US v Pfc. Manning | Defense Legal Filings, Defense Requested Witnesses: Article 13 Motion

UPDATE POST COURT-MARTIAL

United States v. Pfc.Manning was conducted in de facto secrecy. The public was not granted contemporaneous access to court filings or rulings during her trial. In addition to reporting on her trial, I transcribed the proceedings, reconstructed the censored appellate list, and un-redacted any publicly available documentation, in order to foster public comprehension of her unprecedented trial.

As a result of a lawsuit against the military judge and the Military District of Washington brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as my own FOIA requests and research, an official court record for US v. Pfc. Manning was released seven months after her trial. That record is not complete.

The official trial docket is published HERE and the entire collection of documents is text searchable at usvmanning.org.

*During the pretrial proceedings, court-martial and sentencing of Pfc. Manning, Chelsea requested to be identified as Bradley and addressed using the male pronoun. In a letter embargoed for August 22, 2013 Chelsea proclaimed that she is female and wished to be addressed from that moment forward as Chelsea E. Manning.

[NB My sense is that the first three witnesses (a, b, and c) are most likely Capt. William Hocter Quantico Brig Forensic Psychiatrist, Colonel Ricky Malone Quantico Brig Forensic Psychiatrist, Captain Brian Moore Defense Forensic Psychiatrist; and d is most likely Col. Robert G. Oltman former Security Battalion Commander. This writer does not know who "e" is.]

Excerpts

a.) XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?]. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will be out of the office until at least 10 July 2012. He will testify that neither the XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?], XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?], nor the XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?], gave him any reason for maintaining the Prevention of Injury (POI) precautions other than stating it was for PFC Manning's safety. He will testify that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] intimated that he was receiving instructions from a higher authority on the matter, but did not say who was providing this direction. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that he knew that the higher base authorities had frequent (sometimes weekly) meetings to discuss PFC Manning. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that he gave weekly status reports stating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that he recalls meeting with XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] where XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] stated that PFC Manning would remain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI status unless and until he received instructions from higher authority to the contrary. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] cannot recall exact words, but he does recall that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] saying something to the effect of "I will not have anything happen to Manning on my watch." So, nothing is going to change in his custody status. He won't be able to hurt himself and he won't be able to get away, and our way of making sure of that is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely." XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that he expressed concerned to XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] because he did not feel there was a behavioral health reason for the POI. In response, he will testify that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] said "We will do whatever we want to do. You make the recommendations and then i have to make a decision based upon everything else." He will also testify that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] made it clear nothing would change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior or the recommendations of behavioral health.

b.) XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?]. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] He will be out of the office until the end of July. He will testify that the Quantico Brig instituted more precautions than he would from a psychiatric perspective. He will testify that he consistently recommended to the Quantico Brig to remove PFC Manning from POI status. He will testify that if PFC Manning were not in custody, he would have recommended routine outpatient care for him. He will testify that it has long been known that restriction of environmental and social stimulation has a negative effect on mental function. He will testify that PFC Manning's restrictive confinement was not necessary from a psychiatric perspective, and that he made repeated recommendations that the PFC Manning's status should be downgraded.

c.) XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?]. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] He will testify that during a meeting in early January of 2011, the XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] , clearly stated to the Brig Staff that "I will not have anything happen to Manning on my watch.... So, nothing is going to change.... He won't be able to hurt himself and he won't be able to get away, and our way of making sure of that is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely." He will testify that one of the other Brig psychiatrists, XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] then said "You know Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that, maybe you want to call it something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health. " In response, XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] said "We will do whatever we want to do. You make a recommendation and then I have to make a decision based upon everything else." XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] then said, "Well then don't say it is based upon mental health. You can say it is Maximum Custody, and just don't put that we [behavioral health] are somehow involved in this." XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] replied, "Well, that is what we are going to do." XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that a Command Judge Advocate was present during the meeting, but did not intercede to say that XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] was in the wrong. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will also testify that he spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brog was so heavy handed on PFC Manning. He will testify that others at the Brig told him that they have never seen anything like this before. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will testify that others told him that they were afraid to speak about the situation given the concern of what would happen to them as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning's treatment.

d.) XXXXXXXXX [ Who is this?]. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] will be out of the office until 3 August 2012. He will testify concerning PFC Manning confinement conditions and his Maximum Custody and POI status. He can also testify regarding any outside influence concerning the custody status of PFC Manning.

e.) d.) XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?]. XXXXXXXXX [Who is this?] has now left active duty and is in the reserves. He can be reached at XXXXXXXXX [What is this?]. He will testify concerning the effects of solitary confinement on the psychological well-being of those subjected to it, and PFC Manning specifically. He will testify that isolation or solitary confinement is among the most harmful conditions that can be imposed upon a detainee. He will also testify how PFC Manning was held in restrictive solitary confinement for nearly a year without any psychiatric or behavioral justification. Finally, he will testify how these conditions likely placed PFC Manning at an increased risk of exacerbating any existing psychiatric symptomatology or condition.

f.) XXXXXXXXXX [Lieutenant Colonel Dawn Hilton, Commander Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth]. XXXXXXXXXX [Lieutenant Colonel Dawn Hilton, Commander Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth]She will testify that once PFC Manning was transferred to the JRCF on l9 April 2011, he spent nine days in the normal indoctrination process. After completing the indoctrination process, PFC Manning was held in medium custody will all privileges of a normal pretrial detainee. She will testify that PFC Manning was not placed upon any POI status given the fact there was no psychiatric or behavioral health basis for such a status. Since being held in that medium custody status, PFC Manning has not engaged in any self-harm behavior, engaged in any assaultive behavior towards the guards, or made any attempt to escape from custody.

g.) XXXXXXXXX [Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture]. XXXXXXXXX [Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture] will testify about his communications with the U.S. Government regarding the confinement conditions of PFC Manning. He will testify that he was told the confinement conditions were imposed on account of the seriousness of the offenses. He will also testify that the U.S. Government informed him that PFC Manning was not being held in "solitary confinement" but was being held in "prevention of harm watch" but would not offer any details about what harm was being prevented by such a status. He will also testify regarding his efforts to meet with PFC Manning for an unmonitored conversation. Despite his numerous requests, he will testify that he was informed that his conversation would be monitored. XXXXXXXXX [Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture] will testify that the U.S. Government's refusal to allow unmonitored conversations with PFC Manning violate international norrns and U.N. requirements. Due to the U.S. Government's refusal to allow unmonitored conversations, XXXXXXXXX [Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture]. XXXXXXXXX [Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture] had to decline the opportunity to meet with PFC Manning.

h.) PFC Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211. He will testify for the limited purposes of the motion under M.R.E. 104(d) and M.R.E. 304(0. PFC Manning will testify concerning his nine months of unlawful pretrial punishment that he endured while at Quantico.

Other Resources

Alexa O'Brien Alexa O'Brien researches and writes about national security and law enforcement. Her work has been published in The New York Times, VICE News, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Guardian (UK), The Daily Beast, NY Daily News, and featured on the BBC, PBS, NPR, Democracy Now!, and Public Radio International. She was shortlisted for the 2013 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in the United Kingdom and listed in The Verge 50. In 2016, she worked at The Constitution Project in Washington, D.C. as a staff researcher and writer on an independent commission studying Oklahoma's death penalty. She also provided research support to scholars of the first cost study conducted on that state's capital punishment system.