NBC: U.S. can't link accused Army private to Assange

[cali]

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
Assange, an Australian national, is under house arrest at a British mansion near London, facing a Swedish warrant seeking his extradition for questioning on charges of rape. Assange has denied the allegations.

WikiLeaks' release of secret diplomatic cables last year caused a diplomatic stir and laid bare some of the most sensitive U.S. dealings with governments around the world. It also prompted an American effort to stifle WikiLeaks by pressuring financial institutions to cut off the flow of money to the organization.

U.S. Attorney General Eric holder has said his department is also considering whether it can prosecute the release of information under the Espionage Act.

<snip>

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

[kgnu_fan]

1. .

[ejpoeta]

2. that won't stop them from stringing him up, so to speak. this is ridiculous!

what happened to this country. innocent until proven guilty!! nice idea but doesn't seem true anymore.

[hughee99]

3. Does it matter to the prosecution?

If they can prove he copied classified material and passed it on to an authorized person, does it really matter to the case whether that person was Assange or someone else?

[atreides1]

5. Who was that person?

If they have no other suspects...then who exactly did Manning pass it on to?

And with no connection to Assange...the DoJ has squat!!

[MilesColtrane]

6. It only matters if they want to go after Assange.

And, they do.

No doubt they are pressuring Manning to testify that he was in direct contact with Assange before or during the theft of data.

[treestar]

7. True. And Julian did get it from somewhere

Or it may not even be accurate. Julian could be just making it all up. Would the State dept. even want to provide evidence that those cables were their cables? That would be circumstantial evidence against Julian.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Now the "transparant" government is embarrassing itself over the "embarrassing" leaks.

[jaxx]

8. Why can't they use the chat transcripts?

<..> (1:49:40 PM) Manning: this one was a test: Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave dated 13 Jan 2010
(1:50:30 PM) Manning: the result of that one was that the icelandic ambassador to the US was recalled, and fired
(1:51:02 PM) Manning: thats just one cable…
(1:51:14 PM) Lamo: Anything unreleased?
(1:51:25 PM) Manning: i’d have to ask assange
(1:51:53 PM) Manning: i zerofilled the original
(1:51:54 PM) Lamo: why do you answer to him?
(1:52:29 PM) Manning: i dont… i just want the material out there… i dont want to be a part of it

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

[mwrguy]

9. Lamo is not Assange

They know that Manning released the information, but not directly to Assange. They don't know the intermediate steps. That's all this amounts to.