Hugh Pickens writes: "Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon about the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source and criticized Wired's failure to disclose the full chat logs between Manning and FBI informant Adrian Lamo. Now Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen have responded to criticisms of the site’s Wikileaks coverage stating that not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of the story. "Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time," writes Hansen. "That doesn’t mean we’ll never publish them, but before taking an irrevocable action that could harm an individual’s privacy, we have to weigh that person’s privacy interest against news value and relevance." Poulsen adds that Wired has "led the coverage on this story, and we would gain nothing by letting another scoop simmer unreported on our hard drives" and that Greenwald's assertions the Wired has a journalistic obligation to publish the entirety of Manning’s communications is backwards — the truth is the opposite. "Greenwald’s piece is a breathtaking mix of sophistry, hypocrisy and journalistic laziness," concludes Poulsen. "In any event, if you can’t make an argument without resorting to misstatements, attacking the motives of an experienced and dedicated team of reporters, name-calling, bizarre conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks, then perhaps you don’t have an argument.""