NBC: U.S. military officials admit they can't link accused Army private Manning to Julian Assange!

[Better Believe It]

NBC: U.S. can't link accused Army private to Assange
Military also denies allegations that Bradley Manning is being mistreated
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent, NBC News
January 24, 2011

U.S. military officials tell NBC News that investigators have been unable to make any direct connection between a jailed army private suspected with leaking secret documents and Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

The officials say that while investigators have determined that Manning had allegedly unlawfully downloaded tens of thousands of documents onto his own computer and passed them to an unauthorized person, there is apparently no evidence he passed the files directly to Assange, or had any direct contact with the controversial WikiLeaks figure.

On Monday, U.S. military officials also strongly denied allegations that Manning, being held in connection with the WikiLeaks' release of classified documents, has been "tortured" and held in "solitary confinement" without due process.

The officials told NBC News, however, that a U.S. Marine commander did violate procedure when he placed Manning on "suicide watch" last week.

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41241414/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security

[pacalo]

1. Playing devil's advocate in asking, how can they be 100% certain that it was

Bradley who downloaded the documents? Someone could have set him up by using his computer, or perhaps chose Bradley's computer at random in order to hide his own identity. It would be hard to prove that Bradley himself sent it. Date/time mean little; if Bradley were in his work area, it doesn't mean he was at the computer, but that he was where he was supposed to be, but taking a break or in an unscheduled meeting.

[abelenkpe]

2. They can't be sure he downloaded the files either

They got nothing and are hoping he cracks.

[msanthrope]

6. If that's true, then his lawyer should file a habeas, immediately.

But he's not, and I don't think that will be the defense.

[abelenkpe]

40. Certainly an interesting case to see played out.

Isn't it?

Strange times we live in for sure.

[lonestarnot]

3. Then why are they torturing him?

[Luminous Animal]

12. There is usually one outcome to torture... false testimony.

[lonestarnot]

36. Ah so they want a fake confession. Of course.

[Canuckistanian]

4. So... Is Adrian Lamo full of shit?

I'd say the ball is in HIS court now.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Wired already admitted that Lamo is full of shit.

It revealed that there is no smoking gun in the chat logs.

[Canuckistanian]

8. D'oh, I forgot

The Wired editor CLAIMED he had the logs, but refused to release them, right?

I remember now.

[Luminous Animal]

11. The story goes thus....

Wired has never released the chat logs and they claim to have them all but they've issued a statement that the logs that have been published are the full story in regards to Manning & Assange. I.e., that there is nothing more than the couple of sentences (which are vague, at best) in which Manning mentions Assange. The Wired statement negates Lamo's claims.

[Canuckistanian]

13. And of course, the DOJ would have issued search warrants by now

Which they haven't

[msanthrope]

22. They don't need search warrants--Lamo said he gave the hard drives to the

FBI in the Spring.

They took House's stuff, too...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/10/bradley_manning_supporter_reportedly_detained/

[msanthrope]

5. Of course, there need not be a direct link between them to prove conspiracy charges.

Under federal conspiracy law, one may be convicted of conspiracy with a person one does not know, and has never met. You may not have ever known what that person was up to....

But you can still be prosecuted and convicted of conspiracy.

The right hand need not know what the left hand is doing....

This is interesting--putting this out before Assange's hearing kinda takes away the argument that the US is going to go after him, though, doesn't it?

[Luminous Animal]

9. Then NY Times reporters would be open to conspricay charges...

They've not only accepted classified information and published it but they knew from whom it was received.

[msanthrope]

15. Actually, no---I'm taking you at your word that Wikileaks is larger than Assange, right?

It's all about timing. No one disputes that the Times is a republisher. The conspiracy count would come from before the theft--as in, did Manning steal some, and then, on the bequest or collusion of another, steal more? Steal something specifically? Introduce software on the advice or behest of the other?

If that another isn't Assange, then it need only be someone acting on his behalf or pursuant to his direction. There need not be any direct contact between Manning and Assange.

I find this admission far more interesting for one reason--it's done before Assange's extradition hearing, and takes the wind out of his sails when it comes to the whole 'America is out to get me' routine.....

Further, how clever to put it out with the disclaimer that Manning isn't being mistreated. Makes that claim more credible....

[Luminous Animal]

16. I think you need a hobby.

[msanthrope]

19. Oh, I have a few....

:-)

[Bluebear]

35. You said it.

[Better Believe It]

28. The " 'America is out to get me' routine....."???? Why are you so hostile to Julian Assange?

And it "takes the wind out of his sails"?????

The Obama administration is investigating Julian Assange and would like to prosecute him.

Surely you know that.

And yet you suggest that this is all nonsense and that Assange simply likes playing a victim of an entire nation, America, that is out to get him!

Would it be correct to assume you are an opponent of WikiLeaks and its main organizer, Julian Assange?

[NuclearDem]

14. No, but you have to be able to connect the dots between the two parties

If they don't know how Manning even got the documents to Assange, then there's no grounds for a conspiracy charge.

[msanthrope]

17. Not as much as you would think (ask every drug defendant in the US).

Connecting the dots can be circumstantial. You don't need direct evidence.

[NuclearDem]

18. Fair enough, I've just seen it done differently

Some judges are ok with circumstantial, others demand that the dots be perfectly connected and every co-conspirator named in an indictment.

[msanthrope]

21. If, and I repeat, if...

there will be charges, they will probably originate out of the rocket docket in VA. What would be your opinion of that circuit?

But, there's no way of knowing what the US government will do.

[NuclearDem]

24. By rocket docket I'm assuming you mean the VA E.D?

Just depends on who gets the case. Because of the controversy around this case, I don't see it going particularly quickly, but the Feds might put pressure on the District Court to get an indictment. Also depends on how competent the US Attorney is for that District. (I'm not very familiar with very many Federal courts outside of Indiana and Nebraska).

[msanthrope]

27. Yep. Rumor is that a grand jury has been seated for awhile.

Neil McBride is the USA. He's no slouch.

[NuclearDem]

29. Hmm...all I know about MacBride is that he was a Holder appointee

And that he did some anti-piracy work with the DoJ a while ago.

Maybe being former DoJ will expose him to more pressure though.

[msanthrope]

30. I know he worked for Biden, and following the anti-piracy work,

has a pretty good reputation in cyber-terrorism.

But then again, if you are working that docket, you have to have a good rep in terrorism....

[Better Believe It]

31. You seem to be excited and pleased by this. Are you hoping they throw the book at Manning?

[msanthrope]

32. I have no doubt that if Manning ever faces court martial (and he may not

simply because his case may transfer) he will be convicted on the vast majority of the charges. I'm not sad for him--he took his chances, now he will pay the price. As should anyone who does what he did.

Meanwhile, the person who profited--Assange--will be enjoying a book deal and movie options, while Manning sits in jail.

That's sad.

[Better Believe It]

39. So that's a yes. So why don't you start a post proposing a tough government prosecution of Manning

and Julian Assange.

You do have fellow travelers.

Some of them are even self-described liberals!

[Luminous Animal]

23. The right wing has been gunning after The NY Times using the same conspiracy accusation

since 2005. If they can successfully break press immunity with charges against Wikileaks, then none of the press is safe. No more news like the Pentagon Papers or Bush's illegal wire tapping of U.S. citizens. Good-bye informed citizenry, the free press, and democracy.

[NuclearDem]

25. If the Feds do manage to pull off SOMETHING in District Court...

I don't expect the NYT lawyers to just roll over and take it. If it comes to that, they very well should appeal it all the way up to SCOTUS...though I'm afraid with the Court as it is...

[Luminous Animal]

20. You do know that NY Times reporters do "go back to the well"...

that is, they often solicit more information from their sources and then, more often than not, in order to vet that information, they phone other probable sources to confirm that the information is valid. That is, they actively solicit confirmation from people who they suspect would be in a position to confirm.

The corroborators may open themselves to a conspiracy charge, but the Times reporter would be exempt.

[defendandprotect]

10. K/R

[gratuitous]

26. Just great; are you libruls happy now?

All your insistence on "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty," and now it looks like the military might wind up with egg on their face, a real black eye for Uncle Sam! That prolly makes you libruls all happy, especially if one of these days somebody might get killed that could arguably be sort of connected to Wikileaks. It could happen! Really.

[Supersedeas]

37. when has due process and the burden of proof been limited to libruls

sometimes i needs the sarcasm warning.

[grahamhgreen]

33. K&R

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. I'm sorry but I don't believe anything that is attributed to nameless "officials".

I would add that it seems doing so should run counter to everything FoW hold dear.

[kenny blankenship]

38. Don't worry. By the time they're done with that boy, they'll not only have his signed confession

implicating Julian Assange as a terrorist mastermind, but they'll have him believing that it's true.