DOD: Our Bad, We DID Talk to WikiLeaks

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmediadaysdk/4131068334/">New Media Days</a>

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


The Pentagon is walking back initial denials that it tried to contact WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in recent days to discuss still-unreleased secret files from the Afghanistan war. And new details divulged by defense officials suggest their middleman for contacting the website was an obscure lawyer based in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Earlier today, Assange told reporters that he’d “received contact” from the military and he’d “welcome their engagement,” adding: “It is always positive for parties to talk to each other.” But according to Newsweek:

…spokesmen for both the US Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense denied that any such contacts had occurred. The office of the Army’s general counsel, the military service’s chief lawyer, has had “no contact with Julian Assange or any representative of WikiLeaks,” said Col. Thomas Collins, an Army spokeman.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman went on to say that there was no “direct contact with WikiLeaks,” and the DOD’s only avenue of communicating with the site was “via the media.”

That now appears to be untrue. In discussions with reporters later Wednesday at the Pentagon, Whitman clarified the military’s position. According to Stars & Stripes DC bureau reporter Kevin Baron: “DOD just released a letter sent on Monday to an indivudual they ‘came across’ who was ‘purporting’ to be an atty for WikiLeaks.” Whitman told the assembled reporters that the DOD had scheduled a phone conversation at 10 a.m. on Sunday, “but the atty did not show.”

That attorney, who was to have spoken with the Pentagon’s general counsel (as Assange had claimed earlier), was Timothy J. Matusheski of Hattiesburg, whose firm owns the website MississippiWhistleblower.com. Matusheski didn’t return calls from Mother Jones requesting a comment on Wednesday, but a search of public records does show that he filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with the Justice Department as a representative of WikiLeaks (PDF) on March 10, 2009. The request description, which was incomplete on the public register, appears to have been for “Any comunications [sic] Ed Gillespie, White House Counsel to President George W. Bush from June 27, 2007 to Jan. 20, 2009 would have had with the Justice Department on the subject of restoring diplomatic…” The description was cut off at that point.

In further remarks, Whitman maintained that the Pentagon still had no “direct contact” with WikiLeaks, and the department “will not negotiate some ‘minimized’ or ‘sanitized’ version of a release by WikiLeaks.” Still, according to Baron, the DOD refused to discuss “if investigators talked to this guy,” meaning Matusheski, and “also would not explain how the Pentagon ‘came across” this man.”

Whether or not Matusheski or the Pentagon clarify their links to reporters, today’s developments appear to vindicate Assange’s most recent claims about hearing from the DOD general counsel. If the Pentagon-WikiLeaks rivalry is a battle for credibility, the upstart website appears to have won the day, at least.

Take the next step: Help us fight for the truth.

Investigative journalism, like the story you just read, takes time to do. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices.

We can afford to take that time because we don’t report to an oligarch or corporation with a special agenda. We report to you, and for you. That’s why we unabashedly pursue the truth and relentlessly shine a light into the darkness.

In this month’s Summer Membership Drive, we’ve got to raise $200,000 to support more crucial investigations. This is a pivotal moment in our nation, with democracy on the line, and we can only do this work because readers like you step up. Every donation, of any amount, makes a difference here. We cannot do this work without you.

So, we’re asking: Will you support independent journalism that demands those in power answer for their actions?

Take the next step: Help us fight for the truth.

Investigative journalism, like the story you just read, takes time to do. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices

We can afford to take that time because we don’t report to an oligarch or corporation with a special agenda. We report to you, and for you. That’s why we unabashedly pursue the truth and relentlessly shine a light into the darkness.

In this month’s Summer Membership Drive, we’ve got to raise $200,000 to support more crucial investigations. This is a pivotal moment in our nation, with democracy on the line, and we can only do this work because readers like you step up. Every donation, of any amount, makes a difference here. We cannot do this work without you.

So, we’re asking: Will you support independent journalism that demands those in power answer for their actions?

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate