Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/18/11 (by an anonymous journalist, ed. by Alexa O’Brien)
- posted December 18, 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.
This transcript of the December 18, 2011, Article 32 Pretrial hearing in U.S. v Pfc. Manning was obtained from a respected journalist in attendance that day at Fort Meade.
The journalist wished to remain anonymous, but wanted the transcript to be made public. The journalist requested that I clean up the transcript and fact check. Any errors are, therefore, my own.
See also Transcript | US v PFC Bradley Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/18/11 by Alexa O’Brien.
- The Investigation Officer is 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, andCaptain Paul Bouchard.
[Capt. Casey Fulton, previously Casey Martin, was an officer in charge of squad’s intelligence section. Collective fusion of intelligence, reconnaissance, analytical evaluation of intelligence, in order to answer questions from the commander.]
Prosecution: Intelligence officer?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: That is your specialty?
Fulton: Yes.
[Capt. Casey Fulton has been officer for six years.]
Prosecution: Training?
Fulton: Went to officer’s basic course as Lieutenant…
Prosecution: Previous positions?
Fulton: Assistant officer in charge of the battalion. Platoon leader. Brigade Assistant S2 officer. I was Brigade Assistant S2.
Prosecution: How many times were you deployed?
Fulton: Twice. Afghanistan 2007 – 2009. Iraq 2009 – 2010.
[Mid September 2009 is when she arrived. She was deployed in October. She had just graduated from the Captain’s Career Course. She contributed lay-down threat for the operating environment they were going to be assuming. In September 2009, she met Manning.]
Prosecution: How?
Fulton: I had asked the shop for info about the threat in Iraq. I was directed to hire Manning because he had a good understanding of the enemy threat. He gave me good idea of enemy threat groups.
Prosecution: [Missed.]
Fulton: According to the person who directed me. He [Manning] had a better understanding than the other operatives.
Prosecution: What was Manning’s S2 capacity?
Fulton: All-source analyst. They gather Intel from different disciplines and analyze it. There’s Human, Imagery, & Signals Intelligence.
Prosecution: What does an all-source Intel analyst do?
Fulton: Pulls all of the Intel together to create a more complete picture.
Prosecution: How are they selected?
Fulton: Usually they have higher scores on ASVAB [Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery], and they must have TOP SECRET clearance. You have to pass a background investigation.
Prosecution: Can anyone acquire that?
Fulton: No. In order to fuse intel… [Missed answer.]
Prosecution: Are you familiar with the training they receive?
Fulton: Believe so.
Prosecution: Operational security training is that what they receive? What is it?
Fulton: It’s training that illustrates how things you do day-to-day may compromise current operations. E.g. Facebook. You wouldn’t want that to compromise operational facility. If you take pic of yourself, that sort of thing…
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Cause intent may not be to compromise, but enemy could use that info against U.S. forces.
Prosecution: Is that something 35 Foxes learned?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What’s Info Sec?
Fulton: It’s how to safeguard information.
DEFENSE OBJECTION.
…
Defense (Coombs): Have you ever been an instructor?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Attended 35 Fox courses?
Fulton: Assisted in training, yes.
Defense (Coombs): How?
Defense (Coombs): We are pulled into attending exercise…help mentor them.
Defense (Coombs): I’m talking about classroom training.
Fulton: No.
DEFENSE OBJECTION: SHE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY TAUGHT.
Prosecution: Six years you’ve been an officer?
Fulton: Almost.
Prosecution: How many 35 Fox junior soldiers?
Fulton: 10.
Prosecution: Did they receive prior training?
Fulton: Yes. The training they get at AIT [Advanced Individual Training] is the only training they get.
Prosecution: So any info they come with they’ve already received at AIT [Advanced Individual Training]?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Explain InfoSec?
Fulton: Information Security Training: training on safeguard of information, whether classified or unclassified.
Prosecution: What’s the training consist of?
Fulton: Goes through classification levels. How it is marked, transported… How is it supposed to be destroyed?
Prosecution: What do you mean, “Properly marked…” ?
Fulton: There’s a marking system for classified & unclassified data: CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET, and UNCLASSIFIED. All levels have certain caveats.
Prosecution: Explain the proper way to mark document?
Fulton: If we had UNCLASSIFIED, you mark top & bottom in green as UNCLASSIFIED.
Prosecution: Classified doc?
Fulton: If CONFIDENTIAL, marked that on top and bottom. Same for SECRET, TOP SECRET, etc.
Prosecution: What is the presumption when you receive a document?
DEFENSE OBJECTION: SHE CAN SPEAK TO HER EXPERIENCE, NOT THAT OF A PERSON GOING THROUGH TRAINING.
Investigating Officer: PROCEED.
Prosecution: Have you had InfoSec training?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What are you taught?
Fulton: Classified info has to be protected. No unauthorized disclosure.
Prosecution: Why is the presumption taught that if it says SECRET on the document, you’re supposed to presume it SECRET?
Fulton: If it’s marked classified, that’s what it is.
Prosecution: As part of InfoSec training, is it incumbent on the individual to determine whether something is classified?
Fulton: No. Because if it’s marked classified, that’s what it is.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: There are only certain people who have authority to classify documents.
Prosecution: Did you have that authorization?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Soldiers working for you?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Anyone in your Brigade?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Who?
Fulton: Um… Theater Commanding General.
Prosecution: Taking Iraq as example, what level?
Fulton: Corps or Division? They have to be appointed by the Secretary of Army.
Prosecution: Now lets talk about the systems used. What are some information systems used?
Fulton: Primarily DCGS [Distributed Common Ground Systems]. Don’t know what it stands for.
Prosecution: What’s it do?
Fulton: Number of things. Chat with other analysts. Pulls data from databases. Provides maps. Has link diagram program on it, personality-based.
Prosecution: Different types of databases?
Fulton: CIDNE [Combined Information Data Network Exchange] is primary.
Prosecution: Others?
Fulton: That’s the one it pulls from…cause that’s become the database everybody uses to streamline data.
Prosecution: Who?
Fulton: Military and other defense agencies.
Prosecution: CIDNE just intelligence platform?
Fulton: I don’t think so. Think it can be used for other non-intel based functions. Lot of Human Intel reporting. I believe there’s Tack raps [Signal Intel reports] in there. Significant Activity [SigActs] reports.
Prosecution: Do those reports have classification marking?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Evident?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What’s it look like? How would you know an entry in the database is classified or not?
Fulton: Would be marked SECRET or whatever classification in its caveats. Standard to put in top & bottom of reports.
Prosecution: In a database field? Where you fill in entries? In the user interface of CIDNE, does it require you to enter things into fields? Or is it a blank slate?
Fulton: Fields. Yes, there are titles.
Prosecution: Was “classification” of a document a field?
Fulton: Don’t know.
Prosecution: Was it marked?
Fulton: Should have been. I.E.D.’s, direct fire, indirect fire, assassinations, threats…easier to brief by exception than by type of event.
Prosecution: Details regarding casualties?
Fulton: Maybe.
Prosecution: Dust worm procedures…?
Fulton: Maybe. That’s when a U.S. military person gets kidnapped.
Prosecution: Techniques, tactics, procedures followed by military?
Fulton: Definitely in there.
Prosecution: Grid coordinates for operating bases?
Fulton: Might be in there, yes.
Prosecution: Different sources of information provided to members of the Army on the ground?
Fulton: Could be.
Prosecution: Different information regarding units currently operating?
Fulton: Are we talking about stuff in the docs or CIDNE in general?
Prosecution: Good question, answer.
Fulton: Sometimes reports will contain information…
Prosecution: SigActs [Significant Activities] are one. Know of others?
Fulton: Those are the main two types we use.
Prosecution: So, positions of U.S. forces are included in that data? Including info…
DEFENSE OBJECTION: SPECULATION
Defense (Coombs): Government elicit more than “could be” or “maybe”.
…
Prosecution: Did CIDNE, in December of 2009 and January of 2010, contain information about how U.S. forces react to I.E.D. attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Used by your Intel analysts?
Fulton: Yes.
DEFENSE OBJECTION: RELEVENCE.
Defense (Coombs): He’s charged with nothing having to do with CIDNE database. It’s huge. But he’s not charged with that. Can I widen my objection?
Investigating Officer: Briefly.
Defense (Coombs): There are so many sources in the CIDNE database, one person couldn’t navigate whole thing, right? SigActs is a small part, right?
Fulton: I’d say it’s a part but not a small part.
Defense (Coombs): Won’t have names, will it?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): So SigActs, as far as SigActs my client is charged with, there’s a whole bunch of other stuff in CIDNE database that’s not SigActs.
Investigating Officer: Mr. Coombs…
[An argument between defense and prosecution ensues over what Pfc. Manning is charged with and how relevant prosecution’s questions are…defense or prosecution says, unclear who. Needs verification as to who is speaking, “He is charged with CIDNE-Iraq and SigActs-Iraq…”]
OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Prosecution: December 2009 & January 2010, did it include fire methods?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Techniques U.S. forces used to react?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: To I.E.D. attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Rescues?
Fulton: That I don’t know.
Prosecution: We started talking about systems. Was intel link used?
Fulton: Yeah. Search engine. Find it on SIPRnet, our classified internet system.
Prosecution: How was Intellink used?
Fulton: If you’re trying to find info on something not readily available, Intellink is where you’d go.
Prosecution: What kind of info would come back?
Fulton: PowerPoint presentations, reports, etc.
Prosecution: Used on daily basis?
Fulton: Sure. Yes.
Prosecution: Daily?
Fulton: Probably not.
Prosecution: Weekly?
Fulton: I’d say yes.
Prosecution: When you deployed to Iraq, what was your job?
Fulton: I was [can’t understand]. Doing analysis of enemy threat for future operations. Included, when creating future ops order, in order for commander to determine course of action, you have to lay out enemy threat and understand what they’re going to do first.
Prosecution: Require you to understand enemy threat?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What else did you need to know?
Fulton: Everything we can know.
Prosecution: Did 35 Fox soldiers assist?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: To do mission analysis, which is step two of decision-making process. Robust project. When you have shop full of intel analysts, easier to farm out some of the information and have people compile.
Prosecution: Who relied on this compiling of info?
Fulton: Commander.
Prosecution: Give the Investigating Officer an idea of how you would question, how you’d answer, how you’d use a 35 Fox enlisted soldier?
Fulton: We had an indirect fire threat on a certain location. We’d take enemy current situational template – disruption zones, etc. – we’d use D6 [computer] to pool fire threats, overlay on enemy situational template in order to see how enemy was arrayed on battlefield. Then we’d take HUMINT [Human Intelligence] reporting to find what we know of enemy threat network or individuals associated to understand: what vehicles, which routes will they take, etc? Fuse on map in order to determine avenues of approach. Helps to refine reconnaissance to prevent attacks or disrupt enemy operations.
Prosecution: Disruption zones?
Fulton: Where enemy conducts attacks to disrupt but not necessarily defeat.
Prosecution: Overlays? Put into context?
Fulton: You just…taking info and overlaying on top of each other so you can see patterns.
Prosecution: Sit-temp. Situational template. Disposition of enemy forces. Where they’re located.
Fulton: Cache locations. Where they store munitions.
Prosecution: How would a 35 Fox Intel analyst get information of those categories to provide to you for your advice?
Fulton: They pool Significant Activity [SigActs] from CIDNE database.
Prosecution: Would you have to understand to pool info? Why?
Fulton: Because it has to be filtered. Certain way of using words in query in order to pull info you want, not everything. Pull what you need; don’t want superfluous info. E.g., might only want to pull indirect fire attacks.
Prosecution: If you’re relying on indirect analyst, they’d have to understand how to pull in order to assist?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When did you become…
[Missed. In my own transcript I have an “Intel officer” but there was an atypical command change in the Brigade, during deployment. See Captain Steven Lim’s testimony on December 17, 2011.
Specifically: In late January 2010 Captain Lim was promoted. In his own words, he “replaced guy [Major Cliff Clausen] who could not communicate information to the commander in the way the commander needed.” Captain [Casey] Martin [married name is Fulton] made Lim Brigade S2. At the same time there is a change in command that commenced officially on February 6, 2010.]
…to brigade?
Fulton: Late January 2010.
Prosecution: What was your brigade office mission?
Fulton: To provide best threat product to commander. It was election security at the time.
Prosecution: When?
Fulton: March 2010.
Prosecution: That was main focus?
Fulton: Correct.
Prosecution: What were other focuses before that? Day-to-day?
Fulton: Constant enemy update to Intel assessment. Good Intel picture, disrupt enemy operations.
Prosecution: Where was your office?
Fulton: I was located in the S.C.I.F. It’s a facility where you compartmentalize information. It’s where classified…don’t know how to explain.
Prosecution: What’s it stand for?
Fulton: Great question.
Prosecution: Who else worked there?
Fulton: Whole Brigade S2 shop.
Prosecution: Did Pfc. Manning work in S.C.I.F?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Was your desk there?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What did it look like?
Fulton: Room with computers. Main section open. Additional section on the side.
Prosecution: The main portion where you and Manning worked, what were the networks?
Fulton: NIPRnet and SIPRnet. NIPRnet is unclassified, SIPRnet is classified up to SECRET.
Prosecution: Did you or any analysts have access to anything higher than SECRET?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Could you talk about or look at it?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: But couldn’t access?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Highest you could access was SECRET?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Did you have requirement to burn C.D.’s?
Fulton: Yes. Because we needed to share information with Iraqis.
Prosecution: Were soldiers allowed to burn C.D.’s for any other purpose?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Including personal use?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: While deployed with the 2nd Brigade, were there discussions in the S.C.I.F. regarding operational security?
Fulton: Yes. Don’t post pictures on Facebook, don’t release info to family that would compromise operations, that sort of thing.
Prosecution: What about InfoSec? Informational security?
Fulton: Could have been…
DEFENSE OBJECTION
Investigating Officer: SUSTAINED.
Prosecution: Were computers accessed by “all source” on shared network?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What type of information on it?
Fulton: All sorts.
Prosecution: Classified?
Fulton: Yes. SECRET.
Prosecution: Network on SIPRnet?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Rules for pulling information off network?
Fulton: As far as accessing shared network…? There weren’t any restrictions.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because it was a shared network.
Prosecution: Was that an operational requirement?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Easier to move information back & forth.
Prosecution: What were the rules in your office as far as pulling info off the shared network? Could you pull anything?
Fulton: Usually you’d just pull info pertinent to your mission.
Prosecution: Was it classified if you pulled it off?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because it was on a SECRET or classified system.
Prosecution: What makes it classified?
Fulton: Just that. Its markings.
Prosecution: Explain?
Fulton: If it’s on a classified system, rule of thumb is: you can go lower to higher but not higher to lower.
Prosecution: More detail?
Fulton: Once something is on a classified system, it’s assumed classified. You cant take it off a classified and put it on unclassified. That’s considered spillage.
Prosecution: Whose authority is it to say you can’t move something from classified to unclassified?
Fulton: Don’t know.
Prosecution: Was it 2nd [says name]?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: [Missed question.]
Fulton: You’re not allowed to put classified data on an unclassified system.
Prosecution: How do you know?
Fulton: At minimum, they signed an SF312, saying they wouldn’t release classified data. There are also procedures for coming in and out of S.C.I.F. Procedure.
Prosecution: Supervised 100 per cent of the time?
Fulton: No. Impossible.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Only limited number of supervisors. Can’t supervise all day.
Prosecution: What did you rely on?
Fulton: That they have an understanding of the material and that they’ll protect the material the way they’ve been taught.
Prosecution: What were Manning’s strengths?
Fulton: He was good at researching and compiling data.
Prosecution: What did that include?
Fulton: Had him work with D6 – pulling Significant Activity, pull HUMINT [Human Intelligence] reports, etc. He was able to do that efficiently. Was able to import/export Excel spreadsheets. Especially if you’re looking at number of SigActs, it breaks it down by location, type, grid coordinates.
Prosecution: Do this often?
Fulton: Occasionally.
Prosecution: He’d have to understand what he was looking for.
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What was his full-time duty?
Fulton: He was part of team that evaluated violent extremist threat.
Prosecution: Work-related reason for him to be researching G.T.M.O. S.O.P.?
DEFENSE OBJECTION
Investigating Officer: OVERRULED
Fulton: As it pertained to our mission in Iraq, no.
Prosecution: Reason for him to research Iceland?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Julian Assange?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Work-related reason for him to research AR 15-6 [Army 15-6] investigations? CENTCOM? SJA [Staff Judge Advocate] website? Pulling all data from CIDNE-Afghanistan database?
Fulton: No to all.
Prosecution: Are you familiar with 2007 Apache video?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: How did you first come aware?
Fulton: Specialist [Jihrleah] Showman was playing it sometime during our deployment. Before April 1.
Prosecution: What computer?
Fulton: Her work station comp.
Prosecution: SIPRnet?
Fulton: Yes. Classified system.
Prosecution: When did you become aware of public release?
Fulton: After I had asked…at that time, I wasn’t sure actually. It wasn’t an actual – to actually know it had been released, it wasn’t till Manning was arrested and taken.
Prosecution: Did you ever have convo with Manning about the video?
Fulton: Yes. Around April. I’d asked the group, to engage them in current events, if they’d seen video. Cause it obviously doesn’t make environment look good. Engaged them in what they thought of it. He [Manning] came up to me and said he thought it was the same video from our share drive.
Prosecution: Response?
Fulton: I said, “No. No way, not same video.” Shorter in duration, maybe media was only showing clips of it. But I’d only seen it once. Said I’d have to see the two side-by-side.
Prosecution: Last conversation?
Fulton: Last verbal conversation, yes. He [Manning] sent an email with a link to our shared drive with two video clips: One video clip from share drive. One of the same video.
Prosecution: Was the video released through WikiLeaks on your share drive?
Fulton: I don’t know.
Prosecution: Did his video point to the original video on share drive?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: And that was on SIPRnet or NIPRnet?
Fulton: SIPRnet.
Prosecution: Captain Fulton, are you aware of an investigation conducted into that video?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: And the video was on SIPRnet?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): to
Investigating Officer: May I have a moment?
Defense (Coombs): 2nd BCT [Brigade Combat Team] September 2009?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Assistant S2 [Company Level Intelligence]?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Deployed Iraq November 2009?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Worked out of S.C.I.F, worked with operations orders for election security?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Created work products regarding election security? Helped commander make decisions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): All for March 2010 election? Products important?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Election security one of the Brigade’s main missions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You didn’t have chain of command responsibility – just counseling, detail them directly – over soldiers. One of soldiers you relied on was Pfc. Manning? Often went to him specifically because he was good at what he did? He understood D6 system? He did a good job plotting data points? Used those strengths as part of your S2 work? N.D.M.P. [Network Data Management Protocol] – step two – used Manning to pull data for step two?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Lengthy, robust process? He created data, put it on a map for you?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did good work?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Completed in a timely fashion? Got them done on time?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): During end of 2009 to March 2010 – he did a lot of work and stuff that had to be done on a timely basis?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He was your go-to analyst?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Unlike other analysts, he would engage you on some of the topics?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Sometimes he would independently find info for you based upon your discussions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So it was exciting to have someone like Pfc. Manning working for you?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Even though he did good work, you didn’t find him a good analyst. You weren’t able to get a good analytical product. Not like it’s easy. You have to grow into it. You’d agree that majority of American populace wouldn’t be good at it.
Fulton: When they first start, no.
Defense (Coombs): You never asked him to do analytical projects.
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): You would just have him gather data. You would take data and then do the analysis.
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): You would explain what you were doing…?
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): As part of his training…?
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): Understandable that he wasn’t that good at what he was doing…?
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): Staff Sergeant [Balant. Name needs verification, written phonetically] [Kyle] Balonek [promoted to Warrant Officer, One in September 2010] – he was the real go-to analyst in terms of actual analysis. He had greatest ability to do analysis. Did you ever hear soldiers listening to music in the S.C.I.F.?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): They would pull music from shared drive down to D6 machine. They’d do this regularly?
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): But not acceptable, right?
Fulton: Explain?
Defense (Coombs): From your understanding, if music was on the shared drive, it was ok?
Fulton: Right.
Defense (Coombs): So if a soldier pulled music from shared drive, put on their comp, that was ok?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did soldiers watch movies on their computers…that they pulled from share drives?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Some acquired from [Iraqi] nationals?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): That they watched on their SECRET computers?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see them playing computer games?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Also pulled from shared drive, played on D6 machines?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What were D6 machines used for?
Fulton: Analysis.
Defense (Coombs): They didn’t have mIRC Chat, did they?
Fulton: Don’t think so.
Defense (Coombs): You believed it was essential, right?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): It ran as a desktop application on your computer, right?
Fulton: Think so.
Defense (Coombs): You had it on your computer as a desktop application.
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Google Earth you also found essential, right?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): But that wasn’t part of package, was it?
Fulton: Don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): You would use it to do analysis on terrain?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Prior to incident, did you see Manning talking to Master Sergeant Adkins? Where?
Fulton: Saw them talking in the side room.
Defense (Coombs): What did you see?
Fulton: Manning was upset. Sitting on floor.
Defense (Coombs): How?
Fulton: Arms around knees.
Defense (Coombs): Curled into ball?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): On floor with [Master Sergeant] Atkins talking to him?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not common sight?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Did you speak to [Master Sergeant] Atkins later to find out what was going on ?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Present for Manning – Specialist [Jihrleah] Showman incident?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You brought her into S.C.I.F. later that night.
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): She needed to find a product?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): No one else could find that product?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So you instructed she be woken up and brought back into S.C.I.F.?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): She was irritated at being woken up?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And at the time of the incident, you had your back to Specialist [Jihrleah] Showman and Manning.
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): But you heard Specialist [Jihrleah] Showman getting irritated with Manning. She was irritated at Manning because he was playing a game. But you knew Manning was looking for the product because you had seen him do it. You told [Specialist Jihrleah] Showman to calm down because [another person] had brought her in there. After awhile, you saw [Specialist Jihrleah] Showman with Pfc. Manning pinned on the ground.
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And you heard he’d struck her?
Fulton: Yes. She said he had struck her.
Defense (Coombs): You told Master Sergeant Atkins that Manning needed to be removed, have his weapon taken, be taken to behavior health?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did you feel this was a standard response to an act of aggression by one soldier against another?
Fulton: Well, interaction between soldiers ended up in that result, so I wanted him to be removed – to not have an interaction with the solders. Anytime there’s a violent outburst, especially in deployed environment where you have a functioning weapon, you want to take that away. Behavioral health is the next step.
Defense (Coombs): Did you find a derog appropriate? Basically where you have derogatory information filed against someone with security clearance? Which could result in them having their security clearance suspended or revoked?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Could be for assaultive behavior? Lying to superior? Behavior problems most common reason?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Isn’t if a fact that you’re supposed to derog most events with soldier with security clearance? So that people with clearance can be kept track of? So process is to track negative actions by solders?
Fulton: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers and leaders have obligation to report derogatory information?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Special security representative? Person responsible to make sure derogs are processed?
Fulton: [Transcript has “Tempfields” ] 1st Lt. [Elizabeth] Fields or Master Sergeant Atkins.
Defense (Coombs): It was their duty to go and report that info?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So if a soldier exhibited behavior making them seem untrustworthy or exhibiting behavior showing they might have mental problem, why report?
Fulton: Might show a pattern.
Defense (Coombs): Were you aware of 2009 – a December 2009 incident between Manning and Sergeant Padgett?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You thought a derog should have been filed?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): If a derog is filed, how quickly can that be enacted?
Fulton: Immediately.
PROSECUTION OBJECTION.
Investigating Officer: PERMIT LIMITED LINE OF QUESTIONING. KEEP IT BRIEF.
Defense (Coombs): I just have one more question. Once a soldier’s clearance is suspended or revoked, do they have access to classified info?
Fulton: No.
Investigating Officer: Government, any more questions?
PROSECUTION EXAMINES CAPTAIN CASEY FULTON
Prosecution: Yes. Do you recall that Manning was removed after incident with Specialist [Jihrleah] Showman?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Did it happen in May?
Fulton: Likely.
[Missed.]
DEFENSE EXAMINES CAPTAIN CASEY FULTON
[Missed.]
CAPT. FULTON PERMANENTLY EXCUSED.
US CALLS SGT. 1ST CLASS PAUL ATKINS [WAS MASTER SERGEANT DEMOTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION]
[Formerly Master Sergeant Adkins but was demoted after administrative disciplinary action concerning the alleged leak. Sergeant 1st Class, formerly Master Sergeant Adkins invoked Article 31. Adkins was the NCOIC Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge of Day Shift, and referred to in Captain Steven Lim’s testimony at the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing on December 17, 2011.]
Defense (Coombs): Applies only when military officer is acting as disciplinary officer. Article 31 rights do not apply in Article 32 hearings.
[Missed.]
SGT. 1ST CLASS PAUL ATKINS IS EXCUSED
U.S. CALLS KYLE BALONEK via TELEPHONE
[Kyle Balonek, Warrant Officer, One (WO1) , invokes Article 31]
Balonek: On behalf of my attorney’s advice, I’m invoking my right to remain silent.
Investigating Officer: Are there any questions we could ask you that would not cause you to invoke your 31 rights?
Balonek: No.
Investigating Officer: Defense…?
DEFENSE HAS SAME OBJECTION.
OBJECTION DENIED.
Investigating Officer: Thank you Mr. Balonek. I find that this witness is not available.
NEXT WITNESS SERGEANT CHAD MADARAS via TELEPHONE
Prosecution: How do you know Manning?
Madaras: Fort Drum…deployment to Iraq.
Prosecution: When did you meet?
Madaras: Sometime in Summer or Fall of 2008. Spoke outside barracks.
Prosecution: What’s your M.O.S. [Military Occupational Specialty]?
Madaras: 35 Fox Intel Analyst.
Prosecution: Did you go to AIT [Advanced individual Training]?
[Missed.]
Prosecution: Remember things you learned?
Madaras: How to do map-reading, how to present PowerPoint Presentations, how to use D6 system – multi-function work system.
Prosecution: Learn about classified information?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: What did you learn?
Madaras: Learned how important different levels were.
Prosecution: Where did you learn about accessing classified information?
Madaras: You had to have connectivity to that network and proper clearance to access.
Prosecution: Ever learn about publishing on the Internet?
Madaras: Not that I recall.
Prosecution: When did you arrive at 2-10 [2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division] ?
Madaras: November 2007.
Prosecution: Attended training?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: What?
Madaras: D6 class. August of 2008.
Prosecution: Any other classes?
Madaras: Military writing-style classes that [then Master Sergeant, now after administrative action and demotion for leak Sergeant 1st Class ] Atkins taught us. Classes like that on military writing style.
Prosecution: What did you learn at D6 class?
Madaras: Everything with the system. Using map you could build stuff on to present to audience.
Prosecution: Did Manning attend J.R.T.C. [Joint Readiness Training Center] training?
Madaras: Yes, he was in J.R.T.C. [Joint Readiness Training Center] training for Iraq.
Prosecution: What did you do?
Madaras: They would push down information that we analyzed. Simulated what it would be like in Iraq.
Prosecution: Did you work with Manning at J.R.T.C. [Joint Readiness Training Center]?
Madaras: He worked day shift, and I worked nights.
Prosecution: Did you deploy with him?
Madaras: Yes. Oct. 2009. Pfc. Manning came in main party a few weeks after I did.
Prosecution: Where did you work?
Madaras: S.C.I.F. squad. Manning too. [Sergeant Madaras and Pfc. Manning were both team analysts. ]
Prosecution: So you worked together? Work same shift?
Madaras: [Manning worked at night, Madaras worked during the day. They were opposite each other, until late in deployment, when they switched, and Manning worked the day, and Madaras at night.]
Prosecution: So you shared a work station?
Madaras: Yes, Ma’am. For majority of deployment, just one.
Prosecution: What was the first computer? Model?
Madaras: Dell [The transcriber wrote “Dell M90 or something,” while I transcribed Dell 3600.]
Prosecution: Second computer?
Madaras: Alienware.
Prosecution: Did you often use the Alienware?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: You used Dell?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: Later…?
Madaras: Manning used Dell more often during beginning of deployment; switched later.
Prosecution: What was your mission?
Madaras: We supported [Warrant Officer, One Kyle] Balonek with anything in the target area.
Prosecution: What did you do?
Madaras: Read reports.
Prosecution: Ever share projects with Manning?
[Missed. Affirmative.]
Prosecution: Did Manning do those projects?
Madaras: Majority of the time not completed.
Prosecution: What were common programs that you used?
Madaras: Intellink or Arc Map. CIDNE-Iraq. That’s what I can think of at this time.
Prosecution: You personally used Intelink?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: On work stations you shared?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: On those two computers, ever search for WikiLeaks? Iceland? CENTCOM? SJA [Staff Judge Advocate]?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Julian Assange?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Retention? Birgitta Jonsdottir?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Reykjavik?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Ever use Intellipedia?
Madaras: Yes, on occasion.
Prosecution: What did you search?
Madaras: For groups – to find out if there was more information on that group. E.g., a Shia group.
Prosecution: Ever search for G.T.M.O.?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Ever use State Department system?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Know what WGET is?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Never searched it? Ever use Manning’s user profile? Know his passwords?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Computer ever operate out of the ordinary?
[Missed.]
Prosecution: What would happen?
Madaras: Our shifts were 22 hundred [10:00 p.m.] to 10 hundred [10:00 a.m.]. When I would leave it was fine; when I would come it would crash, have problems.
Prosecution: What would you do?
Madaras: Mr. Alan Milliman. I’d have him come and reimage it, do whatever he did.
DEFENSE EXAMINES CHAD MADARAS
Defense (Coombs): We have spoken before on the telephone. You met Manning first in 2008? Smoking area in barracks outside Ft. Hood?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You remember him being interested in U.S. politics?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What did he talk about?
Madaras: Places he had met a lot of politicians.
Defense (Coombs): You both went to J.R.T.C. [Joint Readiness Training Center] in 2009? Before deployment? You worked opposite shifts – Manning during day, you at night?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Pfc. Manning was in charge of working on company’s computers?
Madaras: I don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): You told me Manning was the one to fix a computer if it wasn’t working…Dell and Alienware?
Madaras: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): You’re not a comp guy? Only know the OS?
Madaras: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): At D6 computer training, did you receive training on what files to place on your desktop?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): You arrived 15 October? Worked in T-S.C.I.F? As Intel analyst? As part of the Shia Group? Along with Manning? You worked day; Manning worked night?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Night shift supervisor was the N.C.O. [Non-Commissioned Officer]?
Madaras: It was [Missed but Rainy Reitman says it was Sergeant (former Specialist) Daniel Padgett].
Defense (Coombs): So wasn’t the N.C.O.? Night shift was tasked with what daytime shift was supposed to complete?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Sometimes when he did complete tasks, you saw it as great work? But weren’t privy to who might be tasked with giving him assignments?
Madaras: Sometimes I knew.
Defense (Coombs): Did you know he might be having problems?
Madaras: I don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): You saw several events.
Madaras: I saw a couple.
Defense (Coombs): Remember someone asking to move projector screen December 2009 or January 2010?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What happened?
Madaras: [Master Sergeant, now demoted to Sergeant 1st Class] Adkins wanted something moved. I said I’d do it, said he’d asked Manning to do it. Manning slammed a chair down.
Defense (Coombs): Did [Master Sergeant, now demoted Sergeant 1st Class] Adkins report the incident, remove Manning from his duties, etc?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): You’d see Manning come in at night, pick up items, slam them down?
Madaras: Yes. One or two occasions on which he’d pick things up, slam things down. Enter room, go to work station, go directly to his work station.
Defense (Coombs): Was this acceptable conduct?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Was he removed from duties or reported?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see him become non-responsive?
Madaras: I remember [Warrant Officer, One (WO1), invokes Article 31, Kyle] Balonek [and Master Sergeant Paul David Adkins (now Sergeant 1st Class due to administrative action). See Rainey Reitman and my transcript above] calling his name, trying to get his attention – he just stared at his screen.
Defense (Coombs): Was he removed from T-S.C.I.F recommended for action?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Was it correct that you believed he might do harm to himself or others?
PROSECUTION OBJECTION
SUSTAINED
Defense (Coombs): Based upon your viewing of Pfc. Manning, did you think he might do harm to himself or others?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Did you hear complaints?
Madaras: There were some people who thought that.
Defense (Coombs): Anyone report to [Master Sergeant, now demoted to Sergeant 1st Class] Adkins?
Madaras: Possible Lieutenant Gaff [sp.] did…don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): Manning have friends?
Madaras: Saw him talk to Specialist [David] Sadtler.
Defense (Coombs): Never saw him hanging out w/ other soldiers?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Other soldiers pick on him?
Madaras: No. [Sergeant Madaras says that other soldiers saw him running around at night and joked about that.]
INVESTIGATING OFFICER OBJECTS. DEFENSE SAYS INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS AS PART OF DEFENSE DISCOVERY.
Defense (Coombs): From your personal knowledge, was Manning an outcast?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Why?
Madaras: He separated himself. He was picked on by others. That was my view.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see soldiers listening to music?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Where was it stored?
Madaras: There was a shared drive passed on to us that contained music on it.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see it on the D6 machines?
Madaras: Yes. You could access music on the network.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see soldiers watching movies, playing games?
Madaras: Yes. Games were already on shared drive. There was a D.V.D. player in there that was hooked up to a machine.
Defense (Coombs): You indicated your D6 machine often had problems operating? One reason it might crash would be that you might have too much on desktop?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were allowed to save info on the desktop, but if you put too much on it, it would crash?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): When D6A computer was running slow, Manning would fix it?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): mIRC chat – was that installed?
Madaras: He installed.
Defense (Coombs): Not a baseline program?
Madaras: Others in unit, probably including yourself, thought mIRC was essential? And you’d pull it off shared drive and run from your comp?
Madaras: If that is what it does, Sir. [Missed.]
Defense (Coombs): You’d put it on your desktop, run from there?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Manning helped others put mIRC on their desktops?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Program added only after you got to theater?
Madaras: Believe so.
Defense (Coombs): If someone wanted to add mIRC to their machine, how would they do that?
Madaras: I don’t know, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): That’s because you don’t have very much computer knowledge?
Madaras: Correct.
PROSECUTION EXAMINES CHAD MADARAS
Prosecution: 35 Foxtrot, correct? As is Pfc. Manning?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: Signed non-disclosure agreement? Manning too?
Madaras: Yes.
SERGEANT CHAD MADARAS PERMANENTLY EXCUSED.
[The following is from the question and answer period preceding lunch in the press pool.
Article 31 is similar to pleading the 5th Amendment. No person has to answer any questions that might incriminate themselves. Witness and counsel believe it may tend to incriminate them.
Warrant Officer, One (WO1), Kyle Balonek not up for a criminal investigation. Former Master Sergeant, now Sergeant 1st Class may be. Mr. David Coombs used the case law to determine between those two. Will be reviewed by the convening authority and the Judge during the court martial.
Question: If someone is reduced in rank, are there appellate procedures?
Answer: Depends on how they were reduced. There’s always a board that makes a decision and appeals to a higher authority. Sounds like it was an administrative director board – usually a General Officer – that reduced his rank. Rank can be reduced, pending that appeal. The basis for [former Master Sergeant, now Sergeant 1st Class Adkins] invoking Article 31 right was that appeal of the reduction of rank.
Question: mIRC Chat?
Answer: Program used generally in a deployed environment. Text-based chat program.
Question: It’s on a secret system? Or something?
Answer: Shared drive they’re pulling things from is a folder within a server on the SIPRnet.
Question: DCGS-A computer?
Answer: Distributed Common Ground Systems computer.
Question: Investigating officer reviews summarized record and notes. Makes report that goes to convening authority. Who then makes a recommendation as to what to do with the case…refer to court martial?
Answer: General court martial convening authority – in this case it’s the Military District of Washington.
Answer: Granting immunity – only way to compel someone to testify. Civilians can use constitutional rights; in military, you can be ordered to testify so it’s a bit different. Prosecution cannot compel people to come to court. ]
LUNCH BREAK
U.S. CALLS ALLEN MILLIMAN OF PALMYRA, VIRGINIA via TELEPHONE.
Prosecution: This is Captain Fein calling.
[Missed.]
Prosecution: Current position?
Milliman: Network engineer working with [Missed.] Inc.
Prosecution: Military?
Milliman: 21 years, 2 mo, 15 days. Worked with 72 Echo, 33 Tango. Latter as electronics repair guy. Electronic repair for military Intel systems. Responsible for repairs.
Prosecution: Job require TOP SECRET clearance?
Milliman: Then, yes. Now, SECRET.
Prosecution: When did you retire?
Milliman: August 31, 2009. Became contractor for [Missed].
Prosecution: How long were you deployed as a civilian in Iraq?
Milliman: On and off from November 28, 2007 to December 19, 2010.
Prosecution: Where in Iraq?
Milliman: Started out at Camp [Missed] in Baghdad. Moved to JSS [Joint Service Support] Loyalty, then to Camp Ramadi, July of 2000 to 2009 until 2-10 [2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)] moved out, don’t know exactly when that was.
Prosecution: What was your primary responsibility?
Milliman: Field Software Engineer. F.S.E. is the title.
Prosecution: What does an FSE do?
Milliman: Responsible for the base on the location, other units. I supported [Missed].
Prosecution: Where were you based out of?
Milliman: F.O.B. Hammer [Missed].
Prosecution: There the entire time 2nd Brigade was deployed?
Milliman: DCGS-A. [He defines the acronym.] System that authors data to analysts. Data used by analysts to make their decisions on certain targets. My job was to keep system up and running. There is the servers and the laptops. Majority of my job was laptops that had to be fixed for analysts.
Prosecution: Who was authorized to perform maintenance?
Milliman: The [Missed] and the mentors. The mentors handled software, people not being able to adjust format, whether it was hardware, firmware, software.
Prosecution: How often did computers have problems at F.O.B. Hammer?
Milliman: Everyday one or more systems needed assistance: dust blown out, needed defrag’ing, etc. Nature of the beast.
Prosecution: Corrupted PST’s [ Personal Folders File is the format used by Microsoft Outlook] common occurrence for users on these computers?
Milliman: There are those who are afraid to delete everything. Corrupts file system. Sometimes machine wouldn’t reboot. Not common occurrence, but I’ve seen several times.
Prosecution: What was common procedure for a DCGS computer?
Milliman: [He talks about what sort of repairs he would do, how he would go about rebooting, fixing, etc.]
Prosecution: What if hard drive or computer could not be fixed? Explain hard drive in a laptop that would be complete failure versus one you can fix?
Milliman: Reboot in safe mode, sometimes… [He goes on to explain.]
Prosecution: Did you know Manning?
Milliman: Worked in the office where I worked.
Prosecution: How often?
Milliman: Saw him everyday, but didn’t interact. Maybe once or twice a week?
Prosecution: Do you know Madaras?
Milliman: I saw him three to five times a week.
Prosecution: How many times did you have to repair Madaras/Manning’s computer?
Milliman: That seemed to be the one that I’d need to fix. Madaras said he thought Manning had “done” something to the computer. Said, “He’s always messing with them.” I didn’t know what was going on; just figured it was defragging that was needed. Occasionally we might sit at same table in chow; not often. Not much really.
Prosecution: Remember when you met?
Milliman: No.
[Missed.]
DEFENSE OBJECTION: SINCE MILLIMAN BARELY KNEW MANNING, HOW WOULD HE KNOW ABOUT MANNING’S COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE.
QUESTION RESTATED
Prosecution: Did Manning ever talk to you about his knowledge of computers?
Milliman: Manning said he had had a computer software company previously. He said at one point, “If people knew what I can do to computers, they’d be amazed.” He seemed kind of serious, kind of joking at the same time when he said this.
Prosecution: Do you know program WGET?
Milliman: No.
Prosecution: Who was authorized to install DCGS programs?
Milliman: Me.
Prosecution: Was WGET authorized?
Milliman: Don’t recall. Don’t think so.
Prosecution: mIRC chat?
Milliman: Not installed, but most people used that. It was possible – could be on desktop.
Prosecution: Was authorized software?
Milliman: It was authorized to use, yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
DEFENSE EXAMINES ALLEN MILLIMAN
Defense (Coombs): You retired in 2005? And were an E7 then? Got a job as DCGS-A build software engineer, November 2007 to December 2010? Only worked on DCGS-A machines? Only person doing it?
Milliman: Not necessarily. Sometimes. Think twice.
Defense (Coombs): You were the only person assigned?
Milliman: Yes, me and mentor Tosy Gimmage [sp.].
Defense (Coombs): Based on your experience, was heat a major problem for computers?
Milliman: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): DCGS-A machines would run hot?
Milliman: Yes, even in the A/C.
Defense (Coombs): Due to heat, dust, etc., computers would crash?
Milliman: Yes, single most frequent cause of failure.
Defense (Coombs): Could crash because of hard drive or graphics card problem? When DCGS machines would crash, that’s when you repaired? Two users per machine?
Milliman: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Do you know why there were a lot of user profiles?
Milliman: Unfortunately, [Transcriber wrote F6, but may be D6–Basic Digital Network Analyst] folks…they had trouble getting onto the network so they would create a new profile. Or they would “hot seat”: sit there temporarily?
Defense (Coombs): You say they would crash. Users would store a lot of stuff on their desktops? When DCGS-A machine crashed, sometimes you could retrieve, sometimes you couldn’t?
Milliman: Yes.
[Milliman talks about using universal drive adapter to recover hard drive files from hard drive if necessary.]
Defense (Coombs): You were the only one with admin rights?
Milliman: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): You were asked to add programs?
Milliman: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What was process of getting approval for software that wasn’t in the package?
Milliman: They would ask me, I’d ask my boss. If they gave the approval, they would let me know; if they gave a disapproval, they would let me know.
Defense (Coombs): Was there anyone in that chain who was military?
Milliman: Don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): People you called were all civilians?
Milliman: Yes. Took a couple days.
Defense (Coombs): What is mIRC Chat? Depending on problems with it, did this cause issues with DCGS-A machines running?
[Transcriber notes that main question was would new programs play nice with other programs on DCGS-A machines?]
Milliman: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): As part of your job, you noticed soldiers had placed executable files on their desktops.
Milliman: There was an occasion or two where I noticed other programs had been installed. Notice instances where soldiers put their own executable files on their desktops
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers thought the machines were theirs to do what they wanted with them?
Milliman: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And you would tell them they couldn’t do that?
Milliman: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were made aware that soldiers were putting unauthorized software on their computers?
Milliman: Yes, eventually.
[Transcribers note. They would go back and forth about how common an occurrence it was for soldiers to put their own software on the comps.]
Defense (Coombs): Computers could have been formatted to disallow DCGS-A machines from having software saved to them but weren’t, right?
Milliman: Right.
Defense (Coombs): Reason is that you worked for the soldiers, they didn’t work for you, right?
Milliman: Right.
PROSECUTION EXAMINES THE WITNESS
Prosecution: Were you asked by Manning to install WGET on his comp? Or to download a version of it?
Milliman: Not that I recall.
Investigating Officer: You mentioned mentor. Who’s that?
[Milliman explains.]
ALLEN MILLIMAN IS PERMANENTLY EXCUSED.
NEXT WITNESS CAPTAIN THOMAS CHEREPKO, U.S. FORCES, N.A.T.O via TELEPHONE
Prosecution: Current position?
Cherepko: Deputy C.I.S. [Communications and Information Systems] officer for Madrid. My duties: to assist primary CIS officer in planning, executing for training officers for multinational N.A.T.O. operations. I’m a Functional [Area] 53, Information Systems Manager.
Prosecution: What do you do for the army?
Cherepko: Depends. Ranges from cyber defense to… [Cherepko mentions other things]. I’ve been in the Army 16 years. For 2.5 years – since Summer 2009 – I’ve been a C.I.S. officer. Previously Engineer Officer, 4 years.
Prosecution: What type of training do you receive?
Cherepko: Went through Functional Area 53 training at Fort Gordon in Georgia. Brigade Automation Officer responsible for overseeing NIPRnet and SIPRnet. NIPRnet System, unclassified network that allows you access to world wide web, Google, Yahoo, ESPN if you like. Only used for unclassified information. SIPRnet is a global Intranet for the Department of Defense. Closed network, classified up to SECRET.
Prosecution: What were qualifications in order to have SIPRnet account?
Cherepko: You had to have approval of your first-line supervisor; had to complete required paperwork, which included a request for access document; and an A.U.P. – Acceptable Use Policy.
Prosecution: When completing steps for access, you had to prove you had security clearing. Why did you need a security clearance to get on network?
Cherepko: Because SIPRnet can contain up to SECRET information.
Prosecution: A.U.P. – Acceptable Use Policy – tells you what you can and cannot do on network. You have to read and sign. Explain…?
Cherepko: It’s online training giving you basic security proceedings. Gives examples of what to do and what not to do.
Prosecution: Give examples of different types information in training?
Cherepko: Perfect example: the use of I.D. cards to get into buildings. You’re supposed to use I.D. card to get into buildings. If someone goes to a door without ID, there’s a protocol on what you’re supposed to do.
Prosecution: Sharing passwords?
Cherepko: You’re not authorized to share.
Prosecution: Conduct yourself while using classified information?
Cherepko: Can’t remember if there’s anything specific to classified. But even to get a NIPRnet account, you have to go through this training.
Prosecution: Focusing just on SIPRnet, what is network administrator’s function?
Cherepko: Monitor and maintain upkeep of network. Ensure that there are communications 24 hours per day. Security, upgrades, troubleshooting of users’ problems.
Prosecution: Soldiers: authorized to install programs on 2-10 Mountain [2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)] SIPRnet program?
Cherepko: No.
Prosecution: Who was authorized?
Cherepko: Program administrators.
Prosecution: Have you heard of WGET?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: Was it authorized?
Cherepko: No. To my knowledge, doesn’t have specific [Missed] of net worthiness.
Prosecution: mIRC Chat? What is it?
Cherepko: Chat system.
Prosecution: Similar to I.M. [Instant Message]?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: Was there an operational need to have?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: What?
Cherepko: Used to communicate between Division [10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)] and Brigade [2nd Brigade Combat Team – BCT]. Brigade aviation cells used to communicate with aviation community.
Prosecution: Authorized to be installed on your computer?
Cherepko: We had to have it in order to communicate with the aviation community.
Prosecution: Was it authorized, though?
Cherepko: To my knowledge, yes – it was on systems when I got there.
Prosecution: Did you install?
Cherepko: Yes, part of the package we installed.
Prosecution: Was WGET part of that?
Cherepko: No.
Prosecution: A.U.P. – Acceptable Use Policy. Soldiers required to sign before deployment?
Cherepko: Don’t know.
Prosecution: Requirement to have A.U.P.’s [Acceptable Use Policy]?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: When you were Systems Officer, did you require soldiers to sign?
Cherepko: I did, Sir. Can only assume it was done before I arrived – I had to sign when I got there.
Prosecution: Manning there when you arrived in theater?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: Did you maintain Manning’s A.U.P. when you were there?
Cherepko: Have to say, no – we couldn’t find it when asked to find it. Mine was one of the ones we couldn’t find too.
Prosecution: Why?
Cherepko: Over 2,000 users; we kept paper copies in file folders; they were misplaced.
Prosecution: Standard language in A.U.P. [Acceptable Use Policy]?
Cherepko: No forwarding of chain emails. Can’t use it for personal business. Can only access network for what you have permission to access. You can’t install programs, you can’t look at porno or racist material.
Prosecution: Whose is the ultimate responsibility?
Cherepko: It’s the user’s.
Prosecution: Executable code mentioned?
Cherepko: Don’t know.
Prosecution: Did you have a shared drive? What is it?
Cherepko: Yes. Not unlike U.S.B. drive, but it’s larger and is a server. 11 Terabytes, not all of which was accessible by users. Server on network connected by I.P. address to the main network. Users could map server to their local machine, use as hard drive locally.
Prosecution: Was there a common name for 2nd Brigade Mountain [2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)] shared drive?
Cherepko: T Drive. Classification was SECRET.
Prosecution: Who had access?
Cherepko: Anyone given permission.
Prosecution: Anyone on SIPRnet?
Cherepko: Anyone on SIPRnet who was also given access. I don’t know anyone who was not given access.
Prosecution: Just from your Brigade?
Cherepko: Inherited from 82nd Air Brigade. They’d also inherited. Collection of archived documents from the past several years.
Prosecution: Also movies and music on shared drive?
Cherepko: Yes.
Prosecution: Assuming soldier had SIPRnet access, what prevented a soldier from removing information from shared drive and putting on his or her own computer?
Cherepko: Nothing. You could move data back and forth between it.
Prosecution: What prevented a soldier from burning a C.D. of classified information?
Cherepko: No technical restriction from burning a CD.
Prosecution: Why?
Cherepko: There was no requirement to have a restriction; no need to.
Prosecution: Was there an operational requirement needed to allow burning of a C.D.?
Cherepko: Yes. Like I said, there was no technical restriction. Only prevention was trust that a soldier would not do that.
DEFENSE EXAMINES CAPTAIN THOMAS CHEREPKO
[Discussion about him not being there in person. Mr. David Coombs says he sounds like a Sprint commercial.]
Defense (Coombs): How long did you work as the Brigade Automations Officer as 2nd BCT [Brigade Combat Team]?
Cherepko: From 2009 till this past summer [2011]. Primary duty: establish, maintain, secure Brigade communications. Serve as Brigade Information Assurance Manager [I.A.M.].
Defense (Coombs): Typical day?
Cherepko: Day would begin with PTs [Physical Training], go to work. Once I arrived, day had fairly typical rhythm: read through logs to make sure back-ups had occurred. Check emails to see if anything needed to be action’ed on immediately. Checked with soldiers in the Help Desk. Rest of my day, minus meetings, consisted of troubleshooting network and doing everything I could to keep it operational.
Defense (Coombs): FA53 [Functional Area 53] course – you went, correct?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Functional area?
Cherepko: Overall, focuses on technical aspects of running a network. Courses are fairly good. Civilian system academy. Prepared us as well as you could in a nine month course. They trained us for Certified Information Security Professional Exam. I wish they would have trained us more on how the Army does things, but you could pick things up pretty quickly.
Defense (Coombs): Would you agree that FA [Functional Area] did not teach you the way Army does things?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): When did you arrive at F.O.B. Hammer? What time in November?
Cherepko: Would guess around 14th.
Defense (Coombs): Within a few days, RIP/TOA [Relief in Place/Transfer of Authority] took place?
Cherepko: I arrived after.
Defense (Coombs): You are also the Information Assurance Manager for the Brigade? When?
Cherepko: Don’t know specific date. After New Year when orders are written and signed.
Defense (Coombs): Responsibility as Information Assurance Manager?
Cherepko: I was the person in charge of insuring information practices are followed, training as required is conducted, and to insure information work force is appointed and trained.
Defense (Coombs): Conduct additional training?
Cherepko: Not for the staff or Brigade as whole; just for my soldiers.
Defense (Coombs): As I.A.M. [Information Assurance Manager], are you required to conduct security scans?
Cherepko: Don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): Do anything other than I.A. [Information Assurance] scans?
Cherepko: Yes. Coordinated through [Missed] Brigade and through Corps to do security assessment of network.
Defense (Coombs): Anything besides that?
Cherepko: No sir.
[Missed a couple things.]
Defense (Coombs): What’s a DIACAP [Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process] package?
[Cherepko explains – something that ensures something you’re trying to accredit meets requirements.]
Defense (Coombs): Did you do a DIACAP [Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process] package for the Brigade? Were you trained? Did you know how to submit?
Cherepko: [Answers, “No” to all questions.]
Defense (Coombs): Would have provided insurance regarding vulnerabilities, correct?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Have you ever submitted?
Cherepko: No.
Defense (Coombs): March of 2011 – you received a letter of admonishment? For failure to ensure brigade was properly certified? From General Robert L. Caslen?
Cherepko: [Answers, “Yes” to all questions.]
Defense (Coombs): Ever go into the Brigade T-S.C.I.F?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Why?
Cherepko: Troubleshooting and occasionally to pick up officers to go to lunch.
Defense (Coombs): Now – normal S.C.I.F operations still apply to in theater S.C.I.F, right?
Cherepko: Don’t know if rules apply.
PROSECUTION OBJECTION: SUBJECT MATTER OUT OF RANGE
OVERRULED
Defense (Coombs): Did you ever receive any DAIG [Department of the Army Inspector General] inspections while you were there? Know why not?
Cherepko: No. Was never told why.
Defense (Coombs): What is it?
Cherepko: Department of the Army Inspector General. Brigade went through one well after we were deployed. FORSCOM agents went through a checklist to make sure we met requirements.
Defense (Coombs): Did you view inspecting T-S.C.I.F. part of your job as information Assurance Manager?
Cherepko: I didn’t treat it any differently than any other Brigade. To me, S2 [Intelligence] offices were same as S3 [Training and Operations] or anything else.
Defense (Coombs): Did you view inspecting T-S.C.I.F as part of your job?
Cherepko: Yes, Sir. Inspections…they don’t rule out specific places because of their job. So if I did an inspection, I would include T-S.C.I.F., yes.
Defense (Coombs): Know if T-S.C.I.F. was inspected?
Cherepko: I believe it was inspected. [Missed the rest of his answer.]
Defense (Coombs): S.C.I.F Security Officer installed? Why not?
Cherepko: No.
Defense (Coombs): SSR – S.C.I.F. Security Representative, was there one?
Cherepko: Don’t even know what that is.
Defense (Coombs): Did you ever see music on the T-Drive?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): How was it stored?
Cherepko: Like everybody else’s documents – people had music in their folders.
[Indecipherable from transcribers transcript.]
Defense (Coombs): You did not have an authorized music folder, right?
Cherepko: Right.
Defense (Coombs): When you saw music, you would delete?
Cherepko: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And apparently it would go back on T-Drive?
Cherepko: Yes because it kept reappearing.
Defense (Coombs): Was anyone ever punished?
Cherepko: No.
Defense (Coombs): Did you recommend that anyone ever be punished?
Cherepko: Wouldn’t say anyone was punished.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT BUT NOT END OF DAY]
MISSED COMPLETE CAPTAIN THOMAS CHEREPKO
MISSED CLOSED SESSION WHICH INCLUDED “RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES”
MISSED TESTIMONY AND FIRST APPEARANCE OF SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER
This is the end of the transcriber’s transcript of December 18, 2011 Article 32 Pretrial hearing of US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, but it was not the end of the day. There was a closed session which allowed “relevant Government agencies” and the first appearance of Special Agent David Shaver, Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU). For those and all the other witnesses see Rainey Reitman’s Detailed Notes and Kevin Gosztola’s Live Blog.
For my own transcript of the following witnesses:
- Captain Casey Fulton
- [Former Master Sergeant, now Sergeant 1st Class (demoted by administrative action concerning the alleged leaks)] Paul Adkins
- Warrant Officer, One (WO1) Kyle Balonek
- Sergeant Chad Madaras
See Transcript | US v PFC Bradley Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/18/11 by Alexa O’Brien.