Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Court colloquy on defense revised proposed plea and forum, 01/09/13

posted January 9, 2013

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.

This is a portion of transcript was taken at the Article 39(a) session of United Stated v. Pfc. Manning at Fort Meade, Maryland on January 9, 2013.

…

Judge Lind

Also this morning I received a revised defense notice of plea and forum– Mr. Coombs would you like to address that?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Your Honor this morning the defense provided to the Court and Government appellate exhibit 464– it’s a revised notice of plea and forum.

It essentially captures the previous offers of pleas to the lesser included for the [18 USC] 793[(e)] offenses, and the outcomes based upon the Court rulings with regards to our previous proffers for LIOs.

And, now, in addition to that– it offers a plea to Specification 13 and 14 of Charge II, which are the 18 USC 1030(a)(1) offenses.

In this case it is the LIO’s of those– at least what we are proffering as LIO’s. In addition to that it also details what we believe to be the maximum punishment for both of those specifications and the basis for that. So, based upon that– and we provided this notice to the Court and the Government– or the Court and Government to plan [missed word].

Judge Lind

Alright, so with respect to the additional two specifications– Specification 13 and 14 of Charge II that when charged in its totality– is also charging a violation of 18 USC 1030(a)(1).

The lesser included offenses as I understand the defense’s proffer is the same as for the lesser included offenses for the 793(e) lesser included offense Specifications that’s Army Regulation 380-5– dated 29 September 2000– Information Security Program establishes a custom of service penalizing disclosures of classified and sensitive information– therefore the maximum punishment would be reduction to the grade of E1; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement for two years; and a dishonorable discharge for each specification.

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, the maximum punishment then should the Court accept all of the accused’s pleas would be reduction to grade of E1; total forfeiture of all pay and allowance; and confinement for twenty years; and dishonorable discharge– is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Government, do you want some additional time to review this and decide if you to have any other objections.

Prosecution (Morrow)

That is correct your Honor– and we ask that we either get back to the Court tomorrow or at the next session on 16 January for argument.

Judge Lind

Why don’t we just make it 16 January?

Prosecution (Morrow)

Yes, Ma’am.

Judge Lind

Please have that built into the trial calendar.

Judge Lind

Yes, your Honor.