Witness | US v Pfc. Manning, Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary, Management, Department of State

posted March 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.

Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of Management, Department of State

General Description

According to Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department (and Witness No. 44 on the Defense’s Article 32 Witness List), the State Department worked with the Department of Defense on the Information Review Task Force “to review any purported State material in the release and provide an assessment, as well as a summary of the overall effect the WikiLeaks release could have on relations with the host country.”

From July thru August 2010, the State Department worked with DOD Information Review Task Force to identify State Department material in WikiLeaks possession. The Chiefs of Mission were orders to familiarize themselves with the content in the Net Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database and review any material in the release and provide an assessment and summary of overall effect in their host country.

This review was completed in August 2010.

In October 2010, the DOD Information Review Task Force was still combing through the Iraq data base to assess the damage that the WikiLeaks publication of the activity reports could pose to the U.S. military, Iraqi allies and on-going operations.

On January 18, 2012, Col. Carl Coffman, Commander of Joint Base Myer and Special Court Martial Convening Authority, denied defense’s request to conduct oral depositions of Patrick Kennedy. Coffman determined that the “difficulty, expense, and/or effect on military operations outweighed the significance of the expected testimony.”

Article 32 Witness List Number 44 on the Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses, December 2, 2011

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within Net_Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE WILL TESTIFY CONCERNING HIS CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION AND THE IMPACT OF THE INFORMATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY.]

See March 16, 2011 Motion Hearing Transcript for name disclosure: “Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary, MANAGEMENT, Department of State.” and Defense Deposition Request, January 12, 2012 for the redacted phrase “PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the release of the information on national security”

Defense Deposition Request on January 12, 2012

f. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?]. XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within the Net_Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE] will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing.XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] 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 request that an oral deposition be conducted.

See March 16, 2011 Motion Hearing Transcript for name disclosure: “Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary, MANAGEMENT, Department of State.”

Motion Hearing Transcript, March 16, 2012

Judge Lind: Defense Moves to Compel Deposition…

Judge Lind reads her ruling which is broken down into sections that explain the motion, the defense argument, and her ruling. Judge Lind reads very quickly and so I could not type out every word or sentence that she said. Here is what I captured:

Defense has asked for the oral deposition of the following individuals:

…

Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary management, Department of State, will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within Net_Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS.

…

Judge continues reading background information in her ruling.

Judge Lind then reads the lists of charges.

Lind reads excerpts from the Article 32 Pretrial Investigating Officers previously unavailable rulings on Defense’s Witness List [See Number 44] and Motion to Compel Witnesses from the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

…

Lind continues and reads the Article 32 Pretrial Investigating Officer’s ruling on Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary management, Department of State…
…

Judge concludes by denying Defense Motion to Compel Depositions.

Lind rules that the Investigating Officer’s determination of the witnesses reasonable availability in Article 32 Pretrial was not Improper, as the defense had argued.

Lind says she bases her own ruling on the Pretrial Article 32 rules in that the Investigating Officer, Paul Almanza, performed the “correct balance test, depositions only allowed in cases used to preserve essential testimony.”

Lind says that affidavits can be considered sworn statements under Section 28, 1746.

Judge Lind continues:

Government had offered OCA by telephonic. Regarding Discovery Request for three civilian witnesses [missed]…Defense disputes 2E applies…Article 9, R.C.M. 702…in the interest of justice the motion is denied.