Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True

from the that's-called-denial-folks dept

Last month, there were already reports that the Justice Department was having trouble linking Bradley Manning to Julian Assange — a key piece necessary to charge Assange with any sort of crime. US investigators have known for a long time that if they can’t get such evidence, they don’t have much of a case. Back in December, it was reported that they had even offered Manning a plea deal if he would just implicate Assange. The only problem: it appears he’s not willing to do so, and there’s no other evidence. In fact, all the evidence suggests what everyone said from the beginning: Manning decided to take whatever documents he took himself, and whoever uploaded it to Wikileaks (and it’s still not confirmed that it was Manning, though he’s obviously the most likely) did so of their own free will, not because of pressure from Assange.

The latest reports (via Julian Sanchez) suggest more of the same. The Justice Department is trying really, really hard to link the two, but seems to be quietly admitting that there may be no “there” there, and because of that, there may be no case. What’s really stunning however, is that despite all of this work to try to find a simple link, and the lack of any evidence of that link, the Defense Department is still insisting that the link is there and that Assange must be charged.

I find this pretty interesting. I’m assuming the view of DoD officials is clouded by the fact that Manning, by being in the armed services, was a part of the DoD and that they can’t accept the idea that he might honestly believe there were wrongdoings that needed to be exposed. They insist that Assange must have preyed on him and pushed and cajoled him into sharing the info. Of course, now the big question is what will the government do. Without this link, there’s no case against Assange. So either they try some other, exceptionally weak claim. Or… the give up. They should know what the right option is, but somehow I doubt they’ll choose wisely.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
41 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

I read the WSJ article and noted only that the DOD initially believed a link between the two existed.

Initially is, however, not currently…as this article appears to strongly suggest.

Perhpas I missed something in the article and would welcome being directed to where in the article the DOD’s current position is stated.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I agree, the linked article does not at all say what Mike claims it says. For example:

“Army investigators now believe Pfc. Manning decided to steal the documents and give them to WikiLeaks on his own, out of his own malice toward the military or the government, according to a senior U.S. official.”

Nowhere does it say that the “DoD insists [the link between Manning and Assange] must be true”.

Anonymous Coward says:

What I wonder is how the US ever thought that they could charge Assange in any manner of legitimate manner, even if there were evidence that he had pressured (or even collaborated with) Manning to leak the information.

Assange is not a US citizen, and any actions he may or may not have taken were not on US soil. Thus, he has no requirement to constrain himself to the confines of US law. In what legal manner would they have jurisdiction?

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, there is obviously some sort of link, because Manning obtained the documents and Wikileaks received them. How that link exists, well, that may be harder to show.

As for plea deals for Manning, that is pretty common in the entire justice system. Why get just one person when you can take down all the co-conspirators?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro says:

Re: Re: Just because I shove something in your mailbox doesn't mean there's a link between us.

Oh, but once you link it together with all the other suspicious coincidences, like it had to be prearranged for that mailbox to be in that particular spot outside your particular house, and for this time to be between the dates when you moved into the house and when you moved out. Add up all that and you can see it couldn?t possibly be down to chance.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re:

>>Actually, there is obviously some sort of link, because Manning obtained the documents and Wikileaks received them. How that link exists, well, that may be harder to show.

That much of a link obviously exists, but there is nothing there to charge Assange with. Basically the government wants to prove some type of conspiracy between Assange and Manning because that would allow them to prosecute Assange. If they can’t find any evidence of prior contact between the two, then it is going to be impossible to prove that they conspired.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Exactly, you understand, Chris Rhodes missed it. There is a relationship, that is clear as it comes. The question is the steps in between that happened. What they need to be doing is finding out what Manning actually did with the documents once he had them. Who did he give them to? Did he arrange with someone before giving them out? That is where the “conspiracy” would lay.

Assange is just an assclown facing rape charges and with a collection of bastard children (4 at last count… he apparently isn’t good with condoms). He is facing enough trouble as it is.

Revelati says:

I would really love to see this come to a court battle actually. It would finally show us where the courts stand in this country, and whether or not the legal system can still act as a check to the political pundits clamoring for Assange’s head.

Clearly he SHOULD be acquitted, watching the government take a trumped up case to court and get slapped in the face by an acquittal would restore a lot of faith in our justice system around the world and also show the US government that fabricating charges is not an effective way to deal with problems.

If Assange were convicted at least the world would know where the justice system stood, as a mere political shield furthering the interests of the US government, without respect for the rights of foreign nations and nationals, or even our own constitution.

I know many people already think this is the case, but my eternal optimism believes there may be a little justice left in our justice system.

Daniel J. Lavigne (profile) says:

America's Corporate Masters Don't Need "Evidence" . .

America’s Corporate Masters Don’t Need “Evidence” . . . they have all the needed Judges bowing and scraping at their command.

Regardless that they shall be let loose upon Humanity’s latest heroes . . and do as they did to the NeuroSurgeon who was sentenced to 86 years in Jail for daring to defy America’s mice . . . after keeping her in jail in Afghanistan for some 5 years and allowing her youngest child to die while in such conditions:

Bradley Manning has proved his mettle.

He won’t accept any deal offered by bastards who are unable to care less about “Humanity” than they presently do.

But such will be rendered meaningless when the “Boot-Licker” nation, Sweden, manages to extradite Julian Assange from Britain and then deliver him, regardless the law against any such action, into the hands of America’s torturers.

BTW: America’s Corporate Masters are quite leery / hesistant about putting Bradley Manning on trial.

His defense, his only defense, is based on the concept of “Superior Duty”.

All who have knowledge of crimes committed by their nation, superiors or any other that can be considered “A Crime Against Humanity” have a DUTY, at law, to ensure that such is revealed to as great an audience as possible.

Ergo: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange shall suffer for their crime of daring to do “The Right Thing”.

Of course, most Americans, perhaps due the nature of their infection by the madness of greed, are unable to come to terms and accept and support the need for individuals with spine and integrity sufficient to speak up when they KNOW they must.

To help all such Americans, I offer this:
****************************** 

Maintain The Rage!
Add your voice to reason’s call.

Join the Tax Refusal. 

******************************

http://www.TaxRefusal.com
******************************
And the related effort to wake the world:
STOP YOUR ENGINES !

http://www.StopYourEngines.com
******************************

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...