UNITED STATES REQUEST FOR · 2011. 12. 5. · DEFENSE REQUEST FOR ARTICLE 32 WITNESSES DATED: 2 December 20ll On behalf of PFC Bradley E. Manning, ... Article 32 Witness List that

UNCLASSIFIED/FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNITED STATESV.

MANNING, Bradley E., PFCU.S. Army,Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,Fort Myer, VA 22211

DEFENSE REQUEST FORARTICLE 32 WITNESSES

DATED: 2 December 20ll

On behalf of PFC Bradley E. Manning, his civilian counsel, David E. Coombs requeststhe attendance of each of the below listed witnesses for the following reasons:

a) In order to inquire into the truth of the matter alleged in the charges, consider theform of the charges, and assist the Investigating Officer in making recommendations as todisposition of the charges. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 405(a);

b) In order to serve as a means of discovery for the defense. The defense has beenunable to speak with several of the listed witnessed due to their lack of cooperation withrequests to be interviewedpriorto the Article 32hearing. See R.C.M.405(a) Discussion(stating the "investigation also serves as a means of discovery" for the defense);

c) In order to present matters in mitigation of the charged offenses. R.C.M. 405(0(stating an accused has the right to present evidence in defense, mitigation, andextenuation); Article 32(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (stating an accusedmay "present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation,and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested..."); UnitedStates v. Garcia,59 M.J. 447,451 (C.A.A.F. 2004)(ruling that an accused has the right topresent anything he may desire in his own behalf at an Article 32 in defense ormitigation);

d) In order to inquire into the issues of unlawful command influence and unlawfulpretrial punishment inviolation of Articles 13 and37 of the UCMJ. See R.C.M.405(e)Discussion (stating that inquiry in to other issues sl.rch as legality of searches or theadmissibility of evidence is proper by an Article 32 Investigating Officer).

is one of thelaw enforcement asents that conducted work on this case. was the

1)

primary agent involved in the initial investigation of the case beginning on 25 May

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannine: Afticle 32 Witness List

2)

2010. will testift about the investigative steps taken from the time of theinitial involvement until the matter was transferred to the Computer CrimeInvestigation Unit (CCru) on23 June 2010.

is one of the lawenforcement agents that conducted work on this case for the CCIU. He is the drafterof most of the CID Reports of Investigation. He is part of a joint investigation by CIDand the Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under thecooperative investigation agreement, CID is the lead investigative agency withprimary responsibility for coordinating all leads affecting the lJ.S. Army, and DSS hasresponsibility for leads involving the DOS. The Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) later joined as a joint partner in the investigation with responsibility forproviding counterespionage expertise, investigative support, and as the lead agencyfor all civilian related leads.

extracted the hard drives from the two SIPR and one NIPR computers collected fromthe SCIF, the peMnq|lelglof I, and the personal external hard drive ofPFC Manning I *ttt t.rttfu uuout his involvement in the investigationand the steps he took from the initial reporting of the alleged incident on 25 May 2010until present regarding the forensic imaging and evidence collection of electronicmedia seized in Iraq.

digital media collected from PFC Manning's various log files fromCIDNE Iraq and CIDNE Afghanistan, log files from the Army CounterintelligenceCenter (ACIC), and his personal computer equipment. completed 19classified CCIU reports and will testify about the nature of his forensic examinationand the results of his examination.

is one ofthe law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. He interviewednumerous witnesses during the CCIU investigation from 2d BCT. He also detailedthe collection of classified information for the Information Review Task Force'sdamage assessment.

I is a forensic examiner who conducted an examination of the computers usedby PFC Manning within the T-SCIF,44loose hard drives seized from 2nd BCT,

s)


6)

UNCLASSIFIED/FOR PUBLTC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannine: Article 32 Witness List

. A forensic examiner who examined the U.S.Government Supply Annex NIPRNET computer (Unclassified), utilized by PFCBradley Manning. He will testiff about the nature of his forensic examination and theresults of his examination. He will also testiff about his forensic analysis andevidence collection from PFC Manning's cellular telephone, the computer assigned IPaddress and the forensic imasins of the Wikileaks website.

is one of the agents that worked extensively on this case for CCIU toinclude interviewing multiple witnesses in the case and conducting field investigationfor the CCIU. will testifii about his involvement in the case and theinvestigative steps that he took.

is one of the law enforcement asents that conductedwork on this case. The defense requests that I be instructed to provide theInvestigating Officer and the defense with a complete copy of DSS case file number

and any other collateral investigations by the DSS related to this caseat least two weeks prior to the start of the Article 32hearing.

7)

8)

e)

ls one of the law enforcement agents thatconducted work on this case. He was the first agent to make contact wI on25 May 2010 in order to obtain the alleged chat logs between andPFC Manning. The defense requests that be instructed to provide theInvestigating Officer and the defense with a complete copy of FBI case file numberI"undiny other collateral investigations Uy ttre FBi related to this case at leasttwo weeks prior to the start of the Article 32 heartng.

Psychologist that performed acommand-referred behavioral health evaluation BHE on PFC Manning 24 December2009. will testifu that he determined PFC Manning appeared to beunder a considerable amount of stress at the time of his evaluation. He will alsotestify that PFC Manning did not appear to have any social support system andseemed hypersensitive to any criticism. He recommended that PFC Manning be


UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannins: Article 32 Witness List

moved from the night shift to the day shift and that he be given a low intensity dutyfor the immediate future. He also determined that PFC Manning was potentiallydangerous to himself and others and recommended removal of his weapon or removalof the bolt from his weapon along with increased monitoring and supervision. Hewill testif,z 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 thebehavioral health provider to indicate that the Soldier being evaluated was notsuitable for continued access to classified material. Despite having this option, II did not check this box. He will testiflz that he does not remember why hedid not check that box. Had he done so, PFC Manning's security clearance wouldhave been revoked and he would not have had access to classified materials after thatdate.

He will testifothat he treated PFC Manning on numerous between 30 December 2009 and26 May2010. As part of his treatment, considered letters written by PFCManning's noncommissioned o e, then I. He will testifothat now expressed concern about PFC Manning's mental and emotionalstability in the three letters noting that PFC Manning appeared to be suffering greatlyand also having difficulty sharing his problem. will testiff that hecontacted after each evaluation was completed in order to give him asummary of the information from his review and to allow to share histhoughts and concerns. Despite the behavior of PFC Manning, willadmit that he never made a recommendation to the command concerning whether tosuspend PFC Manning's security clearance. He did, however, speak with II und

-

about his reviews and PFC Manning's needfor ongoing long term psychotherapy to explore and understand his issues.

He is a psychiatrist that performed a behavioral health evaluation on PFC Manning on22May and28 May 2010. He will testif,'that had expressed concern tohim about PFC Manning around l0 April 2010, and had given him a memorandumwhere he documented his concerns. Since PFC Manning's primary clinician, II, was on leave at the time, he completed the command directed mental healthevaluation. Based on his interview of PFC Manning and review of his recordr, I

will testif,' that he determined PFC Manning was at risk to himself andothers and recommended that he not have an operable weapon. He will testifo that heconsidered making a recommendation as to PFC Manning's access to classifiedinformation in his 22 May 2010 evaluation but did not do so because he had beeninformed that PFC Manning was no longer allowed in the T-SCIF. Instead, he deleted


UNCLAS SIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

United States v. Mannine: Article 32 Witness List

the block referencins access to classified information on the MEDCOM Form 4038 inorder to have more space to write notes on the form. will testify thathe did receive training on the subject of Soldier suitability for access to classifiedinformation. The training that he received was informal "on-the-job" training duringhis residency. He will testiff that the factors suggested to look for in makingsuitability determinations were (1) reliability, (Z) q@Ulity, and (3) judgment. On his28 May 2010 mental health evaluatiotr, I will testiff that he made arecommendation that PFC Manning was not suitable for continued access to classifiedmaterial and that his security clearance should be rescinded.

testiff that the brigade did not want to take the wrong personnel forward, nor did thebrigade want to leave alarge rear D behind for a small staff to manage and lead. Heexpected the leaders in the Brigade to identifi, those soldiers who should not deploy.He will testiff that his S-2, the officer in charge of PFC Manning, I

that he expected out of someone:i"-trlFthat job. He will testiff that from his

perspective, the issues surrounding PFC Manning should have been something thatthe 52 personnel would have been more involved in than the company. However,there were several issues that may have impacted the response to PFC Manning sissues. First, during that time period the former company commander, II was relieved over property accountability and due to the fact he was not-ut i"g good decisions. Second, I, the NCOIC in the 52 Section, was"marginal, but not bad enough to either relieve or replace. He will testifii that thenI was technically competent but that he lacked leader skills expected of aI He will also testifr that commanders (in conjunction with their unit securitymanager) are allotted 30 days to submit an initial DA 5248-R following the discoveryof credible derogatory information on a Soldier. After the initial DEROG issubmitted and processed by SID/CCF, the unit has 90 days to submit a follow-up5248-R if there is a pending investigation or adverse action taken (e.g., summarycourt-martial). Once the investigation/proceedings are completed and the Soldier hasbeen cleared/charged of offense, the unit must submit a final DEROG. In this case,he will testifo that then failed to keep the chain of command informedof PFC Manning emotional and mental condition. He will testiff that this failureresulted in the command not submittins a DEROG in a timely manner.

He will

He will testifuUNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE


United States v. Mannins: Article 32 Witness List

that he was direct supervisor. He believed that couldnot provide with accurate or timely estimates or intelligence, and couldnot talk to in a way that served the Commander's needs. The brigade

confidence in I and made the decision aftercommander finallv lostapproximately 6 months to move him. He will testiff that the unit did not conduct aformal relief for cause, but moved him to a transition team. According to ,

decentralize operations but didn't have enough oversight to control. He empoweredjunior members who were too inexperience to do the job and did not step in to correctwhen they made mistakes. He will testifz that I was unable to mentor ordevelop younger officers and didn't have much direct control over the shop. He willalso testSpecificopinion,he was unaware of any leadership guidance provided in the 52 sections regardin genlisted personnel management. He will testifr that it did not surprise him that II put out information that Warrant Officers and Noncommissioned Officerswere to defer all management responsibilities to He will testi$z thatperhaps the command was too generous with and that removing himfrom his position earlier would have been advantageous. He will testiff that hebelieves PFC Manning's mental and emotional issues were more than enoughto putothers at risk and should have resulted in an immediate DEROG. He will testiff thathe did not know anything about PFC Manning's conduct until a recommendation forseparation was made by the chain of command. He will testifu that none of themental or emotional health concerns, prior to May of 2010, made it to his level. II will testifl'that the failure to properly DEROG PFC Manning's was the unit'sbiggest failure. He believes that the unit should have pulled PFC Manning's access toclassified information much earlier. He will testifr that the unit should haverecognized him as needing help and that his condition made him unfit for service asan intelligence analyst. He will also testiff that the assistant 56 for the brigade, II came to him with concerns about unauthorizedpersonal media on SIPRNetmachines. Accordins to personnel were putting unauthorized mediaon computers such as programs, games, videos, and music. will testifythat it was fairly common when the unit arrived to see games, music and movies onthe SIPRNeI. He believed that it was fairly common across Iraq. He will testifu thathe tried to get the staff to do the right thing, but media on the SIPRNeI continued tobe the standard. He will testiff that at no point was UCMJ punishment applied tothose who were placing unauthorized information on SIPRNeI. He will acknowledgethat with respect to the media on the SIPRNet, he believed that the Army had becometoo comfortable working on SIPRNet while deployed. It is his opinion that this mayhave bred some complacency because of the ease of access. He believes that most


1s)

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannine: Afticle 32 Witness List

Soldiers did not realize that that placing music and other media on SIPRNetcomputers was wrong because of how prevalent those items were across Iraq. He willalso testifu that after PFC Manning was arrested, ordered him to take acomplete look at INFOSEC across the brigade. He formed a working groupconsisting of the SGM,32, 56 and IO personnel to look at how the brigade wasoperating. Based upon this review, the 56 removed universal ability to write to disks;there was additional compartmentalizing of information within the BCT based on aneed to know; the 56 instructed staff on how to lock out directories and the brigadeestablished an SOP on the implementation for reviewing infractions for potentialDEROG actions.

He will testifl'that he had very little interaction with the 52shop. He will also testifi' about the guidance he gave regarding whether soldierswould deploy. He will testifo that he was not made aware of any effort to keep PFCManning from deploying. He will testiff that his understanding was that PFCManning's issues came about after deploying. He was not aware thatrecommended to PFC Mannins that he self-refer to Mental Health or that PFCManning even went to Mental Health prior to the deployment. He will also testithat he was not adequatelv informed of PFC Manninq's mental health issues

He was the2ll0 BCT S-2 until beinsreplaced by He will testify that did tell him about an outburst

not rememberhaving a conversation with him about leaving PFC Manning on rear detachment. Hewill also testif,z that he did not recall talking to the company commander about PFCManning's behavioral health issues. He will testiff that it was his practice to not takemany issues outside of the 52 Shop, and that he believed the supervision policy ofhaving every issue go through was fine. Finally, he will testift thatmusic CDs were allowed in the T-SCIF.

He will testify that he believed PFC Manning was good at his job and he wasalso impressed with PFC Manning's computer skills. Despite this belief, he willtestifii that PFC Manning should not have been a soldier as he seemed to actimmature. He will testifu that you could not demand things from PFC Manning as hehad a soft skin and was not receptive to commands. He will testifii that there was a

by PFC Manning before the deployment, but that he does




lack of leadership on the night shift which PFC Manning worked on. He will testifrthat from his perspective PFC Manning wanted to be a good soldier, but naturally wasnot good at the basic soldier skills. He will also testifl' that music, movies, and gameswere common on SIPRNeI machines. He will testify that he went to a lot of people totry to determine if it was a problem to have media on SIPRNeI because he did notthink it was proper. He will testiff that he spoke with several individuals within theT-SCIF about this issue, but no one could provide him with an answer. He will testitythat eventually it became the norrn to see soldiers listening to music, watchingmovies, and playing games on SIPRNet machines.

Companycommander and property book holder for all the computers within HHC, 2BCT. Hewill testifl, about providing commander's authorization to seize and search thecomputers PFC Manning was known to work on. He also provided searchauthorization to search PFC Mannins's room. He will testifu that he never receivedany information from the 52 Section concerning any of PFC Manning's mental oremotional issues until after the allesed assault of . He will testifu thatafter the alleged assault, he removed PFC Manning from the T-SCIF and sent him towork in the Supply Room. He then gave PFC Manning an Article l5 reducing himfrom SPC to PFC. Along with the Article 15, I will testif'that he filledout a DEROG form in order to suspend PFC Manning'*rr.ity clearance. II will testifo he then went to at Behavioral Health to discuss

t8)

PFC Mannins's condition. told him that PFC Manninq's troubles weredeeper than the Army could fix and that he should be separated. willtestift that he then sent PFC Manning toupon the mental health recommendations,

for an evaluation. Basedwill testi$, that he initiated

the chapter paperwork. will testif'that he believed it was shocking thatsomething more serious had not been done to address PFC Manning's behavioralissues prior to him assaultingalso testify that he was awaremusic on the SIPRNeI drive.

and receiving an Article 1 5. He willthat personnel had placed video games, movies, and

He will testifuthat he knew about PFC Manning emotional and mental health issues before takingover as the brigade 52. Additionally, he will testiff that PFC Manning wascounseled on a few occasions due to his emotional and mental issues and that he wasinformed that PFC Manning was seeing a doctor about his condition. Despite thisknowledg., I wil iestify that h..e was not aware of the full extent of PFCManning mental health issues. He will testifiithat once he learned of the entire factssurrounding PFC Manning, he believed that PFC Manning should not have been

UNCLASSIFIED / lFOR PUBLIC RELEASE



deployed. He will also testiff that he gave a negative counseling to forfailing to inform him of the various issues PFC Manning was struggling with duringthe deployment. I will testift that solCDs to listen to in the T-SCIF. I *illdraft a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).link to the U.S. Embassy cables to the various analysts, idisseminated the link to the BCT 52 shop and the BN 52's sometime in the beginningof January 2010 in order to allow the analysts to better understand the Iraqi politicalsituation. He will also testiff that the comments in the press that say the release of theCIDNE database compromised our key sources and put the lives of sources at risk areinaccurate. Any name in the CIDNE database (Iraq and Afghanistan) were just namesput in by u soldier who spoke to some local national and not sources for the UnitedStates. I believes that although a name may be in CIDNE, it was likelyspelled prto*ti*lly and did not contain the full name of the individual. Iknows that he had the ability to pull 50 different ways to spell Muhammad when hewould do a CIDNE database search. That fact there were so many different ways tospell Muhammad is indicative of the fact the names in the CINDE database were notaccurate accounts.

He was the assistant 5-6 for the2BCT. He will testiff that the information assurance procedures were not beingfollowed by the brigade. He knew that Soldiers would go to the local market and buymovies, music and games and place the information on their SIPR and NIPRcomputers. He tried to address the issue but could not get any support from theI eadership to

::?;.;:Hgxl"f;, " rai se d'5il:;;: ;:frruT;Ttrr l;,i5 :f;mood struck him, he would scan the shared drive for music, movies and games andwill testif,, that he would find it every day. Every time that he found unauthorizedmaterial on the SIPRNeI, he would delete it. Occasionally, he would find a Soldierthat would have a huge amount of unauthorized material on their computer -in oneinstance it was 500 Gigabyes of information, but nothing was done. He will testi$zthat as the IASO he did not know that he needed to prepare a DoD InformationAssurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) packet for certificationand accreditation of the brigade network. He will also testifr that due to this failure,it was later determined that the brigade did not have an Approval to Operate (ATO) oran Interim Approval to Operate (IATO) for their network. Additionally, the brigadedid not receive a formal IA certification and accreditation inspection during its tour,contrary to the guidance in MNF-I Directives. Finally, he will testiff that he knewabout personal software being loaded on the SIPRNeI and he would remove thesoftware when he came across it.

20)

UNCLAS SIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannine: Article 32 Witness List

He will testifu that was in charge ofall enlisted responsibilities. He will testifo that whenever he engaged the Soldiers onissues as a leader that he was told to back off bv ,I,andlI. He will testif'that the 52, . did not set standards for the unit.Based upon this lack of leadership, he will testifli thata lot of conduct was ignored.He will testiff that he remembers venting to I uttd I abouthow nothing was being done to address PFC Manning's mental and emotional issues.He will state that when he addressed these concerns to andthat he was told that he needed to stay in his lane. After the change in leadershipwithin the 52 Section, he will testify that all of the officers sat down to discuss soldierstandards in an attempt to address substandard conduct. However,objected to any changes and would not allow anyone to address the issuessurrounding PFC Manning. As such, he will testifu that nothing was done to addressPFC Manning's mental and emotional issues.

She will testiS, that was in charge of theadministrative details and supervision of the soldiers within the 52 Section. She willtestify that she was made aware of many of the issues surrounding PFC Manningwhen she arrived to the unit. In her opinion, PFC Manning should have beenremoved from his position in the T-SCIF early on in the deployment. However, shefelt that the leadership within the 52 section was not really concerned withdisciplining Soldiers. She will testifu that she asked why PFC Manningwas not removed from his position in the T-SCIF earlier, and that he told her that itwas amanpower issue. She will testiflrthat she believes that PFC Manning's issueswere not taken seriously and no one took any steps to help him or even recognize thathe needed help. She believes the unit failed to take proper action and failed toproperly respond to the issues that PFC Manning was obviously struggling with bothbefore and during the deployment.

as theSpecial Security Representative (SSR) for the T-SCIF and part of the Sunni Team,She will testift that she only received one hour of trainingatl0th MTN to be the SSRfor the T-SCIF. Her training covered the basic rules and regulations for a SCIF atFort Drum. She will testifu that her training did not really cover ensuring the securityof a T-SCIF. However, she will testif'that she was only the SSR at Fort Drum.When her unit deployed to Iraq, she will testiSr that then f was the onethat worked the security of the T-SCIF and she dealt with security clearances. Shewill testif,, that did not receive any training to be the SSR. However, he


l0



just assumed the position under the approval of the S-2, . She willtestifu that she believed I provided tenible supervisory leadership. Shethought he was a terrible leader because the problems within the unit were constantlybeing ignored. She will testifu that it was obvious to everyone that PFC Manning wasstruggling with mental and emotional issues. However, she will testif'that when shetried to deal with the issue and get PFC Manning help, she was told that it was anNCo problem and to stay out of it bv I. She will also testify that she didnot believe that I had atry-type of -atragement over the section. She alsodid not believe that the Company l SG cared about the 52 section because they werenot co-located. She will testif,i that she was aware of multiple issues with PFCManning, but stated that PFC Manning stayed in the T-SCIF because Isaid that we needed personnel. She will testifo that she believed that there was a lackof leadership across the board. She will testifu that as leaders they should havepushed harder from the NCOs to the Officers. She will testify that she was puzzledwhy PFC Manning was not removed from the T-SCIF after previous behaviorincidents that occurred between him and in December of 2009. She willtestify that it was simply accepted that people brought in CDs and DVDs into the T-SCIF. She believed that there was no unit traininq at 2110 that focused on T-SCIFoperations during the deployment.

will testi$, that he was told by that he was notresponsible for any personnel who worked in the 52 section. He will testiff that onseveral occasions he returned to and to clarifu theirexpectations about his responsibilities regarding enlisted Soldiers and Officers and hisnon-role in soldier leadership was reinforced on each occasion.aware of multiple emotional outbursts by PFC Manning. He will testifi' that prior tothe deployment he recommended that PFC Manning should not deploy and expressedthis directly to , and He will testi8r that hewas told that PFC Manning would deploy due to manpower issues. He will testifothat he witnessed an incident in December of 2009 by PFC Manning that required himto physically involve himself in the situation in order to ensure PFC Manning did nottry to harm himself or others. After this emotional outburst, he will testiff that hespoke to and recommended that he take the bolt from PFC Manning'sweapon, send him to mental health and then get him out of the Army. He also spokewith I, and about his concerns after theoutburst by PFC Manning. He will testify that even after expressing these concerns,nothing was done.


ll


United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List

and personal problems. However, he was never aware of any suggestion not todeploy PFC Manning. He will testi$, that he was made aware of one incident duringthe deployment involving PFC Manning by another soldier. thensought out o clariff wh41hU rgldier had told him. After learning whathappened, along with I decided to counsel PFC Manningdecided to counsel PFC Manningfor about 45-60 minutes and referred him to Mental Health for evaluation. He willtestifo that could not recall if the referral was command directed or if Manningvolunteered. He will testifu that he later learned that PFC Manning had not gone tomental health as required. However, due to his transition, he will testify that heinformed his replacement of the issue instead of attempting to address the issuehimself.

He became the 1SG of the company in March of2010. He will testifu that he was briefed on Manning having an issue with another

g thebolt from PFC Manning's weapon. He also does not recall any discussions aboutsending PFC Manning back to the States or chaptering him out of the Army. He willalso testif'about CID coming to the unit and searching PFC Manning's livingquarters and work space.

will testift that he was PFC Manning's NCOIC. Once awas administratively reduced by a board due to being derelict in his duties. The boardconcluded that failed to take proper steps in addressing PFC Manning'sISSUCS. will testiff that he was aware of the problems of PFC Manning.Over the course of several months, he will testiff that he drafted three memorandumsdetailing various behavioral health concerns of PFC Manning. Despite thisknowledge, will testiff that he failed to notifr anyone of these concernsthat could have taken steps to take care of PFC Manning and ensure that he wasgetting the help that he needed. Instead, he will testiff that he simply allowed PFCManning to continue to work in the T-SCIF as an intelligence analyst. Iwill testiff that he assessed that PFC Manning was salvageable if he received andactively participated in extensive psychological therapy (1-2 times a week on an


received occasional comments fro

t2

28)

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannins: Article 32 Witness List

indefinite basis) coupled with responsive psychiatric evaluations, medication andfollow-up adjustments on dosages.

will testifir that heoriginally did not have supervisory responsibilities at the unit. After approximately60 days, he was given responsibility for supervising two subordinate 35F Soldiers;one of these soldiers was PFC Mannins. When sot to the unit in May

I

:rmately 90 days and then approached SFClrations. will testif,i that herning needed to be chaptered of the Army.;learly was struggling with emotional

issues that made him ill-suited for military service. This conversation occurred inJune or July of 2009. will testiff that he approachedmonthly thereafter about separating PFC Manning from the Army but was aware thathe could only take the issue to his supervisor so many times before it fell on deaf ears.I will testitz that he found an iPod on a bunk and looked through it todetermine the owner. When viewed photos on the iPod, he noted thatPFC Manning was attending what looked like a gay pride parade. He will also testif,ithat he knew PFC Manning was suffering from extreme emotional issues. During thedeployment, he found PFC Manning curled in the fetal position in the Brigadeconference room, rocking himself back and forth. will testif, that hewas 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 52 shop,producing an SOP and SCIF security. While he was appointed as a SSR, he willtestif,z that he did not conduct those duties. will testiff that he believesthe reason PFC Manning was allowed to remain in the military and did not receive thehelp that he needed to deal with his issues was because had influenceover every action taken on personnel in the 52 section and it was his decision not todo anything.

She will testi$r that she has knownPFC Manning since 2008. In the 2008 time frame, PFC Manning told her that he wasgay. She will testiff that she believes that it was a huge issue for him and that hecould not be true to himself without the risk of losing his job. She will testiflz that shebelieved that PFC Manning felt like he had no one to talk to. She believes that PFCManning was very intelligent and knew a lot about the World issues. She feels thatPFC Manning had a few emotional issues and these issues made it difficult for him toadjust to the military life.


l3

30)

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List

supervisor of PFC Manning, He will testifu that PFC Manning was a very goodanalyst, who was good with computers but timid and not good at public speaking. Hewill testi& that he was assigned as the night shift NCOIC with then SPC Manning andf. He was assigned this position even though he had not yet been to anyleadership schools. He will testify that there really was not anyone supervising theright rhift. H" will also testifli that when he needed to counsel PFC Manning he wentto-f and asked him if he could counsel him. He will testifiz that he wasgiven permission to handle disciplinary actions for PFC Manning by andI. He will testiflr that he believed that he was in essence taking care ofother NCOs soldiers and that PFC Manning should have been counseled by II. He will testi$'that during ott. ,*nseling session in December of 2009,PFC Manning grabbed the table and flipped it. He will testift that PFC Manning didnot approach him, but he was concerned when PFC Manning stepped towards theweapons rack. He will testift that when PFC Manning stepped towards the weaponsrack, grabbed PFC Manning from behind and held him until hecalmed down. He will testify that although PFC Manning later apologized to him,that he believes PFC Manning should have been removed from the T-SCIF after theincident. Finally, he will testif,z that personnel in the T-SCIF were told that theycould listen to music CDs and watch movies in the T-SCIF.

He will testify that he first met PFC Manning at a rotation at JRTC. He willtestift that he believes that PFC Manning used to be a very huppy and very hyperindividual, but his leadership wore him down. He will state that PFC Manning wasupset that no one cared about the mission. He also believed that the unit made it verydifficult on PFC Manning as it seemed to outcast him as though they were trying toget him out of the Army. He will testifo that a lot of people had support from otherpeople, but that he didn't believe PFC Manning had any support from his chain ofcommand. He will testifii that he recalls an incident when PFC Manning found areport that apparently upset him. PFC Manning had found in the report that someIraqis or possibly some Moroccans were being arrested at a printing press facility.I will testify that attached to this report was some evidence which hadbeen collected; however, this information was in Arabic. He will testify that PFCManning had taken the time to have the document translated and tried to show thetranslation to his superiors. He will testifiz that PFC Manning was very upset aboutthe issue. He will testifz that if there was a moment in which PFC Manning may havesnapped, this would have been it. I will testiff that everyone stonewalledPFC Manning on the issue as no one thought it was a big deal. He will testify that the


t4



translation indicated that the individuals being arrested had printed documents thatwere questioning whether the Iraqi govemment was embezzling public funds.

32)

Manning was picked on by other because they assumed that he was gay. She willtestify that minimized a lot of things with PFC Manning and tried tokeep things within the shop. will testi0z that PFC Manning should haveprobably gotten help before they deployed. Finally, she will testiff that Soldiersbrought in CDs for music and movies and that this information was placed on theSIPRNeI computers.

will testiff that PFC Manning hadconversations with her about relationship issues and the fact he was having genderidentift issues. She will testify that PFC Manning spoke to her often about wantingto get an Honorable Discharge so that he could keep his Top Secret Clearance afterhis release from the Army. She will testift that she noticed that very few peoplewould talk to PFC Manning. She will testif, that every time that she saw PFCManning, he was by himself. She will testifu that others would make fun of PFCManning's size and the fact that they believed he was gay. one time I tu*PFC Manning coming out of his room; two soldiers pushed the door back into PFCManning's face. She will testiff that PFC Manning was obviously upset andembarrassed about having the door pushed back into his face. She will testi$'thatinstead of complaining about the conduct, PFC Manning simply said that he walkedinto the door by accident. will testiff that she believes PFC Manning wasatavery confusing time in his life. She does not believe that the Army was a good fitfor him based upon where he was at in his life.

recommended that PFC Manning not deploy due to his emotional issues. She willtestifii that she believes that she was the first in the T-SCIF to see the "Apache video"which she found of her own accord in a network folder. She will testifr that she.ull.d I, ,and another soldier over to see the video I

will testiff that over the next few days, several of the T-SCIF personneldebated about whether the video showed a camera or a rocket propelled Grenade(RPG) launcher and whether the actions of the Apache crew were appropriate underthe circumstances. will testifo about her time as PFC Manning directsupervisor and her multiple observations of PFC Manning both before and during the


will testifu that she believes that PFC

PFC Manning's emotional issues. She will testiff

15

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Manninq: Afticle 32 Witness List

deployment that indicated to her PFC Manning was struggling both emotionally andmentally.

3s)will testifl' about the chat conversations that he had

with an individual alleged to have been PFC Manning between 21 May 2010 and 25May 2010. He will also testif'about the nature of the conversations and hissubsequent actions.

The defense requests the presence ofin 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 ofUCI. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a superior officer in thechain of command is prohibited from saying or doing anything that could influenceany decision by u subordinate in how to handle a military justice matter. As the

made improper comments on 21 April 2071,when he decided to comment on PFC Manning and his case. On that date, heresponded to questions regarding PFC Manning's alleged actions by concluding that"'We're anation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions abouthow the laws operate. He [PFC Manning] broke the law." The comments byI are UCI. The defense intends to question I on thenature of his discussions with members of the military regarding this case andwhether he has made any other statements that would either influence the prosecutionof this case or PFC Mannins's rieht to obtain afair trial. In additional to the UCIissue, will testifu about his views on the Afghanistan SIGACTsreleased by Wikileaks. He will testifu that the leak did not reveal any issues that hadnot already informed our public debate on Afghanistan. He will also testiflr that theAfghanistan SIGACTs point to the same challenges that led him to conduct anextensive review of the Afghanistan policy. will also testiff aboutthe problem of over-classification within the government. Specifically, that hesupported and signed into law the Reducing Over-Classification Act on 7 October2010. Additionally, he will testi$, that on his first full day in office , 2l January 2009,he issued two memoranda for the head of Executive Departments and Agencies thatwere related to transparency in government. The first memorandum focused on theadministration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the second focused ontransparency and open government. will testifu that thetransparency memorandum he wrote committed the administration to "anunprecedented level of openness" and to the establishment of "a system oftransparency, public participation, and collaboration." will testiffthat on 8 December 2009 his administration released a third memorandum - an OpenGovernment Directive (OGD). The OGD included detailed instructions for


l6

37)

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannine: Article 32 Witness List

departments and agencies on how they are to "implement the principles oftransparency, participation, and collaboration." Finally, on29 December 2009,

will testif, that he issued Executive Order 13526 in an attempt toimprove the system for classifuing, safeguarding, and declassifuing national securityinformation, including the establishment of the National Declassification Center.

will testifythat the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitiveintelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defensecould not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documentsreleased by Wikileaks. He will testif,i that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs aresimply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclosesensitive information or our sources and methods. will alsotestiff that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to thepublication of diplomatic cables were "fairly significantly overwrought." He will alsotestiff that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did notrepresent significant consequences to foreign policy. Finally,will testi$z that on29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) tolead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to Wikileaks and tocoordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) toconduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmedthat 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, representedlow-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and know due to previouspublic disclosures.

will testiff that she hasraised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders "in order toassure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy orour commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing."will also testiS, that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether anynation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue todiscuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, SecretaryI wiil testi$, that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration,that she concurs with opinion that they did not representsignificant consequences to foreign policy.

He will testify about his classification review of

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEthe three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM.

t7


United States v. Manning: Anicle 32 Witness List

conducted

will testifo about his classification determination concernlng the alleged chatlogs between and PFC Bradley Manning. Specifically, he will testiflr abouthis classification assessment of information discussed in the allesed chat I

as the Oriqinal ClassificationAuthori OCA) over the information discussed b

will testifli concerning his classification review and classification

will testift concerning his


classification reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations of official reportsoriqinated bv USCENTCOM. The PowerPoint presentations are

determination concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, CIDNE Iraq Events, otherbriefings and the BE22 PAX.wmv video.

review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within theNet-Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS.

18



concerning his review of the disclosure of five documents, totaling t

He will testiff that during a meeting in earlyJanuary of 201 1, the Security Battalion Commander in charge of the Quantico Brig,

, clearly stated to the Brig Staff that "I will not have anythinghappen to Manning on my watch.... So, nothing is going to change.... He won't beable to hurt himself and he won't be able to get away, and our way of making sure ofthat is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely." He willtestif,'that one of the other Brig psychiatrists,

-

then said "Youknow Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that, maybe you want to callit something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health." Inresponse, will testifz that said "We will do whatever wewant to do. You make a recommendation and then I have to make a decision basedupon everything else." will testif,'that then said, "Wellthen don't say it is based upon mental health. You can say it is Maximum Custody,and just don't put that we fbehavioral health] are somehow involved in this." II replied, "Well, that is what we are going to do." will testif'thathe spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brig was so hearyhanded on PFC Manning. He will testify that others at the Brig told him that theyhave never seen anything like this before. will testifr that others toldhim that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concern of whatwould happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning's treatment.

He will testifu that neither the Quantico BrigCommander, nor the Security Battalion Commander, I

gave him any reasons for maintaining the Prevention of Injury

intimated that he was receiving instruction form a higher authority on thematter but did not say who was providing this direction. will testiff thathe knew that the higher base authorities had frequent (sometimes weekly) meetings todiscuss PFC Manning. will testifi, that he gave weekly status reportsstating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. will testi$rthat he recalls a meeting with where he stated that PFC Manning wouldremain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI unless and until he receivedinstructions from higher authority to the contrary I cannot recall I

UNCLASSIFIED//TOR PUBLIC RELEASE

will testifr

precautions other than stating it was for PFC Manning's safety. He will testiflz that

l9

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASEUnited States v. Mannins: Afticle 32 Witness List

would change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior or the recommendationsof behavioral health.

llsllDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel


I exact words, but he does recall that made it clear that nothing

20

Documents

UNITED STATES REQUEST FOR · 2011. 12. 5. · DEFENSE REQUEST FOR ARTICLE 32 WITNESSES DATED: 2 December 20ll On behalf of PFC Bradley E. Manning, ... Article 32 Witness List that