Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/17/11

  • posted December 17, 2011

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.

These 37 pages of typed transcription were taken by hand, and may contain errors, misspellings of names, or may be incomplete.

  • The Investigation Officer is Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.
  • Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, and Captain Angel Overgaard
  • Defense is Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard.

There were around 500 protesters outside the gates of Fort Meade on Saturday, Dec 17, 2011. #Occupy Wall Street had sent down a bus, and there were two bus loads from #Occupy in DC, both Freedom Plaza and McPherson. In addition Veterans for Peace were present at the rally and members of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Individuals were represented from all over the country, and the world.

I arrived at Fort Meade, Maryland at 1:20 p.m. and rushed into the theater just as defense was questioning the day’s second witness, Special Agent Calder Robinson’s testimony, via telephone from Germany.

After his testimony a recess was called and I conferred with four individuals about the morning’s proceedings and the first witness that day, Special Agent Toni Graham.

One of the individuals I conferred with was Rainey Reitman of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Bradley Manning Support Network, who has compiled her own notes of day two of Bradley Manning’s pretrial hearing. You can read her account at bradleymanning.org. I encourage you visit her notes for an in depth look at the day’s first witness Special Agent Toni Graham.

I also encourage you to visit Rainey Reitman’s account for the prosecution’s first questions to Special Agent Calder Robertson.

[Prosecution rests.]

Defense: You weren’t involved in collection, only evidence?

Robertson:I collected hard drives; another special agent did everything else.

Defense: Why didn’t you travel from Germany to Iraq?

Robertson: The items came sealed.

Defense: Are you sure only Manning used the devices? Do you know if this computer was assigned to Manning?

Robertson: I took word of investigating authorities.

Defense: So you don’t know if other individuals used the computers?

Robertson: No.

Defense: What is the difference between imaging and full forensic?

Robertson: Full forensics takes months. It’s a scientific process. I did preliminary analysis not full forensics.

Defense: At the time of investigation were your certifications up to standing?

Robertson: Yes.

Robertson: I did all the forensic imaging.

Defense: Take Notes?

[I could not hear the answer.]

Defense: Cat Card access?

Robertson: Not sure.

Defense: Beyond forensic imaging and preliminary forensic, you did not do full forensic?

Robertson: That’s right. Cat Card access done during full forensics.

Defense: Were the computers password protected?

Robertson: On PFC Manning personal computer, no. On all others, yes.

Defense: Did you instruct Captain Thomas Cherepko on how to conduct forensic investigations?

Robertson: I did not, people on my team may have instructed him.

Defense: Is that a typical practice, to instruct people on how to obtain network logs?

Robertson: Yes, it is customary practice to obtain network logs.

Defense: Did you send software products or instructions to Captain Thomas Cherepko.

Robertson: Don’t recall.

Defense: Did you come across evidence PFC Manning suffered from gender identity disorder?

Robertson: I am not qualified to make determination.

Defense: That he wanted to become Brianna Manning? Familiar with the name?

Robertson: I knew PFC Manning had behaviors. I know he referred to himself as ‘fragile’ in chat logs.

Defense: Any evidence he was homosexual?

Robertson: I don’t know how to answer that question.

Defense: During your examination did you come across any evidence that PFC Manning was homosexual?

Robertson: I don’t know.

Defense: You either know or you don’t.

[Objection raised by prosecution as to relevance.]

IO: If you could keep questions to evidence, as to what he found. Special Agent Robertson, please answer question.

Defense: Did you come across any evidence PFC Manning was gay?

Defense: Are you familiar with the global address list?

Robertson: Yes.

Defense: Part of your work?

Robertson: No.

Defense: Come across this?

Robertson: I don’t know.

Defense: On computers you worked on were there multiple user profiles?

Robertson: I don’t recall.

[Prosecution re-examines the witness.]

Prosecution: Who was Captain Thomas Cherepko, and what did he do?

Robertson: He secured some network logs, which are official communications between computers.

Prosecution: So no imaging?

Robertson: Not to my knowledge.

Prosecution: Why did you not travel to Iraq?

Robertson: It was determined that it was not needed.

IO: Thank you Special Agent Robertson. You are permanently excused. Please do not discuss this case. If someone tries to discuss this case with you, please report it to counsel.

[Recess was taken.]

At the end of Special Agent Robertson’s testimony a recess was called and I moved over to the courthouse.

In the gallery sit Julian Assange’s external counsel Jennifer Robinson, and Amanda Jacobsen from the Center for Constitutional Rights, who both filed a writ the previous day demanding WikiLeaks lawyers be granted access to Bradley Manning’s proceedings.

Towards the end of the day Ray McGovern sat behind me and Daniel Choi to my left. Mr. McGovern introduced himself, and we spoke about #Occupy and US Day of Rage. He gave Bradley Manning the thumbs up, when Bradley arrived in the courtroom.

[Hearing called to order. Third witness, Special Agent Mark Mander. In person. ]

[Special Agent Mark Mander was sworn in by Captain Angel Overgaard, prosecutor.]

IO: If at any time during your testimony you feel your answer is classified please inform the IO.

[Prosecution establishes Special Agent Mark Mander’s credentials.]

Mander: Became a CID in 1994 with a seven-year break, in total approx 10 years.

Prosecution: How many cases?

Mander: Me and others, where I advised, 200. Been with CCIU for 4 years.

Prosecution: What computer training have you completed?

Mander: Attended training at Defense Cyber Crimes Center, courses in collection of computer evidence. 300 hours of training.

Prosecution: How many cases at CCIU?

Mander: 20 cases.

Prosecution: When did you become involved?

Mander: Initial investigation started by Camp Liberty, then CCIU became involved.

Prosecution: Role?

Mander: Case Agent on investigation.

Prosecution: Why Iraq and not CCIU?

Mander: Initial allocation was Iraq because that is where the crimes were committed. That is the policy of one office, relating to another. Initially opened by the office in the vicinity of the crime.

Prosecution: Why was it transferred?

Mander: It was determined that for search warrants and special warrants needed from a Federal judge [He mentions Google and Twitter], comus (sp.) conus leads, and the technical nature of the matter more suited to CCIU. Items were custodian’ed from Iraq to Dulles International Airport. I inventoried all items and carried them into the CCIU room. The majority of the investigation plan was based on Lamo of Manning and other documents obtained from PFC Manning’s personnel file. CCIU obtained chats from Mr. Lamo and collected computer belonging to Mr. Lamo…on those hard drives.

Prosecution: Found anywhere else?

Mander: I believe corresponding info found from PFC Manning…

Prosecutor: What did you find?

Mander: 2007 Apache air strike video, info about Afghan war logs, detainees of GTMO, mentions of State Dept. cables.

Prosecutor: What did CID do?

[So to clarify, he is saying that the information was from the chat logs. And the next part he was talking very fast was him saying how they investigated based on that ‘Intel’]

Mander: Garani video believed to have been on shared — by CENTCOM. Initially, CCIU attempted to connect and download those documents and that was collected as evidence. CCIU determined it was not sufficient. So CCIU sent two agents to CENTCOM in Florida where they obtained log files related to investigation. Several weeks later Deputy SJA Schoenettles (sp.) Deputy SJA Schoenettles (sp.) [Robert E.] Schmidle [Deputy Commander, US Cyber Command] provided background info on Garani air strike. The file was BE2PAX.zip BE22PAX.zip. That file was believed to be Garani air strike video. Lamo contacted us and related that he became aware on the Internet of someone that he did not know, who was part of the original decryption effort, who worked for DOE [Department of Energy], which we believed was Manning.

Prosecution: How did you verify?

Mander: Lamo was able to…Mr. Jason Katz. Mr. Jason Katz had previously been identified as an employee of Brookhaven National Labs. He was employed February 2009 to March 2010. His reason for being fired was for engaging in inappropriate computer activity. We additionally obtained forensic imaging, which was authorization by a network connection agreement with his government assigned and personal computer.

Prosecution: Did CID get authorization to search?

Mander: CID and the FBI obtained a Federal warrant to search, and did that search on the government work station.

Mander: The file was identical. The file was named ‘B.zip’ within that file was another file named BE2PAX.wmb BE22PAX.wmb (Mander wasn’t sure about .wmb) video file.

The file was encrypted and password protected. The file appeared to be same video.

The second week of June, two CCIU agents obtained circle log files…obtained IP locations of where the State Department stored… obtained firewall logs.

During an initial attempt to get log files one person at State Dept. said Intelink. Intelink allows people to find classified docs.

Prosecution: Did CID collect logs from Intelink?

Mander: Collected disk from personnel there, from IP address of the government workstation…Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

Prosecution: Did you collect logs from CIA?

Mander: Yes.

Prosecution: Did you try to collect more from ODNI?

Mander: Keywords people searched. Also CENTAUR logs based on IP address.

Mander: CENTAUR is a government name for NetFlow logs. Connection logs to and from, time and date, length…

Prosecution: What sorts of leads did you pursue?

Mander: About June 18, 2010 I was involved in contacting and interviewing Manning’s aunt. She was identified through his personnel file. Myself and four other agents, as well as Dept of State interviewed her about what she may know. We discussed a wide range of topics: family, where his mother was from, how he was brought up, and the circumstances of enlistment prior to apprehension. Manning had contacted his aunt two times while in Iraq: to ask her about the 2007 Apache video, and secondly to ask her to make a posting referencing the 2007 Apache video.

Prosecution: Did you search that residence, since it was the place of residence in his personnel file?

Mander: Yes. His belongings were obtained in a basement room. We looked through that room, and specifically for digital media, as well as anything he sent her while in Iraq. Upstairs in her room was a computer powered on while he was in Iraq. She could not use that computer.

Prosecution: Did you collect that?

Mander: Yes.

Prosecution: Visit again?

Mander: Yes.

Mander: In October a package came from the confinement center in Kuwait. After Manning’s apprehension and confinement they collect his personals. The facility said that we needed a warrant to search those belongings. There was a hold up with the administration. The authorizing authority for the warrant said we shouldn’t need one. By that time we got that figured out, Manning was transferred, and his effects were sent to his aunt’s home, and signed by his dad.

Prosecution: What did the aunt tell you?

Mander: She had the unopened box. She saved the box and allowed us to go into basement to find other items.

Prosecution: Find anything else?

Mander: Yes. In June when we searched the room, it had no organization. She had organized his items into plastic containers. We identified numerous items that were digital media. All those items were selected. Most important, on an SD card we found various classified data. We split the room into two parts, photographed were item were found, and placed those items on the bed. When we were done we asked his aunt if she could look at items, and verify that they were his.

Mander: She verified them.

[Defense cross-examines Special Agent Mark Mander.]

Defense: You are a case agent?

Mander: Yes.

Defense: Lead case agent?

Mander: Normally in CID there is typically one agent. A case agent manages leads in case. Because of the numerous locations of investigation activity, in this instance I was the case agent on paper…supervisors took more active role.

Mander: Agent Aims and Agent King were acting operations officers.

Defense: Primary roles?

Mander: Search authorization, interviews and administrative tasks.

Defense: Not just search authorizations but federal magistrates?

Mander: In some cases at his aunt’s house, we collected the items with her consent and then searched for authorization later.

Defense: So when talking about analysis on media in Iraq?

Mander: No. Special Agent Schaller (sp.), Johnson, and {another) Special Agent (I did not get his/her name).

Defense: Regarding Lamo, the detainees at GTMO, the Garani air strike, the 2007 Apache video, all that you did not see?

Mander: I did not conduct analysis.

Defense: So which agent did analyze the path to Garani?

Mander: Agent Wilbur (sp.) CCIU. At this time, I do not remember the report.

Mander: Special Agent Aims was my supervisor. The others were peers.

Defense: You were not directing them?

Mander: No.

Defense: Did you have any interaction with Mr. Katz or Mr. Lamo?

Mander: Mr. Lamo contacted Special Agent Edward at CCIU. Mr. Katz…I don’t believe CCIU directed Mr. Katz. That was FBI. I do not know if Mr. Katz contacted Mr. Lamo. I do not know if they had direct contact.

Defense: When did Lamo start to cooperate with CID?

Mander: Probably at end of May 2010…

Defense: Regarding the cables: Two agents went to the Department of State, did you accompany them?

Mander: No. The first group went to collect; the second was provided by the State Department.

Defense: So this is just from reports?

Mander: No.

Defense: Why would his childhood be relevant to the investigation?

Mander: It turned out not to be. Friendships he may have had…there was a great deal of concern about a foreign intelligence service. We were looking for information to prosecute. Were others involved? Military records showed Manning had lived overseas prior joining Army.

Defense: Were other people contacted or interviewed by CID?

Mander: A fair number.

Defense: Anyone followed up? Some people told me you interviewed them five or six times, and they were irritated. Is that typical?

Mander: No. It is not typical. This was not a typical investigation. One issue there was no forensics, or they were ongoing. Agents were collecting information thought to be relevant, and then we would go back with new information. That was the reason for the numerous visits.

Defense: And is it true that this was the only case you were working on? How long?

Mander: Yes. June 9 – Nov 2011 I had at times other cases, and would try to keep up, while on this case.

Defense: Whom else did you uncover doing wrongdoing?

Mander: Seven other civilians. The FBI is potentially involved. I do not know what the FBI has determined.

Defense: Do they include the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks? Was WikiLeaks in this case?

Mander: Yes they are involved in certain aspects.

Defense: Is it your determination, would you agree that my client would have been unable to do this by himself?

Mander: Depends on charge. “Something by himself”…other charges require interaction with others.

Defense: Did my client possess the ability to upload from his cubical in Iraq?

Mander: Yes. He could have upload to multiple sites.

Defense: Would he not also require the cooperation of others to post to (indecipherable)?

Mander: Not if he owned site. Mr. Lamo contacted CCIU about Mr. Katz boasting about helping to decrypt. Lamo contacted CCIU about an unknown individual who was chatting with someone else. Don’t know if he ever met that person.

Defense: How was he aware?

Mander: I am not aware.

Defense: Was he working with CID at the time? Before or after?

Mander: His initial information started the investigation. A person Lamo talked to told two people: Someone on a project he had worked on, and a friend. Both of those people told law enforcement. One was in the Army. The other sent an email to our office account, and left his name.

Defense: Did Lamo receive benefit?

Mander: Not that I am aware.

Defense: Who is the primary lead CCIU for WikiLeaks?

Mander: Camp Liberty, Army CID and the Department of State. Then the FBI became involved and joined the investigation. The State Department became involved immediately because of nature of information obtained in chats. A month into the investigation the FBI became involved.

Defense: What about the Department of Justice started to investigate WikiLeaks?

Mander: They spoke with advisers early in our investigation…one US Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia.

Defense: What did they say?

Mander: Ongoing discussions, best practices for investigating classified info…they advised CID.

Defense: Were they experts in this kind of investigation?

Mander: Yes.

Defense: You mentioned that when PFC Manning was confined in Kuwait, can you provide details of the search authorization?

Mander: We identified the container. We contacted the Kuwait facility to search, had and agent from CID in Kuwait to collect. The facility said we needed to have a search warrant. We contacted a magistrate. There was a legal disagreement. The magistrate felt we did not need authorization due to his status as confinee. We went back to facility, but only in regard to “safety and security”…violations of his confinement strategy, but by the time we figured that out, he had been transferred.

[Prosecution then re-examines Special Agent Mark Mander.]

Prosecution (Overgaard): Defense brought up numerous individuals being interviewed multiple times. Why did that happen?

Mander: Again, forensic examination is a slow process, as items of investigation were reported, we would contact ex co-workers and ask if they knew about the information. That was how did the process worked.

Prosecution: Why?

Mander: We were trying to identify all the evidence related to this investigation.

[Special Agent Mark Mander is excused.]

[Defense renewed its request to compel collateral evidence from DOJ.]

Defense (Coombs): As defense requested…R.C.M. 45 405 collateral investigation of evidence by government…this agent…that was the FBI. Prosecutor deemed to have knowledge…clearly that is the case…defense should not be operating in an information vacuum. I request you obtain information in possession by the prosecution for the defense.

[Prosecution or Investigating Officer (IO) (?) asks, “The US government does not have the approval to turn over such evidence in possession of the FBI.”]

Defense (Coombs): What exactly does the government have? One. Does it exist? Two. Do they have authorization? If you deem it irrelevant, it does not stop at trial counsel. I would like that to go on record…and disclose the State Department, FBI, and DOJ.

IO: At this point your request is denied.

Defense (Coombs): It’s not relevant?

IO: No. You can bring it up with the judge when or if the matter goes to trial.

[Fourth witness. Special Agent Troy Bettencourt (sp.). Testimony was accompanied by visual projection of two archives of the WikiLeaks Web site and three screenshots of @WikiLeaks tweets.]

Prosecution: Where do you work?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : The US Treasury.

Prosecution: What kind work?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Forensics for civil, criminal interaction. I was an Army CID prior to my current position…from November 2010 to December 2011 and then previously from 2001 to 2005.

Prosecution: What was your job?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : I was a special agent on the intrusion team assigned to this.

Prosecution: What training have you completed?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : I have completed courses from the government and commercial providers…NCay…Access Data…DC3…

Prosecution: Have you ever testified?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes…cyber crimes…general crimes.

Prosecution: What is Wikileaks.org?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by an Australian national…bound to no government entity. The same time the organization existed, the web site existed…they solicit classified, decrypted…

Prosecution: How does one submit to the web site?

[Special Agent Troy Bettencourt then goes through a user flow process that he describes as the WikiLeaks submission process…]

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : You initiate…the Web site scans your computer for the file to upload…

Prosecution: WikiLeaks is a Web site?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes, on the technical side it is a Web site.

Prosecution: Where are its servers?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : All over the world: Germany, Sweden, (names more countries) even Texas.

Prosecution: Where is it fiscally based?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Wherever Mr. Assange is located. At one time it was Iceland. Now it is England.

Prosecution: Why Iceland?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Iceland initiated the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.

IO: Can you please repeat that? What did you call it? Please say that again.

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.

Prosecution: Did WikiLeaks ever solicit?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : …put an update…”Most Wanted List” by country…

[Special Agent Troy Bettencourt then explains the Way Back machine. On a projected screen are shown two Web archives he identifies as from May ?, 2010 and then November 5, 2009. I could not find an specific enough date for the May archive online, since I did not get the day, and there was no WikiLeaks archive available online dated November 5, 2009.]

[Prosecution shows archive of WikiLeaks Web site displaying a country listings and stops scrolling at the United States under which is a bullet points list that includes: Intellipedia, http://opensource.gov and more. Under military intelligence on the ‘Most Wanted List’ we see featured CIA, detainee interrogations, rules of engagement, Camp Delta, and more. Special Agent Troy Bettencourt reads allowed what is shown on the screen. At one point the Investigating Officer asks that the prosecution and Special Agent Troy Bettencourt to slow down and repeat themselves, saying that they are going too fast.]

Prosecution: Did WikiLeaks ever use social media?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes…very much. They still do.

Prosecution: What is Twitter?

[Special Agent Troy Bettencourt answers. I did not write his answer down.]

[NB Screenshots of WikiLeaks tweets showed an older version of the WikiLeaks logo, but one that had “Free Bradley” in it. I cannot confirm that Bradley Manning noticed the banner.]

[Special Agent Troy Bettencourt goes through WikiLeaks publishing dates ‘First release February 2010 Reykjavik 13, March 15, 2010 Army…April 2010 edited Apache video Special Agent Troy Bettencourt says, “They termed it Collateral Murder” July 2010 Afghan War Logs…Oct 2010 Special Agent Troy Bettencourt says, “What they call Iraq War Diary” 2004 to 2009, then started to release US State Dept Cables…what they called “cablegate” “released in batches” April, detainee info at GTMO…Special Agent Troy Bettencourt finishes.]

Prosecution: You mentioned US State Dept. cable ‘batches’?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : 20th of August the entire document, 250,000 US State Department un-redacted cables were published on the Internet.

[Defense cross-examines the witness.]

Defense: Work with other agencies? FBI, Department of State, ICE? … Interviewed many individuals?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : More than 10.

Defense: Interview any of PFC’s Chain of Command?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes or contractors.

Defense: Did you interview them alone or with others?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Interviewed all but one with others. Only CID, I don’t recall others.

Defense: Any audio or video?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : No.

Defense What determines if audio or video is used?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Need approval.

Defense Did you come across any evidence of Brianna Manning?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt: He had an email address, a FaceBook profile. He had emailed a member of the chain of command with a picture of him dressed as a woman.

Defense Aware of him being gay?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes.

Defense Ever served in the military?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Yes. Served for 12 years.

Defense During your work, was he tied to a known terrorist group?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : No.

Defense An individual interested in politics (referring to Manning)?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Friends said they would have discussions with him pertaining to politics.

Defense Evidence of him exuding odd behavior?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : Incident where Manning assaulted a supervisor…incident where he threw a computer…incident where he was found curled up in a ball.

Defense Opinion as to his military leadership?

Special Agent Troy Bettencourt : I would with the benefit of hindsight like to think I would have noticed his behavior and prevented him from deploying.

[Prosecution re-examines Special Agent Troy Bettencourt (sp.)]

Prosecution: You are CID? As CID you sign a non-disclosure agreement for government clearance. Do you believe people have a responsibility to secure classified info?

[Then the prosecution as that “If Manning is guilty for what he is accused of did Special Agent Troy Bettencourt asked if he put people’s lives at risk.” Defense objects. ]

[IO stops line of questions and tells Prosecution not to ask about Manning’s guilt or innocence.]

[Next witness. Sergeant First Class Brian Madrid. Via telephone. Sworn in by Captain Angel Overgaard of prosecution.]

Prosecution: Are you alone, can you speak freely?

Madrid: Yes.

Prosecution: Notes related to case?

[Witness are not allowed to use notes while testifying, but the court cannot verify by telephone.]

Madrid: No.

[IO gives speech regarding notifying him if his answer is classified.]

Prosecution: When did you retired?

Madrid: Sept 1, 2010

Prosecution: How many years?

Madrid: 2 years. I work on BMI systems to exploitation…PDA, laptop, phones.

Prosecution: How do you know Manning?

Madrid: I was his Platoon Sergeant.

Prosecution: When did Manning attend…?

Madrid: April to August 2008

Prosecution: Platoon Sergeant?

Madrid: February 08 to August 10

Prosecution: MOS?

Madrid: 35 Foxtrot Military Intelligence Analyst.

Prosecution: What is the first instruction?

Madrid: Info sec…how to handle and contain classification.

Prosecution: How do you know?

Madrid: I would talk to instructors.

Prosecution: Do you need interim clearance for class?

Madrid: Yes. It’s a temporary classification.

[Prosecution asks a line of questions that lead Madrid to say in June 2008 he gave corrective training to Manning.]

Prosecution: Reason for corrective training?

Madrid: Soldiers informed me that Manning was hosting videos on YouTube with titles like “Classified” “SCIF” and “Top Secret”…Soldiers said they saw three videos…I couldn’t access YouTube through my work computer, so I viewed only one on of these videos on one of the soldier’s laptop. This one video was meant for family and friends of PFC Manning inside barracks room, “Well I work at this super secret SCIF, I handle…”

Prosecution: What was your corrective training?

Madrid: Presentation for Friday formation. Soldier needed to present it to me first to make sure its an informative product.

Prosecution: Other?

Madrid: A typed out product that he understood he wasn’t suppose to do that sort of thing…divulge his clearance would make himself a target…and a PowerPoint for Friday formation.

Prosecution: Presentation for the unit what was that?

Madrid: Infosec. How to handle it; if you are a person with access…how it could be dangerous. There are sources looking for info on military. Different types: foreign governments, enemies, spies, and hackers. Written product had references to regulations.

[Defense cross-examines Sergeant First Class Brian Madrid.]

Defense We spoke on the phone before?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense Platoon Sergeant at AIT?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense How long is the course?

Madrid: 16 weeks 3 days.

Defense Part in field, part in classroom?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense Lots of students, probably hard to get to know them all?

Madrid: Don’t get to know all…But you know them.

[Defense asks how much he actually participated in the class with soldiers being trained vis a vis field. Madrid says he attends classes with soldiers.]

Defense When (Advanced Individual Training) AIT graduate they have a baseline understanding. Reasonable?

Madrid: Yes.

Madrid: Unreasonable to say they are an expert, but they are qualified by doctrine and standards.

Defense Expertise comes through honing skills?

Madrid: Yes, as with any job.

Defense Did you see all the videos that Manning posted?

Madrid: I saw one.

Defense Showed it to Captain Ogletree (sp.)?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense Did the video show any classified info?

Madrid: No, but he was using buzzwords. Said they were ‘Classified’.

Defense Videos intended for friends and family?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense Did the video say he missed his family?

Madrid: Don’t recall.

Defense Showed his barracks? March to class?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense How hard PT training was?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense Are ‘SCIF’, ‘Top Secret’, and ‘Classified’ – the buzzwords classified?

Madrid: No but they are taught not to do it.

Defense So corrective training?

Madrid: Yes.

Defense This incident…not so important that you suspend clearance?

Madrid: Don’t have that authorization.

Defense Do you know if his clearance was suspended?

Madrid: No it was not. He couldn’t have completed the course if it was.

[Prosecution re-examines Sergeant First Class Brian Madrid.]

Prosecution: Why shouldn’t they use buzzwords?

Madrid: If they identify themselves with their security clearance they can be targeted.

Prosecution: You had nothing to do with instruction but sat thru their courses.

Madrid: Yes.

Prosecution: All of the training?

Madrid: Yes.

Prosecution: Did you sit through the first block? Did you learn you are can’t transmit to someone unauthorized?

Madrid: Yes.

[Sergeant First Class Brian Madrid is permanently excused by court.

Next Witness is Captain Steven Lim, one of Manning’s superiors in Iraq. Lim is currently Deputy G2 at Fort Meade. He plans resources and training for reserves as they deploy.]

Lim: Our job comprehensive intelligence products. Take different forms of intelligence to meet commander’s needs to make decision.

Lim: Army 9 years, Intel 5 years. Before Air Defense Officer.

Prosecution: Training?

Lim: Military intelligence… Captain’s Career Course… Then graduate level advanced course in intelligence as future battalion officers…

Prosecution: Duties as Intel?

Lim: 2nd Brigade Military Intelligence (MI) Company Command… Deployed three times… Two times as Intel… All deployments to Iraq… Final Fob Hammer, Iraq.

Prosecution: When did you arrive?

Lim: March of 2006.

Prosecution: Position?

Lim: Infantry Battalion S2

Prosecution: What did you do?

Lim: Used my small staff of Intel analysts with combat Intel officer for operations. October 2008 and July 2009. We did two rotations six or seven months. We were going to go to Afghanistan. My job…Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) major units…to validate prior to deployment.

[Lim says he met Manning his second time in Iraq.]

Prosecution: What job did you have at brigade?

Lim: Military Intelligence (MI) Company Commander. Assistant Brigade S2.

Prosecution: Manning?

Lim: Intel Analyst with Brigade 35 Fox identifier.

Prosecution: What are the pre-requisites for 35 Fox?

Lim: Graduate AIT training. Top Secret clearance.

Prosecution: How get Top Secret Clearance?

Lim: Good credit. No past felonies. Good behavior. American citizen.

Prosecution: Can any soldier get 35 Fox ?

Lim: Higher GI score than others.

Prosecution: What does that mean?

Lim: Smarter than other soldiers.

Prosecution: Training?

Lim: One. Collection on Systems…aerial platforms…ground base systems…collection platforms and devices. Two. System. All source DGA system. Distributed Common Ground Army. Laptop terminal, where Intel has all resources…with Microsoft Office Suite, Geo-plotting. Found on SIPRNet.

Prosecution: What kind of training do they receive in broad sense?

Lim: Some security training…classification privileges…how to mark. Making sure data is labeled correctly.

Prosecution: Are 35 Foxes trained on recognizing marks?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Sharing. What are the requirements?

Lim: Make sure person has proper access. Should be common sense. We deal with more classified material.

Prosecution: What other systems?

Lim: UADS, other ground base assets, data pulled into SIPRNet…conducting research to narrow down info…

Prosecution: Why?

Lim: When you are making a product, you need to nail down product… CIDNE database, Query-Tree…

Lim: CIDNE database is a combined information data network that references all kinds of intelligence: human intelligence, controlled debriefs, State Dept. debriefs…

Prosecution: Who uses it?

Lim: All sorts of personnel…even medical.

Prosecution: Do 35 Foxes use CIDNE too?

Lim: Yes… Query-Tree, our secret version of Google.

Prosecution: How often do they use CIDNE?

Lim: In a combat environment, everyday.

Prosecution: Why distinguish?

Lim: In garrison environment duties are physical security, system security, assisting on inspection…not as much analysis.

Prosecution: How do they assist?

Lim: QIQC. Quality Insurance Quality Control.

Lim: Majority of units focus on enemy a couple months before deployment [Meaning they practice Intel search and analysis.]

Prosecution: What do you remember about Manning?

Lim: Not a lot. We were really busy.

Prosecution: Was everyone working on simulation?

Lim: Yes.

Lim: Commanders all rely on products…based off something he requests.

Prosecution: Your job is to answer questions of your Commander?

Lim: Yes.

Lim: All historical analysis. Provide historic enemy activity. Put it all together in a product. Then go thru QIQC to make sure product is in line with Intel. Then follow up.

[Next line of questions related to when Lim was promoted.]

Lim: After Second GFC rotation. Once we were deployed.

Prosecution: When?

Lim: January 2010. Replaced guy who could not explain to the commander in the way the commander needed. We were focused on the enemy, and to help troops on the ground.

Prosecution: Manning was on ‘Shia threat’? He was put on ‘Shia’?

[NOTE: Lim made reference to some analyst placed on ‘Sunni threat’, some on ‘Shia threat’.]

Lim: Manning was focused on ‘Shia threat’ based on attack patterns…on Shia enemy at F.O.B. Hammer, Iraq.

Prosecution: Where was your office located?

Lim: Command Group.

Prosecution: Anyone in brigade top secret?

Lim: They work on signal intelligence.

Prosecution: Could you get onto network in SCIF? Did you have SIPRnet?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: What else?

Lim: NIPRnet and SIPRnet…

Prosecution: SIPRnet secret?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: D6 Secret?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Were computers you had on network?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Classified hard drives?

Lim: Yes. We had info that was releasable to Iraqis, translated for Iraqi soldier in Arabic.

Lim: That was a specific caveat. We partnered with Iraq. We were authorized to release that information to Iraqi defense forces, because that was part of our mission to train the Iraqi’s how to use information and to share information with Iraqis.

Prosecution: What type of threat did Shia pose?

Lim: One to five attacks a day.

Prosecution: How is that information accessible?

Lim: Able to pull data of historical attacks from the CIDNE database.

Prosecution: Did Manning ever investigate IEDs from Shia attacks?

Lim: Yes

Prosecution: Could an individual create that work product alone?

Lim: No. It was based off the commander needs, not individuals.

Prosecution: Manning’s strengths?

Lim: Statistics. Predictive analysis. Putting that into ArcMap to give visual picture.

Prosecution: Easy process?

Lim: Statistics, yes. Not easy…challenging system to use.

Prosecution: Is this the type of process referenced to data mining?

Lim: Yes. If you didn’t use the system a lot…it took some technique, and a lot of practice.

Prosecution: Manning’s weakness?

Lim: Trying to get point across. Public speaking.

Prosecution: Do you know anything about NetCentric diplomacy?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: Work related searches? Iceland?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: Julian Assange?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: 15, 6?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: CENTCOM Web site?

Lim: Maybe.

Prosecution: CENTCOM legal?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: GTMO detainee assessments?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: How is classified information detected?

Lim: Those who didn’t have access, no passcode. Only special soldiers have direct log onto segregated information.

[Note He referred to special soldiers on the ground, I believe who were reporting information.]

Prosecution: What prevented soldiers from burning CDs?

Lim: Well we can’t watch every person, 24 hours a day. We signed non-disclosure agreements.

[Prosecution then leads to question about behavioral incidents with Manning.]

Lim: From my knowledge…nighttime supervisor reprimanded Manning for arriving late, and Manning flipped table.

Prosecution: Result?

Lim: Took Manning to a behavioral specialist…brigade S2 not given…action wasn’t drastic enough to remove him…we needed analysis…we needed work.

[Then Lim talks about how Manning was placed from SCIF to supply section while he was on environmental leave, so he only heard about it.]

Lim: Manning’s security changed to derogatory [derog] after an assault on Specialist Schulman [Jihrleah] Showman.

Prosecution: In the six years you have been…have you had soldiers with minor behavioral issues?

Lim: Yes. Did you permanently remove them?

Lim: No.

Prosecution: Would you say PFC Manning has brought discredit on the Army?

Lim: Yes.

[Defense OBJECTED to line of question. There is a parlay about relevance. I wrote down that the IO OVERRUED, but I am not certain if that is accurate.]

[Defense cross-examines the witness. Defense (Coombs) first speaks about the deployment.]

Defense (Coombs): What were your duties?

Lim: Battalion S2, MI Commander. One Commander per Brigade Combat Team.

Defense (Coombs): ‘All Source Intel’ officers transferred?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Since 2002?

Lim: Yes. Human Intel. Signal Intel.

Defense (Coombs): Who was not deployed? What guidance did you receive on whom not to deploy?

Lim: All able body persons, not withstanding pending medical issues.

Defense (Coombs): Pressured to take people to meet numbers?

Lim: Due diligence to take as many people as you can…

Defense (Coombs): Only those that absolutely cannot?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): To not take someone what was the protocol?

Lim: Chain of Command.

Defense (Coombs): Who was the approving authority?

Lim: Brigade Commander.

Defense (Coombs): You were Assistant Brigade S2 October 2009 and Military Intelligence (MI) Commander at same time?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Responsibilities?

Lim: Attend meeting. Take his requests and issue taskings …

Defense (Coombs): What sort of interactions did you have with Headquarters?

Lim: A little bit of interaction. Lance dealt mostly with Headquarters.

Defense (Coombs): How long as Assistant Brigade [S2]?

Lim: October 2007 to January 2010. February 6 there was a changed command.

Defense Captain [Casey] Martin [Married name is Fulton] then made you Brigade S2?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): When did he take over?

Lim: Week or so before he changed my command sometime January.

Defense (Coombs): Why? Because that is not typical, right?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): …cause you don’t want to change command up during deployment?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): My Brigade Commander wanted me to be the S2.

Defense (Coombs): How far is your office from the SCIF?

Lim: 10 seconds.

Defense (Coombs): How many officers?

Lim: 10.

Defense (Coombs): Who was in charge of the night shift?

Lim: Pageant…Specialist…now a Sergeant.

Defense (Coombs): Night shift non commissioned officers?

Lim: Yes. We took the most senior mature specialists for night shift.

Defense (Coombs): Manning worked first at night. As S2 did you have an opportunity to observe Manning?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Manning was only in Army for a few years.

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Fort Drum was his first assignment?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): His first duty assignment?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Would you consider his training minimal?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So other than D6 training nothing else?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Any training on classification outside AIT? Do you know if he received any training?

Lim: I gave a short class from core MNOJ (sp.?) seniors getting classification.

Defense (Coombs): It was not designed for 35 Foxes, though…

Lim: It could have been…

Defense (Coombs): (repeats) But, it was not designed for 35 Foxes?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Occasionally work with individuals for more guidance?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Nightshift takes up tasks the dayshift couldn’t get done?

Lim: Yes. And, it is easier to do research at night. It’s quieter.

Defense (Coombs) There were a Shia and Sunni threat teams?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): At the time Manning was promoted?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Based on his time in service?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Junior spec?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): First duty…junior member of the military?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Got really good at computer programs, graphs, brass?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You would look at finer points to give him guidance?

Lim: Yes

Defense (Coombs): You said, if he really didn’t know how to deal with a project, he would stop working?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Take him a while to complete?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Nothing abnormal?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Was he the best 35 Fox you had worked with?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): He was moved to dayshift?

Lim: Yes. There is more supervision. More guidance.

Defense (Coombs): Know why moved back on nightshift?

Lim: I do not know.

Defense (Coombs): Do you know why [Major Cliff] Clausen was removed [Lim was promoted to [Major Cliff] Clausen’s post]?

Lim: He could not communicate information to the Commander in a way Commander needed.

Defense (Coombs): [Major Cliff] Clausen was not a hands-on leader? Did he show up?

Lim: No, he was not a hands-on leader. He was there a couple times a day.

Defense (Coombs): Did [Major Cliff] Clausen brief you on personnel?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): That atypical?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): At the time, were you took over aware of behavioral problems?

Lim: Only what I observed. Nothing more.

Defense (Coombs): On December 20, 2009 what were you told about Specialist Pageant during a counseling session? Were you told Manning was furious? Upset?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Were you told Manning flipped a table, damaged computer and government property?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Told ‘minor’ outburst has to be restrained by Showman Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) Joshua Ehresman?

Lim: No

Defense (Coombs): That he was going for his weapon?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): That Showman Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) Joshua Ehresman had to dragged him out of SCIF?

Lim: No.

[Lim looked increasingly surprised during cross-examination.]

Defense (Coombs): If you were told this behavior would you consider that a ‘minor’ incident?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Would that qualify for a ‘derog’ [derogatory classification]

Lim: Yes, if ruled by the proper authorizing authority.

[Discussion of a derogatory classification then followed.]

Lim: I thought it was a little weird the lack of response to that incident. In casual conversation I talked about what I would do in that situation… I would have done a ‘derog’.

Defense (Coombs): When you gave that recommend did they follow it?

Lim: No, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): On December 20 2009 Manning became emotional, shoved a chair and began yelling. Did you hear about this?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Would this be acceptable?

Lim: No Sir.

Defense (Coombs): Did you know he wrote memorandums?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did he [Major Cliff Clausen] share those?

Lim: Yes, very shortly after.

Defense (Coombs): Did you read any?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Do you know why Master Sgt. Paul Adkins was dealing with Manning?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): You received a letter of admonishment from [General Robert L.] Caslen on March 2, 2011?

[Defense quotes letter] ‘You should have been aware of Master Sgt. Paul Adkins from case and the discipline of enlisted soldiers.” Master Sgt. Paul Adkins never shared that information till after?

Lim: I was fairly concerned.

Defense (Coombs): Shocked?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): What did you do?

Lim: I counseled him. [General Robert L.] Caslen

Defense (Coombs): Did you shared with him the email that PFC Manning wrote to Master Sgt. Paul Adkins with a picture of himself dressed as a woman…and how his gender identity affects him? How it impacts his ability to think in April 2010. That the letter was not shared with you till after the arrest of PFC Manning?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did you counsel him in writing?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You said it was obvious Manning was suffering from the 2009 email. Should his security clearance have been removed, and he removed from the SCIF?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Fair to say that the later offense may not have happened?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And, these offenses (charges) may not have happened?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did Master Sgt. Paul Adkins have duty to report a ‘derog’?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did these concerns predate deployment?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): How quickly could you turn off access? Immediately?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did the SCIF have Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)?

Lim: Told there was one, never saw it.

Defense (Coombs): Fair to say, it didn’t?

Lim: Can’t say that.

Defense (Coombs): If there weren’t an SOP, would be problem?

Lim: Yes. We got an SOP accreditation. I assumed it had an SOP.

Defense (Coombs): Would you be surprised to learn SCIF was not accredited?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): When did that responsibility switch over to Master Sgt. Paul Adkins?

Lim: I want to say 2nd or 3rd week of 2010.

Defense (Coombs): Responsible for day to day infosec of SCIF?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Any SSR training for Master Sgt. Paul Adkins?

Lim: I believe a small class.

Defense (Coombs): There is a proper SSR course?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Is SSR supposed to inventory CDs and DVDs?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Suppose to be externally labeled?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Bear an external form [a classification mark]?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): How it is labeled?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Why?

Lim: That way you don’t put a classified disk into an unclassified machine.

Defense (Coombs): I’ve seen photos of the SCIF with CDs all over the place?

Lim: Haven’t seen those photos. At times the SCIF can be disorganized.

Defense (Coombs): When I zoom in to those photos there are unlabeled CDs all over the place. Is that now how it was?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Were soldiers allowed to bring in personal CDs?

Lim: Music CDs that were unopened.

Defense (Coombs): Were you allowed to leave SCIF with CD?

Lim: For official purposes…

Defense (Coombs): How was it enforced?

Lim: No. You trusted people.

Defense (Coombs): Any sort of protocol for soldier burning something onto a disk?

Lim: Someone would review it.

Defense (Coombs): How was that enforced?

Lim: If you don’t grab it, you don’t take it out…

Defense (Coombs): Music on same computer as SIPRnet? Correct, by rules?

Lim: No Sir.

Defense (Coombs): Watching movies in SCIF?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Movies on SIPRnet played on D6 machine? Games played?

Lim: I did not.

Defense (Coombs): Games stored on SIPRnet?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Programs that had been downloaded by soldiers?

Lim: I did not see.

Defense (Coombs): Ever hear of anyone saying that they had to install applications for products?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Were you responsible for classification decisions?

Lim: No. It would be the originating authority, who reclassifies information.

Defense (Coombs): Did you ever see CENTCOM classification guidelines, Multi-National Corps – Iraq (MNCI) classification guidelines from your experience? Did everyone use classification guides?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Any training on how to use classification guidelines?

Lim: No, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): How long was your training?

Lim: About an hour…[presentation with] 100 slides.

Defense (Coombs): Ever decide how long an item should be classified?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): As more time passes, potential harm decreases?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Ever see any declassification dates?

Lim: No. Just wasn’t there.

Defense (Coombs): Any thought given to how long it needed to b classified?

Lim: No, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): What is the job of an analyst?

Lim: Mission to take and build product or end product for end users. Lots of reading, research.

Defense (Coombs): What sort of skills?

Lim: Comprehensive writing, good briefing, someone who can think outside the box…

Defense (Coombs): Creative?

Lim: Yes Sir.

Defense (Coombs): Where does an analyst get info?

Lim: Databases, other sources, people…

Defense (Coombs): ‘All Source’ analyst means you look at everything?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): How was the CIDNE database used?

Lim: Like Google, you have to filter and decipher information he (commander) wants and pull human Intel, civil debriefs…

Defense (Coombs): SigActs [Significant Acts] big part of the database, important?

Lim: Yes. Plug in date and see what events happened in that area.

Defense (Coombs): So SigActs on CIDNE were big historical documents? What was is going to happen in the future?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): SigActs contain future operations?

Lim: Possible. Less often.

Defense (Coombs): SigActs how were they created?

Lim: Ground units…as it happens, op enter, generate, command post, and adjudicates…

Defense (Coombs): Why would a SigAct be created?

Lim: For history, research and analysis…

Defense (Coombs): Is SigActs something for an analyst to look at?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Names of people, key government sources?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): If someone says SigActs compromise key sources is that true?

Lim: No. Not related to human intelligence sources…

Defense (Coombs): What are HUMINT reports [Human intelligence]?

Lim: Report that documents one soldier’s interaction with another person.

Defense (Coombs): You never put names in SigActs?

Lim: Yes, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): Ludicrous to say the report names?

Lim: Yes, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): SigActs traditionally reported as on or immediately thereafter, and tend to be wrong?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): May be updated?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So after 72 hours outdated?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So after 72 hrs they become part of the historical documentation?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So then it’s historically significant at scale?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Most names would be phonetically written down, right?

Lim: Yes

[Defense says there are many ways to spell and search for Mohammed in SigActs.]

Defense (Coombs): Goes back to SigActs not most accurate. Do you know analyst had access to diplomatic cables?

Defense (Coombs): Do you know what NetCentric diplomacy is? Regarding net-centric diplomacy, how did you grant access to cables?

Lim: I gave them link through email. Got from headquarters. They said pass along. Felt at time we were so focused on the ground, and needed bigger picture…

Defense (Coombs): So you handed out link and you were saying, ‘Go get on and take a look’?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Was there a password?

Lim: No

Defense (Coombs): Millions of people have access to these documents?

Lim: Enormous amounts.

Defense (Coombs): So this isn’t like a super secret place to go…just diplomatic cables? If it didn’t have a password it was SECRET or below? If it were TOP SECRET it would not be on SIPRnet?

Lim: No, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): In March 2010 did you know about an equal employment complaint?

Lim: Yes. It involved intense threats.

Defense (Coombs): Find out about whom it was regarding?

Lim: No, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): Did you talk to Master Sgt. Paul Adkins about the letters?

Lim: Felt like medical professional, the medical system should handle it.

Defense (Coombs): Know why he was reduced?

Lim: No.

Defense (Coombs): Who was the Master Sergeant Senior? Can you explain to a non-military person?

[IO objects to Defense language.]

IO: Whom are you speaking to?

Defense (Coombs): He’s the highest-ranking person in SCIF? Sets the tone in SP section?

Lim: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Is that what he did?

Lim: No.

[Prosecution re-examines Capt. Steven Lim.]

Prosecution: Was Manning a smart soldier?

Lim: Yes

Prosecution: Rely on him?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Rely on his information during deployment.

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Did he understand information management?

Lim: Yes.

Prosecution: Why do you say that?

Lim: We went through that training.

Prosecution: Why specifically for Manning?

Lim: Because it was his job to know.

Prosecution: Was any soldier authorized to burn CD and take it out for personal use?

Lim: No.

[End of Bradley Manning Pretrial Day 2.]