The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning

[Peter Lemkin]

(PFC Bradley Manning being escorted into a courthouse in Ft. Meade, MD.
Bradley Manning's pre-trial hearing began at 9:00 AM on Friday, December 16. It must be noted that this is not a trial but a hearing to decide whether or not there are reasonable grounds to charge PFC Manning and continue with a court-martial hearing. That being said, there will be no "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict at the end of these hearings. Journalists who were allowed to sit in on the hearings were warned of "regular blackouts" while the court went in to private session.
There are a total of 34 counts against PFC Manning, the most serious of which is UCMJ Article 104, "Aiding the Enemy."
Defense: Mr David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, Captain Paul Bouchard
Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard
Investigative Officer: Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza
Day 5:
Today was the prosecution's final day to call witnesses.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Jirhleah Showman
Jirhleah Showman was a fellow intelligence analyst of PFC Manning's, but has been out of the Army since July 2011. She testified over the telephone.
Showman testified about FSE Milliman having to fix PFC Maning's computer at least twice a week. When asked about her and PFC Manning's training, she said they learned "how to be an all-source analyst, how to handle, disseminate, and destroy classified information and what impact improper dissemination of classified information would have on the country."
Showman said that PFC Manning was removed from the Brigade on May 9 after assaulting her. She said he punched her in the face unprovoked and displayed other uncontrollable behaviors. Showman stated she had gone to their supervisor MSG Adkins on multiple occasions to tell him PFC Manning was not fit for deployment or a security clearance, and needed counseling and discipline.
A second event was described by Showman in which PFC Manning had flipped a table and caused a computer to break. Showman said that PFC Manning had also told her he regularly felt paranoid. A third incident was also described where PFC Manning was screaming and salivating after being approached for waking up late. According to Showman, PFC Manning said he could not handle messing up.
The 2007 Apache helicopter video ("Collateral Murder") was located on Showman's computer. She testified that she had viewed it for no specific reason, along with other videos. Showman says that she and 3 or 4 other soldiers viewed the video, which is how PFC Manning would have seen it. The other soldiers who watched it would ask why the van in the video was fired upon, but there was no discussion about "Rules of Engagement."
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Staff Sergeant Peter Bigelow
SSG Peter Bigelow worked with PFC Manning in the supply room, where he was transferred after being removed from the SCIF. He testified via telephone from a NATO base in Italy.
PFC Manning is believed to have used SSG Bigelow's laptop, as well as another computer located in the supply room. It was suggested in court that PFC Manning used SSG Bigelow's laptop to search for information on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. When questioned about this, SSG Bigelow said he had never heard of Julian Assange.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Special Agent David Shaver
SA David Shaver returns again to testify after being present on both the 3rd and 4th days of the hearing.
He readdressed searching Jason Katz' computer for a video of the Granai Airstrike. SA Shaver testified that the video found on Katz' computer was not of the Airstrike. Katz seemed to be in the process of trying to decrypt the video file.
SA Shaver also testified that the chat logs from Adrian Lamo's and PFC Manning's computers were the same except for a few network connectivity issues that appeared.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Special Agent Antonio Edwards
SA Antonio Edwards is an investigator for the CCIU and works for the Army CID.
He first became involved in this case when he was contacted via email by Mr. Chet Uber, who said he was aware of an individual in contact with an US Army intelligence analyst who was sending information to WikiLeaks. SA Edwards was then put in contact with Lamo.
SA Edwards said Lamo acted as a confidential informant for the Army CID, but that he was not given any other money than "reasonable expense reimbursement."
(Adrian Lamo being escorted into the courthouse for PFC Bradley Manning's hearing. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3417[/ATTACH]
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Adrian Lamo
Before taking the stand, SA Edwards described Adrian Lamo's role as a government informant. He was in this position from July 2010 until "three to four months ago."
Lamo described being contacted on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) by someone with the handle bradass87.' He also said he received emails from someone at the 10th Mountain Division, which was PFC Manning's unit. Lamo testified that he confirmed these were from PFC Manning after receiving a friend request from him on Facebook. Lamo says he was given a username and password to the Army portal, but never used it because he thought it would be a crime.
Lamo testified to providing a 500GB hard drive, a net book, and two thumb drives to a special agent, though he was unable to state who he gave it to exactly.
The prosecution asked if Lamo had Asperger's syndrome, which Lamo responded to affirmatively. He said he's been successfully treated with medication and his current state is the same as that when he reported PFC Manning. Lamo's history of hacking and his status as a convicted felon was also described.
The defense questioned Lamo about many specifics of the chat logs between him and PFC Manning. When asked if PFC Manning had been looking for guidance in his situation, Lamo responded that it seemed he was looking to brag about what he'd done.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Troy Bettencourt
Troy Bettencourt had previously testified Saturday. He agreed with the defense's case that the Army failed in its handling of PFC Manning.
PFC Bradley Manning's Reaction to the Hearing
Bill Hennessey, the man who has been doing the courtroom illustrations for this hearing, had this to say about PFC Manning:
"He is very controlled and pays close attention to the proceedings. The only I have really seen him react was on the first day of proceedings when they said the penalty for this case was potentially the death penalty. I think it really struck him. He really sunk in his chair."


The hearing resumes tomorrow at 9AM with the defense calling witnesses.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2386

[Magda Hassan]

So much for justice being seen to be done....

The WikiLeaks saga is centered on issues of government transparency and accountability, but the public is being strategically denied access to the Manning hearing, one of the most important court cases in our lifetime.

About the Author

Rainey Reitman

Rainey Reitman, a steering committee member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, reported live from Manning's...

Related Topics

Bradley Manning Daniel Choi Nathan Fuller Private First Class Social Issues Technology Trial United States journalist officer




Twenty-four year old Private First Class Bradley Manning is facing life in prison or even the death penalty for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents about US wars and diplomacy to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks. Some of the documents in question are now posted online and have been the fodder for news articles and public discussion about world politics for well over a year. This case will show much about the United States' tolerance for whistle-blowers who show the country in an unflattering light. Are we a nation that tolerates criticism and values transparency? Or are we willing to crack down on whistleblowers of conscience? Unfortunately, the military is taking steps to block access by the media and the public to portions of the trial, robbing the world of details of this critically important trial.
No full transcript available
The details of Bradley Manning's prosecution aren't making their way into the public domain in large part because there is no full transcript being made public. During a recess from the hearing, I questioned a Public Affairs Officer who refused to provide his name about when a transcript would be made available. He said that it would likely be three to four months before any transcript would be available to the publiclong after the media interest had faded.
Computers and recording devices denied
The government has denied any recording devices, audio or video, to be in the media center or the courtroom. This is particularly galling because the government has ample ability to record the proceedings in full and make them publicly available; in fact, the proceedings are being recorded and livecast to the media center where reporters under the strict supervision of Public Affairs Officers are taking frantic notes.
Journalists are forbidden from connecting to the Internet, making the possibility of live tweeting and live blogging challenging. The government allowed a mere 20 members of the public into the hearing. Spectators were denied laptops, meaning the only way for the public to get notes on the pretrial hearing is by scribbling notes on paper.
Media access denied or rescinded
When Nathan Fuller applied for a press pass to attend the hearing and take notes from the media center, his request was grantedand then rescinded. Among other things, Fuller is an intern with the Bradley Manning Support Network, a coalition of individuals and organizations working to cover the financial costs of Manning's defense and educate the public about the issues involved. On Monday, I asked the Public Affairs Official at the hearing what criteria was used to assess whether someone qualified as a journalist for the purposes of receiving a press pass, and he said he did not know. I asked how many other individuals had been denied press passes to the hearing, and he again replied that he didn't know. I asked how many other individuals had received press passes only to have them rescinded and got the same non-response. He didn't know if there was a phone number to someone who would have the answers to these questions. I asked my questions again on Tuesday, and the Public Affairs Officer still knew nothingexcept that he wouldn't have an answer for my questions that day.
Overflow theater closed down even when people barred from courtroom
On the first day of the hearing, individuals who were not among the first twenty to arrive at the hearing were given access to a theater across the street. While recording devices were not allowed, this theater offered individuals the flexibility to enter and leave at will. As a result, there was access to cars where laptops and cell phones were stored, which facilitated reporting on the hearing. The theater also provided a way for individuals who were late to the hearing to be able to sit down and start watching the proceedings right away, instead of waiting in an empty trailer for an hour or more for the first recess. This is particularly important because there were long lines to have vehicles inspected to gain entrance to the base, and there was no published schedule for when the hearing would begin, making lateness a frequent occurrence.
After the second day, however, the overflow theater was closed down. I spoke to a military representative who said the theater was closed down because the courtroom wasn't full. It is true that Saturday the courtroom was not at spectator capacity, but that was the day of the public rally protesting the prosecution of Bradley Manning, so it's not surprising there were fewer people in the court. The courtroom was at capacity on Tuesday and two individuals who had driven in from Occupy DC were denied entrance because there were not enough available seats. Nonetheless the military still refused to open the theater.
No accommodations for disabled and elderly access
If you've got a small bladder, poor hearing or can't handle stairs, then forget about attending Manning's trial. I was particularly sad to see famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg struggling to hear the proceedings. I spoke to the military police and urged them to open the public theater so that individuals like Ellsberg could sit closer to the sound system. I was rebuffed.
Access denied
Manning's pretrial hearing is being held at Fort Meade in Maryland. Individuals who want to drive on base have to undergo a lengthy inspection of their vehicle, often waiting in line for a long period of time. And sometimes even waiting in line won't get you in: Lt. Daniel Choi, a veteran and outspoken advocate for ending the military's discriminatory policies toward LGBT servicemembers, was held at the entrance at length. The military personnel at the entrance to the base took issue with Lt. Choi's military uniform and delayed him entering base for some time. Though he eventually passed through security, Choi was there only briefly before being removed from the base, his uniform ripped and his wrist injured as he was forcibly evicted. The military, which did not charge him, accused him of "heckling," though no witnesses saw any evidence of untoward behavior on Choi's part.
Lt. Choi spoke out against the Manning trial during an interview with Keith Oblermann. "You don't have to be in the military to understand this is a show trial," he said, "This is a farce of justice and being in that courtroom this weekend, I don't think that America has had lower moments."
The long delay at the entrance caused Choi to arrive late at the courtroom, and because the theater was closed he was unable to watch much of the proceedings.
While the documents attributed to Manning have been widely dispersed and are the subject of many news articles, the government insisted on shutting the public and the media out of large portions of the hearing. On the third day of the trial, the investigating officer decided to accommodate the prosecution's request for a closed hearing for a portion of the next day. The investigating officer found that the information had been properly classified and that the need to maintain that classification outweighed the value of a public and open trial. But the public, who has had access to the WikiLeaks releases for well over a year, was not given an opportunity to object. The only one who did object was the defense team of Bradley Manning, to no avail. No explanation was provided regarding what information would be reviewed in the closed portion of the trial. And notably, the investigating officer allowed "relevant government agencies" to remain even as the public was ousted, without providing any information on what agencies were considered relevant.
No media organizations have yet contested the right to have access to the closed portions of the proceedings.
Wikileaks Thrown Out
Among those thrown out of the courtroom during the closed portions of the hearing were attorneys for the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks had petitioned for guaranteed access to the hearing, and had sent in an attorney who had the highest level of secret security clearance. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Assange and WikiLeaks, is appealing their right to access the trial. In a press release, CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said, "As counsel for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, we must be given access to these proceedings. The lack of transparency that has been a hallmark of the military's prosecution of Private Manning to date also serves to obscure his abusive conditions of confinement." Assange and his lawyers are also concerned about the threat of an extradition request from the US on matters raised in Private Manning's proceedings.
At its heart, the Bradley Manning trial is about secrecy, about understanding how our own government as a world power operates in complex international waters, about debating the sacrifices we're willing to make to advance our interests. Whatever interests the military may have in conducting its case against Manning behind closed doors, we as a society cannot tolerate attempts to rob us of knowledge of the court proceedings. This trial will change the history of our country; I only hope we get to be in the room when it happens.
http://www.thenation.com/article/165336/...gs-hearing

[Peter Lemkin]

The Trial is shaping up to be as fair as all that has led up to it. America is a moral and legal monster now...there simply are not other words for it. :poketongue: We simply have no fair legal system anymore - and even less so in the military - no sense of fairness, at all, in anything.

[Peter Lemkin]

JUAN GONZALEZ: The military pretrial hearing for alleged Army whistleblower Bradley Manning concluded yesterday. Lawyers made their closing arguments following the testimony of just two witnesses for the defense. Prosecution lawyers called a total of 21 witnesses. The pretrial hearing was held in Fort Meade, Maryland, and lasted seven days, to determine whether Manning should face a court-martial for allegedly leaking classified video and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.

In closing arguments, the defense said the government had failed to help the emotionally troubled soldier, while the prosecution argued the document release had helped al-Qaeda, showing a video in which a recruiter for the militant group referred to WikiLeaks and urged followers to, quote, "take advantage of the wide range of resources available today on the Internet."

AMY GOODMAN: The defense urged the investigating officer to reduce the charges against Manning. The 24-year-old soldier currently faces 22 separate counts of distributing state secrets and aiding the enemy. Both witnesses who appeared for the defense were military comrades who testified about Manning's alleged erratic behavior and the lax security environment on the Baghdad computer system he used. The court is expected to take several weeks to render a decision regarding a possible court-martial.

To find out more about the case, we go to Washington, D.C., to talk to Kevin Gosztola. He was present at Manning's pretrial hearing. Gosztola writes for "The Dissenter" and blogs at Firedoglake.

Kevin, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you please explain the last few dayswe followed it every dayof the pretrial military hearing, that looks very much like it's leading to a court-martial of Bradley Manning?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Right. In the last few days, we had the closing arguments, and so we heard from the defense. And the defense basically came out and presented their closing argument, and they did the best that they could with the evidence that they were permitted to present. The investigative officer or the prosecution only allowed two witnesses to take the stand.

And so, what they were left with is condemning the government for overcharging Bradley Manning, and they said they were overreaching. He suggested that the original classification authorities for this classified information that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing actually take the stand and be put under oath next time, because they keep saying that there is a risk to national security, and he would like to see them go under oath, and they would probably perjure themselves if they did. He was specifically talking about putting people like Geoff Morrell and Hillary Clinton under oath. And then he just went on, and he talked about Bradley Manning and some of the problems that he was experiencing in the military and how he had literature about transsexuals in the military.

Sharply contrasting was the prosecution, which, as you said in your opening, suggested that Bradley Manning helped al-Qaeda, because he released information to WikiLeaks, and he knew, based on his experience as an intelligence analyst, that this would in fact happen, because he was trained to protect the information, and he was aware that WikiLeaks was looking for information. They had a most-wanted list. But he was a guiding light, and they said that he helped harvest the information.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Kevin, on this issue of the overcharging on the 22 counts for which Manning faces up to 150 years in prison, if convicted, the prosecution is alleging there were 22 separate incidents in which he violated state secrets?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, no. There's not 22 separate incidents. There's only maybe about six or seven, when you break it down. But they're attaching charges, additional charges, to each of the documents. So, for example, he's alleged to have released the Iraq War Logs and Afghanistan War Logs, the United States State embassy cables, the Reykjavik cable, the Garani video of a Farah incident in Afghanistan, the "Collateral Murder" video, etc. And then, for each of those, there is a set of specifications that go along with leaking those pieces of information. And so, they're saying that he downloaded unauthorized software to his computer in order to make transfers to WikiLeaks. And they're saying that he had unauthorized information on his computer that he downloaded. And then, of course, the transfer of the information out to WikiLeaks is a charge, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: You said they presented their case based on the restrictions. What were the restrictions for the defense, Kevin?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, I would begin by mentioning that the investigative officer, Paul Almanza, was objected by the defense. The defense wanted him to recuse himself on the first day. And part of the problem that they had was that he has a background with the Department of Justice, which also has an investigation into WikiLeaks right now. And the defense's fearand it looks like it could be happening here, especially if Manning is charged and is going to get life without parolethey're worried that Bradley Manning is going to bethey think they're going to try to flip Bradley Manning to go against WikiLeaks. And so, that was part of the issue.

The other issue was that the prosecution would not allow these witnesses. So they had a list of 48 witnesses. Ten of them happened to be on the prosecution's list. There were 38 witnesses then that they were trying to call on their own accord. And those were all denied. Thirty-six of them were denied. And so, they ultimately had two witnesses that were able to speak. And so, what happened is, you've got people who were watching, wondering why nobody from Quantico is taking the stand to discuss his pretrial confinement. And you've alsowere wondering why the defense's case was so weak. Well, the answer is because that the government and this investigative officer, Almanza, did basically everything they could to ensure that only a few bits of evidence were able to be entered into the record to support the defense's argument for Bradley Manning.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrian Lamo is one of those who testified. He's the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Private Bradley Manning in Iraq. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo testified at the hearing. Prior to his testimony this week, he appeared on Democracy Now! and said that Bradley Manning's leaks had the potential to harm the United States. This is what he said.

ADRIAN LAMO: I don't believe that you can directly say that a single person has or has not been harmed by the leaks. It's like saying whether or not a death is attributable to smoking or whether the person would have developed cancer naturally. The leaks have the real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position.

AMY GOODMAN: And folks can go to the website democracynow.org to see, hear, read the full interview with Adrian Lamo. Kevin Gosztola, what did he say on the stand? And your response to what he says here?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Right. So when Adrian Lamo took the stand, he was basically put on the stand to explain his role as a confidential informant for the United States government. And we learned specific details, just before his testimony, from an agent who took the stand and described that relationship, which began some time, they said, in the end of May or the first part of June. There was physical contact. And so, Adrian was on the stand, and basically he was brought up to explain his conversations in the chat logs.

And the highlight, I think, of the cross-examination is that Coombs, from the defense, confronted Adrian Lamo on this opening of the chats, where he offers journalistic protection, or he says, "I'm a minister, and you could consider this as a confession." And then, also, he was pushed on this fact that just a numberjust one day into the chat logs, he actually made contact, he tipped off the authorities to the fact that he was engaged with this intelligence analyst. And then he proceeded to have chats for the next few days. And Coombs pressed him extraordinarily on this fact that he was trying to incriminate Bradley Manning and that he was also trying to egg him on to share all these details about what he had done.

And so, as you read these chat logs, you can see him saying things about the U.S. State embassy cables that just make it so that's really what the government had to decide that they were going to detain Bradley Manning and then ultimately seize all of his property. So it becameit's abundantly clear that without the chat logs, the government could not have investigated Bradley Manning.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And also, in Lamo's testimony, when did his communication with Manning begin in relationship to the WikiLeaks disclosures?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: They beganI mean, it was like May 21st that they start talking, that Lamo and Manning start having conversations.

AMY GOODMAN: What were you most surprised by, Kevin, as you sat through this pretrial hearing for the past week?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, I mean, I don't want to be too meta and talk about my experience as being part of the media pool, but I couldn't help but notice that whenever I went on base, I was being escorted, and then the media was being secluded in this location on the military base. And while the public affairs representatives for the military were very polite and helpful in what we were trying to do, I did speak to some people who were from the public who attended the hearing, and they told me that, wow, they really treat you so strictly. I mean, you have to be escorted everywhere, and you have to go everywhere with someyou had to be in a van. And they really didn't want us to wander around. And we had a lot of restrictions while we were on the base. And some of them are normal restrictions that you have with a courtroom, but they really were worried, I think, as to the sort of stories that the media was going to produce about the trial.

And that also had to do with why they scheduled the hearing in such a manner so that it happened on a weekend. I mean, the pool was significantly reduced on Saturday and Sunday. We had gone from about 70 people, I would say, down to maybe 30 to 35 members of the media who were actually covering the trial, because it's the weekend, and they didn't want to do any work. And so, I'd say the government made a calculated decision to schedule this hearing, and they also scheduled it very close to the holidays. And so, I think that, in the end, there is less media coverage overall in the United States because of where they put the hearing.

And then, I would say that the final thing that really struck me about this hearing is how they presented the evidencethe governmentand actually linked Bradley Manning to aiding al-Qaeda. I mean, that essentially is criminalizing national security journalism, if you really work this thing out, because what they're saying is anybody who puts this information on the internetif you do a report on a drone strike, if you do a report on anything related to military operations, and then al-Qaeda reads it, then you could be accused of aiding the enemy.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin Gosztola, I want to thank you for being with us, writes for "The Dissenter" blog at Firedoglake. He attended Manning's pretrial hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland.

[Peter Lemkin]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3422[/ATTACH]*Myself pictured with Daniel Choi on December 18, 2011, who was also in attendance that day at Fort Meade, MD. You can watch him describe the abuse he experienced at Fort Meade, MD the next day Monday, December 19, 2021 on democracynow.org. He was reportedly thrown to the ground, handcuffed, had his rank ripped off his uniform, and was forcibly ejected from the pretrial proceedings.
I sat next to or near Daniel Choi in the courtroom on both Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. I can tell you that I only saw Daniel Choi behaving in a respectful manner during the proceedings or while the court was at recess, both in the gallery or on the premises. I can also tell you that the Federal Police Officers began watching the public in attendance more overtly, even hanging around to watch us outside the security perimeter of the courthouse, after Daniel Choi showed up on Saturday.
In fact unlike Friday all day, and Saturday morning, when Daniel Choi was not in the public gallery, Bradley Manning exited with armed soldiers through the public gallery when recesses were called or at the end of the day.
Starting Saturday afternoon, after Daniel Choi showed up, the public was told to leave the gallery before the guards would even move Bradley Manning, or Bradley Manning was exited through the back.
In fact, after the morning's proceedings on December 18, 2011, I moved to a back row on the defense side of the gallery, and away from Daniel and the others who were talking at a recess. I did this in order to collect myself for the task of transcription.
From my new position, I watched one unidentified, caucasian, middle-aged man in a dark suit wearing glasses with dark curly hair - stand and lean against the middle pew on the prosecution side of the gallery - 3 feet away from Daniel Choi and a little back. This man watched Daniel - never once lifting his eyes from Choi for about five minutes, until he caught me looking at him watching Choi in a like manner to himself. He then looked over at one of the soldiers guarding the proceeding, who was dressed in a similar military uniform as Daniel. They both raised their eyebrows at each other.
I had arrived at the Fort Meade, MD courthouse at 8:00 a.m. on December 18, 2011. The following 32 pages of typed transcript were taken by hand and may contain errors, misspellings of names, and or may be incomplete.
Please send any corrections or amendments to carwinb@hushmail.com.
The Investigation Officer is Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.
Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein,, Captain Joe Morrow, and Captain Angel Overgaard,
Defense is Mr. David Coombs,, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard. ,
Previous Coverage:
Day 1
Day 2
Day began with prosecution and defense teams exiting the courtroom together (possibly to meet in chambers, they exited together through the back). At one point, a member of the prosecution returned and spoke to the gallery both behind the defense and prosecution tables to tell the public that it would be 5 more minutes.
[If I am not mistaken, and I may well be, one matter had been left open and awaiting prosecution's response. It may have been regarding the defense's request regarding a written response from prosecution about the information that the US government had, and particularly the FBI, remember that on Day 2 the defense, and Coombs in particular:
Defense (Coombs): What exactly does the government have? One. Does it exist? Two. Do they have authorization? If you deem it irrelevant, it does not stop at trial counsel. I would like that to go on record…and disclose the State Department, FBI, and DOJ.
I am not sure if this was the matter being discussed by defense and prosecution. The previous night prosecution had asked for more time for review regarding a matter...]
[Defense arrives. Prosecution arrives. IO calls the hearing to order. Speech to gallery on "decorum and dignity" of the courtroom. ]
[First witness. Captain Casey Fulton. In person. Sword in.]
Prosecution: Current job?
Fulton: Officer in charge of Squadron Intelligence.
Prosecution: What do you do?
Fulton: Multiple Intel collection...analysis.
Prosecution: Are you an Intelligence Officer?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: That what you do?
Fulton: All Source Intel.
Prosecution: How long?
Fulton: Six years.
Prosecution: Training?
Fulton: Officer's basic courses...then, military Intel courses.
Prosecution: What was your previous position?
Fulton: Assistant Officer in charge as Lt. Platoon Leader....Brigade Officer in charge SL...Brigade Assistant.
Prosecution: How many times have you been deployed?
Fulton: Two times. Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, and Iraq from 2009 to 2010. I arrived in Iraq in 2009, was deployed in October.
Prosecution: Why did you arrive so close?
Fulton: ...just graduated.
Prosecution: What were your duties?
Fulton: S2...Intel Security for deployment operations order...instruction ordered to get in country...lay down of threat for the environment.
Prosecution: When did you first meet PFC Manning?
Fulton: September of 2009.
Prosecution: How did you meet him?
Fulton: Ask in the shop who knew about the threat in Iraq...I was directed to PFC Manning...told he had a good idea...
Prosecution: What do you mean?
Fulton: According to the person who directed me to him, he (Manning) had a better understanding than the others.
Prosecution: In your experience was that true?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What were his duties?
Fulton: All Source Analyst.
Prosecution: What is that?
Fulton: Gathered different Intel, disciplines, and filtered together...
Prosecution: So "All Source"...?
Fulton: ...pull together.
Prosecution: How does one become an "All Source"?
Fulton: Higher score, TOP SECRET clearance...
Prosecution: What are the requirements for TOP SECRET clearance...?
Fulton: Background investigation...US citizen...
Prosecution: Why do 35 Foxes have TOP SECRET clearance?
Fulton: Because in order to...they have to be able to pull information from different class levels.
Prosecution: Are you familiar with their training?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is operational training?
Fulton: How basic things you may do can compromise security. For example, if you post a picture of you on base on FaceBook, although your intent might not be to compromise security, the enemy can use the information against US forces.
Prosecution: 35 Foxes learn that?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is infosec?
[Defense OBJECTION. Coombs walks right up to the witness booth past prosecution at the center podium, and begins questioning Fulton.]
Defense (Coombs): Have you ever been an instructor of 35 Foxes?
Fulton: No. But, I have assisted in their training.
Defense: Ten day trainings?
IO to Prosecution: Do you have any additional questions to lay foundation?
Prosecution: How many new junior enlisted soldiers?
Fulton: At least seven currently...and I don't know who else arrived.
Prosecution: Out of those ten, any receive AIT at your unit?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Did they receive other training?
[Defense OBJECTION. Leading. IO OVERRULES.]
Prosecution: So any training they would receive from AIT?
Fulton: Correct.
Prosecution: What is infosec?
Fulton: Basically means information...both classified and non classified management.
Prosecution: Can you be more specific?
Fulton: How to collect, mark, and destroy.
Prosecution: What do you mean by marked'?
Fulton: TOP SECRET is top secret...SECRET has certain caveats...UNCLASSIFIED...CONFIDENTIAL.
Prosecution: Can you give me an example?
Fulton: UNCLASSIFIED has a green mark top and bottom...SECRET...top and bottom.
Prosecution: How about in a digital system?
Fulton: Same way...
Prosecution: As part of infosec training, what is presumption...?
[Defense OBJECTION. Re: Training. IO OVERRULES.]
Prosecution: So as part of training what is taught about what a soldier is to presume?
Fulton: Unauthorized disclosure.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: ...responsibility there is of no unauthorized disclosure of authorized info...
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because if it's marked CLASSIFIED, it is CLASSIFIED.
Prosecution: Is it the job of the analyst to determine classification?
Fulton: No. If it is marked CLASSIFIED, assume it is CLASSIFIED.
Prosecution: Why is that?
Fulton: (She pauses. Throughout the prosecutions questioning of her, she takes very long pauses to answer her questions. Like she has to search for answers.) Because that is done by someone in authority.
Prosecution: You have authority?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Anyone in your group?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: : Has to be appointed by the Secretary of the Army. Is that so?
Fulton: I believe so.
Prosecution: [Missed question]
Fulton: There is an ability to chat with other analysts...pulls database...provides map like diagram...personality based.
Prosecution: What does it pull from?
Fulton: Sydney. That has become the database everyone uses.
Prosecution: Everyone?
Fulton: Military and other defense agencies.
Prosecution: Is Sydney just an Intel platform?
Fulton: I don't really think so. That is all I use it for.
Prosecution: Human Intel, Tack raps (Signal Intel reports), Significant Activity (SigActs) reports...Those reports have classification marks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: How would you know that documents are classified?
Fulton: Marks. [She explains marks.]
Prosecution: When you pull...is it in a database...?
Fulton: Say again.
Prosecution: A dual user interface...does it require fields, or is it a blank slate...? [Alexa O'Brien note: Prosecution searches for a way to explain the User Interface intelligibly. He uses Microsoft Word as an example of a blank slate' ...in my opinion his question was stated very unclearly...]
Fulton: I think fields.
Prosecution: Is there a classification field?
Fulton: I don't know.
Prosecution: What sort of fields exist?
Fulton: Assassinations. Threats...
Prosecution: Dust worm procedures...?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is that?
Fulton: When military are kidnapped.
Prosecution: Grid quadrants?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Sources of Intel provided to members of Army in Iraq?
Fulton: There could be...[She then asks...] Are you talking about Sydney or Significant Activity?
Prosecution: Is there a difference?
Fulton: So Sydney contains types...
Prosecution: So positions of US forces is contained in the data...?
[Defense OBJECTION. Also, Fulton is speaking with pauses and very low volume. IO says, her answer sounded like, "Maybe."]
Prosecution: Does the Sydney database contain information of the coordinates of US forces?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Between 2009 and 2010 how US forces reacted to IED attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
[Defense OBJECTION. Relevance.]
Defense: PFC Manning is not charged with Sydney database...and as I understand...no SigActs...
[IO SUSTAINS..."briefly" Defense (Coombs) gets up and walks over to witness booth past prosecution who is standing at the center podium in the courtroom.]
Defense: Sydney database has a lot of info...SigActs are a small part?
Fulton: I would say small.
Defense: SigActs won't have source names?
Fulton: Depends on how it is written.
Defense: So the SigActs that my client is charged with...whole bunch...not other stuff?
[An argument between Defense and Prosecution ensues over what PFC Manning is charged with and how relevant Prosecution's questions are...Defense or Prosecution says, (I am unclear who) "He is charged with Sydney-Iraq and SigAct-Iraq..." (This needs verification as to who is speaking)]
Prosecution: Charge Sheet... Spec 4, Charge 2... Compromise Iraq database... 382,000 documents...
Defense: Maybe prosecution can state what documents are, all SigActs.
[IO gets impatient with Defense. IO OVERRULED.]
Prosecution: So we are talking about different types of information...December 2009 to January 2010...different indirect fire methods, techniques, tactics, and procedures...?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: ...for enemy attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Different techniques for IED attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Different techniques for rescue?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When we stated...talk about the system? What is Intelink?
Fulton: It is a system.
Prosecution: Where do you find it?
Fulton: On SIPRnet.
Prosecution: How is it used?
Fulton: Where you would try to find information...not readily available.
Prosecution: What type of information would come back?
Fulton: PowerPoint presentations, reports, word documents which would be reports...
Prosecution: Was that undertaken by 35 Foxes on a daily basis?
Fulton: Maybe not.
Prosecution: Weekly?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When you arrived in Iraq what were your duties?
Fulton: Doing all analysis of future threat.
Prosecution: What kind?
Fulton: When creating a future operations order...in order to help the commander, you need you need to understand what they are going to do first.
Prosecution: What kinds of things do you want to know?
Fulton: Everything you can know about the enemy.
Prosecution: Did 35 Foxes help?
Fulton: Yes. They are comprehensive projects in a condensed timeline. Easier to shop out (research parts)...
Prosecution: Who relied on these products?
Fulton: The commander.
Prosecution: Can you give an example? How would you give a question and get an answer from a 35 Fox?
Fulton: If we had a fire threat...use D6 to search all indirect fire threats to lay info of in operational environment...then take all human reporting...pull HUMINT (Human Intelligence) and the enemy threat network: Which routes? How they travel? Where they store munitions? And then would direct assets on the ground for collection of Intelligence...to disruption zones...enemy locations or prevent attacks.
Prosecution: Disruption zones?
Fulton: Enemy intends to disrupt but not to defeat.
Prosecution: Overlays?
Fulton: Taking information and overlaying it on top of each other.
Prosecution: Sit temp (I am not certain this was the slang)?
Fulton: Situational locations of the enemy.
Prosecution: Cache locations?
Fulton: Cache?
[Prosecutor apologizes for mispronouncing cache with two syllables.]
Fulton: Where they store munitions.
Prosecution: How would 35 Foxes get the information?
Fulton: ...pull from Sydney...most came from Sydney.
Prosecution: Would a person not familiar with the system be able to pull information?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because it has to be filtered. For example. Query-Tree uses bullion logic...combination of words...otherwise superfluous...same with Sydney, needs to be filtered.
Prosecution: If you relied on "All Source" they would have to pull it through...?
Fulton: Correct.
Prosecution: When did you become an Intel officer?
Fulton: Late January.
Prosecution: Mission?
Fulton: To provide best threat product to commander. Our focus was election security.
Prosecution: When?
Fulton: March.
Prosecution: Main focus March 2010 Fob Hammer?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Other focuses?
Fulton: Before that?
Prosecution: Day to day?
Fulton: Disrupt enemy operations.
Prosecution: Where was your office?
Fulton: In SCIF.
Prosecution: What is "SCIF"?
Fulton: Specialized Compartmentalized Information (She pauses.) I do not know.
[Indeed, Fulton does not know that SCIF stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility"]
Prosecution: What does it stand for?
Fulton: Good question.
Prosecution: Did Manning work in the SCIF?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Your office was in the SCIF?
Fulton: Yes...Back room was (indecipherable) signals.
Prosecution: What is NIPRnet?
Fulton: Up to SECRET.
Prosecution: Did any "All Source" analysts have access to higher access?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: ...ability to discuss?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Highest level you could access was SECRET?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Requirement to burn CDs?
Fulton: The reason for the ability to burn CDs was to share information with Iraqis. It was part of the mission.
Prosecution: Allowed for any other means?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: While deployed with second brigade...(indecipherable, maybe "description")...of general security?
Fulton: Don't release info to family. Don't go on FaceBook.
Prosecution: What about infosec?
[Defense OBJECTION. (Indecipherable "Indec." Unsure of IO's ruling.]
Prosecution: Were computers on shared network accessed by "All Source"?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Classification?
Fulton: Secret.
Prosecution: What were rules of pulling information off network?
Fulton: (She asks) Accessing?
Prosecution: Yes.
Fulton: There weren't any restrictions because it was a shared network. It was easier to move information back and forth.
Prosecution: Rules for pulling information off?
Fulton: No way you would pull off information that wasn't pertinent.
Prosecution: What makes it appear classified?
Fulton: That it is on a classified system or a machine that is classified. If there is information on a classified system, once something is on a classified system, assumed classified and cannot put on an unclassified...
Prosecution: How was authorization for the Second Brigade tech...maintain (indecipherable)?
Fulton: Don't know.
Prosecution: Pull to a personal computer?
Fulton: ...Because that is unauthorized disclosure.
Prosecution: Is that something 35 Foxes would know?
Fulton: At minimum they signed SF312 a Non Disclosure Agreement. They also have been trained.
Prosecution: Is that supervised one hundred percent of the time?
Fulton: Impossible.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because of limited amount of supervision.
Prosecution: What do you rely on?
Fulton: That they have understanding of their job and take pride in their work.
Prosecution: What were Manning's strengths?
Fulton: He was very good at compiling data.
Prosecution: Can you give me an example?
Fulton: I had him work with D6...laying human Intel onto a map...He could import and export Excel spreadsheets...So looking at number of spreadsheets...easier to use excel than input one at a time.
Prosecution: How often?
Fulton: Occasionally.
Prosecution: Would he have to have an understanding of the data?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Full time duties?
Fulton: Violent extremist threat...
Prosecution: Based on that, was there a reason for him to be investigating GTMO SOPs?
Fulton: No. Not regarding Iraq.
Prosecution: A reason for him to be searching for Iceland?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: For Julian Assange on SIPRnet?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: 15, 6 investigation?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: SJA Web site?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Pulling all the data from the Sydney Afghanistan database?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Were you aware of the 2007 Apache video?
Fulton: Schulman was playing on personal computer before April 1 (Needs verification that it was on her personal computer.)
Prosecution: She had it on SIPRnet system?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: So a classified system?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When did you become aware?
Fulton: Not sure. It wasn't exactly...didn't really know until Manning was arrested.
Prosecution: Did you ever have a conversation about the video?
Fulton: I asked group if they had seen the video, and how that would affect us if it became public in a deployed environment. Manning said, "No. That is the same video on our shared drive." I said no, it is shorter. I would have to compare...last verbal conversation
Prosecution: Did you have non-verbal conversation about the video?
Fulton: He sent email with two video clips, one of the Apache video, both side by side.
Prosecution: Was the video released through the Internet the one on your shared drive?
Fulton: That was the indication. Not sure.
Prosecution: Email is on SIPRnet?
Fulton: Yes. SIPRnet
Prosecution: Captain Fulton, were you aware of an Army investigation related to that video?
Fulton: Not sure.
[Defense cross-examines the witness.]
Defense (Coombs): Became part...2009?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Your duty was Assistant S2?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Deploy as S2 Plans Officer?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You worked out of the SCIF on operation orders for election security?
Fulton: Yes.
[Alexa O'Brien note: Coombs would often use this style for cross-examination of witnesses. He would conduct a recap narrative-like, easy going exchange, which required a simple yes or no. More often, simply yes to his line of argument. He did this in the way a dog might urinate on a neighborhood fence, and not in a rude manner. He simply made the story his, so you forgot the prosecutors' in his retelling. Coombs also used his intellect as much as he used physical space in the courtroom. In a confident and graceful manner, he simply asserted himself between the nervous prosecutors and the show dog IO, the way a real alpha defense lawyer like Coombs could.]
Defense (Coombs): Election security, helping the commander make decisions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Mission was related to elections?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Product was important?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Election security was the main mission?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were not in the chain of command, your relationship with Manning was merely counseling?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): One soldier you relied on was Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Manning was good for putting projects together?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Knew how to use excel, and could plot data points?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): NDMP...heavy Intel...you needed his assistance for steps?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...lengthy and robust?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Asked him to create data-maps and slides?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He completed them in a timely manner?
Fulton: Yes
Defense (Coombs): Assigning him frequently?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...primary mission?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did a lot of work from November 2009 to 2010 that had to be completed in a timely manner?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You would go to him because he was good with computers?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Go to him because he was interested in the topics?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Sometimes he would find information for you based on discussions you had had?
Fulton: Yes. [Her voice got softer as Coombs line of questions continued, and I got the feeling she exhibited compassion (perhaps like') for Manning.]
Defense (Coombs): Exciting to have someone like Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Didn't believe he was a good analyst?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...because they needed to grow?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not like being an analyst is an easy thing?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He was still learning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So because he was still learning, he was just tasked to get the data?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Then you would do analysis?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Your way of training was to ask questions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not surprising, you would even go through the data, even though he was not an analyst (Need verification. I think this is where he asked her if she would go through the data with Manning.)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Person who was Staff Sergeant (indecipherable, I wrote phonetically Ballard)...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): People in the SCIF listen to music?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers would pull the music from the shared drive and put on the D6?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): That was common?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not acceptable?
Fulton: What do you mean?
Defense (Coombs): Should they have had music on the shared drive? So no one ever told you music was a violation?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): So they would pulled the music from the shared drive and put it on players, that ok?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): If people watched movies they purchased from Iraqi nationals, pirated versions, was that ok?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): There were games on the shared drive, soldiers played those games on the D6?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): D6 machines used primarily for...?
Fulton: Analysis.
Defense (Coombs): mIRC chat as a baseline?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): In fact, mIRC chat was installed on your machine as an executable desktop application?
Fulton: I think so.
[Defense (Coombs) explains that the program ran from the desktop and was executable. Downloaded and installed.]
Defense (Coombs): And you needed it, because it helped you communicate. As you also believed Google Earth was part of the program (of tools)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): It was installed as a desktop application?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And you would use Google Earth?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did you see Manning talk to Adkins prior to the incident with Schulman?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What did you see?
Fulton: Manning was upset and sitting on the floor.
Defense (Coombs): Arms around his knees, would it be correct to say he was curled up in a ball on the floor?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): That is not common, is it?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Did you speak to -- to find out what was going on?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Were you present with the incident with Schulman?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You had released Schulman, but you brought her back?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were looking for information, and no one could find it, Manning had tried to find it, and you needed the information?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So you had instructed someone go and wake Schulman up?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And Schulman was irritated?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): you had your back to --- because you were on the phone...and you heard Schulman was irritated with PFC Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And she was irritated because he was playing a game?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You knew Manning had already looked for the information?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You heard Manning say, "You need to calm down," to Schulman...with Schulman on the ground...(I did not write down the entire question, may have been two questions)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): She had said he had struck her, and she had a red mark on her face?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You told Adkins that --- needed to be taken from him...needed to go to behavioral specialist because that was the standard response?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Why?
Fulton: What do you mean? When you have an interaction like that between soldiers...I wanted him removed...especially in a deployed environment...you want to find out what is wrong.
Defense (Coombs): Did you feel that a derog' was necessary?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Derog, his security clearance suspended, revoked?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Derog...call into question of whether they should have security clearance...some examples of reasons for derog are: Behavioral...lying to superiors...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So obviously...derog process makes sure you track negative actions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers and leaders have a responsibility to report behavioral issues with people who have security clearances?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So especially security persons had a responsibility for security clearance?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And, it was Adkins duty to report...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So if a soldier exhibited behavior that was untrustworthy or if a soldier exhibited mental problems...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Where you aware of the Manning Padgett incident?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): 2009 end of ...deployment ? (not clear from my notes.)
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Based on a conversation with Adkins, what were your thoughts on the derog, you agreed?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): How quickly can a persons access be pulled?
Fulton: Immediately.
Defense (Coombs): Once a soldier is derog'ed' do they have access?
Fulton: No.
[Prosecution re-examines Captain Casey Fulton]
Prosecution: Captain Fulton, after Manning assaulted -- he was removed from the SCIF on May 7, 2010?
Fulton: I don't know. (She may have added, "In May..." I believe she was saying she was not sure of exact date.)
Prosecution: Did he receive averse action?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: All soldiers, and especially 35 Foxes …. not to disclose?
Fulton: Yes.
[Defense re-examines the witness.]
Defense: Your clearance is dependent on, ongoing behavior?
Fulton: Yes.
[Captain Fulton is excused. Recess. IO calls next witness. Master Sgt. Paul Adkins. In person. Sworn in by prosecution.]
Prosecution: ...your name...?
Adkins: I invoke my Article 31 rights.
IO: Are there any questions that you could be asked will not cause you to invoke Article 31 completely.
Adkins: No.
[Defense (Coombs) OBJECTION.. Cites case law and argues that Article 31 did not apply to an Article 32 hearing.]
Defense (Coombs): We believe this is an inappropriate (I wrote in my notes indecipherable "966. Cas. Dec.")...does not apply at Article 32 hearing...administrative appellate matter, not a criminal matter...RCN704E convening authority (he is urging them) grant him immunity, and compel him to testify.
Prosecution: We will not do this.
IO: I find that this witness is unavailable.
[Next witness. Warrant Officer 1 Kyle Balonek. Via Telephone.]
Balonek: On my behalf of my attorneys advice, I invoke my right to remain silent.
IO: Are there any questions we could ask you that you would not invoke Article 31 rights.
Balonek: No.
[Defense OBJECTION. Refers to previous reason.]
IO: Thank you Mr. Balonek. I find that this witness is not available.
[Next Witness. Sergeant Madaras. Via telephone. Sworn in by prosecution.]
Prosecution: Are you in an area where you can speak freely?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: No notes?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: How do you know PFC Manning?
Madaras: Met at Fort Drum...deployed to Iraq.
Prosecution: When?
Madaras: Sometime in 2008...in the smoking area.
Prosecution: MOS?
Madaras: 35 Fox Intel Analyst.
Prosecution: Manning?
Madaras: 35 Fox Intel Analyst.
Prosecution: Do you remember what you learned?
Madaras: Learned how to do military symbols...how to present a PowerPoint...how to use multi--(indecipherable) workstation...
Prosecution: What did you learn about the classification system?
Madaras: Its importance...and the different classifications.
Prosecution: What did you learn about classification?
Madaras: Proper clearance and access.
Prosecution: Learn about publishing information on the Internet?
Madaras: Not that I recall.
Prosecution: Arrived at … 2010 (missed question)?
Madaras: (missed answer)
Prosecution: What did you learn...?
Madaras: D6 class...August of 2008.
Prosecution: What other classes...?
Madaras: Some mainly military writing style classes...
Prosecution: What did you learn about the D6...?
Madaras: ...like using a map...built stuff onto it to present to audience...?
Prosecution: Anything else...?
Madaras: JRTC rotations (either Madaras or Manning) wasn't sure if he was with JRTC Afghanistan.
Prosecution: what did you do?
Madaras: Simulation.
Prosecution: Did you work with Manning (at Fort Drum. They were also on opposite shifts in Iraq.)?
Madaras: He worked day, and I worked night.
Prosecution: Did you deploy with him?
Madaras: ...left in 2009. PFC showed up a few weeks later.
Prosecution: Where did you work?
Madaras: Brigade SCIF Fob Hammer.
Prosecution: Where did Manning work?
Madaras: Same.
Prosecution: What was your job?
Madaras: Shia team analyst.
Prosecution: Manning?
Madaras: Same. I worked day, and he worked night. Then we switched.
Prosecution: The two of you shared a work station...?
Madaras: Yes...just times where we shared...(he says there were two computers)...Dell 6300...
Prosecution: And the second?
Madaras: Alienware.
Prosecution: Did you often use the Alienware?
Madaras: Towards the end. Manning he did. Before that the Dell.
Prosecution: What was the mission of the Brigade?
Madaras: Support … (indecipherable).
Prosecution: What did you do...?
Madaras: Read reports, link together to get...(indecipherable)
Prosecution: Did you share products with Manning?
Madaras: Majority of the time, Manning did not complete projects.
Prosecution: What programs did you use?
Madaras: Intelink, Arc map, Sydney Iraq...
Prosecution: So, you personally used Intelink?
Madaras: Yes, M'am.
Prosecution: On those two computers, ever search for Iceland? (Prosecution goes on with a list...) Retention? Birgitta Jónsdóttir? CENTCOM? Reykjavik? WikiLeaks? Julian Assange?
Prosecution: Ever use Intellipedia?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: What would you search for?
Madaras: Terrorists groups...um like Shia groups.
Prosecution: Ever use PFC Manning's user profile?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Did your computer ever operate out of the ordinary?
Madaras: Yes. I would leave shift the computer would be working fine, come in and it would be crashing a lot. Consistently had problems, would have to get Mr. Allan Lomens (sp.) to reimage.
[Defense cross-examines the witness.]
Defense (Coombs): We have spoken before on the telephone. You met Manning first in 2008?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): In the smoking area?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He could tell he was interested in US politics?
Madaras: He use to talk about his workplace...NVC...politicians would come in...
Defense (Coombs): Both JRTC in 2009?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense: Opposite shifts?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Was PFC Manning in charge of fixing computers? Knew how to work on computers?
Madaras: I don't know if he was "in charge" of computers.
Defense (Coombs): You said he always knew how to fix computers? (Missed Madaras answer.)
Defense (Coombs): At training did receive any training on not placing executable files on the desktop?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Worked as an Intel analyst...?
Madaras: Shia group.
Defense (Coombs): In this situation you worked day and Manning work nights?
(I missed two questions.)
Defense (Coombs): You said many times Manning did not complete his work?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...but you are not sure if he was tasked with other work?
Madaras: Yes. That happened sometimes.
Defense (Coombs): During deployment did you see any outburst from Manning...?
Madaras: Saw.... (indecipherable).
Defense (Coombs): Did you see the event where Manning was asked to move a projector?
Madaras: Was getting ready for the shift change. Know...(indecipherable) asked Manning to do it...tried to calm him down...took him outside.
Defense (Coombs): Was he counseled in writing?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Ever removed?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): ...one or two occasions...put weapons in rack and then...anyone...is that appropriate conduct for soldiers?
Madaras: No, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see Manning become non-responsive?
Madaras: ...Adkins called his name and he would just stare.
Defense (Coombs): Unit members felt PFC would do harm to himself?
Madaras: Um...no.
[Prosecution OBJECTION. Defense explains he wants Madaras to tell the court what he knows.]
Defense (Coombs): Were you afraid that PFC Manning would do harm to himself?
Madaras: I did not have that fear. There were some people who were worried.
Defense (Coombs): Did Manning have any friends?
Madaras: ...saw him talking to Sadler (sp.) Never saw him talking with others...maybe not directly. We would always see him running at night and say, "What is he doing...?"
[IO OBJECTION. Defense OBJECTION to IO. Cites RCN40(5, H, or S)18. Heated response from Defense.]
Defense (Coombs): The IO should not be allowed to ask questions as part of my discovery. My right is separate from what you determine as relevant.
IO: I ask that you keep it to what he knows.
Defense (Coombs): Was Manning an outcast?
Madaras: I don't know if he was picked on...separated himself.
Defense (Coombs): Listen to music on shared drive that was played on the D6?
Madaras: Yes, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): Playing videogames on D6A)?
Madaras: Games that were already on the system.
Defense (Coombs): You said your machine was always broken...if you have too much information on the desktop of your D6A machine it might crash, right?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): When someone's machine was running slow, Manning would try to fix it?
Madaras: Not that I know of.
Defense (Coombs): Did D6A have mIRC chat?
Madaras: He did have it installed.
Defense (Coombs): You thought mIRC was mission critical - running as an executable?
Madaras: If that is what it does, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): You thought it allowed you to do your job?
Madaras: Yes...communicate with other units.
Defense (Coombs): So if someone wanted to add information to a D6 machine how would you go about doing that?
Madaras: I don't know.
Defense (Coombs): And that is because you don't know much about computers...
Madaras: Yes, Sir.
[I am not certain if the prosecution re-examined Madaras, I have a note regarding prosecution asking him about the non disclosure agreement soldiers signed. Witness is excused permanently.]
The rest of Day 3 was observed by Rainy Reitman, from EFF and posted on the Bradley Manning Support Web Site. Time did not permit me to stay due to a long drive back to New York City and work related responsibilities. I had to reluctantly leave Fort Meade, MD.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2390

[Peter Lemkin]

This month new and incriminating details have come to light about a secret meeting of high-level Quantico officials that took place on January 13, 2011, resulting in Manning's illegal punitive pretrial confinement.
On March 2, 2011, PFC Bradley Manning, then confined under Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury Watch (POI) at Quantico, where he had been since July 29, 2010, was told that his Article 138 request to be placed under Medium custody and removed from harsh and punitive pretrial confinement was denied by Daniel J. Choike, Quantico base commander (pictured at the left).
The continued placement of Manning under such terms and conditions, indeed the exacerbation of his illegal pretrial confinement in March, when he was stripped every evening and forced to stand at attention naked every morning until his unexpected transfer to Fort Leavenworth on April 20, 2011, happened despite numerous cited evaluations by brig personnel, including brig psychiatrists, who recommended his removal from Maximum Custody and POI Status.
Defense had filed the original Article 138 request on January 19, 2011, one day after Manning was placed under "suicide risk", which resulted in his remaining in his cell for 24 hours a day and being stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His eyeglasses were also removed, which left him, as he describes in "total blindness". According to defense documents, the stripping and interrogation that Manning endured was videotaped by the Quantico facility.
Manning recounts his harassment and placement under "suicide risk" on the January day protests were held outside Quantico here.
On April 19, a day before Bradley Manning's unexpected transfer to Fort Leavenworth, defense reported finding out about the January 13, 2011 secret high-level meeting, and suspected their knowledge of the meeting may have led to the Department of Defenses' about-face on Manning's illegal pretrial confinement:
"The defense recently received reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely. The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening "on his watch." When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, "We will do whatever we want to do." Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning's constitutional right to due process. See United States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954) (violation of due process where result of board proceeding was predetermined); United States v. Anderson, 49 M.J. 575 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (illegal punishment where Marine Corps had an unwritten policy automatically placing certain detainees in MAX custody). The facts surrounding PFC Manning's pretrial confinement at Quantico make it clear that his detention was not "in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects" [link added] as maintained at the Pentagon press briefing. (Source: David Coombs, Why Was PFC Manning Moved to Fort Leavenworth?)
Earlier this month Manning's defense had submitted a list of witnesses they requested for the Article 32 pretrial hearing that concluded last week. Further details about the secret high-level meeting and the former Security Battalion Commander in charge of Quantico, Col. Robert G. Oltman (pictured at the left), were contained under witness 46:
XXXXXXXXXX He will testify that during a meeting early in January of 2011, the [former] Security Battalion Commander in charge of the Quantico Brig. XXXXXXXXXX [ Col. Robert G. Oltman], clearly stated to the Brig Staff that, "I will not have anything happen to Manning on my watch... So, nothing is going to change... He won't be able to hurt himself and he won't be able to get away, and our way of making sure of that is that he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely." He will testify that one of the other Brig psychiatrists, XXXXXXXXXX then said, "You know Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that, maybe you want to call it something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health." In response, XXXXXXXXXX will testify that XXXXXXXXXX said, "We will do whatever we want to do. You make a recommendation and then I have to make a decision based upon everything else." XXXXXXXXXX will testify that XXXXXXXXXX then said "Well then don't say it is based upon mental health. You can say Maximum Custody, and just don't put that we [behavioral health] are somehow involved in this." XXXXXXXXXX replied, "Well, that is what we are going to do." XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brig was so heavy handed on PFC Manning. He will testify that the others at the Brig told him that they have never seen anything like this before. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that others told him that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concern of what would happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning's treatment.(Source: Defense Article 32 Witness List)
Under witness 47:
XXXXXXXXXX He will testify that neither the Quantico Brig Commander, XXXXXXXXXX [Colonel Daniel J. Choike], nor the [former] Security Battalion Commander, XXXXXXXXXX [Col. Robert G. Oltman] gave him any reason for maintaining the Prevention of Injury precautions other than stating it was for PFC Manning's safety. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX intimated that he was receiving instruction from a higher authority on the matter but did not say who was providing this direction. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he knew that the higher base authorities had frequent (sometimes weekly) meetings to discuss PFC Manning. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he gave weekly status reports stating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he recalls a meeting with XXXXXXXXXX where he stated that PFC Manning would remain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI unless and until he received instructions from higher authority to the contrary. XXXXXXXXXX cannot recall XXXXXXXXXX exact word, but he does recall that XXXXXXXXXX made it clear that nothing would change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior of the recommendations of behavioral health. (Source: Defense Article 32 Witness List)
Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states: "No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."
On his blog, David Coombs has hinted at or explicitly stated that he intends to file an Article 13 regarding Manning's illegal and punitive pretrial confinement at Quantico. See June 21, 2011; April 19, 2011; and December 21, 2010
On November 22, 2011, defense also filed the following request for the production of evidence of the Quantico video of Manning being stripped and interrogated:
"On January 18, 2011, defense was notified that PFC Manning at the direction of XXXXXXXXXX, was placed in suicide risk. This decision was made over the recommendations of XXXXXXXXXX and the defense appointed XXXXXXXXXX. When PFC Manning was being ordered to surrender his clothes as part of the unnecessary suicide risk, the Brig made the decision to videotape this event along with an interrogation of PFC Manning by XXXXXXXXXX and others. On 19 January 2011, the defense filed a preservation of evidence request with the government and a request for the production of the video. The government has yet to respond to the defense request. The defense believes the video will support PFC Manning's claim of unlawful pretrial punishment." (Source: Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Further, David House says he has been asked by Manning's attorney not to make public assessments on his friend's deterioration while at Quantico. (Source: democracynow.org)
David Coombs also requested a "[c]opy of all audio and video surveillance of the visitation booths at Quantico, Virginia when individuals, including defense team members, met with PFC Manning. The defense also requests a copy of all audio and video surveillance of the visitations rooms at… Fort Leavenworth when individuals including defense team members, met with PFC Manning." (See 8e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2391

[Albert Doyle]

Manning is an American hero who should be freed from the clutches of those Homeland Security Nazis. Time to make that happen in America soon. They don't represent us.

[Peter Lemkin]

Manning is an American hero who should be freed from the clutches of those Homeland Security Nazis. Time to make that happen in America soon. They don't represent us.

The Prez has already passed judgment (guilty) on him, and he is obviously going to get about as unfair a legal 'deal' as they can manage. Most in Europe think of him [to the extent they know of him] as a whistleblower of official crimes and coverups, and thus not guilty of much serious. Not sure what most Americans think. Your statement above will certainly get a gold star next to your name in the DHS files.:nono:

[Peter Lemkin]

2012-01-22 Chronology of charges the US government alleges against #Manning
Submitted by Alexa O'Brien on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 17:30
Analysis United States Wikileaks trials Bradley Manning


This is a chronological list of charges against Bradley Manning alleged by the US government. They are derived from the July 5, 2010 original charge sheet and the March 1, 2011 charge sheet.

The charges from the original charge sheet are below in italics, and grouped beneath corresponding charges from the latest March 1, 2010 charge sheet.
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Gave US intel to enemy by indirect means. (Article 104, SPEC)
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Caused the publishing of US intel on Internet, knowing accessible to enemy on Internet (Article 134, SPEC 1)
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Wrongfully storing classified info. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
11/01/09 - 03/08/10 Bypass security mechanism. (Article 92, SPEC 1)
11/01/09 - 01/08/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit Garani airstrike. (Article 134, SPEC 11)
12/31/09 - 01/05/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 380,000 records CIDNE Iraq DB (Article 134, SPEC 4)
12/31/09 - 02/09/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit >20 records CIDNE Iraq DB (Article 134, SPEC 7)
12/31/09 - 01/08/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 90,000 CIDNE AFGHAN DB (Article 134, SPEC 6)
12/31/09 - 02/09/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit > 20 records CIDNE AFGHAN DB (Article 134, SPEC 5)
02/11/10 - 04/03/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92 SPEC 2)
02/15/10 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 5)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 1)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce 12 July Baghdad air strike onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 1)
02/15/10 - 02/18/10 Exceed authorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit Reykjavik 13. (Article 134, SPEC 14)
Original Charge Sheet: 01/13/10 - 02/19/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain Reykjavik 13. (Article 134, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 01/13/10 - 02/19/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain Reykjavik 13. (Article 134 SPEC 6)
02/15/10 - 03/15/10 Unauthorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit DOD counter-intelligence Memo against WikiLeaks. (Article 134, SPEC 15)
03/08/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another > 700 GTMO memoranda. (Article 134, SPEC 8)
03/08/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit > 3 GTMO memoranda. (Article 134, SPEC 9)
03/22/10 - 03/26/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit classified memo by US intel agency. [DoD counter-intelligence against WikiLeaks memo?] (Article 134, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized access on SIPRNet obtain classified DoD PPT (Article 134, SPEC 8)
03/28/10 - 05/04/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 250,000 DoS Net Centric DB. (Article 134, SPEC 12)
03/28/10 - 05/27/10 Exceed authorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit >75 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 13)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/24/10 Unauthorized access, obtain, transmit 50 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 4)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain 150,000 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 7)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce 50 DoS cables onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce classified DoD PPT onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 3)
04/11/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit >5 classified records relating to Farah province, Afghanistan. (Article 134, SPEC 10)
05/04/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/03/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
05/11/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized use of information system. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
05/11/10 - 05/27/10 Steal, convert to use for self or another Microsoft Outlook Global Address List Iraq. (Article 134, SPEC 16)

[Magda Hassan]

Please share this far and wide.
A companion video for "Almost Gone" -- a new song by legendary singer-songwriter Graham Nash and musician James Raymond (son of David Crosby) -- is being released today in support of accused U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. The free download is available on Nash's website (http://www.grahamnash.com) and the Bradley Manning Support Network site http://www.bradleymanning.org.

The release is timed to Manning's first judicial hearing scheduled for December 16th, following more than 17-months in custody, including a year in solitary confinement that Amnesty International has characterized as "harsh and punitive."

Visually, the Almost Gone video is punctuated with bold graphics, disturbing images and harsh facts. Its release is scheduled to precede Manning's pre-trial hearing on December 16, which is the day before his 24th birthday. The Bradley Manning Support Network has named the following day, December 17, its International Day of Solidarity (http://events.bradleymanning.org/). PFC Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who had been stationed near Baghdad, was arrested in May 2010 under suspicion of leaking classified information, including a video showing the killing of civilians, to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Nash and Raymond composed the song "Almost Gone (The Ballad of Bradley Manning)" during this spring's US tour of Crosby-Nash, and the new recording serves as the music bed for the video; it features an impassioned lead vocal by Nash, a two-time Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted (Crosby, Stills & Nash, and The Hollies). "Bradley Manning is a hero to me," he sings, acknowledging Manning's role in making public videos and documents that shed light on such as issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy.