DOD: Our Bad, We DID Talk to WikiLeaks

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

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


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.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

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

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate