US v Pfc. Manning | Defense Legal Filings, Supplement to Defense Request to the Government for Oral Depositions

posted January 16, 2012

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.

Excerpts

Rear Admiral Woods, Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo

a.) XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO]. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO] will testify review of the disclosure of five documents, totaling twenty-two pages. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO] was not reasonably available. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL DAVID B. WOODS, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the Government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The Defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted. (Source: March 16, 2012 Article 39(a) Session)

b.) XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.)]. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.)] will testify concerning his review of two memoranda produced by a United States government intelligence agency. XXXXXXXXXX [ ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.)] will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is need due to the XXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?] not being produced by the government at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT ROWLAND (sp.)] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testament, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the depositions. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

According to the defense’s February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, defense requested seven Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) as witnesses for their December 2, 2011 Request for Article 32 Witnesses.

Witnesses No. 39 to 45 represent the seven Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on the December 2, 2011 Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses list.

According to the defense’s February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, a “subsequent Original Classification Authority OCA was requested as soon as his identity was known to the Defense.”

At the March 16, 2012 Article 39(a) Session the names of eight individual Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) were revealed with the addition of Robert Rowland (sp.).

Judge Lind, in her ruling on the February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions, gave descriptions for each of the eight the eight individuals except for h.) Robert Rowland (.sp), whose description was redacted from open Court, but who is described in the defense’s February 16, 2012 Motion to Compel Depositions as “not being produced by the Government [not the Investigating Officer, as were every other named individual according to defense filings] at the Article 32 hearings ” – meaning Rowland (sp.) was a “subsequent Original Classification Authority OCA [that] was requested as soon as his identity was known to the Defense.”

In this January 16, 2011 Supplement to Defense Request to the Government for Oral Depositions [see b.) above] Rowland is similarly described.

Specification 3 of Charge II refers to “more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency,” which Pfc. Bradley Manning is alleged to have had “unauthorized possession of” on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010.

On March 26, 2010 WikiLeaks published “CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe” On August 28, 2010, WikiLeaks published “CIA Red Cell Memorandum on United States “exporting terrorism” Both documents are the only CIA documents published on the WikiLeaks.org web site between the charge dates, which coincide with Pfc. Bradley Manning’s deployment to Iraq.

Robert Rowland performed a classification review of for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Defense Secretary Robert Gates
c.) XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documents released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. XXXXXXXXXX[ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were “fairly significantly overwrought.” He will also testify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. Finally, XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmed that the alleged leaks represented a low to at best moderate risk to national security. Specifically, that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and know due to previous public disclosures.” The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.

For “fairly significantly overwrought” quote, see DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon, November 30, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
d.) XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] will testify that she has raised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders “in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing.” XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] will also testify, that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue to discuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON] will testify, that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, that she concurs with XXXXXXXXXX opinion that they do not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza’s ] improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.