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.”

There isn’t anyone who reports to the commander in chief who would want to go against that, said Waddington, so the case seems unfair from the start.

A controversial witness

If Waddington were defending Manning, he said, his first priority would be to attack the credibility of Adrian Lamo, a California hacker who says Manning reached out to him in an Internet chat and confessed to downloading intelligence and giving it to WikiLeaks.

Neither Manning nor his counsel has confirmed or denied that Manning was indeed the one writing the instant messages in the chat log. WikiLeaks and the news organizations that published stories based on the leaked material have never identified who gave it to them.

Lamo told CNN.com last year, and reiterated in interviews throughout the past year, that he turned Manning in to the FBI because he believed that what Manning wrote to him could be used to harm national security.

In an unrelated incident, Lamo was convicted in 2004 on one count of computer crimes after breaking into the New York Times, Microsoft and Lexis-Nexis computer systems and has reportedly breached Excite@Home’s company network and broken into the internal networks of Yahoo! and MCI WorldCom.

Lamo has repeatedly told CNN.com over the past year that his hacking is in his past and he had altruistic intentions when it came to turning in Manning.

Lamo was on the list of witnesses Coombs wants to question at the Article 32 hearing. Reached via e-mail late Wednesday, Lamo responded to CNN.com’s question about whether he would testify.

Lamo wrote that he was in a “pre-hearing meeting.” He e-mailed, “I’ll be in the area, but can’t confirm that I’ll testify.”

“I would put that guy on trial and make him lay out the evidence he has against Manning,” said Waddington. “He would be the weakest link, to me, in the government’s case.”

from:  http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/world/americas/bradley-manning-hearing/index.html?npt=NP1

—————————————————————————————

Bradley Manning was born on December 17th, 1987 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

December 17th, 1987

12 + 17 +1+9+8+7 = 54 = his life lesson = what he is here to learn = Secret documents.  Top secret.  Uploading.  Downloading.  WikiLeaks.  Intelligence leak.

—————————————————————————————

December 17th, 1987

December 17th

12 + 17 +2+0+1+0 = 32 = his personal year (from December 17th, 2010 to December 16th, 2011) = American.

32 year + 11 (November) = 43 = his personal month (from November 17th, 2011 to December 16th, 2011) = This is no fun.

43 month + 16 (16th of the month on Friday December 16th, 2011) = 59 = his personal day = Dishonor.  Disgrace.  Everything falls apart.  Salvaging what remains.  Getting ripped a new one.

—————————————————————————————

December 17th, 1987

December 17th

12 + 17 +2+0+1+1 = 33 = his personal year (from December 17th, 2011 to December 16th, 2012) = Loyalty.  Where do his loyalties lie?

33 year + 12 (December) = 45 = his personal month (from December 17th, 2011 to January 16th, 2012) = Investigation.  Secrets.  Privacy.  Ouch.  That’s gotta hurt.  Things can go horribly wrong.

45 month + 17 (17th of the month on Saturday December 17th, 2011) = 62 = his personal day = Unpopular.  Restrictions.  Detention.

—————————————————————————————-

Each letter of the first name rules 9 years of life.  Ages 0 to 27 are ruled by the sum of the first three letters of the name and the month of birth.

Bradley Manning       December 17th, 1987

2 (B is the 2nd letter of the alphabet) + 18 (r is the 18th letter of the alphabet) + 1 (a is the 1st letter of the alphabet) + 12 (December) = 33

So the number 33 rules his ages zero to twenty-seven.

33 = Loyalty.  Where do his loyalties lie?

It is his 33 personal year from December 17th, 2011 to December 16th, 2012.  So this is HIS year!!!

—————————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————————–

find out your own numerology at:

http://www.learnthenumbers.com/

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Pfc Bradley Manning 
30 July 2010   11:30 ET

A soldier accused of leaking video of a deadly helicopter attack in Iraq has been transferred to a base in the US.

US Army Pfc Bradley Manning is to stand trial on charges he gave video of the attack, which killed a Reuters photographer, to website Wikileaks.

The Pentagon is also investigating whether he gave the site 90,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan.

On Friday a White House aide begged whoever possessed the Afghan files not to release any more.

“It’s important that no more damage be done to our national security,” Robert Gibbs said on NBC’s Today show.

The US Army said on Friday Pfc Manning, 22, had been moved from Kuwait to Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, where he will be held pending trial.

The Pentagon said this week investigators were extending the helicopter attack video investigation to find out whether Pfc Manning was involved in leak of the Afghanistan documents, with a spokesman describing him as a “person of interest”.

‘Afghan blood’But a Pentagon spokesman has said the investigation is “broader” than Pfc Manning.

The US government maintains the massive dump of documents onto the website put lives at risk.

“We can do nothing but implore the person that has those classified top secret documents not to post any more,” Mr Gibbs said on Friday.

And, on Thursday, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said: “The truth is [Wikileaks] might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has dismissed the accusation, saying the US government has presented no evidence innocent people or informants have been harmed by the leaks.

On Friday, he pledged to continue document releases.

“We will not be suppressed,” he said. “We will continue to expose abuses by this administration and others.”

The documents, which Wikileaks have called the Afghan War Diary, were first described in news reports late on Sunday.

Among other revelations, they describe in new detail civilian deaths, claim members of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency have backed the Taliban in Afghanistan, and state the Taliban has used surface-to-air missiles to down coalition aircraft.

from:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10820044

—————————————————————————————-

Once again, Wikileaks has revealed controversial information regarding US and Coalition troops’ involvement in an ongoing war. In May, 22-year old Private First Class Bradley E. Manning of Potomac, Maryland, was arrested for sending details to the online leak source. Manning had been based in Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, and had boasted of leaking a video of a helicopter gunship attack in Baghdad, where civilians appear to have been killed. That video, released in April by Wikileaks, was only a section of the thousands of documents he had allegedly passed on. His data had been collected between November 19, 2009 and May 2010. A website has been set up to support Manning against the charges leveled at him.

Now, a massive dump of information has appeared on the Wikileaks website, relating to the War in Afghanistan, and most of it is exceedingly damaging to the image of the war that has recently been presented by the administration. A total of 92,000 documents have been placed online. Once loaded and decompressed, these documents fill up 3.5 Gb of disk space.
 
The whistle-blower site agreed to send previews of these documents to the New York Times, the German magazine  Der Spiegel and the Guardian (all news sources with a left-wing bias) to allow them to prepare for simultaneous publication.
 
The “Afghan War Logs” claim to be about information from 2004 to 2010, but it seems that the relevant data ends at around 2009, and as such, the data cannot be used as a measure of what is currently going on.
 
The person who passed on the original material apparently wanted certain material to be held back, for fear of risking military lives. That individual seems to be Bradley E. Manning. But what is already in the public domain as of today, via the Guardian, Der Spiegel and New York Times, involves the following.
 
·         There is a so-called “black unit” run by American military forces which is charged with hunting down Taliban leaders and killing them without trial. Under Obama, these operations have become more frequent, and civilians are said to have been killed in such operations. The identities of these Taliban targets were kept on a capture-list of around 70 members, which was used by a secret commando unit named Task Force 373.
 
·         Certain rumors that have been reported for the past few years (often based upon leaks from key US intelligence officials) have been confirmed: that Pakistan’s military intelligence unit, the ISI, has been closely involved with supporting Afghanistan and the insurgents, giving advice to the Taliban and allowing free association of ISI and Taliban. The ISI has even been involved with plotting assassinations of members of the Afghan government. This is while Pakistan annually receives $1 billion in American funding.
 
·         Deadly unmanned drone aircraft, operated from a base in Nevada, are being used more frequently in airstrikes.
 
·         The Taliban has access to heat-seeking missiles. During the Russian war in Afghanistan, this was suspected. The Afghans have not had much success with these heat-seeking missiles, but the American forces have apparently tried to suppress this information.
 
·         Funds sent to Afghanistan for humanitarian aid have gone missing – almost certainly going to the insurgents. An orphanage set up in Gardez was shown to have had no orphans a year after its opening.
 
·         Coalition partners have allegedly been involved in revenge attacks. On August 16, 2007, following a roadside IED attack, a Polish contingent attacked a village, and fired mortars – one of which detonated on the roof a home where a wedding party was going on with members of the Jalal Zaid tribe. One man, four women and a baby were killed at the scene, and three women were injured. One of these was nine months pregnant. The Polish soldiers were apparently sent home soon after the incident.
 
·         The British army has been involved in at least 21 cases of Afghan civilians being shot or killed. These incidents have not been mentioned previously by the British military, politicians or press.
 
Until very recently Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, had denied that there was a large cache of material, while his website was obviously liaising with the three newspapers for them to get their “scoop”.
 
In an interview on Britain’s Channel 4 news, Australian-born Assange stated that
 
“we have a stated commitment to a particular kind of process and objective, and that commitment is to get censored material out and never to take it down. That commitment has driven our technical and legal process and has resulted in sources understanding that we are the most trusted organization to give material to and we always fight attempted censorship and have always won…
 
… But we are creating a space behind us for other media and publishing organizations to operate in a safer way and that, I think, will have long term consequences.”
 
On a few occasions, we have reported here on FSM the ongoing involvement of Hamid Gul – who was head of the ISI between 1987 and 1989 – in providing assistance to the Taliban and also insurgents. Our mentions can be found here, here and here. The documents, according to the New York Times, which has time to study their documents, state that:
 
General Gul is mentioned so many times in the reports, if they are to be believed, that it seems unlikely that Pakistan’s current military and intelligence officials could not know of at least some of his wide-ranging activities.
 
For example, one intelligence report describes him meeting with a group of militants in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, in January 2009. There, he met with three senior Afghan insurgent commanders and three “older” Arab men, presumably representatives of Al Qaeda, who the report suggests were important “because they had a large security contingent with them.”
 
Gul was said in several of the leaked reports to have visited madrassas in Peshawar (capital city of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, near the borderlands with Afghanistan) to have looked for recruits to fight in the Afghan Taliban vs Coalition troops conflict. Gul denied the reports, stating: “I have had no hand in it. American intelligence is pulling cotton wool over your eyes.”
 
Though the leaked data does not cover events after December 2009, they may shed some light on a strange incident that took place in Pakistan in spring of this year. When former ISI senior operative, Khalid Khawaja, was kidnapped in March this year in North Waziristan, he was shown in a “confession” video stating that he had been sent to talk to insurgents by Hamid Gul. Also kidnapped with Khawaja was another former senior ISI figure – Colonel Imam Sultan Tarar. The two men stated on a video that they had been following advice given by former Army Chief General Aslam Baig and former DG ISI Lieutenant General (retd) Hamid Gul. Khawaja had added that a currently-serving ISI official, Colonel Sajjad, had urged the men to visit Taliban leaders. Khawaja was subsequently murdered, and the fate of Colonel Imam and British documentary maker Asad Qureshi (who was accompanying the two former ISI officials) is unknown.
 
Last night, the White House sent out a memo to reporters called “Thoughts on Wikileaks” which included the following:
 
 I don’t think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan. In fact, we’ve said as much repeatedly and on the record. Attached please find a document with some relevant quotes from senior USG officials.
 
The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.
 
Note the interesting graphs (pasted below) from the Guardian’s Wikileaks story. I think they help put these documents in context.
 
4) As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that Wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.
 
The White House email made reference to mentions made by President Obama on the subject of Afghanistan, which can be found here (pdf), and also a specific passage in the Guardian’s reporting:
 
But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.
 
A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of “rumours, bullsh*t and second-hand information” and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. “As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim,” said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.
 
If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.
 
National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones also issued a condemnation in a press release:
 
The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents – the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

The documents posted by Wikileaks reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009. On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years. This shift in strategy addressed challenges in Afghanistan that were the subject of an exhaustive policy review last fall. We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train. That is why we are now focused on breaking the Taliban’s momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government can begin to assume responsibility for its future. The United States remains committed to a strong, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.

Since 2009, the United States and Pakistan have deepened our important bilateral partnership. Counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al Qaeda’s leadership. The Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people. The United States and Pakistan have also commenced a Strategic Dialogue, which has expanded cooperation on issues ranging from security to economic development. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also improved their bilateral ties, most recently through the completion of a Transit-Trade Agreement. Yet the Pakistani government – and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services – must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people.

 
There is much that historians could learn from the documents in terms of how intelligence was recorded, but so far, it can only be hoped that these documents will not lead to danger for US and Coalition troops. The worst aspects of such leaks, while a war is in progress, will be their effects upon morale. The problem is not the morale of American and coalition forces, who are unlikely to be too dispirited by what is revealed, but the morale of the enemy. Morale-boosting for Islamist supporters of the insurgencies, and also the liberal/progressive anti-war activists, happened after images from Abu Ghraib prison were released.
 
 
The Abu Ghraib pictures were seized upon not just for what they were – an example of poor control of a prison by a few individuals from one unit – but for what they allegedly represented. The myth circulated that if these pictures were the ones that got released, it was rational to assume these would have been the tip of an iceberg; that there “must” have been a bigger stash of pictures that would never make it into the public domain, featuring even worse abuse.
 
When the video of the shooting incident from Iraq was revealed by Wikileaks in April, it sent a wave of hysteria through Islamist websites. The implied message on these sites was that the shooting was a confirmation of what Islamists had alleged all along – that the evil American Crusaders deliberately chose to murder Muslims.
 
In an era of international mass-communication via the internet, where supporters of Islamism and terrorism have already established themselves and where propaganda can be disseminated at the click of a mouse, the revelations of Wikileaks will be used in the propaganda war.
 
In modern times, from the First World War onwards, propaganda has been as integral part of warfare strategy as weaponry, intelligence and manpower. And here, Wikileaks and its left-leaning founder and editor Julian Assange is certainly attempting to change the course of the war by revealing this information.
 
In his Channel 4 interview he stated:
 
“We’ve seen legislative consequences as a result [of previous leaks on other issues], we’ve seen changes in governance, ministers being fired and so on. Clear cut outcomes. Other outcomes are more diffuse – for example, how a population feels about the progress of a war. This is something that’s not easy to measure. Does it result in concrete policy changes? We know it does, but it’s hard to correlate…
 
… They [the current leaked documents] cover all US military operations, with the exclusion of some special forces operations and the CIA. It covers each civilian kill, each military kill, when and where it happened. It is the most comprehensive history of a war ever to be published during the course of the war….
 
… The nearest equivalent is perhaps the Pentagon Papers released by Daniel Ellsberg in the 1970s, which was about 10,000 papers – but that was already four years old when it was released.”
 
There are 92,000 documents in the current online leak. Assange states that he has held back some on account of their potential to compromise some ongoing operations, though Assange is in no position to decide which documents could compromise lives and which may not. If Bradley Manning is the originator of these documents, he certainly would not be in any position to know the deeper strategic implications of the documents he allegedly passed on.
 
Assange claims that the full complement of the “Afghan War Logs” involves 200,000 documents. More revelations will be fed out by Wikileaks as Assange sees fit, and once again the “progressive” news sources who had the “scoop” will find their circulation benefiting from the revelations. Expect more comments and articles on this subject…….
—————————————————————————————-
using the number/letter grid:
1      2      3       4       5       6      7      8      9
A      B     C       D       E       F      G      H      I
J      K      L      M      N       O      P      Q      R 
S      T      U      V      W      X      Y      Z
 

Where:

A = 1              J = 1              S = 1

B = 2              K = 2             T = 2

C = 3              L = 3             U = 3

D = 4              M = 4            V = 4

E = 5              N = 5            W = 5

F = 6              O = 6             X = 6

G = 7              P = 7             Y = 7

H = 8              Q = 8             Z = 8

I = 9               R = 9

Bradley E. Manning

             5  4

 

his salvation/undoing number = EM = 54 = Spontaneous.  Curious.  Inquisitive.  Interesting.  Fascinating.  Conversational.  Ingenious.  Clever.  Quick thinking.  Scout.  Intelligence gathering.  Surveillance.  Confirm.  Confirmation.  Witness.  Observe.  View.  Watch.  Oversee.  Overlook.  Overhear.  Listen.  Ears.  Audiotape.  Videotape.  Recording.  Footage.  Scan.  Snippet.  Inquire.  Interview.  Interrogate.  Questions.  Querent.  Discussion.  Forums.  Laboratory.  Research.  Specimen.  Documentation.  Factors.  Congruence.  Correlation.  Verbatim.  Quote.  Recite.  Extemporaneous.  Improvisation.  Demonstrate.  Examples.  Exhibit.  Programming.  Technology.  Internet.  Online.  Interface.  Simulation.  Virtual.  Cyber.  Digital.  Monitor.  Screen.  Graphics.  Frame.  Cover.  Holographic.  3D.  Transparency.  Superimpose.  Phase.  Software.  Version.  Modify.  Enhancements.  Characteristics.  Identity.  Alias.  Screen name.  Avatar.  Profile.  Video.  Download.  Upload.  Sensor.  Stimuli.  Dashboard.  Vicarious.  Chameleon.  Mockingbird.  Parrot.  Copy.  Imitate.  Impersonate.  Impression.  Mimic.  Photocopy.  Duplicate.  Transcribe.  Dialogue.  Narrate.  Documentary.  Recital.  Fluency.  Conversant.  Language.  Bilingual.  Multilingual.  Interpret.  Translator.  Lingo.  Approximate.  Pause.  Dubbing.  Voice overs.  Make over.  Masks.  Disguise.  Camouflage.  Confidant.  Spy.  Infiltrate.  Insider.  Undercover.  Covert.  Secret agent.  Incognito.  Debrief.  (De)code.  Decipher.  Uncover.  Expose.  Erase.  Data.  Documents.  Memoir.  Autobiography.  Distraction.  Coy.  Cunning.  Outsmart.  Replacement.  Pretender.  Poseur.  Impostor.  Copycat.  Replica.  Layers.  Veneer.  Facade.  Nosy.  Snitch.  Tattle tale.  Fink.  Informant.  Leak.  Filter.  Revise.  Restore.  Reverse.  Janus.  Two-faced.  Flip-flopper.  Ping pong.  Fickle.  Raw.

 

Read Full Post »