|
2009-05-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he originally did not have supervisory responsibilities at the unit. After approximately 60 days, he was given responsibility for supervising two subordinate 35F Soldiers; one of these soldiers was PFC Manning. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] got to the unit in May of 2009, he observed operations for approximately 90 days and then approached SFC XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] to let him know his input about operations. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he specifically told XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] that PFC Manning clearly was struggling with emotional issues that made him ill-suited for military service. This conversation occurred in June or July of 2009. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he approached XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] monthly thereafter about separating PFC Manning from the Army but was aware that he could only take the issue to his supervisor so many times before it fell on deaf ears. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he found an iPod on a bunk and looked though it to determine the owner. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] viewed photos on the iPod, he noted that PFC Manning was attending what looked like a gay pride parade. He will also testify that he knew PFC Manning was suffering from extreme emotional issues. During deployment, he found PFC Manning curled in the fetal position in the Brigade conference room, rocking himself back and forth. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he was appointed as a Special Security Representative (SSR) on orders for the T-SCIF. The responsibilities for the SSR included reviewing security clearance requests, initiating DEROGs recommending security clearances for personnel in the S2 shop, producing an SOP and SCIF security. While he was appointed as a SSR, he will testify that he did not conduct those duties. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he believes the reason PFC Manning was allowed to remain in the military and did not receive the help he needed to deal with his issues was because XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] had influence over every action taken on personnel in the S2 section and it was his decision not to do anything. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/HXR6i |
|
Title: |
Witness | US v PFC Bradley Manning, Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
2009-07-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he originally did not have supervisory responsibilities at the unit. After approximately 60 days, he was given responsibility for supervising two subordinate 35F Soldiers; one of these soldiers was PFC Manning. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] got to the unit in May of 2009, he observed operations for approximately 90 days and then approached SFC XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] to let him know his input about operations. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he specifically told XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] that PFC Manning clearly was struggling with emotional issues that made him ill-suited for military service. This conversation occurred in June or July of 2009. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he approached XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] monthly thereafter about separating PFC Manning from the Army but was aware that he could only take the issue to his supervisor so many times before it fell on deaf ears. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he found an iPod on a bunk and looked though it to determine the owner. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] viewed photos on the iPod, he noted that PFC Manning was attending what looked like a gay pride parade. He will also testify that he knew PFC Manning was suffering from extreme emotional issues. During deployment, he found PFC Manning curled in the fetal position in the Brigade conference room, rocking himself back and forth. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he was appointed as a Special Security Representative (SSR) on orders for the T-SCIF. The responsibilities for the SSR included reviewing security clearance requests, initiating DEROGs recommending security clearances for personnel in the S2 shop, producing an SOP and SCIF security. While he was appointed as a SSR, he will testify that he did not conduct those duties. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he believes the reason PFC Manning was allowed to remain in the military and did not receive the help he needed to deal with his issues was because XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] had influence over every action taken on personnel in the S2 section and it was his decision not to do anything. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/HXR6i |
|
Title: |
Witness | US v PFC Bradley Manning, Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In another chat, dated March 8, 2010, Manning asked 'Nathaniel Frank,' believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked 'Frank' if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably it’s a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). 'Frank' replied yes, that they had 'rainbow tables' for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Kim Zetter |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Wired |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/eCzU2 |
|
|
that they had 'rainbow tables' for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
Alleged Chats Between WikiLeaks Interlocutor and Bradley Manning, United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, Attempting to Bypass Network, Charge III, Article 92, Specification 1 |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/yJScz |
| |
Name(s:) |
WikiLeaks posts the documents.' |
| |
Title: |
Alleged Chats Between WikiLeaks Interlocutor and Bradley Manning, United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
the Government says that the person it alleges to be Julian Assange confirms receipt.] 24 April 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agents
1.) Toni Graham, Army CID, 102 Military Police detachment
XXXXXXXXXX [ Toni Graham, Army CID, 102 Military Police detachment ] is one of the law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. XXXXXXXXXX [ Toni Graham, Army CID, 102 Military Police detachment ] was the primary agent involved in the initial investigation of the case beginning on 25 May 2010. XXXXXXXXXX [ Toni Graham, Army CID, 102 Military Police detachment ] will testify about the investigative steps taken from the time of the initial involvement until the matter was transferred to the Computer Crime Investigation Unit (CCIU) on 23 June 2010.
2.) Special Agent Mark Mander, CCIU
XXXXXXXXXX [Special Agent Mark Mander, CCIU] is one of the law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case for the CCIU. He is the drafter of most of the CID Reports of Investigation. He is part of a joint investigation by CID and the Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under the cooperative investigation agreement, CID is the lead investigative agency with primary responsibility for coordinating all leads affecting the U.S. Army, and DSS has responsibility for leads involving the DOS. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) later joined as a joint partner in the investigation with responsibility for providing counterespionage expertise, investigative support, and as the lead agency for all civilian related leads.
3.) Special Agent Calder Robertson, CCIU
XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Calder Robertson, CCIU ] He extracted the hard drives from the two SIPR and one NIPR computers collected from the SCIF, the personal laptop of XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant Peter Bigelow, Supply Room ], and the personal external hard drive of PFC Manning. XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Calder Robertson, CCIU ] will testify about his involvement in the investigation and the steps he took from the initial reporting of the alleged incident on 25 May 2010 until present regarding the forensic imaging and evidence collection of electronic media seized in Iraq.
4.) Special Agent David Shaver, CCIU
XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent David Shaver, CCIU ] is a forensic examiner who conducted an examination of the computers used by PFC Manning within the T-SCIF, 44 loose hard drives seized from 2nd BCT, digital media collected from PFC Manning's XXXXXXXXXX [ Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) ] various log files from CIDNE Iraq and CIDNE Afghanistan, log files from the Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC), and his personal computer equipment [ Manning, Mark Johnson, ManTech International Contractor, reports to Special Agent David Shaver and conducted forensic investigation of Pfc. Manning's Personal Computer, a MacBook Pro. ] XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent David Shaver ] completed 19 classified CCIU reports and will testify about the nature of his forensic examination and the results of his examination.
5.) Special Agent Troy Bettencourt, Army CID
XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Troy Bettencourt, Army CID ] is one of the law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. He interviewed numerous witnesses during the CCIU investigation from 2nd BCT. He also detailed the collection of classified information for the Information Review Task Force's damage assessment.
6.) Special Agent Alfred Williamson, CCIU
XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Alfred Williamson, CCIU ] A forensic examiner who examined the U.S. Government Supply Annex NIPRNET computer (Unclassified), utilized by PFC Bradley Manning. He will testify about the nature of his forensic examination and the results of his examination. He will also testify about his forensic analysis and evidence collection from PFC Manning's cellular telephone, the computer assigned IP address XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? IS THIS STAFF SERGEANT PETER BIGELOW, SUPPLY ROOM, PERSONAL LAPTOP OR THE SUPPLY ROOM NIPRNET COMPUTER? ] and the forensic imaging of the WikiLeaks website.
7.) Unidentified CCIU Agent
XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] is one of the agents that worked extensively on this case for CCIU to include interviewing multiple witnesses in the case and conducting field investigation for the CCIU. XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify about his involvement in the case and the investigative steps that he took.
8.) Unidentified DSS Agent
XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] is one of the law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. The defense requests that XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] be instructed to provide the Investigating Officer [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] and the defense with a complete copy of DSS [Diplomatic Security Services at the Department of State (State Department (DoS)] case file number XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS NUMBER?] and any other collateral investigations by the DSS [Diplomatic Security Services at the Department of State (State Department (DoS) ] related to this case at least two weeks prior to the start of the Article 32 hearing.
9.) Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards, CCIU
XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards, CCIU ] is one of the law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. He was the first agent to make contact with XXXXXXXXXX [ Adrian Lamo ] on 25 May 2010 in order to obtain the alleged chat logs between XXXXXXXXXX [ Adrian Lamo ] and PFC Manning. The defense requests that XXXXXXXXXX [ Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards, CCIU ] be instructed to provide the Investigating Officer [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza] and the defense with a complete copy of FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] case file number XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS NUMBER? ] any other collateral investigations by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] related to this case at least two weeks prior to the start of the Article 32 hearing.
|
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/gXmoY |
|
|
Mental Health Providers at in Iraq
10.) Unidentified Mental Health Provider in Iraq No. 1
XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ]. Psychologist that performed a command-referred behavioral health evaluation BHE on PFC Manning 24 December 2009. XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify that he determined PFC Manning appeared to be under a considerable amount of stress at the time of his evaluation. He will also testify that PFC Manning did not appear to have any social support system and seemed hypersensitive to any criticism. He recommended that PFC Manning be moved from the night shift to the day shift and that he be given a low intensity duty for the immediate future. He also determined that PFC Manning was potentially dangerous to himself and others and recommended removal of his weapon or removal of the bolt from his weapon along with increased monitoring and supervision. He will testify, that he used a behavioral health evaluation form that was not approved, MEDCOM Form 4038. On that form, however, there was a block that permitted the behavioral health provider to indicate that the soldier being evaluated was not suitable for continued access to classified material. Despite having this option, XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] did not check this box. He will testifies that he does not remember why he did not check that box. Had he done so, PFC Manning's security clearance would have been revoked and he would not have had access to classified materials after that date.
11.) Unidentified Mental Health Provider in Iraq No. 2
XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] He will testify that he treated PFC Manning on numerous between 30 December 2009 and 26 May 2010. As part of his treatment XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] considered letters written by PFC Manning's noncommissioned officer in charge [ Master Sergeant Paul Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ], then XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ]. He will testify that now XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Paul Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] expressed concern about PFC Manning's mental and emotional stability in the three letters noting that PFC Manning appeared to be suffering greatly and also having difficulty sharing his problem. XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify that he contacted XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] after each evaluation was completed in order to give him a summary of the information from his review and to allow XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] to share his thoughts and concerns. Despite the behavior of PFC Manning, XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will admit that he never made a recommendation to the command concerning whether to suspend PFC Manning's security clearance. He did, however, speak with XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] and XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ]about his reviews and PFC Manning's need for ongoing long term psychotherapy to explore and understand his issues.
12.) Unidentified Mental Health Provider in Iraq No. 3
XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] He is a psychiatrist that performed a behavioral health evaluation on PFC Manning on 22 May and 28 May 2010. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Paul Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] had expressed concern to him about PFC Manning around l0 April 2010, and had given him a memorandum where he documented his concerns. Since PFC Manning's primary clinician, XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] was on leave at the time, he completed the command directed mental health evaluation. Based on his interview of PFC Manning and review of his records, XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify,' that he determined PFC Manning was at risk to himself and others and recommended that he not have an operable weapon. He will testify that he considered making a recommendation as to PFC Manning's access to classified information in his 22 May 2010 evaluation but did not do so because he had been informed that PFC Manning was no longer allowed in the T-SCIF. Instead, he deleted the block referencing access to classified information on the MEDCOM Form 4038 in order to have more space to write notes on the form. XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify that he did receive training on the subject of Soldier suitability for access to classified information. The training that he received was informal 'on-the-job' training during his residency. He will testify that the factors suggested to look for in making suitability determinations were (1) reliability, (2) suitability, and (3) judgment. On his 28 May 2010 mental health evaluation. XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] will testify that he made a recommendation that PFC Manning was not suitable for continued access to classified material and that his security clearance should be rescinded.
|
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/gXmoY |
|
|
Key Leaders of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division and members of the S2 Section
13.) Col. David M. Miller, Commander Second Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ Col. David M. Miller, Commander of the 10th Mountain Division's Second Brigade ] He will testify that the brigade did not want to take the wrong personnel forward, nor did the brigade want to leave a large rear D [detachment] behind for a small staff to manage and lead. He expected the leaders in the Brigade to identify, those soldiers who should not deploy. He will testify that his S-2, the officer in charge of PFC Manning, XXXXXXXXXX, [ Maj. Cliff Clausen ] was not up to the standard of performance that he expected out of someone in that position. Based upon his discussions with then XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] and XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ], XXXXXXXXXX [ Col. David M. Miller, Commander of the 10th Mountain Division's Second Brigade ] decided it was best to remove XXXXXXXXXX [ Maj. Cliff Clausen ] from his position as the S2 and place XXXXXXXXXX [ Captain Steven Lim ] into that job. He will testify that from his perspective, the issues surrounding PFC Manning should have been something that the S2 personnel would have been more involved in than the company. However, there were several issues that may have impacted the response to PFC Manning's issues. First, during that time period [ AROUND MAY OR APRIL 2010 ] the former company commander, XXXXXXXXXX [ A YET UNIDENTIFIED CAPTAIN ] was relieved over property accountability and due to the fact he was not making good decisions. Second, XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Paul David Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to administrative action) ], the NCOIC [Non Commissioned Officer in Charge] in the S2 Section, was 'marginal, but not bad enough to either relieve or replace. He will testify that then XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ] was technically competent but that he lacked leader skills expected of a XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ]. He will also testify that commanders (in conjunction with their unit security manager) are allotted 30 days to submit an initial DA 5248-R following the discovery of credible derogatory information on a Soldier. After the initial DEROG is submitted and processed by SID/CCF [Security Investigations Division/ Central Clearance Facility], the unit has 90 days to submit a follow-up 5248-R if there is a pending investigation or adverse action taken (e.g., summary court-martial). Once the investigation/proceedings are completed and the Soldier has been cleared/charged of offense, the unit must submit a final DEROG. In this case, he will testify that then XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Paul David Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to administrative action) ] failed to keep the chain of command informed of PFC Manning emotional and mental condition. He will testify that this failure resulted in the command not submitting a DEROG in a timely manner.
14.) Lt. Col. Brian Kerns, Executive Officer (XO), 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ Lt. Col. Brian Kerns, Executive Officer (XO), 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division ] He will testify that he was XXXXXXXXXX [ Maj. Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] direct supervisor. He believed that XXXXXXXXXX [ Maj. Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] could not provide XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] with accurate or timely estimates or intelligence, and could not talk to XXXXXXXXXX [ Col. David M. Miller, Commander of the 10th Mountain Division's Second Brigade ] in a way that served the Commander's [ WHAT IS THIS? ] needs. The brigade commander [Col. David M. Miller, commander of the 10th Mountain Division's Second Brigade] finally lost confidence in XXXXXXXXXX [ Major Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] and made the decision after approximately 6 months to move him. He will testify that the unit did not conduct a formal relief for cause, but moved him to a transition team. According to XXXXXXXXXX [ Lt. Col. Brian Kerns ], XXXXXXXXXX [ Major Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] performance was weak, but not so weak as to warrant a relief for cause. XXXXXXXXXX [ Lt. Col. Brian Kerns ] did not believe XXXXXXXXXX [ Major Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] was not a strong leader. He tried to decentralize operations but didn't have enough oversight to control. He empowered junior members who were too inexperience to do the job and did not step in to correct when they made mistakes. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX [ Maj. Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2 ] was was unable to mentor or develop younger officers and didn't have much direct control over the shop. He will also testify that XXXXXXXXXX [Maj. Cliff Clausen, Brigade S2] was handicapped by weak NCO [Non-commissioned Officer] leadership in his shop. Specifically, his NCOIC [Non-commissioned Officer in Charge], then XXXXXXXXXX [Master Sergeant Paul David Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to administrative action)] was not an effective leader. In his opinion, both XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] and XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] were weak leaders. He will testify that he was unaware of any leadership guidance provided in the S2 sections regarding enlisted personnel management. He will testify that it did not surprise him that XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] put out information that Warrant Officers and Noncommissioned Officers were to defer all management responsibilities to XXXXXXXXXX [Master Sergeant Paul David Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to administrative action)]. He will testify that perhaps the command was too generous with XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] and that removing him from his position earlier would have been advantageous. He will testify that he believes PFC Manning's mental and emotional issues were more than enough to put others at risk and should have resulted in an immediate DEROG. He will testify that he did not know anything about PFC Manning's conduct until a recommendation for separation was made by the chain of command. He will testify that none of the mental or emotional health concerns, prior to May of 2010, made it to his level. XXXXXXXXXX [Lt. Col. Brian Kerns] will testify that the failure to properly DEROG PFC Manning's was the unit's biggest failure. He believes that the unit should have pulled PFC Manning's access to classified information much earlier. He will testify that the unit should have recognized him as needing help and that his condition made him unfit for service as an intelligence analyst. He will also testify that the assistant S6 for the brigade, XXXXXXXXXX [CPT Thomas Cherepko] came to him with concerns about unauthorized personal media on SIPRnet machines. According to XXXXXXXXXX [CPT Thomas Cherepko], personnel were putting unauthorized media on computers such as programs, games, videos, and music. XXXXXXXXXX [Lt. Col. Brian Kerns] will testify that it was fairly common when the unit arrived to see games, music and movies on the SIPRNet He believed that it was fairly common across Iraq. He will testify that he tried to get the staff to do the right thing, but media on the SIPRNet continued to be the standard. He will testify that at no point was UCMJ punishment applied to those who were placing unauthorized information on SIPRNet He will acknowledge that with respect to the media on the SIPRNet, he believed that the Army had become too comfortable working on SIPRNet while deployed. It is his opinion that this may have bred some complacency because of the ease of access. He believes that most Soldiers did not realize that that placing music and other media on SIPRNet computers was wrong because of how prevalent those items were across Iraq. He will also testify that after PFC Manning was arrest, XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] ordered him to take a complete look at INFOSEC across the brigade. He formed a working group consisting of the SGM [UNIDENTIFIED SERGEANT MAJOR], S2 [Captain Steven Lim, then Assistant S2 and Military Intelligence Company Commander], S6 [UNIDENTIFIED S6] and IO [Information Operations] [UNIDENTIFIED INFORMATION OPERATIONS] personnel to look at how the brigade was operating. Based upon this review, the S6 [UNIDENTIFIED S6] removed universal ability to write to disks; there was additional |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/gXmoY |
|
|
26.) Unidentified First Sergeant, Company First Sergeant, Headquarters and Headquarter Company, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ UNIDENTIFIED FIRST SERGEANT (1SG) ] He became the 1SG of the company in March of 2010. He will testify that he was briefed on Manning having an issue with another soldier. He believed that PFC Manning had gone to Combat Stress and seen a provider. The next thing he heard about PFC Manning was the assault of XXXXXXXXXX [ Specialist Jihrleah Showman ]. After the assault of XXXXXXXXXX [ Specialist Jihrleah Showman ], PFC Manning was moved to the Supply room. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX [ Chief Warrant Officer, Four (CW4) Airsman ] did not talk to him about removing the bolt from PFC Manning's weapon. He also does not recall any discussions about sending PFC Manning back to the States or chaptering him out of the Army. He will also testify about CID coming into the unit and searching PFC Manning's living quarters and work space.
27.) Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action), Non Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the T-SCIF, S2 Section, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] will testify that he was PFC Manning's NCOIC [Non Commissioned Officer in Charge]. Once a [ Master Sergeant, Adkins ] was administratively reduced by a board [WHICH BOARD?] due to being derelict in his duties. The board [WHICH BOARD?] concluded that [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] failed to take proper steps in addressing PFC Manning's issues. XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] will testify that he was aware of the problems of PFC Manning. Over the course of several months, he will testify that he drafted three memorandums detailing behavioral health concerns of PFC Manning. Despite this knowledge, XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] will testify that he failed to notify anyone of these concerns that could have taken steps to take care of PFC Manning and ensure that he was getting the help he needed. Instead, he will testify that he simply allowed PFC Manning to continue to work in the T-SCIF as an intelligence analyst. XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] will testify that he assessed that PFC Manning was salvageable if he received and actively participated in extensive psychological therapy (1-2 times a week on an indefinite basis) coupled with responsive psychiatric evaluations, medications and follow-up adjustments and dosages.
28.) Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek, S2 Section, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he originally did not have supervisory responsibilities at the unit. After approximately 60 days, he was given responsibility for supervising two subordinate 35F Soldiers; one of these soldiers was PFC Manning. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] got to the unit in May of 2009, he observed operations for approximately 90 days and then approached SFC XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] to let him know his input about operations. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he specifically told XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] that PFC Manning clearly was struggling with emotional issues that made him ill-suited for military service. This conversation occurred in June or July of 2009. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he approached XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] monthly thereafter about separating PFC Manning from the Army but was aware that he could only take the issue to his supervisor so many times before it fell on deaf ears. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he found an iPod on a bunk and looked though it to determine the owner. When XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] viewed photos on the iPod, he noted that PFC Manning was attending what looked like a gay pride parade. He will also testify that he knew PFC Manning was suffering from extreme emotional issues. During deployment, he found PFC Manning curled in the fetal position in the Brigade conference room, rocking himself back and forth. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he was appointed as a Special Security Representative (SSR) on orders for the T-SCIF. The responsibilities for the SSR included reviewing security clearance requests, initiating DEROGs recommending security clearances for personnel in the S2 shop, producing an SOP and SCIF security. While he was appointed as a SSR, he will testify that he did not conduct those duties. XXXXXXXXXX [ Staff Sergeant now Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek ] will testify that he believes the reason PFC Manning was allowed to remain in the military and did not receive the help he needed to deal with his issues was because XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] had influence over every action taken on personnel in the S2 section and it was his decision not to do anything.
29.) Unidentified Female Sergeant or Specialist, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SERGEANT OR SPECIALIST ] She will testify that she has known PFC Manning since 2008. In the 2008 time frame, PFC Manning told her that he was gay. She will testify that she believes that it was a huge issue for him and that he could not be true to himself without the risk of losing his job. She will testifies that she believed that PFC Manning felt like he had no one to talk to. She believes that PFC Manning was very intelligent and knew a lot about the World issues. She feels that PFC Manning had a few emotional issues and these issues made it difficult for him to adjust to the military life.
30.) Sergeant (former Specialist) Daniel Padgett, S2 Section, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
XXXXXXXXXX [ Sergeant, former Specialist, Daniel Padgett ] former supervisor of PFC Manning. He will testify that PFC Manning was a very good analyst, who was good with computers but timid and not good at public speaking. He will testify that he was assigned as the night shift NCOIC [Non Commissioned Officer in Charge] with then SPC Manning and XXXXXXXXXX [ Cooley (sp.) ]. He was assigned this position even though he had not yet been to any leadership schools. He will testify that there really was not anyone supervising the night shift. He will also testify that when he needed to counsel PFC Manning he went to XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] and asked him if he could counsel him. He will testify that he was given permission to handle disciplinary actions for PFC Manning by XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ] and XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS? ]. He will testify that he believed that he was in essence talking care of other NCOs soldiers and that PFC Manning should have been counseled by XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ]. He will testify that during one counseling session in December of 2009, PFC Manning grabbed the table and flipped it. He will testify that PFC Manning did not approach him, but he was concerned when PFC Manning stepped towards the weapons rack. He will testify that when PFC Manning stepped towards the weapons rack, XXXXXXXXXX [ Chief Warrant Officer, Four (CW4) Airsman ] grabbed PFC Manning from behind and held him until he calmed down. He will testify that although PFC Manning l |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/gXmoY |
|
|
Current and Former Members of the US Government:
36.) President Barack Obama
XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] The defense requests the presence of XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] in order to discuss the issue of Unlawful Command Influence (UCI). Under Rule for Courts-Martial 405(e), the defense is entitled to explore the issue of UCI. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a superior officer in the chain of command is prohibited from saying or doing anything that could influence any decision by a subordinate in how to handle a military justice matter. As the XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] made improper comments on 21 April 2011, when he decided to comment on PFC Manning and his case. On that date, he responded to questions regarding PFC Manning's alleged actions by concluding that 'We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He [PFC Manning] broke the law.' The comments by XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] are UCI. The defense intends to question XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] on the nature of his discussions with members of the military regarding this case and whether he has made any other statements that would either influence the prosecution of this case or PFC Manning's right to obtain a fair trial. In additional to the UCI issue, XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] will testify about his views on the Afghanistan SIGACTs released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the leak did not reveal any issues that had not already informed our public debate on Afghanistan. He will also testify that the Afghanistan SIGACTs point to the same challenges that led him to conduct an extensive review of the Afghanistan policy. XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] will also testify about the problem of over-classification within the government. Specifically, that he supported and signed into law the Reducing Over-Classification Act on 7 October 2010. Additionally, he will testify, that on his first full day in office , 21 January 1259, he issued two memoranda for the head of Executive Departments and Agencies that were related to transparency in government. The first memorandum focused on the administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the second focused on transparency and open government. XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] will testify that the transparency memorandum he wrote committed the administration to 'an unprecedented level of openness' and to the establishment of 'a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration' XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] will testify that on 8 December 1259 his administration released a third memorandum - an Open Government Directive (OGD). The OGD included detailed instructions for departments and agencies on how they are to 'implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration.' Finally, on 29 December 1259, XXXXXXXXXX [ President Barack Obama ] will testify, that he issued Executive Order 13526 in an attempt to improve the system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including the establishment of the National Declassification Center.
37.) Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
XXXXXXXXXX [ Robert Gates, Former Secretary of Defense ] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documents released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. XXXXXXXXXX [ Robert Gates, Former Secretary of Defense ] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were 'fairly significantly overwrought.' He will also testify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. Finally, XXXXXXXXXX [ Robert Gates, Former Secretary of Defense ] will testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmed that the alleged leaks represented a low to at best moderate risk to national security. Specifically, that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and know due to previous public disclosures.'
38.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
XXXXXXXXXX [ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ] will testify that she has raised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders 'in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing.' XXXXXXXXXX [ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ] will also testify, that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue to discuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, Secretary XXXXXXXXXX [ Hillary Clinton ] will testify, that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, that she concurs with XXXXXXXXXX [ former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ] opinion that they do not represent significant consequences to foreign policy.
Original Classification Authorities
39.) James Culky (sp.), 4th Cavalry Division, Brigade S2
XXXXXXXXXX [ James Culky (sp.), 4th Cavalry Division, Brigade S2 He will testify about his classification review of the three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM. XXXXXXXXXX
40.) Rear Admiral Kevin Donegan, Director of Operations, CENTCOM
XXXXXXXXXX [ Rear Admiral Kevin Donegan, Director of Operations, CENTCOM ] conducted classification review on two PowerPoint slide presentations of official reports originated by UNCENTCOM. The PowerPoint presentations are XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX [ are related to Specification 10, Charge II] [which concerns 'five classified records relating to Farah Province, Afghanistan.']
41.) Mr. Betts, Chief Classification Officer, CYBERCOM
XXXXXXXXXX [ Mr. Betts, Chief Classification Officer, CYBERCOM ] will testify about his classification determination concerning the alleged chat logs between XXXXXXXXXX [ Adrian Lamo ] and Bradley Manning. Specifically, he will testify about his classification assessment of information discussed in the alleged chat logs. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ]
42.) Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, Deputy Commander, CYBERCOM
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX [ Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, Deputy Commander, CYBERCOM ], as the Original Classification Authority (OCA) over the information discussed by XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?]. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ].
43.) Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, Deputy Commander, CYBERCOM
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX [ Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, Deputy Commander, CENTCOM ] will testify concerning his classification review and classification concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, CIDNE Iraq Events, other briefings and the BE22PAX.wmv video [Garani airstrike video].
44.) Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of Management, Department of State
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX [ Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of Management, Department of State ] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within Net_Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXX [ Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of Management, Department of State will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the information on national security. ]
45.) Rear Admiral Woods, C |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/gXmoY |
|
Author: |
David Coombs |
|
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Defense Legal Filings, Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses (Un-Redacted) |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.) XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] He will testify about his classification review of the three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM. Specifically, he will testify that the videos were not classified at the time of their alleged release. However, he will testify that he believes that videos should have been classified. He will also testify regarding his classification determination. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the fact XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] believes the matter that the Defense wishes to discuss with him is classified, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
b.) XXXXXXXXXX[ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ]. XXXXXXXXXX[ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] conducted classification reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations of official reports originated by USCENTCOM. The PowerPoint presentations are the subject of Specification 10 of Charge II. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] will testify regarding his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security due to the release of the information. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] was essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
c.) XXXXXXXXXX [MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] will testify about his classification determination concerning XXXXXXXXXX [ THE ALLEGED CHAT LOGS BETWEEN ADRIAN LAMO AND BRADLEY MANNING ]. Specifically, he will testify about his classification assessment of information discussed in XXXXXXXXXX [ THE ALLEGED CHAT LOGS ]. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
d.) XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] is the Original Classification Authority (OCA) over the information discussed by XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] will testify that he concurs with the classification determination and impact statements made XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ]. The Defense would like to question him regarding his declaration and the basis of his belief. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
e.) XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] will testify concerning his classification review and classification determination concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, CIDNE Iraq Events, other briefings and the BE22PAX.wmv video [Garani Air Strike Video]. Specifically, XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security from having this information released to the public. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza] improper determination XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classifed nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
f.) XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within the Net-Centric will testify concerning his Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was not reasonably available for the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/x1CvR |
|
Author: |
David Coombs |
|
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.) XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] will testify review of the disclosure of five documents, totaling twenty-two pages. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] was not reasonably available. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the Government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted. (Source: March 16, 2012 Article 39(a) Session)
b.) XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.) ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.) ] will testify concerning his review of two memoranda produced by a United States government intelligence agency. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.) ] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is need due to the XXXXXXXXXX [ WHAT IS THIS? ] not being produced by the government at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.) ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testament, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the depositions. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
According to the defense's February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, defense requested seven Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) as witnesses for their December 2, 2011 Request for Article 32 Witnesses.
Witnesses No. 39 to 45 represent the seven Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on the December 2, 2011 Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses list.
According to the defense's February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, a 'subsequent Original Classification Authority OCA was requested as soon as his identity was known to the Defense.'
At the March 16, 2012 Article 39(a) Session the names of eight individual Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) were revealed with the addition of Robert Rowland (sp.).
Judge Lind, in her ruling on the February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, gave descriptions for each of the eight the eight individuals except for h.) Robert Rowland (.sp), whose description was redacted from open Court, but who is described in the defense's February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions as 'not being produced by the Government [not the Investigating Officer, as were every other named individual according to defense filings] at the Article 32 hearings ' - meaning Rowland (sp.) was a 'subsequent Original Classification Authority OCA [that] was requested as soon as his identity was known to the Defense.'
In this January 16, 2011 Supplement to Defense Request to the Government for Oral Depositions [see b.) above] Rowland is similarly described.
Specification 3 of Charge II refers to 'more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency,' which Pfc. Bradley Manning is alleged to have had 'unauthorized possession of' on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010.
On March 26, 2010 WikiLeaks published 'CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe' On August 28, 2010, WikiLeaks published 'CIA Red Cell Memorandum on United States 'exporting terrorism' Both documents are the only CIA documents published on the WikiLeaks.org web site between the charge dates, which coincide with Pfc. Bradley Manning's deployment to Iraq.
Robert Rowland performed a classification review of for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
c.) 'XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documents released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. XXXXXXXXXX[ ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were 'fairly significantly overwrought.' He will also testify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. Finally, XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmed that the alleged leaks represented a low to at best moderate risk to national security. Specifically, that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and know due to previous public disclosures.' The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. [For 'fairly significantly overwrought' quote, see DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon, November 30, 2010]
d.) XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON ] will testify that she has raised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders 'in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing.' XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON ] will also testify, that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue to discuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON ] will testify, that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, that she concurs with XXXXXXXXXX opinion that they do not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza's ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/VzCTP |
|
Author: |
David Coombs |
|
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.) XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] He will testify about his classification review of the three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM. Specifically, he will testify that the videos were not classified at the time of their alleged release. However, he will testify that he believes that videos should have been classified. He will also testify regarding his classification determination. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the fact XXXXXXXXXX [ JAMES CULKY (sp.), 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2 ] believes the matter that the Defense wishes to discuss with him is classified, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
b.) XXXXXXXXXX[ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ]. XXXXXXXXXX[ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] conducted classification reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations of official reports originated by USCENTCOM. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] will testify regarding his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security due to the release of the information. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, USCENTCOM ] was essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
c.) XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ], the government has not provided the defense with the contact information for XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] will testify about his classification determination concerning the alleged chat logs between XXXXXXXXXX [ ADRIAN LAMO ] and Bradley Manning. Specifically, he will testify about his classification assessment of information discussed in the alleged chat logs. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
d.) XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] is the Original Classification Authority (OCA) over the information discussed by XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, US CYBER COMMAND ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] will testify that he concurs with the classification determination and impact statements made XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ]. The Defense would like to question him regarding his declaration and the basis of his belief. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBERCOM ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
e.) XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] will testify concerning his classification review and classification determination concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, CIDNE Iraq Events, other briefings and the BE22PAX.wmv video [Garani Air Strike Video]. Specifically, XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security from having this information released to the public. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza] improper determination XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM) ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
f.) XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ]. The government has not provided the contact information for XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within the Net-Centric will testify concerning his Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was not reasonably available for the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.
g.) XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] will testify review of the disclosure of five documents, totaling twenty-two pages. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's [ Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO ] was not reasonably available. XXXXXXXXXX [ REAR ADM |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alexa O'Brien |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/701543-20120216-defense-motion-to-compel-depositions-un.html |
|
Author: |
David Coombs |
|
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
