US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
from the so-now-what-happens? dept
US officials have been trying everything they can think of to get Bradley Manning to claim that there was some sort of conspiracy between him and Julian Assange concerning the leaked State Department cables. The US needs that in order to bring any sort of credible case against Assange in the US. Unfortunately for those US officials, so far the investigation can find no actual link between the two men, meaning that any US legal case against Assange is a pretty difficult path. It will be interesting to see what comes next. Amusingly, in our past discussions on this, some of our commenters insisted that it was "obvious" that Assange and Manning had formed a conspiracy, so I'm curious to see how they react to this bit of news.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, conspiracy, julian assange, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
obvious is shorthand
Obviously this is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where there's a will, there's a way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where there's a will, there's a way
Sometimes, I wonder if the Obama administration is trying to "prove" that Manning had ties to Assange by holding him in solitary confinement (sorry..."Prevention of Injury watch") until he tells his torturers what they want hear in order to make his torture stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where there's a will, there's a way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon Mike, keep up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left hand and right hand do not have to have direct contact. Manning gave them to person X, with full intention of them being on Wikileaks. Perhaps the "american wikileaks" guy was involved. Who knows?
It doesn't negate the issue that the documents are in Assange's control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically, this is just a preamble to them focusing entirely on Manning to the exclusion of Assange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which does nothing for their attempted conspiracy charges. Try again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't negate the issue that the documents are in Assange's control.
More good work! Assange has the documents! You figured it out! Well played, sir. Well played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, Wikileaks isn't just Assange. They were unable to show that he had passed the files directly to Assange, but clearly they got there. The question remains "how?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is not a mystery, and it doesn't count as conspiracy, as it's defined by U.S. law. Hence why they're admitting, *themselves*, that there is no link between them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OH NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC#4
We'll get to the bottom of this, even if it takes all decade.
Sir, I would applaud your insight; but apparently, left and right hand DO have to have contact for that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC#4
Just make sure to rebury them in their original coffins ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seem to forget that Julian Assange ≠ WikiLeaks He is part of it but just because the files showed up on WikiLeaks does not prove he was involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy peasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How often do hard drives fail?
For all we know, these documents were acquired in a similar way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How often do hard drives fail?
For that matter, perhaps he handed them off to me and I gave them to Julian.
Any way it goes, they are treating Manning in a way that is so morally reprehensible that the who's did who banter is moot. Over a year in solitary confinement without being brought to trial because the government is too effin retarded to be able to make a case! Need to lock ever government official up in a VERY deep hole and fill it in with concrete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How often do hard drives fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that's not enough, we'll lobby Congress to pass a law claiming it. We can start it off "Anyone with the last names 'Manning' and 'Assange' having anything to do with a website with letters and words and crap are automatically considered conspiring together to overthrow every government on the entire planet and must be sent to prison for no less than 1.5 million years." See? There. Done. No more worries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only an enraged feminist in Sweden knows for sure . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, because a woman who is either:
a. a victim of sexual assault, or
b. a spurned lover
must be a feminist. I mean, of course, she is, because a non-feminist wouldn't refused a man, or claimed to ave refused a man. Only feminists can do that. Of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or does the fact that she is now an alleged victim mean that her previous activism is null and void and describing her as such is evidence of male chauvinism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention that they were dismissed, resumed, dismissed again, and resumed again... this is the FRIGGING FOURTH TIME they have reignited this investigation.
I am sorry, but when that happens (unless it is YEARS after the fact and in something like a murder investigation where someone could have vacated their home and more evidence was found).... there is no real case.
These women have also changed their stories SO GODDAMNED MUCH that they have no credibility left! I'm lumping them in the same category as the Duke accuser... LIAR CENTRAL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you regularly mention describe people with adjectives that have nothing to do with the topic, such as 'a gay Congressional official', 'pizza-loving Pat Robertson', or 'Jesus Martinez, detective novel connoisseur'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given your newfound knowledge, unless you didn't actually mean to imply with your post that I think that every woman that comes forward with rape allegations is an automatic example of feminism-run-amok, I would appreciate an apology.
Unless you regularly mention describe people with adjectives that have nothing to do with the topic
You can't imagine how an ultra-feminist viewpoint might possibly play into an alleged case of rape-by-being-condom-less?
Really? Completely unrelated? Not even remotely in the realm of possibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not newfound knowledge. I've been following this fairly closely.
...unless you didn't actually mean to imply with your post that I think that every woman that comes forward with rape allegations is an automatic example of feminism-run-amok...
That's not what I implied. I implied that her feminist views didn't matter, by repeatedly highlighting their mention to show how silly it seems.
I would appreciate an apology.
So would I, but I'm reasonably sure that you're not going to apologize to myself or any other feminist for acting as though our views had something to do with a false rape allegation. I think your privilege is blocking your view of how incredibly offensive that is.
You can't imagine how an ultra-feminist viewpoint might possibly play into an alleged case of rape-by-being-condom-less?
No, I can't. I can imagine someone who calls them self a feminist seeking legal revenge, but it's like Glenn Beck calling himself a doctor, with a self-granted doctorate from his unaccredited university. He can say it all he wants, but no one should take it seriously.
Really? Completely unrelated? Not even remotely in the realm of possibility?
Again, really unrelated, unless you can tell me what a belief in equal rights has to do with rape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.operationprotest.com/julian-assange-rape-allegations-story-behind-the-girls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly my point. Mentioning her self-proclaimed feminism in regards to her actions is like mentioning McVeigh's citizenship in regards to his actions. While initially surprising, it's clear that they have nothing to do with their actions, making it as irrelevant to the issue as gender, race, or ice cream flavor preference would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rose, I get what you're saying and I agree. But I think you're misinterpreting Chris' statement as an attack on feminism in general. I think he was talking about the fact that the accuser has a known viewpoint which should be taken into account.
It's an ugly fact, but I have known a few militant-feminists who would have like to see parts of my anatomy in a vice because I opened a door for them. They take an extremist viewpoint against men, not just for women. So if this woman is of the type who would pursue extreme measures in seeking 'justice' against an offending man, that has to be looked at. I'm sorry, but it just does. Now, if she has a legitimate case, the feminist viewpoint would be dismissed as irrelevant. But to ignore that possibility because it's offensive to feminists or chauvinistic is not equality, it's pandering that borders on misandry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's certainly what it seemed like. Are you interpreting it differently? I mean, if he was aiming it at one person, specifically, why would he use a term that encompasses an entire group of people? Instead of, you know, her name.
I think he was talking about the fact that the accuser has a known viewpoint which should be taken into account.
I'd certainly say that publishing instructions on how to get legal revenge on men should be taken into account, but feminism... is really the opposite of that.
It's an ugly fact, but I have known a few militant-feminists who would have like to see parts of my anatomy in a vice because I opened a door for them.
It's an ugly fact, but the FBI has an entire list of Americans that would love to blow up other Americans. When it happens, like with McVeigh and Nichols, we don't blame it on all Americans, do we? Nope.
So if this woman is of the type who would pursue extreme measures in seeking 'justice' against an offending man, that has to be looked at.
Absolutely it does, but you've failed to link extreme revenge measures to feminism.
But to ignore that possibility because it's offensive to feminists or chauvinistic is not equality, it's pandering that borders on misandry.
How so? Feminism doesn't advocate false testimony. Feminists everywhere are angry about this woman's actions. Actual feminists understand the huge harm that false accusations do to the victims of their false accusations and victims of actual assault. I mean, it's one of the biggest problems in getting the idea of a rape culture over to the general populace, and she engaged in it. To blame her actions on her self-appointed feminism is offense and chauvinistic.
And misandry has nothing to do with this. I didn't challenge his statement because he's got a penis. (If he does. Chris is a fairly ambiguous name, and this is the Internet. :P) I challenged it because it was wrong, just as I would have if it had come from 'Christine'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You and I would agree, but not every self-identifying feminist would, I think (luckily, they would be a minority view). It's easy to say "Well then, they aren't really feminists", but that seems to run into No True Scotsman territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next, I understand the No True Scotsman fallacy, but I don't believe that it applies here. For instance, this woman is calling herself a rape victim. Pointing out that she's not a rape victim, and that calling her one is offensive to actual rape victims is not fallacious.
So, to conclude, this woman's actions were not feminist in nature. Pointing out that this was not a feminist action and that calling her a feminist in regards to this action is offensive is not fallacious (or misandrist, for that matter).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, proper feminism, not it's militant extreme, is the opposite of what this lady seems to be representing. Would it have been better if Chris had said "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."?
I'm not really sure that this is relevant to the argument. Does seem a bit straw-man-ish. Did Chris reference all Swedes? No, he referenced a smaller group that this lady claimed to be a part of (if by action, if not by actual statement). A closer analogy would be blaming all members of whatever group(s) these bombers were members.
I mean, if we want to keep going, we can just blame all humans for all actions, good or ill. While this is true, it loses the point.
As I stated in the paragraph above the one you quoted, I was linking this action to 'extreme' or 'militant' feminism. I think I've already made the point that I agree there is a difference. Why would I want to link the extreme back to 'real' feminism? The only linking I was making was this person�s actions back to her social views, which do seem damned relevant to the case.
On the last part of it (too much to try & quote here), I do think that overlooking a feminist (extreme or otherwise) viewpoint... or any view point given by a particular group... for fear of angering that group is pandering. If that viewpoint has been seen in the past as very relevant to accusations of rape, then it needs to be looked at.
This lady seems to be of a militant feminist view to the point of being �against men�. Yes, I understand that this is not really feminism� I get that. As I said� it�s ugly, it�s wrong, but it�s true that there are women out there who would cry rape to get a man in trouble who has offended them. And if this lady seems to fall into that group, that view needs to be examined. If it turns out to be irrelevant and she has a legitimate case, fine� full speed ahead to justice. But you don�t overlook a possible connection because it�s a controversial one or it may offend someone.
I will quote this one though: No it's not. From the stories I read, she engaged in consensual sex. He is being charged through a loophole that sex without a condom, consensual or not, is rape. It appears that, based on her own actions and blogging, she is of an extreme-feminist view. So how is examining a link between her action of accusing him of loop-hole rape and that anti-man view offensive or chauvinistic? If you have a problem of her taking on a self-appointed affiliation with feminism, fine... take that up with her. But when it seems she takes action based on that view-point, don't go after the people who bring that possibility to light.
If I say �oh look, she�s crying rape because she�s a militant-feminist� and I dismiss the investigation, that�s wrong and offensive. If I say �hold on a second� is she maybe exaggerating or lying because she hates men and he�s a man?�, and then continue investigating, how is that wrong?
Maybe you got the idea that I hate feminists� I don�t. Any person who believes in the empowerment of their own group is alright in my book. I do have problems with the extreme examples of most groups I�ve seen� including feminism.
So, should Chris have stated "only a militant-not-really-representative-of-actual-feminism-feminist in Sweden would know..."? Maybe. Was he attacking feminists all over? Well, that�s for him to answer, but I don�t think he was. Is pointing out that her gender-political view may have some weight in this case wrong? No.
Finally, for my statement of misandry� I was saying that if Chris and I (or men in general) are not allowed to look into a feminist causality to this lady�s actions because it would be offensive and that we men are disparaging a (possible and probably self-proclaimed) feminist, that�s misandry. Or, simply put, if we look for a logical connection and are called chauvinistic just because the connection is gender-based, how is that us playing a gender card?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feminism encompasses a wide range of beliefs (like any belief system does). I wasn't intending to lump any and every feminist in with the woman in this case, least of all you. If you took it that way, I apologize. I was only intending to discuss her particular "brand" of feminism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That can't be a coincidence surely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Know What Would Be Funny ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Know What Would Be Funny ...
Just because someone is involved in something that gives the government a (deserved in this case) black eye doesn't mean that they can automatically put the person on the no-fly list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Know What Would Be Funny ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]