Sure.
The topic claims “wget as evidence of guilt at the Manning trial.”
There’s no evidence of that in the article. The sole mention of this in the article is the following:
““Do you know what Wget is?” they interrogate a witness, as if it is malicious spyware and not an everyday command line program.”
That’s it. There’s no indication that knowing what Wget is is “evidence of guilt.” This is a witness, not a defendant. We don’t know what witness this is. It could even be one of the prosecution’s witnesses, and the question might be being asked in order to establish competence. There are no names here, neither the prosecutor nor the witness is named. And the “as if it is malicious spyware…” bit is entirely the author’s spin. If the prosecutors are really indicating that knowledge of wget is evidence of illicit conduct, then surely there would be followup questions along the same lines? But all we have is a hint, an intimation that there’s something wrong with this question, or how it was asked, from an author whose headline (“If Manning is ever released, he will re-enter a world ready to embrace him, advanced with the understanding to recognize his greatness.”) does not exactly speak to journalistic integrity.
So yes, I think Cory’s characterization of this small bit from this article as indicating that the prosecutors have used knowledge of wget as evidence of guilt, is quintessential FUD. There’s not enough information given to support the claim, what information is given is ambiguous, and the interpretation put on that information is questionable given the source.
