Title: Volume FOIA 088

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 28350

Volume 88 of 111
SJAR ROT
FOIA Version

VERBAT IM 1

RECORD OF TRIAL2

(and accompanying papers)

of
(Name: Last, First, Middie initiai) (Sociai Security Number) (Rank)
Headquarters and
Headquarters Company,
United States Army Garrison U-S- Army FCDIJC Ml/er: VA 22211
(Unit/Command Name) (Branch of Service) (Station or Snip)
By
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
Convened by Commander

(Titie of Con vening Authority)

UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
(Unit/Command of Con vening Authority)

Tried at

Fort. Meade, MD on see below

(Piace or Piaces of Triai) (Date or Dates of Triai-9

Date or Dates of Trial:

23 February 2012, 15-16 March 2012, 24-26 April 2012, 6-8 June 2012, 25 June 2012,

16-19 July 2012, 28-30 August 2012, 2 October 2012, 12 October 2012, 17-18 October 2012,
7-8 November 2012, 27 November - 2 December 2012, 5-7 December 2012, 10-11 December 2012,
8-9 January 2013, 16 January 2013, 26 February - 1 March 2013, 8 March 2013,

10 April 2013, 7-8 May 2013, 21 May 2013, 3-5 June 2013, 10-12 June 2013, 17-18 June 2013,
25-28 June 2013, 1-2 July 2013, 8-10 July 2013, 15 July 2013, 18-19 July 2013,

25-26 July 2013, 28 July - 2 August 2013, 5-9 August 2013, 12-14 August 2013,

16 August 2013, and 19-21 August 2013.

1 insert ?verbatirri or ?surrimari'zeo? as appropriate. This form be used by the Army and Navy for verbatim records of triai

2 See inside back co ver for instructions as to preparation and arrangement.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000 PREWOUS OBSOLETE Front Cover

02833146 28351

From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense

Sent: Tuesday. July 24, 2012 3:57 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: David Coombs; Tooman. Joshua CPT USARMY Morrow Ill. JoDean. CPT USA

Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Whyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA SJA: von Ellen, Alexander S. CPT USA JFHQ-NCR
SJA: Ford. Arthur D. CW2 USA Parra, Jairo A. CW2 USA
SJA

Subject: RE: Classi?ed Discovery

MAJ Fein

I have exclusive use of a safe in my office. It's a two-drawer that carries the following
information on a stamp SERVICES ADMINISTRATION APPROVED SECURITY CONTAINER ALPHA
SAFE VAULT, inc."

In an ideal world, the safe at Fort Myer would be delivered to my office as well. Please let
me know if there's anything I can do (or my new office can do) to make that particular piece
of utopia a reality.

Thanks.

Tom Hurley

28352

02969586

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:05 PM

To: Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense

Cc: David Coombs; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Morrow Ill, JoDean_ CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Whyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA von Eften, Alexander S. CPT USA JFHQ-NCR
Ford, Arthur D. CW2 USA Parra, Jairo A. CW2 USA
SJA

Subject: RE: Classi?ed Discovery

MAJ Hurley,

Thank you. we are working on the action to go to the convening authority.

v/r?
Ashden

28353
02834833

From: ?see (us)
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:38

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA
Subject: FW: Giglio Request (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Per your Giglio request. G2's response.



??-4-Ori inal Messa
From: iusARMv HQDA ocs 5.2 (US)

Sent: Tuesda Jul 24, 2612 4:31 PM

To: SES (us)

Cc: USARMY (US)
Subject: RE: Giglio Request (UNCLASSIFIED)




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

we have had both our security and human resources representatives complete a
review of G2 records. No information matching that described I Para 4 was

found in either? or_records. Please let me know

if you have any additional questions or require any additional information.



LTC, MI
Executive Officer
HQDA, ADCS,

Room 2E4o3
DSN -

SIPR VDIP:
NIPR: ai1.mi1

SIPR: @mi.army.smi1.mil

JWICS:

inal Messa






28354
02834833

Sent: Friday, July 26, 2012 1:14 PM
To: SUSARMY HQDA ocs 6-2 (Us)
Subject: Fw: Giglio Request (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Please review attached document and determine whether the G2 possesses any
information described in para 4 about ?or? Once you
have completed the review of 62 records let me know.

If you have any questions let me know.



-??-?0riginal Message--??-
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA
1

Sent: Frida Jul 26 2612 10:82 AM

To: ES (US)

Cc: whyte, Jeffrey CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY
Diefenbach, Katherine M. CPT usA SJA

Subject: Giglio Request

Sir,

Attached is the giglio request for the Army G2's employees. Thanks!

Ashden

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE





02827658 28355

From: @state.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:52 PM

To: Fein Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: 2

?Subject: Meeting tomorrow

Ashden, we are confirmed For our meeting tomorrow (Thursday) at 1466 hours. It will be in
the 1st floor conference room 0F (State Annex which is where we had our last big
meeting (on 22nd Street, behind the main State Dep't building). From our side it will be

Folks From L, A, and DRL. whomever you'd like to bring along is OK with us. -

28356

02985133

From: Whyte, Jeffrey CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: urs I 20 5:50 PM

To:

Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Subject: RE: Prosecutions review of files (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Sir,

May I please come to your office tomorrow aFternoon to review the documents simply From a
logistical standpoint? we already reviewed all the documents For discovery purposes, but I
just want to make sure that what we marked is easily identifiable.

I don't anticipate the review taking more than one hour.

Thank you, Sir!

v/r

J. Hunter whyte

CPT, JA

Trial Counsel
United States Army Military District 0F Washington

28357

02834963

From centcom.miI]

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:48 AM

To: Fein Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Overgaard, An (US)

Cc: IRR USA USCENTCOM CCJA-SJA FC RES USA

USCENTCOM
Subject: Department of Air Force Civilian Employees - Witness at Manning Trial

Major Fein Captain Overgaard

As emailed earlier, CENTCOM nor the installation has the official civilian employees
personnel files of AF employees working at CENTCOM. Those are maintained at Air Force
Personnel Center (AFPC). (CENTCOM will have the supervisor?s file.)

To obtain the official file of USAF civilian employees (employed at CENTCOM) and who will be

testifying in the PFC Manning trial, the POC is the following: ?(attorney-
advisor)

556 Street West, 44

Randolph AFB TX 78156-4746

<=omm=


v/r



02834963 28358


Administrative Law Division
7115 5. Boundary Road

MacDi11 AFB FL 33621-5101

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission contains confidential information
intended only for the person(s) named in the distribution above. It may contain attorney
work-product or information protected under the attorney?client privilege, both of which are
protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Confidential
information is also protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, or other applicable laws.
Do not release outside of USCENTCOM and channels without prior authorization from the
sender. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete all
copies of this message.

28359
02982471
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Saturda Jul 28, 2012 9:08 AM
To: ?ses (Us)
Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) ll! CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)
Sumem:
Sir,

Good afternoon from Frankfurt. On Monday, could you please send an update to Joe about
whether we have the authority to turn over all the classified discovery from HQDA and the
that: went through? Friday, 3 Aug is our filing deadline. Thanks!

Ashden

28360

02829669

From: _sEs (us)

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:00 AM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT

USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY Von Ellen, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY (US): Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)
Subject: RE: ?les (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Yes, lsays there is nothing that should be held back.



0FFice of the Jud Advocate General of the Army, Pentagon 30548

NIPR:
SIPR:
JHICS:
Tel:






28361
02983668
From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Sent: Monda July 30, 2012 10:29 AM
To: . @state.gov?
Cc: Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USA Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCRIMDW von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA
Ashden MAJ USA
Submct

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

On Friday, I reviewed the material both at main State ?office) and at the
annex location to make sure everything was marked properly. Ultimately, there are three
buckets of information: (1) Brady material; (2) otherwise discoverable material; and (3) not
discoverable material.

All tangible documents in the first two buckets are marked with a color tag. I tried to
adopt a consistent color tab for each category, but I quickly ran out of tabs given the large
amount of information. So, here are the color tags for what is Brady or otherwise
discoverable at both locations:

Annex Location

Brady material is marked with a BLUE tag (approximately 46 documents)

- Otherwise discoverable material is marked with an tag (approximately 275
documents)

Main State/_ Office

Brady material is marked with a tag (approximately 176 documents)
- Otherwise discoverable material is marked with a YELLOW tag (approximately 225 documents)

The prosecution also reviewed information on two stand?alone computers at the annex location.
The prosecution digitally "erased" all information that was not discoverable or was
duplicative. Therefore, what has not been "erased" is either Brady or otherwise
discoverable. The prosecution created a word document on the desktop of each stand?alone
computer where each MRN containing Brady material is listed. The document should be titled
Brady." The information that was neither erased nor listed on the word document is
otherwise discoverable.

The prosecution also reviewed emails on those stand?alone computers. The prosecution created
"Brady" and "Relevant" sub?folders for that material.

we are asking to disclose to the defense all Brady and otherwise discoverable materials as
soon as possible. Please segregate the Brady material from that which is otherwise
discoverable when providing the material to the prosecution.

please let us know if you need any support. Once your office starts the vetting
process, we will coordinate to have a paralegal come over and create the log of

meetings/times.

Please let me know if you need any clarification from this email!





02983668 23352

v/r
Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02983661



From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Sent: Monda July 30, 2012 3:21 PM

To: @state.gov'

Subject: US v. Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



Do you have an update on your review of the NCIX document? we have a deadline of August 3rd.
Thank you!

V/r

Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

28364

02819423

From: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW (US)

Sent: Rriday. August 03, 2012 11:29 AM

To: David Coombs

Cc: 'HurIey, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Fein,
Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten,
Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Overgaard. Angel CPT USARMY Ford,
Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: document for review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

David,

NSA has agreed to make a classified document available to the defense for inspection MRE
Based on the classification level of the document, the NSA will make the document
available for inspection at main complex located at Fort Meade, Maryland. The defense
counsel are only authorized access to inspect the document with their security experts
present. The existing Protective Order governing classified information applies to this
document.

The defense counsel and their security experts are not authorized to share the information
contained within the report with the accused.

Mr. Erik Dodson is the point of contact within the Office of the General Counsel and will

coordinate the document being available for the defense. You can reach Mr. Dodson
Mr. Dodson will be on leave the week of 6 August 2012;

therefore, for that week, the point of contact is Mr. Chad Bayse. You can reach Mr. Bayse at

NSA requests that the defense notify the agency at least five business days in advance of any
such review; however, NSA will try to accommodate any requests made on shorter notice.

The prosecution will work with NSA to determine whether we can work out different conditions.
Thanks.

CPT Joe Morrow

Trial Counsel



28365
02819423

U.S. Army Military District of Washington

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02832986



From: David Coombs

Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 12:40 PM

To: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW (US)

Cc: 'Hur|ey, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Fein,

Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten.
Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Overgaard, Angel CPT USARMY Ford.
Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: document for review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Joe,

Thank you. we would appreciate having the ability to look at the document during the next
motions argument.

On a separate note, will the Government have any additional requests for redactions for the
Article 13 motion?

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 62906

Toll Free: 1-866-588-4156
Local: (568) 689-4616

Fax: (568) 689-9282




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney?client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is






28367
02970671
I

- 1
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (us)
Sent: Monda Au ust06, 2012 11:54 AM
To:
Cc: iFord,Ar1hur Jr cw2 USARMY (us)
Subject: RE: Badges



Good morning. I was wondering if it will be possible to accomplish the below? Thanks!

v/r
Ashden Fein


From: Fein, Ashden USA SJA

Sent: Tuesda Jul 24, 2612 4:25 PM
To:
Cc:

Subject: Badges



Good afternoon. I am the lead prosecutor for the "w!k!le@ks" court-martial and a few months
ago when I came over you mentioned that if we need our badges extended, etc., to notify you
directly and you would be able to update them over email.

Two of our members badges and courier cards expire at the end of the month and we realized it
last week. Also, my badge and another (after they were extended last time) seem not to work
at the FBI and some other organizations that allow IC badges. Is it possible to send out an
update message for those badges. The information is below:



v/r
Ashden

Tracking:



28368

02969884
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Monda Au us! 06, 2012 2:13 PM
To:
Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW (US)
Subject: chat
Sir? are you available for a secure chat Thanks!

Ashden

02827213 23359

From: d?di55-miil

Sent: Monday, August 06. 2012 2:17 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW (US)
Sumed: REnmm

Maybe later, after 1636 or so.



Defense Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 28348

28370
02827682
From: @state.gov]
Sent: Monday. August 06, 2012 7:12 PM
To: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Fein, Ashden MAJ
USARMY MDW (US)
Subject: Manning Discoverable material
Attachments: FW US v. Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hunter

FYI, IPS is working hard to pull together the Brady and otherwise discoverable material this
week, but they anticipate that they will need a member of your team to swing by later this
week (probably Friday) to review their work and ensure that they have properly understood the
schemes For-tagging hard?copy documents and identifying electronic documents set out in the

attached e-mail.

I understand that IPS will reach out to you when the set is ready for

review, but just wanted to alert you of the likely need to send over a member of your team

later this week.

Thanks,

U.S. Department of State

H1-



(c1assi1?ied>

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

28371

02812394

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Mo da ugust O6, 2012 8:45 PM

To: ?@slate.gov? .

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY von Elten, Alexanders (Alec) CPT USARMY Fein, Ashden MAJ
USARMY MDW (US)

Subject: Re: Manning Discoverable material

Thanks For the heads we are here to assist. A member 01" our team can come over
whenever.



28372

02956913

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:02 PM

To: ?David Coombs'

Cc: ?Hurley. Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY
Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: Production and Discovery Update

David,

1. NSA Document Review. This document must be reviewed at the Agency and can be coordinated
pursuant to CPT Morrow's previous email. we will not be able to have the document at the
Court.

2. Discovery Request, dated 1 August 2612. Acknowledged.

3. Article 13 Redactions. After reviewing the Order, dated 17 July 2612, the Government
does have the requirement to notify the Court whether we intend to object, or whether we need
to coordinate for a specific filing. we will notify the Court in a little bit that we do not
intend to object; however we recommend that you fully redact or use the initials for
individuals as per the Court's order. There are no other redactions that we recommend, just
those that are pursuant to the Court's order.

4. Unclassified Damage Assessments. Once we complete coordination for these, we will
provide the defense with a list of those organizations that approved, along with an estimate
of when we will receive the approved unclassified versions for immediate production. As
previously stated, the majority of those organizations have denied the defense's request.

5. Speedy Trial witness List. we agree that the Court's Ruling for a continuance, dated 1
August 2612, states that "sessions and filing deadlines currently scheduled to begin 15
October and 27 November are each continued for 2 weeks.? However, the original deadline for
this filing is 19 August, which is outside that window. If the date moves to the right
anymore, then there will not be enough time for the government to make its determinations
under RCM 763, the defense to a file motion to compel (if applicable), and for the parties to
litigate the issues before the 26 September 2012 filing deadline for the Defense Motion for
Speedy Trial, including Article 16, because the only session remaining between now and the
Speedy Trial motion due date is the 28-30 August session.

v/r
Ashden

02969571

28373

Front
Sent
To:
Cc:

Sumed:

Josh,

Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Tuesday, August 07. 2012 6:43 PM

Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY (US)

Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY
USAMDW von Ellen, Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Overgaard. Angel

CPT USARMY US Wh e. Hunter CPT USARMY Ford. Arthur 0 Jr CW2 USARMY
Hall, Cassius CIV Ganiel, Charies CIV Smith.

Lillian CIV SARMY HQDA EM (US)
RE: Classi?ed Discovery (UNCLASSIFIED)

The actual discovery was produced as part of the classified discovery sent to David and
attempted to be delivered to HA) Hurley. That is available anytime. The material referenced
in the letter is the underlying Forensic evidence that led to that discovery and is available
for the defense and specifically the defense forensic computer experts to analyze in order to
confirm or deny the findings of the government computer forensic experts. The available
information is the same that is on the Forensic Cube we previously provided, but on a
specific computer for your experts to analyze.

v/r
MAJ Fein

02827667 28374

From: ?@state.gov1

Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 3:07 PM
To: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY
USAMDW Over aard An el CPT USARMY US von Elten Alexanders (Alec)
CPT USARMY
Subject: Manning Initial review of discovery matenal
Hunter

IPS has completed the printing, copying, sorting, and organizing 0F the majority o? the
material identified as Brady or otherwise discoverable. Can you arrange to send a member of
your team to IPS early next week to check the accuracy of the sorting o? the documents per
your instructions? Additionally, can you please ensure that the paralegal that your team
will be sending over to create the log oi meetings and times has the proper security
clearances?

Many thanks,

U.S. Department of State

raj
esaj


(classi1?i?d)



28375
02832886
From: David Coombs
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 9:10 PM
To: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW (US)
Cc: ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Fein,
Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Overgaard, Angel CPT USARMY Whyte,
Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexanders (Alec) CPT USARMY (US)
Subject: RE: Jencks
Joe,

I understand the Government?s position on Jencks. In considering my response, in occurred to
me that much of the information that could be Jencks, and that the Defense would want, is
likely also Giglio. That is, prior inconsistent statements by Government witnesses (along
with bias evidence and any other impeachment evidence) would be discoverable pursuant to the
Government?s Giglio obligations. The Government?s obligations under Giglio are not limited
to that information within the trial counsel?s possession (or even the military?s
possession). Rather, the Government?s Giglio obligations are similar to the Government?s
Brady obligations. This would mean that for witnesses that the Government intends to call,
it must search anywhere the Government has reason to believe might contain Giglio information
(including, obviously, the respective agency of the witness). For instance, the Government
must search State Department files for Giglio evidence pertaining to State Department
witnesses; it may also have a duty to search other files that it reasonably believes might
contain Giglio.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I would like to confirm the Government?s
understanding of Giglio. In particular, I was hoping you could clarify the following:

1. Do you view evidence of bias, evidence of motive to fabricate, or prior inconsistent
statements of a Government witness as Giglio evidence which must be disclosed?

2. Do you View your Giglio obligations as similar to Brady/williams?

3. To use an example, will the Government search State Department files for Giglio evidence
for State Department witnesses?

To date, I do not believe that the Government has produced any Giglio evidence, with the
exception of Adrian Lamo (though the Government has only produced some, but not all, Giglio
evidence in respect of this witness). Is there any other Giglio evidence that the Government
has produced to the Defense? If so, could you provide me with bates numbers for this
information? Also, when should the Defense expect the rest of the Giglio evidence in this
case?

I was hoping you could get back to me on this on Monday, so that I can proceed accordingly
for my response to the Jencks motion.

28376
02832886

Thank you in advance,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 62966

Toll Free: 1-866-588-4156
Local: (533) 539-4515

Fax: (593) 539-9232




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is

02983714 28377

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Monda Au ust13. 2012 8:22 AM

To:

Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Subject: US v. Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good morning -

_sked me to coordinate with you to confirm everything we tagged has been
properly sorted. He suggested that we come by your oFFice tomorrow (Tuesday). when would be

a good time For me to stop by? I?ll also be bringing a paralegal with me to assist.
Thank you!

v/r

Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02961692 (28378

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 6:52 PM

To: ?David Coombs'

Cc: ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY
Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: Jencks Noti?cation (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: Discovery.txt; RE Discovery Production.txt; 120809-MFR BATES Numbering
Discrepancy.pdf

David,

Here is a comprehensive reply to your questions from last night and today.

1. Gap in BATES Numbers. Both these gaps were produced in classified discovery. Please see
the two attached emails for references to these numbers.

2. Last BATES Number. As of 16 August 2612, our last number is 66565868, the same as you
are tracking. Based on our reclamation of produced material last week, we will have a gap in
BATES numbers, and the attached MFR should explain the hole in the numbers.

3. DAB Classification Review. The United States already produced the DAB classification
review starting at BATES 66378646, with all the other classification reviews for the
charged documents. The review provided last week was a prior review that did not contain all
the documents.

4. Discovery Request, dated 1 August 2612. The United States will have a response by COB
tomorrow with our government witness list for the Article 13 motion. As of 1815 tonight, we
are still trying to reach out to the individuals on the discovery request to compile a list
of what exists and what does not, and the government's position on the information.

5. Recalled Discovery. Today, we (Tracking 7987 2195 7698) to the NNC the files
that we reclaimed last week and sanitized. This included the following: BATES 66449582
- 66449764; 66449943 - 66471793,? 66471794 66479654; 66479655 - 66564418,? and 66564419
66564426, consisting of the HQDA, DIA, and Joint Staff, and ATF Damage Assessment.
Additionally, we produced 1 additional spreadsheet with BATES 66565869?66566675. Note-
this is a new "last BATES in the discovery.

6. Jencks and Giglio. The United States agrees that its obligations to search for, and
produce, Giglio material differ from its obligations to search for, and produce, Jencks (RCM
914) material. The Government responds to your questions as follows:

Question 1. Yes.

Question 2. Yes. The United States searched for Brady information, to include Giglio
material, when it conducted its William search. In addition to the general search of files,
the United States submitted specific requests for Giglio material, based on each witness, to
further exhaust its resources.

Question 3. Yes.

Thus far, the prosecution has produced any and all information that may constitute Giglio
material from within its files. The United States continues its search for Brady/Giglio

1

02961692 28379

material and will produce any such material as soon as possible. The United States
anticipates completing its ?to?date" search in the upcoming weeks. Finally, the United
States does understand its continuing obligation to produce Brady, Giglio, and Jencks
material.

V/r
Ashden

02832877 28380
From: David Coombs
Sent: Monday. August 13, 2012 7:27 PM
To: Fein. Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Cc: ?Hurley. Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY

Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: Jencks Notification (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ashden,

1. Thank you.

2. Thank you. I will look at this and let you know if I have any questions.
3. Understood.

4. I am hoping that you can provide this early enough in the day so that I will be able to
incorporate the information into our Filing For the 15th.

Depending upon your discovery response, we may either have a motion to compel or additional
witnesses to add to the Article 13 list. Either could cause the need For an additional delay
in the litigation of the motion. As mentioned when we submitted our discovery request two
weeks ago, this is a time sensitive issue.

5. Thank you.

6. Thank you. Can you please provide me with a copy OF the Giglio request
submitted for each witness?

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 92996

Toll Free: 1-869-588-4156

Local: (568) 689-4616

Fax: (568) 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney?client information and is intended for the

person(s) or company named. IF you are not the intended recipient, please notiFy the sender
and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be
unlawful and is



02327172 2838?

From: ?@dodiis.miI1

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Cc:

Subject: RE: Discovery Update

Not today. Tomorrow is better but not by much. After-noon is ok around 2:86. I



Defense Intelligence Agency

02983708 28382

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Tuesda Au ust 14 2012 2:04 PM

To: @state.gov'

Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Subject: US v. Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Thank you for meeting with me earlier today. The prosecution team greatly appreciates all of
your assistance!



I just have two time?sensitive questions for INR:

1. ?told me you delivered two stacks of documents, one being what we tagged as Brady
and another being what we tagged as otherwise discoverable. were those two stacks all of the
documents we tagged at ?office?

2. Also please confirm which color tabs you consolidated as Brady. I saw your email to
about pink tabs, and just want to make sure we?re consistent. were only pink tabs
consolidated as being Brady?

Thank you so much for all your help with this! I know going through those documents was no
small feat!

v/r

Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02827531
28383

From: ?@state.gov1

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:25 PM

To: Whyie, Hunter CPT USARMY
Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Subject: RE: US v. Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hunter,

The two stacks of documents that I copied from office were from the
chronological file. (There were other papers that were tabbed from the Chiefs of Mission
assessment cables. However, it is my understanding that those same cables were produced by
?team and reviewed by your prosecution team in SA-2. Therefore, I did not copy
those documents.)

The color tabs I consolidated as Brady materials were those that had blue, pink or orange
post-it notes on them, per your email to on August 1st

- Brady material is marked with a tag (approximately 170 documents)

Otherwise discoverable material is marked with a YELLOW tag (approximately 225 documents)

As a result, the other pile of documents is the discoverable material that had yellow post?it
notes on them.

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions
or concerns.

Thank you,

U.S. Department of State

2291 St N.W. Room 3422

Washington, D.C. 29526



02827531

28384

SBU

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.



2828063

28385

From: @cyberoom.mi1]
Sent: ues ay, ugus1 . 2 5:19 PM

To: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Subject: RE: Wikileaks (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gentlemen,

My apologies for any confusion cause by my earlier comment on NSA's equity review.

with respect to the classified material, both TS and 5, Cyber Command has no interest in

asserting privilege or exercising any measures under MRE 565(g)(2).

Cyber Command does not want the material shared with the accused in light of his alleged
prior mishandling of classified information.

Finally, Cyber Command would prefer for the Government to disclose the material to defense
counsel in its own secure classified information facility.

Thank you.

02801928
28386

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:41 AM

To: Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense;
Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY (US)

Cc: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY
USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec)


Subject: USCYBERCOM acknowledgement (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: 120815-USCYBERCOM

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Gentlemen,

Last night, we received approval to disclose to the detense, or to make available For
inspection (as explained in the attached memorandum), United States Cyber Command records
that either involve investigation, damage assessment, or mitigation measures, or are

otherwise material to the preparation oF the defense.

we will disclose, or make available

for inspection, those records immediately after we receive the signed acknowledgements
(attached), as explained in the attached memorandum.

Thank you all!

v/r

Hunter
Classitication:
Caveats: NONE

UNCLASSIFIED

02984863

28387

Front

Sent

To:

Cc:

Sumed:
Attachments:

Classification:
Caveats: NONE

Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Wednesdai, August 15, 2012 9:05 PM
em, 5 en USARMY MDW von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY (US)

USARMY (us)

Time Sensitive Request for Information (UNCLASSIFIED)
120815-Request for Giglio Material

UNCLASSIFIED

I am one of the prosecutors in the court?martial of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.
Attached you will find the prosecution's request For Giglio (impeachment) material for

witness(es) assigned to the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital.

Please feel Free to give me or

CPT von Elten a call, if you have any questions concerning our request.

This request is time sensitive and we request the material no later than 31 August 2812.

Thank you!

v/r

Hunter

Classification:
Caveats:

UNCLASSIFIED

82984853

28388
From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Sent: Wednesda ,August 15, 2012 9:11 PM I
To: usarec.army.mii'
Cc: von ten, exander (Alec) CPT USARMY Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Subject: Time Sensitive Request for Information (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 120815-Request for Giglio Material

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



Per our discussion earlier today, attached you will Find our request For Giglio (impeachment)
material For witness(es) assigned to the United States Army Recruiting Command. Please Feel
Free to give me or CPT von Elten a call, if you have any questions concerning our request.

This request is time sensitive and we request the material no later than 31 August 2612.
Thank you!

v/r

Hunter

ClassiFication: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02984843
28389

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:22 AM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (us)

Cc: von Ellen. Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Request for Infonnation (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: 120816-Request for Giglio Material (Quantico).pdf

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I apologize for the confusion, Sir. I have attached our request for Marine Corps Base
Quantico to search For, preserve, and disclose to the prosecution any impeachment material of
our witnesses for the upcoming Article 13 motion hearing.

Please do not hesitate to call me or CPT von Elten (cc'ed), if you have any questions. Thank
you For your assistance!

v/r
Hunter

028271696
28390

From: ?@dodiis.mu]

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sumem:

I can come over today at 1:36 and go thru what I need to see. Have to leave at 3:66 For the
Pentagon. this works tell me where to go.

Defense Intelligence Agency

02964660
28391

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: 2012 11:36 AM
?To:

Subject: RE: Docs

Sir,

Thank yuu. I replied via SIPR.

02984826
28392

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Frida Au ust17.201212:56 PM

To: navy.mi|' navy.mil?

Cc: em, 5 8)

Subject: Time Sensitive Request for Information (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 120817-Request for Giglio Material (Navy).pdf

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Sir,

Thank you For speaking with me earlier today and For assisting in this matter. I have
attached our request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you, Sir!

v/r

Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02833319

28393
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:57 PM

To: David Coombs .
Cc: ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman. Joshua CPT USARMY

Morrow, JoDean (Joe) Ill CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte. Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: Jencks
Attachments: 120803-Govemment Noti?cation to Defense of Jencks.pdf
David,

Good afternoon. After the explanation below, dated 13 August 2812, the defense did not file
any motion for clarification or highlighting any issues with the government's planned
procedures for obtaining Jencks material (as attached) on 17 August 2912. Is the defense not
objecting to the government's proposed procedures? Please let us know ASAP, so we can notify
the Court, properly respond to the defense motion to compel discovery 3, and start
implementing our Jencks plan.

Thank you.

v/r
Ashden

02969895

28394

From: Fein. Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Tuesda . Au ust 21. 2012 12:58 PM

To:

Cc: Overgaard, Angel CPT USARMY (US)
Subject: Chat

Sir,

Are you available for a quick chat? Thanks!

v/r
Ashden

02833327

28395

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:36 PM

To: David Coombs; ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT


Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT

USARMY Whyie, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)
Subject: Classi?ed Information Access

David, MAJ Hurley and CPT Tooman,

Although we never received a defense request for SIPRNET access or onsite storage of
classified information above "secret", the government considers the defense's motion to the
Court a request and are working to determine the authorities and capabilities. In order to
present the request to the appropriate authorities, we need to understand what type of access
the defense is requesting, both with SIPRNET and storage locations. Additionally, can you
please describe how the defense is currently using the three standalone computers, printer,
forensic cube, etc. and why the current capability is not adequate moving forward. The
defense motion does not address these questions.

we are trying to process this request in an expeditious manner, but these questions are
already being asked of us and we need to answer them so the proper authorities can understand
the issues and make their decisions on access to and storage of classified information.

Thank you!

V/r
Ashden

02833317
28396 .

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:52 PM

To: David Coombs; ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?; Tooman, Joshua CPT


Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford. Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: Outstanding Emails

Attachments: Jencks; Classified Infonnation Access

hnponance: H@h

David, MAJ Hurley, and CPT Tooman,

The United States sent the defense two separate emails yesterday which are attached. we have
not heard back from any defense counsel as of tonight.

1. Could you please respond to the defense?s position on Jencks, so that we may notify the
Court, and properly respond to the defense motion to compel discovery 3, and start
implementing our Jencks plan before the end of the week?

2. Could you please respond to the questions about access to classified information so that
we may coordinate with HQDA and other organizations about the requirements, and determine the
capabilities and proper authorities? we are trying to process this request as fast as
possible so we can provide the defense and Court an update next week.

Thank you!

v/r
Ashden

02832808



From: David Coombs

Sent: Wednesday, August 22. 2012 7:03 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?;
Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY (US)

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT

USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Ellen, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)
Subject: RE: Outstanding Emails

Ashden,
1. Please refer to the Court's email on 26 July 2612;
2. This issue is currently under advisement with the Court.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs 1
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 62966

Toll Free: 1-866-588-4156

Local: (568) 689-4616

Fax: (568) 689-9282





Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney?c1ient information and is intended for the

person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be
unlawful and is

02818725



From: _@dodiis.miI1

Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:47 AM
To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sumea:

what's a good number and time to call you today?

02963469
28399

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Monda Au us! 27, 2012 10:49 AM

TI):
Subject: Re: follow-up

3-. Anytime except 1130-1209.

02984805
28400

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Tuesda Au ust 28 201210:39 AM

To:

Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Request for Information (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Sir,

I am writing you For a quick status update on our below request. The suspense For this
material is Friday, 31 August 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.

Thank you!


Hunter

02984803

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: ,201210:41 AM

To: @?nuHLnuP

Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Request for Information (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Sir,

I am writing you For a quick status update on our below request. The suspense For this
material is Friday, 3 August 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.

Thank you!
v/r

3. Hunter whyte

CPT, JA

Trial Counsel

United States Army Military District of Washington

?--?-Original
From: Fein, Ashden MA) USA SJA

Sent: Tuesda Jul 17, 2612 8:16 PM

re:

CC: whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA Arthur D. CW2 USA
Diefenbach, Katherine M. CPT USA SJA

Subject: Time Sensitive Request For Information

Sir Round 2

I am the lead prosecutor in the court?martial of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning
Attached you will Find the prosecution's request For Giglio (impeachment)
material For witness(es) assigned to your organization. This request is time sensitive and we
request the material no later than 31 August 2812.

Thank you!

V/r

MAJ Fein



02984803
28402

Ashden Fein

Major, US Army

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02985710
28403

From: Whyie, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: Tuesda Au usi 28 2012 10:53 AM

To: have uscemcom CCJA-SJA

Subject: RE: Department of Air Force Civilian Employees - Witness at Manning Trial

(UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Per your advice, we contacted -to in uire about any impeachment material on the

CENTCOM witnesses For our court-martial. is in the process of providing us with
this material (if any) For the civilian witnesses. Thank you For pointing us in the right
direction!

However, there are three military CENTCOM witnesses . ?said

he cannot_pull information on those military witnesses. Are you able to assist, Ma'am?
Thank you!

v/r

3. Hunter whyte

CPT, IA

Trial Counsel
United States Army Military District of washington

02985700
28404

From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)

Sent: 2 3:51 PM

To: USAF USCENTCOM

Subject: RE: Department of Air Force Civilian Employees - Witness at Manning Trial
(UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I searched both and DEIDS to determine wher*e- is stationed, but both databases
say he is stationed at CENTCOM. I am looking ion the Judge Advocate responsible For the
command to which? is assigned. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thank you!

v/r?
Hunter



02985720









28405
From: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY (US)
Sent: Tuesda .Au us! 28 2012 4:21 PM
To: USAF USCENTCOM
Cc: USA USCENTCOM MIL USA
USCENTCOM MIL USAF USCENTCOM
MIL USAF USCENTCOM
RES USA USCENTCOM CCJA-SJA
Subject: RE: Department of Air Force Civilian and Military Employees - Witness at Manning Trial

(UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Ma'am,
Yes, Ma'am. I will coordinate with_For

But? (who both AKO and DEID5 confirm is stationed at CENTCOM) is in the Army.
Does your office have access to his personnel File or is there someone else I should contact?

V/r
Hunter

02982230
28406

From: state.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:29 PM

To: I

cc: wnyte. 4 Hunter CPT USARMY
Subject: RE: Paralegal Task (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: RE Paralegal Clearances; FW Paralegal Clearances

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Could you please make arrangements For Hunter whyte and one of the Army prosecutors?
paralegals-to visit IPS next Wednesday to record the meetings and times? DS has
verified the clearances of their paralegals (see attached).

Many thanks,



This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

3 Hunts" USARMV

Sent: wednesda Au ust 29, 2012 12:51 PM


Subject: Paralegal Task (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Can we schedule a day/time early next week For me and one of our paralegals to record the
different NPAR meetings and times? Does Wednesday work for everyone?

Thank you!



02982230

28407



Hunter

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

02968899

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Tuesda ,Se tember04. 2012 9:40 AM
To:

Subject: RE: Court Ruling

Sir,

Good morning. Now that the summer rotation is ending, we need to return one blue badge for
SGT Dan waybright (he is ETSing), and can we obtain 3 new ones ?or our newest paralegals-
inFo is below:




(1) SGT Claire Joms,
(2) SGT Derek Clark,
(3) SGT Amber McLamb,

Thanks!

V/r
Ashden



ULUIJJUUO

28409

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:12 AM
To:

Cc: Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr
cw2 USARMY (us)

Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Request for Information
Attachments:
Sir,

Good morning. Could you please direct me to the most appropriate member of the office
to obtain an update on the below email and attached request?

Thank you!

v/r
MAJ Fein

?-?--Original

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2612 8:26 PM

To:
cc: whyte. Jeffrey H. CPT USA Ford,

Arthur D. CW2 USA Diefenbach, Katherine M. CPT USA SJA
Subject: Time Sensitive Request for Information

Sir,

Good evening. Attached you will find the prosecution's request for Giglio (impeachment)
material for witness(es) assigned to your organization. This request is time sensitive and we
request the material no later than 31 August 2612.

Thank you for the continued support!

V/r

MAJ Fein

Tracking:

02952317

28410

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:52 PM

To: ?Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense?: David Coombs: Tooman, Joshua CPT


Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT

USARMY Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT
USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)
Subject: RE: Update
Attachments: 110910-Memo from

David and MAJ Hurley,

OMC. with the assistance of ARCYBER, a site survey team consisting of
information assurance, information technology, and physical security will
inspect your office, discuss the IT structure of your network that rides on
SIPRNET, your email accounts, and the physical space for higher than secret
information. As stated on the record, the government is willing to support
most of the defense's request, if certain protections and accountability
measures are in place, and the purpose of this survey is to understand what
exists.

50S(h). we can have the material ready for the defense's review on 25 Sep
12 at the Fort Myer TDS office. As for the timeliness- we cannot estimate
how much time we will need until we receive the material and send it to the
equity holder. we will start processing the request once we receive it.

Client Travel. what day/time would the defense like to meet with PFC
Manning before the next session on 17 Oct 12?

Client Pay. Attached is a memorandum we received from the DMPO about your
clients pay. we are still working through the details. MTF.

v/r
Ashden



From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:59 AM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW David Coombs; Tooman, Joshua CPT
USARMY (us)

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDN Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec)
CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr CW2 USARMY (US)

Subject: RE: Update

MAJ Fine

As far as OMC is concerned, can we be more specific? what do you and your
people want to see and, as important, what is the Government willing to do?
(For instance, would you ever allow for storage over here at a
higher-than-secret level?) I am happy to continue this discussion over
SIPRNET if that is the appropriate venue.

v-vugu I
I

28411

we anticipate that we will meet with our experts on 25 September
2012 at some location on Fort Myer for another purpose. will that meeting
(two weeks hence) be timely? Or should we coordinate something sooner?

Thanks.
MAJ Hurley



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDN (US)
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:37 PM

To: David Coombs; Hurley, Thomas MAJ OSD OMC Defense; Tooman, Joshua CPT
USARMY (us)

Cc: Morrow, joDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDN Overgaard, Angel CPT
USARMY Whyte, 3 Hunter CPT USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec)
CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr USARMY (us)

Subject: Update

Defense,
Good afternoon. Please see below.

1. OMC Office. we are ready to finalize the coordination to conduct a site
survey of the OMC offices for use of SIPRNET and storage of certain
classified information. Please provide the proposed dates and times for
later this week so we can coordinate with those attending and can work with
security offices to ensure everyone has the appropriate clearances.

2. MRE SeS(h) notice. As per the agreed upon procedure for providing
specificity with the MRE notice, we are available to make a copy of
the damage assessments available for inspection so that you may mark the
information which you intend to use at trial. Please let us know when you
would like to meet with your security experts present, and we will have a
copy brought to an appropriate government facility for the marking.

3. Diplomat Visit. we were informed last week, that a German
parliamentarian requested the German Ambassador's assistance to coordinate a
meeting with your client. we do not know who would be visiting or the
purpose of the visit. -If this German government official was to visit,
could you please let us know whether your client would add him/her to his
visitor's list. we owe a response to the appropriate authorities.

Thank you.

V/r
Ashden

Tracking:

28412

Appellate Exhihit33^
Enclosurel(portion sealed)
6pages
ordered sealedf(^rReason6
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the original Record
ofTrial

28413

Appellate Exhibit 33^
Enclosure2
274pages
classi^ed
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classi^ed
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

28414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

Enclosure 3
10 October 2012

28415

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

SPECIAL AGENT TROY BETTENCOURT, U n i t e d S t a t e s T r e a s u r y
Departunent, was c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s by t h e government, was
sworn, and t e s t i f i e d i n substance as f o l l o w s :
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by A s s i s t a n t

T r i a l Counsel 1 :

I began w o r k i n g f o r t h e T r e a s u r y Department j u s t t h i s
month. I am a s s i g n e d t o t h e computer f o r e n s i c s team p r o v i d i n g
computer f o r e n s i c s s u p p o r t i n s u p p o r t o f c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
i n t o c i v i l and c r i m i n a l i n f r a c t i o n s . Before I s t a r t e d w o r k i n g
f o r t h e T r e a s u r y Department I used t o work f o r t h e Army's CID,
Computer Crimes I n v e s t i g a t i v e U n i t , I a c t u a l l y have two t o u r s
there.
One o f my t o u r s was from November o f l a s t year u n t i l
December o f t h i s year and t h e n t h e o t h e r t o u r was from 2001
u n t i l 2005. On my l a s t t o u r I was a s p e c i a l agent a s s i g n e d t o
t h e i n t r u s i o n team and was p r i m a r i l y assigned t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
investigation.
I do have a background i n computers.
I have
r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g from b o t h government and commercial p r o v i d e r s
s p e c i f i c a l l y . I have earned my computer evidence r e c o v e r y
s p e c i a l i s t c e r t i f i c a t i o n from FLETC a t t h e f e d e r a l law
enforcement t r a i n i n g c e n t e r i n Georgia, I earned my network
s e c u r i t y c e r t i f i e d p r o f e s s i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n from l e a r n i n g
c e n t e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l , my EnCase c e r t i f i e d examiner c e r t i f i c a t i o n
f r o m guidance s o f t w a r e , my access data c e r t i f i e d examiner
c e r t i f i c a t i o n from access d a t a , as w e l l as a d i g i t a l media
c o l l e c t o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n from t h e DCS, t h e defense cyber c r i m e
c e n t e r . I have t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e i n a computer crimes case i n
f r o n t o f a f e d e r a l grand j u r y f o r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l computer
h a c k i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e n m u l t i p l e t i m e s i n s u p p o r t o f
g e n e r a l c r i m e s , d r u g s , and sex crimes i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
WikiLeaks was founded i n 2006 by J u l i a n Assange, he i s an
Australian national.
They d e s c r i b e themselves and Mr. Assange
d e s c r i b e s them as an i n t e l l i g e n c e agency o f t h e p e o p l e .
B a s i c a l l y , t h e y a r e n ' t bound t o any government o r c o r p o r a t e
e n t i t y , s o r t o f l i k e an open source i n t e l l i g e n c e r e p o s i t o r y .
About t h e same t i m e t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d and
t h e w e b s i t e was e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e w e b s i t e s o l i c i t e d submissions

77

28416

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

t h a t we're looking a t now i s a t w i t t e r feed, you can see a t the
t o p l e f t i t mentions Wikil^eaks, i t has t h e i r logo, or one o f the
logos t h a t they were using and i t says t h a t they are l o o k i n g f o r
a database c a l l e d , "Treasure Map," regarding I ^ , meaning
I n t e r n e t p r o t o c o l addresses t h a t they want access t o and i t
appears t h a t they are s o l i c i t i n g someone t o provide i t t o them.
That feed was provided 16 February 2010.

^

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1^
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3^
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

That image i s an a d d i t i o n a l tweet from Wikil^eaks which i s
dated May 7, 2010, and they are asking f o r a l i s t o f as many
.mil e-mail addresses as possible, so meaning e-^mail addresses
r e l a t i n g t o m i l i t a r y domains.
I am f a m i l i a r w i t h the charges and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 1^
Eebruary 2010, they released a Department of 5tate cable
e n t i t l e d , "I^eykjavik 13," i t was a Department o f 2tate cable
t h a t documented what i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o as the, "Ice 5ave
I n c i d e n t , " i t was a f a i l i n g I c e l a n d i c bank t h a t caused some
problems between B r i t a i n and the l^etherlands and Iceland. On 15
March 2010, they released an Army C o u n t e r i n t e l l i g e n c e Center
r e p o r t p e r t a i n i n g t o Wikil,eaks. On 5 A p r i l 2010, they released
an e d i t e d version o f an Apache weapons team video of an i n c i d e n t
t h a t occurred i n I r a g along w i t h the I r a g r u l e s of engagement.
They both were released on the same day. Wikil,eaks termed i t ,
" c o l l a t e r a l murder," t h a t i s sort o f the common term f o r i t .
On 25 July 2010, they released what they have c a l l e d , "the
Afghan war d i a r y . " I t i s approximately 76,000 out of ^0,000
i n c i d e n t s t h a t were i n the CIDI^E/Afghanistan database. Cn 22
October 2010, they released the corresponding, " I r a g war d i a r y . "
I t i s about 400,000 i n c i d e n t s t h a t came from the CID^E/Irag
database. The r e p o r t s ranged from 1 January 200^ u n t i l 31
December 200^.
On 2^ l^ovember 2010, j u s t a f t e r Thanksgiving
they s t a r t e d t o release t h e Department of 2tate cables, they
comn:ionly r e f e r r e d t o i t as, "Cable gate," and t h a t release
continued f o r g u i t e some time.
Between 24 A p r i l and 21 June 2011, they released detainee
assessment b r i e f s , documents p e r t a i n i n g t o detainees at
Cuantanamo Bay, Cuba. I n t o t a l they released 765 detainee
assessment b r i e f s out o f 77^ they claim t o have i n t h e i r
possession.
Ihey were released i n small batches, large batches,
i t j u s t s o r t of t r i c k l e s out. On 20 August 2011, they released
the e n t i r e amount o f documents i n t h e i r possessions 251,2^7
Department of 5tate cables and they were i n unredacted form.
Ihey made t h a t a v a i l a b l e on the I n t e r n e t .

80

28417

Appellate Exhihit33^
Enclosure4
^pages
ordered sealed for Reason6
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the original Record
ofTrial

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28418

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 5

10 October 2012



OF MAGISTRATI-I15



LA 39.1,



ft): SH-I

1
named cuttitnu: Iiascd on I haw by a prcpondcrattcc ufthc c?1du..?ncc: that that
nrnhahlc camc to believe that an trtablc by has by
(did not) column 21. Punk that pretrial
ur.-antcd bccausc





}p M415: . I renamed the circuntstamcs wnunucd prcmal 0 't

is II
and that the con
(is (is not) and tclcasc mm

28419

abtwc

I: (is that not appear tn.? mal. or


tlit not) that the ctm? engage tn and

adequate.


and the lixctual tm they are arc:
SE. <2



and may bc1n.spc
This t('dr) l( 3 has azduscd that luv-cl ot








4_ ?mm ?scw

5. Vin: ctmtin-cc was dccisiun achcd and 4 pages.)

U'I':t'n Ilii.?
u" nfmy ordcr to tho: cnntincc on



(Tdr, I?-Art.




Wlitar) Judgu.



I.
3.

Charge Sheet



.\1ilttury Magmtratc

documents that I arc bcluw. an: attached tn the ungtnul memorandum.

SOP for Military Magistrates

1 1

. 0 28420

wf

Enc!13

SOP for Military Magistrates
12




28421

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
umren STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY. IRAQ
APO AE 09344

TO
JTENTION OF:

AETV-THH 30 May 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE 09308

SUBJECT: Military Magistrate?s Conclusions re: Pre-trial Confinement Review for PFC
Bradley E. Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division, COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE 09308

1. ?Scope: The scope of this legal review is limited to whether there is probable cause to believe
that an offense triable by courts~martial has been committed and that the confinee committed it,
and to detennine whether continued pretrial con?nement is warranted because it is foreseeable
that the confinee will engage in serious ?criminal misconduct and whether less severe forms of
restraint are adequate. Foreseeability that the confinee will not appear for trial was not in
question as both parties agreed he was not likely to absent himself.

2. Conclusion: I have reviewed the Command?s decision to confine PFC Manning, and I have
detennined that continued pretrial confinement is warranted. In making this detennination, I

arrived at the following conclusions:

a. There is sufficient evidence to believe that offenses triable by courts?martial have been
committed.

b. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that PFC Manning committed the offenses.
c. I do believe that PFC Manning will engage in serious criminal misconduct if released.

d. Lastly, there is evidence that lesser forms of restraint are inadequate.

3. ?_igni?cant Factual Findings:



b. Around June 2009, PFC Manning was counseled for missing formation. In response, he
clenched his fists, his neck and eyes bulged, and his face contorted, He yelled numerous times
before collecting himself.

c. PFC Manning was counseled on three separate occasions between 18 December 2009 and
20 December 2009 for lateness. During the third counseling, he yelled and flipped a table



.

toward the two supervisors counseling him. The command took the bolt from his weapon,
placed him on twenty-four hour quarters watch, and directed a evaluation.

cl. On 30 December 2009, PFC Manning shoved a chair and yelled during a counseling
session for losing the key to his room.

e. On 8 May 2010, PFC Manning struck a female Soldier in the face with a closed ?st. SPC
Jihrleah Shoman was at her desk conducting a search on a computer. PFC Manning became
agitated at SPC Shoman?s actions because he had already performed the search. After pacing
back and forth behind SPC Shoman, swinging his arms, PFC Manning struck her in the jaw with I
a closed fist. PFC Manning was again referred to Behavioral Health.



g. On 27 May 2010, CID was notified that PFC Manning is suspected of unlawfully
obtaining and releasing sensitive data, including TS-SCI and CABLE clearance documents. This
was reported by a reliable non-govemment intelligence agency.

h. On 24 May 2010, a reliable con?dential informant provided the agency with credible
information that PFC Manning illegally disseminated classi?ed information to several
individuals over the internet.

i. On 27 May 2010, CID executed a valid search warrant, seizing several items, including one
personal computer, one hard drive from the SIPR computer of SPC Sheri Walsh, on digital
camera, two SIPR computers known to be used by PFC Manning, and a compact disc with
?Secret? markings and labeled ?12 Jul 07 Chopper Reuters.? The disc was discovered in a
United States Postal Service mailing box, prepared to be shipped.

j. After assaulting his co-worker, PFC Manning was assigned to a position without SIPR
access. PFC Manning approached another Soldier about using her SIPR computer to scan and
print documents labeled ?Secret?. PFC Manning told the Soldier he was acting at the direction
of his NCOIC. He requested that the Soldier delete the emails and empty the ?Deleted Items?
box from her computer. PFC Manning?s NCOIC had no knowledge of the PFC Manning?s
request to scan and print Secret documents.

k. During the investigation, PFC Manning was placed under supervision and required an
escort; his access to computers and other electronic devices was revoked. With his escorts
present, PFC Manning managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to
another Soldier and asked her to check his email for him.

4. Analysis:

lx.?







0 . 28423

a. Probable cause. I have accepted the Govemment?s position that there is probable cause to
believe that a crime has been committed and-that PFC Manning committed the crime. It is my
belief that the Government takes these charges seriously and intends to refer this matter to a
General Court Martial (GCM), based on the evidence that is currently available. Furthermore, at
least one of the charges carries a maximum punishment that can only be rendered at a GCM.

b. Propensity to commit a serious offense. I believe PFC Manning will engage in
additional serious misconduct if released. PFC Manning poses a physical threat to those around
him and a threat to national interests. He has an increasing propensity for violence and recently
struck a female co-worker with a closed fist. On 22 May 2010 he was characterized by a
as a ?moderate? risk to others. After a subsequent BI-IE, dated 28 May 2010, PFC
Manning was evaluated to be a ?high? risk to himself and others. Additionally, PFC Manning
remains a threat to national interests if released. PFC Marming indicated he collected
declassi?ed materials for over a year. It is unknown how much information he collected or how
the information is stored. It is highly likely that if PFC Manning is released he will continue to
commit physical acts of violence or leak additional classi?ed information to the detriment of
national interests.

c. Lesser forms of restraint. The conditions on liberty which are necessary to safeguard
Soldiers and national security are tantamount to con?nement. PFC Manning must be con?ned
under law. His history of violent behavior and the results indicate PFC Manning presents a
?high? risk of harming others. There is no way, short of con?nement, to ensure PFC Manning is
denied access to a computer which he could use to release classified information or to ensure the
safety of Soldiers around him.

5. A copy of all documents that I considered is attached to the original of this memorandum, and
may be inspected in the office of the undersigned.

6. The Government counsel has advised that the anticipated level of disposition is a General
Court-Martial.

7. The confmee and the government were notified by me of my decision and its basis on 30 May
2010.

1
CPT, IA
Military Magistrate

DJ





A 72 Hour Commander-?s Review (CPT Freeburg)

Con?nement Order (29 May 10)

Con?nement Checklist (29 May 10)
- SA Graham?s Supporting Af?davit

Article 15: PFC Manning (24 May 10)
DA Fonn 4856 (17 May 10)

Statement: SPC Showman (8 May 10)
Statement: SPC Shimm (8 May 10)

I Statement: PFC Bales (8 May 10)

Statement: SSG Taua (8 May 10)

MFR: SPC Schwab (29 May 10)

MFR: MSG Adkins(2l Dec 09)

MFR: MSG Adkins (26 Apr 10)

MFR: MSG Adkins (8 May 10)

DA Form 5248-R (9 May 10)

- ERB: PFC Manning

BHE (PTC Rights Advisement (29 May 10)



UNITED STATES

V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28425

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 6

10 October 2012

28426

if ORIGINAL

CONFINEMENT ORDHI

1. PESON TO BE CONFINED

2. DATE

0. NAME (Last. First. Middle)
MANNING. Bradley 15.

h. SSN

2 20100529

0. BRANCH OF SERVICE d. GRADE

0. MILITARY ORGANIZATION (From): .

Anny E-3 HHC, 2d BCT, 100! MIN DIV (U), COS Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09308
TYPE or con?nement
No Yes 5. aesun or nan no ves

RESILT OF COURT MARTIAL:



TYPE:

no


[:]ves
|:]ccM

vncneo SUSPENSION

d. DNA PROCESSING Is IS NOT REOURED IJIDER 10 U.S.C.

4. OFFENSESICHARGES OF UCMJ ARTICLES VIOLATED:
Article I28: Assault Consummated by a Battety; A:-tick I34 (18 USC. 793'. Wrongful Transmission ofDefcnse Information)

5. sentence Aomoceo; 0. ADJUDGED one
rwvmuom:

6. IF me sentence IS oerenneo. THE one DEFERMENT IS TERIVIINATED:

7. PERSON DIRECTING CONFINEMENT

a. TYPED GRADE AND mus: 5. SIGNATURE one it me

w. FREEBURG

CPT, AD, Commanding W14 92 0100529

NAME canoe. TITLE or LEGAL REVIEW Ano owu RE: one

ct-nustornen D. GOREN

CPT, IA, Trial Counsel 20100529

1

Meotcu ceirrncA"re-/

Dwell

9a. The above named inmate was examined by me at on 0511

I
for con?nement. I certify that from this examination the exvegution of the
will not produce se?ous injury to the inmate's health.

b. The following irregulatities wete noted during the examination (If none, so sure).-

c. HIV Test administered on 3 0'1 -3

d. Pregnancy" test administered on

and found to be Fit Unfit

foregoing sentence to confinement

um


(Y

10. ammnen
.. TYPED NA mue 0. SIGNATURE - c. .1, ?ma; 0
UTJCJISA Mom?c QOIOW21 I735-
MTN rf?cewfron mmne

THEINMATE NAMED ABOVE was seen necaveo eon CONFINEMENT n: CA/ma

(Foamy Name Ind location}

ManningB__00000035

(Time)
h. reason neceonnc FOR INMATE c. SIGNATURE: a. one e. mne
tweo NAME. cmoe Ano TITLE: .
Fem? . 4:42 5- (-
7313 WI
DD FORM 2707. 2005 Phevious eomon rs OBSOLETE. mo.

ORIGINAL



.
CHECKLIST FOR PRETRIAL CONFINEMENP

For use of this form, se AR 27-10; the proponent agency is OTJAG

NAME GRADE

Manning, Bradley E. E3 HHC, 2d BCT, 10th MTN DIV (Ll)

AGE ETS TOTAL SERVICE TO DATE

22 20!] 1001 2 Years, 7 Months

MARRIED WIFEIHUSBANDIN LOCAL AREA NUMBER OF

Elves Ema Eves XNO D1 U2 D3

NUMBER OF ARTICLE 15's: 1 I
DATE OFFENSE PUNISHMENT
24 May 20 I0 Article I28 - Assault Consummatcd by a Battery Rcductton to Private First Class and
Forfeiture of $446.00.
NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS: 0
TYPE OF COURT DATE ARTICLE PUNISHMENT

NUMBER OF PRESENT OFFENSES:

ARTICLE DATE DESCRIPTION OF OFFENSE (rmwot. from-ta. em.
and whether surrendered or apprehended)

Article I34 (18 U.S.C. 793) 28 May 2010 Wrongful Transmission of Defense Information

Article 128 8 May 2010 Consummatcd by a Battery

PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE:

a, There is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed by the accused, (List specific reasons why if is believed an o?ense has been committed by
the accused.)
See attached 72-hour memorandum. dated 29 May 2010

DA FORM 5112_ 55;: 2002 DA FORM 5112-R. MAR 35, IS OBSOLETE P5

ManningB__00000036

28428
b. To ensure the accused's presence at trial, pretrial hearing or investigation (List specific reasons why itis believed the accused may not be present and
summarize the conduct of the accused which warrants pretrial confinement andtends to indicate the accused is not likely to be available for that, pretrial healing or
investigation.)

See attached 72-hour memorandum, dated 29 May 2010.

c. To prevent foreseeable serious criminal misconduct including any efforts at obstructing Justice. (List specific reasons why it is believed the accused may commit
acts of serious criminal misconduct if not incarcerated, parllcularry if these acts pose a threat to others. the command or national security, and summarize the
conduct of the accused which warrants pretrial confinement and tends to indicate the accused may commit future acts of serious criminal misconduct.)

See attached 72-hour memorandum. dated 29 May 2010.

d. Lesser forms of restraint are inadequate. (List the alternatives thathave proven inadequate or summarize the reasons why it is believed such alternatives
would be inadequate.)

See attached 'l2-hour memorandum, dated 29 May 2010.

DATE TYPED NAME. RANK. AND ORGANIZATION or communes SIGNATURE
MATTHEW W. FREEBURG, CPT, HHC, 2D BCT

2 7 lze?/?f

DEC rsrou or MILITARY
TO: (Addressee(sreviewed the circumstances concerning the continued pretrial confinement of A
(Date)

FQ gap E, HIJ Q2. Based upon this review. (Check appropriate statement)

(Name)

Determined that continued pretrial confinement is warranted.

Determined that continued pretrial con?nement is not warranted and order his/her release from pretrial con?nement.

rvpeo NAME. GRADE. AND BRANCH or MILITARY MAGISTRATE SIGNATURE
M.
6 JA .

DA FORM 5112, see 2002 PE

ManningB_O0000037



. 28429
?v

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Prosecution Response to
v. Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S-. Army, Enclosure 7
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall 10 October 2012
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

. . 28430

CHARGE SHEET

I. PERSONAL DATA
0? ACCUSED :2 SSN 3 GRACE on RANK 1 4 PAY stuns
Bradley I pH i
5 UNIT on ORGANIZATION 6 CURREN, SERVICE

lleadqtizirters and C?oinpan_v. 2d Brigade (joinbat lezini. Mountain 8 DATE 5 TERM

Division (Ligltt |iifaiitr_vt. Operatin
09308 OCT 07 3 4 Vcars

. -
7 PAY PER MONTH i 3 wanes or nesrnAiNr or ACCUSED 9 ;Mpog:g'
-
a BASIC ourv Tomi 1,


$l8l3.2() l?re?Trial ('onl'inement MAY

ll. CHARGES AND SPECEFICATIONS

10 l: Oi? THE

I: In that Private First Class Bradley li. Manning. US. Army. did. between on or about
19 .'\'ovember 2009 and on or about 27 May 3010. at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq.
violate a lawful general regulation. to wit: Paragraph Army Regulation 25-2. dated 24 ()etober 2007,
by wrongfully introducing a classified video of a militar_\' operation ?lmed at or near Baghdad. Iraq. on or
about l2 July onto his personal computer. a non-secure information system.

2: ln that Private First Class llradley E. Manning. (LS. did. between on or about
I9 .\?ovember 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010. at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq.
violate a lawful general regulation. to wit: Paragraph Regulation 25-2. dated 24 October 2007.
by wrotigfully introducing more than 50 classified Lfnited States l)epartment of State cables onto his
personal computer. a noii-secure information systein.

3: ln that Private First Class Bradley ii. Manning. LXS. did. between on or about
ll) November 2009 and on or about 27 Ma} 2010. at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer. lraq.
violate a lawful general regulation. to wit: l?aragraph Army Regulation 25-2. dated 24 October 2007.
by twongftilly introducing a classified Microsoft Office l?owcrl?oint presentation onto his personal computer.
a non-secure information systeni.

(Slil: SHEET)

PREFERRAL

tta NAME OF ACCUSEP. (L85: First MI) 0 GRADE ORGANIZATION OF ACCUSER
Matthew Vt?, 3 HHC, 2d BCT. ltith Div (Ll)

ct sic; fut?? OF accussn 6 QATE
41/06? 705



Before me. the undersigned. authorized by law to administer oaths in cases oftliis ehiiracter. appeared the
above named accuser ll?.iS 3 day of Jul). 2011!. and signed the charges and speci?cations under oath that he is a person
subteet to the Uniform (?odoof \/1ilitar; Justice and that be either has personal knoxvledge of or has investigated the matters set forth
therein and that the same are trite to the best of his knowledge and belief.

D. OOREN 2d BCT. 10th l)iv (Ll)
of -Officer Orgamxar.-on of Officer
- (1.3 ?lrial Counsel
,GIa;{e O?ioai C3DaC1ly re Ad.-n.-nisrer Oath
. ?See 307(0) - must be a commissioned officer)
I fl i, 4 .
tsigrtawre

DD FORM 458, MAY 2000 PREVIOUS Eamon is OBSOLETE

12 . . 923431

0? EU 2010, the accused was Informed oftne charges agaznsz mm and of the name(s) of me

(599 305 {See 308 If noir?catzon cannot be made
W. HHC, Zd 10th MTN Div (AU)
Typed Name Of Immedrare Commander Organgzafgon of Immedgafe Commander
0-3
. {i Grade
"w

RECEIPT BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY
13 -
. 1 .
Tne sworn charges wee renewed at hours_ ju 20 If} 2d Ed

DesIgnaI'Ion of Command or
COS Hammer. iraq. APO AE 09308

Of?cer Summary JurIsdIcf:On {See 4 03

FOR THE
PAUL R. WALTER Commanding
Typed Name of Of?cer Of?crai Capaczry of Omcer S?gnmg

-
-I
I 5 if
Szgnawre

V. SERVICE OF CHARGES

?Ma DESIGNATKDN OF COMMAND OF CONVENENG AUTHORITY b. PLACE DATE


I
I

Referred for me! to the court-Inarna! convened by

. 2
30 subject to the fdllowzng Instruchons:

Command Or Order

Fyped Name of Of-?rcer CapacI:y Omcer Sig-nmg
Grade
Stgnafure
15.
On 20 . I (caused to be) served a copy hereof on above named accused
Typed Name Or? Tnal Ccunsef Grade Or F?ank of Tnal Counsel
SIgnaIure

FOQTNO 7 -- When an appropnate commander signs personaffy Inapp1rcab!e words are
2 See RC M. 601(9) concernmg instructions If none. so state

DD FORM 458 (BACK), MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION Is OBSOLETE.

23432
sis: DA MANNING, Bradley
Headquarters and Headquarters Company. Zd Brigade Combat Team. .\1ountain Division
(Light Infantry). (?ontingeiicy Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. APO Ali (19308

It) (Cont?dl:

4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, Army. did. between
on or about 19 :\'ovember and on or about 3 April 2010. at or near Contingency Operating
Station Hammer. Iraq. violate a lawful general regulation. to wit: Paragraph Army
Regulation 25-3. dated 24 October 2007. by wrongfully adding unauthorized software to a Secret
liiternet Protocol Router network computer.

CHARGE ll: OF THIS ARTICLE I34

I: In that Private First Class Bradley Ii. Manning. Army. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. between on or about I9 November 2009 and on or
about 5 April 2010. have unauthori7.ed possession of photographs relating to the national
defense. to wit: a classified video ofa military operation filmed at or near Baghdad. Iraq. on or
about I2 July 2007. and did willfully communicate. deliver and transmit the video. or cause the
video to be delivered. and transmitted. to a person not entitled to receive it. in
\?l0lZ?iIlOD of 18 US. Code Section 793(e). such conduct being prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the armed forces and being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

2: In that Private First Class Bradley I3. .\/fanning. ILS. Army. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. between on or about I9 November 2009 and on or
about 5 April 2010. knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States
Government pursuant to an lixecutive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national defense. to wit: a classi?ed video ofa military operation
filmed at or near Baghdad. Iraq. on or about I2 July 3007. and did willfully communicate.
deliver and transmit the video. or cause the video to be communicated. delivered and transmitted.
to a person not entitled to receive it. with reason to believe that such information could be used
to the injury ofthe United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. in violation of 18 US.
Code Section such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the
armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

3: In that Private First Class Bradley F.. Manning. US. Army. did. at or near
Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. betueen on or about 13 January ZOIO and on or
about 19 February 2010. knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret liiternet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the Ijnited States
Government pursuant to an l~lxecutive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of foreign relations. to wit: a classified Iinited States Department of State
cable titled ?Reykjavik and did willfully communicate. deliver and transmit the cable. or
causethe cable to be communicated. delivered. and transmitted. to a person not entitled to
receive it. with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United
States or the advantage of any foreign nation. in violation of I8 US Code Section
such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being ofa
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(SEE 2)

. . 23433

2. FORM 453.
llcadquarters and ('ompany. Zd Brigade Combat Team. Mountain Division
(Light Infantry t. Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. APO Ali tl93()8

Item 10

4: In that Private First (?lass Bradley E. Manning. US. Army. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. between on or about I9 November 2009 and on or
about 2-1 May 30 I knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States
Govemment purstiant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of foreign relations. to wit: more than 50 classified United States
Department of State cables. and did willfully communicate. deliver and transmit the cables. or
cause the cables to be communicated. delivered. and transmitted. to a person not entitled to
receive them. vtitlt reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury ofthe
United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. in violation of I8 IFS. (?ode Section
|030(a}(I such condtiet being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and
being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

S: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. US. Army. did. at or near
Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. between on or about I9 November 2009 and on or
about 5 April 2010. intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information from the United States Department of Defense.
to wit. a classified video ofa military operation tilmed at or near Baghdad. Iraq. on or about 12
July 2007. in violation of 18 Code Section such condtict being prejudicial to
good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces.

6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. US. Army. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. between on or about 13 January 20lO and on or
about February 2010. intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information from the United States Department ofState. to
wit: a classified cable titled ?Reykjavik in violation of 18 US. Code Section
such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. US. Arniy. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Ilammer. Iraq. on divers occasions. between on or about 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 20l(). intentionally exceed his authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from the United States
Department of State. to wit: more than diplomatic cables. in violation of I 8 US. Code
Section 1()30(a)t2). such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed
forces and being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

3)

9 9 28434
SH 2 '1 3. DA Bradley I .
Headquarters and lleadqtiarters 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10th Mountain Division
(Light Contingency Operating Station liammer. Iraq. APO 09308

Item (Confd):

8: In that Private First (Tlass Bradley Manning. did. at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq, on divers occasions. between on or about l9
November 3009 and on or about 27 :\lay 2010. intentionally exceed his authori/.ed access on a
Secret lnternet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from the United States
Department of Defense. to wit: a classified Microsoft ()t'liee PowerPoint presentation. in
violation of l8 US. Code Section such conduct being prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the armed forces and being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

OF CHARGES)

28435

FORM

t_ PART I
TO: Commander, 2d BSTB. 2d scr, ?i FROM: BCT.
10'" MT Div (LI). APO AP 09308 a 10th MTN Digu). APO AE 09308 4
Court~Martial charges against the following named individual are forwarded as Enclos? 1. Sol ier is not
action UP AR 635-200.

A NAME: RANK: ssn:
Manninggaaley. E.
- UNIT:
HHC. 26 10th MTN Div COS Hammer. lrag, APO NE 09308
Recommend:

)Surnmary Court-Martiat Special Court-Martial (BCD)

Special Court-Martial Bgeeneral Court-Martial

NAME OF COMMANDER SIGNATURE OF COMMANDER

I

.- />35

PART II

TO: Commander. 2d 10th MTN FROM: Commander, Zd BSTB. 2d BCT, DATE:

Div APO AE 09308 10th MTN Div APO AE 09308 SJUIV aD[o

7 I have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if applicable) and
)Special Court-Martial (BOD)

LMATFHEW W. FREEBURG. CPT. AD. CDR

Summary Court-Martial




ispecialcourt-Martial p??neralcourt-Mania!
NAME OF COMMANDER SIGNATURE youmua
7/ -.

lr>Aui_R WALTER LTC PART
7T0: Commander, 1st AD USD-C. FROM: Commander, 2d BCT. 10th MTN DATE: .
Camp Liberty, lrag. APO AE 09344 . Div (LI), APO AE 09308

I have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if applicable) an
an Article 32 Investigation



. NAME or

DAVID M. MILLER. COLTO: FROM: DATE:

ll have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if applicable) and (recommend)(direcr):
)Summary Court-Martial General Court-Martial

Special Court-Martial

NAME or COMMAEDER 7 slcNAfUi%E?6I?co?rirMAuoER







. . 28436

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQLARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS coupmv
zo aaxsme coman TEAM. mm Mourmuu ouvvsaou mom msaman
LNITED sures oavsszon - csurea
cos HAMMERBrigade H;:uzz1inn_ Id
lc:-um. eljgin Upcmting Station Iraq.
1

St lralmmtiui (?hargcs Priwatc P-31 ff.
Ilcadquancrs and Lmnpan). Ed Brigade L'nmha1 lcam.
Du ?inn it.-in lnlimtr} Upcrulin-__= Hummer. Iraq.
WSVIX

3 In Ruic.? ?sun. Land-.102 Ruics fur (?Marts-Mzmiui. 1 haw cunsidcred the
lmws: dispusitinrm uf the and

I 1




iri.xi in uun~\Iur1iui.
1 a mu? bf. I0 udiudgc :2 Had Discharge.
4 summary

I

1?

.
W.
(VI.



Unclassi?ed_Discovery_Manning



. . 28437

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
20 aamoe specuu moors enmxuou
zo aassme coman -rem. mm uounmm oawszon mean msaurnvz .
unrreo sures DMSION cemen
cos names, we no AE 09308



xHm4nx SSMIE

Ed Brigadc Cotnbal Team. Huh Mountain (Light
!ni'amrj_. 2. Fort Drum.

lrunsnmitml ('hargcs Private First Bradley L.
Jlcudquuncrs and 2d Brigade (?umbzn Tcmn.
mm ;\4uunmin I)Msiun {Li-__rIu Operating Station Hauurncr. Iraq.
M-1 (m?tms

E. I am C0mcnin;_' in the :1bo\'c case I am no!
!?rnm as Ihc cumcning in this case. 1 have the
and Ihc hunt and date to he cm charge since:

2. in Iiuics 3H(a. and 402 of Rutcs fur 5 have the
uflhc and

I recommend?
a Iriu! tour!-Mzmiu!
4 2 mm by Spccizxi cred In :1 Hisuhargc

a mu! bx .\unmmr)

1 Uther.

I

?um?wmux
I. . NH
?mmna:mlir1g



. . . 28438

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 2n BRIGADE couan TEAM
mm MOUNTAIN owusson (LIGHT INFANTRY)
LNITED sures - CENTER
cos HAMMER, IRAQ APO AE assoc



'r

FUR ('umm;mdcr. 1.41 Armorcd and lfnilcd -
Camp Ira-.1.

('hargc.s First Rradlc_\
Headquarters and Id Brigade Cmnba: TL-am.
Mountain Division ?Light }n :11nIr_\ ()pcrauing Staliun Ilzmuucr. Iraq.
09308



3 I Rules for -ml and 4t)-L I forward charges pcnuiniug In [?rivatc First
(?lass Hi-3) \-?Ianning. and Zd
Brigade (emu. Iflth \'Iounluin (Lighi lnfanlr}-1. S?!ation
Hammer. lruq.

J. 3 I rcu.-mmcmi mu! by Sperm?: ::Inp0\u:rcd1n:Jdiudgcz1 Hm! conduct


7 Idirccl;

-.2 pretrial Article 32 imcsliga?..in11 pursuam to M. -105.
4 Hrial Summur}

N1.
IN
('


0

28439

Appellate Exhibit 339
Enclosure 8
4 pages
ordered sealed for Reason 6
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the original Record
of Trial

28440

Appellate Exhihit339
Enclosures
^pages
ordered sealed f^r Reasons
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the original Record
ofTrial

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



. 28441

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 10

10 October 2012





. . 28442

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 1s'r ARMORED DNISION AND
UNITED sures DIVISION-CENTER
cam: LIBERTY, IRAQ
APO AE 0934-:

ll 20 November 2010

MEMORANDUM OR Prosecution Team in U. S. v. Private First Class Bradley E- Manning

1

T: Article 10, Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

l. Pu?se. To -provide the Prosecution Team with an explanation of actions taken prior to the transfer
of jurisdiction to the Military District of Washington in anticipation ofany Article 10. Uniform Code of
Military Justice issues.

2. Article 10. UCMJ.

?Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be
ordered into arrest or con?nement, as circumstances may any person subject
to this chapter is placed in arrest or con?nement prior to trial. immediate steps shall be taken
to inform him of the speci?c wrongs ofwhich he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the
charges and release him."

3. Case Law. The following cases provide a very brief summary of the status of case law regarding
Article 10.

a. US. v. Kossrnan, 38 MJ. 258 (1993). "It suf?ces to note that the touch stone for measurement
of compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Code is not constant motion. but reasonable diligence
in bringing the charges to trial. Brief periods of inactivity in any otherwise active prosecution are not
unreasonable or oppressive."

b. 11.3. v. Birge, 52 MJ. 209 (I999). Supreme Court in Barker v- Wingo. 42U.S. 514
1972). . .sct forth a ?balancing test.? involving four factors: "Length of the delay, the reason for the
delay. the assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.? The Court in went
on to say that it is important to consider the Barker factors ?in the contact of Article 10?s
steps? language and ?reasonable diligence? standard-in determining whethera particular set of
circumstances violates a serviceme-rnbers?s speedy trial rights under Article 10."

4. Classilication Review E?brts. "the first area for a possible Article 10 objection by the Defense is the
initiai t.?.ffOr1S made to coordinate classi?cation reviews by the appropriate classi?cation authorities.

a. The began working this issue at the beginning of July following the 3_.luly 2010
preferral. At that time we began reaching out to both Department ofstate (Dos) and Department of
Defense tDoD) personnel seeking assistance in identifying the appropriate personnel to conduct the
reviews.

WORK



. . 28443


SUBIFCT: Article l0. Uniform Code of Military Jtstice (UCMH

b. In the middle of July. several personnel. including Anny prosecutors Captain Alison Atkins and
Depamnent of Justice prosecutors and . Computer Crimes Investigative



Unit (CCIU) Special Agents and and attorney all met
in Wiesbaden. Germany to discuss the way ahead in the investigation and eventual secution. At this
meeting the issue of classi?cation reviews was discussed. Although understanding was

that fellow attnmey? was deemed the point ofcontact for all
activity. including the classi?cation reviews. Army prosecutors were convinced upon disatssions with
Do} prosecutors that they were better able and more willing to coordinate the classi?cation reviews.
Since the Army prosecutors were having trouble identifying the appropriate channels to work through. it
was agreed than that prosecutors would assist in coordination both for Dos and infortnatiort

c. Upon our return to lraq. we continued to work the classi?cation review issue. On 28 July 2010. I
was instructed to work through at the Pentagon. lie was ttpparently identi?ed at a
meeting in ?Washington. DC. as the intake point for our request for classi?cation reviews for D01)
information. On 30 July 2010, advised us that be was working with Cavalry
Division to coordinate the classi?cation review of the Apache tape. but that he also understood that the
case may move to the Military District of Washington.

(1 On or around 28 July 2010. it was agreed that_ and would go to
and review the cables pulled from Manning's personal computer to identify appropriate cables for

classi?cation review. Shortly after that the case was to MDW and direct with
attorney resulted in DOS receiving the names of those cables and the review
process.

5. gor Courts-Martial (RC 1 206 Efforts. lhe other area for a poss?tlc Article l0 objection by the
Defense is the handling of the initial request for inquiry under RCM 706 The Defense made the initial
request on ll July 20l0. llowever. prosecutors anticipated the request and were workingto support the
request prior to receipt. I was on leave from approximately 28 July to 20 August 2010, so I don't have
?rst-hand knowledge of much of what happened during this time period However,
the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate of Armored Division was very involved in this

issue and provided the enclosed memorandum for record detailing the efforts made.



6. Poi: of contact for this mernorandurn is the undersi? atwand
/9

5

2 LUKE ROSE

1. Various emails CPT. JA

2. MFR Justice

WORK PRODUCT



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure ll

10 October 2012

28444





DEPARTMENT OF rm: ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE
CAMP LIBERW HELD OFF ICE
CAMP LIBERTY IRAQ

REPLY Y0

OF:

AFZD-TD A 1 I July 2010

LTC Craig Merutka. Articie 32 investigation Officer, matter of US v.
PFC Manning

FOR Convening Authority
SUBJECT. Request for delay in Article 32 hearing based on Defense request for a 706 board
1. The defense respectfully requests that the July 14"? Article 32 investigative hearing in the
matter of US v. PFC Bradley Manning be delayed for the following reason?
On I 1 July 2010, at approximately 1600 hours, the defense requested the Government
appoint and conduct a 706 board on PFC Manning. The defense is waiting to hear if such

a request will be approved by the convening authority.

2. POC is the undersigned at




AUL R. BOUCHARD

CPT. JA
Senior Defense Counsel

I
I
I




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
omen sures new ram nerense senvtce
camp ueearv FIELD
camp uaenrv mo



REPLY
ATTENTION OF:

AFZD-TD 12 Jul)? 2020

MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Craig Merutka. Article investigation Officer. matter of US v.
PFC Manning 0

FOR Converting Authority
SUBJECT. Request for delay in Article 32 hearing

1. The Defense respectfully requests that the July Mm Article 32 investigative hearing in the
matter of US v. PFC Bradley Manning be delayed. This request is based on the following three
reasons. all of which need to be met for a proper Article 32 hearing to take place:

a. An Article 32 hearing should not take place until a 706 evaluation is conducted on the
accused to determine the important issues of mental responsibility and competency. The Article
32 hearing should not take place until the Defense receives the long version of the 706 board's
?ndings and recommendations. (Note: the Defense has already requested a 706 evaluation be
undertaken in this matter. and has received notice that the Government supports such a request.
The Government has informed the Defense that a 706 board could be convened and undertaken
in about two weeks]:

b. An Article 32 hearing should not take place until the accusedhas decided whether he
will obtain the services of a civilian counsel and whether such a civilian counsel is properly
prepared for the Article 32 hearing. The Defense is currently researching this issue for the -
acc used. The Defense believes that it" the accused selects a civilian attorney. then that selection
will take about two weeks to occur;

c. And an Article hearing should not take place in this case until the Defense has an
expert on computer forensics on its team and that the computer forensics expert has ample time
to review the evidence which consists offive CD Rom disks. On behalf ofthe accused. the
Defense will request yberAgents, a company owned by Mr. Eric Lakes and based in Lexington.
Kentucky. to be an expert assistant in this matter. The Defense is ready to submit its request for
ybcr?tgents. but we are waiting to hear Rom Mr. Lakes to confirm his fee schedule. The
Defense anticipates requesting Mt?. Lakes within the next 24 hours. The Defense does not know
and cannot predict how long it would take an expert like CyberAgents to review the evidence.

2. The Defense believes a tentative date for the Article 32 hearing of 20 August 2010 should be
enough time for the three previously-mentioned conditions to be met.

3. The Defense rwerves the right to request further delays upon showing good cause for such
delay request(

Uncla ssi?ed_Discovery_Manning





4. POC is the undersigned at DSN:





PAUL R. BOUCHARD
CPT, JA
Senior Defense Counsel

I-J

28447




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
unmsn ARMY mun. versus: senvice
COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

/muncrou. vmcum 22203

REPLY TO
ATTENTIGI OF:

IALS-TD 1 1 August 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Almanza, 150"! judge Advocate General Detachment,
Legal Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road,
Alexandria, Virginia 22310

FOR Commander, United States Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee
Avenue, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Delay Request. United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

1. The Defense requests a delay in the subject court-martial until the inquiry you ordered
under the provisions of Rule for Court-Martial 706 is completed. The defense maintains
responsibility for this delay because Captain Paul Bouchard initially requested the inquiry
from PFC Manning's previous chain of command. This delay would terminate on the date
the results of the inquiry are received by PFC Manning's detailed defense counsel.

2. am the point of contact for any questions or concerns regarding this request. may be
contacted at






THOMAS P. HURLEY
MAI. IA
Defense Counsel





. . 28449

25 August 20l 0

THRU Staff .l udge Advocate. Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate. US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 30219

FOR Commander. US Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair,
Washington D.C. 20319

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic to Assist
the Defense in United PFC _Mcmm'ng.

1. On l8 July 2010. the defense requested that a R.C.M. 706 sanity board be appointed in the
ease of United States v. Manning. and that a separate medical expert be appointed to the defense
to observe the R.C.i\l. 706 board.

2. On 25 August 2010. the defense received notification that a R.C.M. 706 board would begin its
assessment Manning on 27 August 2010. The defense requests that the sanity board be
delayed until a forensic can be appointed to the defense team. If the government has
denied the former request. the defense hereby renews its request.

3. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d). PFC Bradley Manning requests that a forensic from
another branch of service be designated as a member of the defense team under Military Rule of
Evidence M.R.E. 502 and UnircdSIure.s' v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (CMA 1987). PFC Manning
also requests that appropriate arrangements be made for the forensic to travel to
Quantico. Virginia to evaiuate and work with PFC Manning prior to the R.C.M. 706 board.

4. A military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process. a right to expert
assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. Gui-ries. 22 M..I. 288
(CMA 1986); R0bin.5'mt 39 88 (CMA l994_). and Aka v. Oklahoma. 470
US. 226 (1971). The Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a three-part test for
determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The defense must show:
"First. why the expen assistance is needed. Second. what would the expert assistance accomplish
for the accused. Third. why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the expert assistant
would be abie to develop.? Um'tccI'SruIe.s' in Gmizulez. 39 459 (1994).

5. All of the above requirements for employment ofan expert are present and the defense is
entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The government has
begun the process ofconducting a sanity board on PFC Manning and is presumably using the
best available Army doctors for this purpose. PFC Manning is only requesting a single forensic
from another branch of service be appointed to the defense team to assist in
understanding and preparing his defense.

a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense in
understanding medical information concerning the mental status of PFC Manning on the date(s)
ofthe alleged crimes. to determine whether he is able to understand the nature and quality ofthe

. . 28450

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofExpert with Expertise in Forensic to Assist
the Defense in United v. Mcummg.

wrongfulness of his conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able. to intelligently assist in
his defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation and mitigation for the
accused. The knowledge required to do this is specialized. and concerns medical and
data which is beyond the scope of defense counsel?s understanding.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused?? A forensic
assigned to the defense would assist the defense by explaining complex medical terms and the
involved at the time ofthe alleged crimes. The expert would also administer tests
which would aid in potential diagnosis and treatment. Finally. the expert would be able to
explain medical research in the field of forensic and its relevance to the present case.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Its Own? The defense has neither
the experience not expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs a basic
understanding in order to present the defense case. including the need to prepare
defense experts to testify. It would be impossible for the defense to properly prepare without
having an individual who has the confidentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. As a member
ofthe defense team. the defense appointed expert can freely discuss the defense theories ofthe
case without fear ofcompromising PFC t\lanning?s rights.

6. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing a forensic
from another branch ofservice as an expert; that you instruct him/her that he/she is a
?defense representative? and thus part ofthe defense team. and that matters related to him/her
during the course ofhis employment as a member ofthe defense team will be confidential.
Finally the defense requests that you direct that the R.C.M. 706 board be delayed until the
defense appointed forensic can be made available to monitor the examinations
conducted by the members ofthe board. The defense believes that the presence ofa member of
the defense team will increase PFC Manning?s willingness to cooperate with the sanity board.
Moreover, it will ensure that the defense team has first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and
quality ofall examinations conducted by the members ofthe board. This will ultimately reduce
the need for future litigation on such issues.

7. The POC is the undersigned at (40-1) 7:14-3007 or by e?mail at




E. COOMBS

Civilian Defense Counsel





0 0 28451

36 August 2010

THRU Staff Judge Advocate. Office of the Staffludge Advocate. US Anny
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley .1. Mcf\?air. Washington D.C. 30219

FOR Commander; US Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair.
Washington DC. 20319

SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the R.C.M. 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on
Disclosure ofClassi?ed Information in Umreri States PF -1-elamiing.

1. Pursuant to Executive Order 12958. Section 74.1, defense counsel hereby requests the
convening authorit_v delay the R.C.M. 706 board until procedures can be adopted to safeguard
any classi?ed information that-will be discussed during the board's determination.

3. In support of this request. the defense provides the following:

a. On 25 August 2010 defense counsel spoke with PFC Manning telephonically to determine
if he would need to discuss classi?ed information during the R.C.M. 706 board inquir_v.

b. Based upon our discussions with PFC the defense counsel believes that in order
for him to participate in the KC .M. 706 process and aid the members in their determination of
his mental state at the time ofthe alleged incidents. he will need to divulge classi?ed
information.

c. The information that PFC Manning will need to divulge will be Secret Sensitive
Compartmented Information and Top Secret Sensitive ompanmented Information.

3. Based on the preceding information, the defense requests that the Government determine
from the Original Classification Authority (OCA) that the R.C.M. 706 has a "need to know" as
part of their assessment of PF 1\xlanning's mental condition.

4. Additionally. pursuant to Executive Order 12958. 12068. and 13292 the defense requests that
all members ofthe R.C.M. 706 board possess the requisite security clearances and that all
required steps are taken in order to safeguard the information that they receive from PFC


5. Since board members notes and any recordings will contain references to classi?ed
information. the defense requests that the government appoint a security officer to the board to
assist them in the proper handling oftheir notes and disposal of any information that may
contain references to classi?ed information.

6. The defense also requests the results of the governments classi?cation review by the OCA.
Speci?cally. the determination ofthe classi?cation review regarding (l )the classi?cation level
of the information alleged to have been disclosed by PFC Manning when it was subjected to

0 . 28452

Request for Delay in the 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on
Disclosure of Classi?ed lnformation in States PFC Bmd/9,1?

compromise; (2) a determination whether another command requires review of the information:
and (3) the general description of the impact ofdisclosure on affected operations.

7. Finally. the defense requests strict compliance with the disclosure prohibitions of Military?
Rules of Evidence 302 and 706. Speci?cally. the defense requests that the board
members are informed of the restrictions on disclosure referenced in R.C.M. 706

8. The POC is the undersigned at (401 744?3007 or by e-mail at




DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel



. . 28453

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MLITARY DISTRICT or-' WASHINGTON
. 210 A STREET
roar LESLEY J. MCNAR, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

I NJA-CL 25 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer,
VA 22211-I199

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation U.S. v. PFC Bradlev E. Manning

I. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you delay restarting the Article 32
Investigation until the United States receives consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities
(OCAS) to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. This consent is
necessary in order for the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the
Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32
Investigation.

2. BACKGROUND. Under Executive Orders l2958 and 13526 (as applicable) and Army Regulations
380-5 and 380-67, the United States cannot release classified information originating in a department or
agency to parties outside of the executive branch without the consent ofthe OCA or their delegate. Since
17 June 2010, the United States has been diligently working with all ofthe departments and agencies that
originally classi?ed the information and evidence sought to be disclosed to the defense and the accused.
Enclosed are redacted copies of the OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classification Review Requests
without their enclosures, respectively. However, because of the special circumstances of this case,
including the voluminous amounts of classified digital media containing multiple equities and the
subsequent discovery of more information helpful to both the United States and the accused, more time is
needed for executive branch departments and agencies to obtain the necessary consent? from their OCA or
authorizing o?icial.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonable
delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, for
example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or time to secure the
availability of evidence.

4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article Investigation
until the earlier ofthe completion ofthe OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews or
25 May 20! 1. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between 22 April 20earlier. be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will
provide you an update no later than 25 May 20] l.

S. The point ofcontact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?.


it
I
I I

Encls ASHDEN

as CPT, JA
Trial Counsel


Defense Counsel (w/encls)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





0 28454
FOR USE
DEPARTMENT or THE ARMY
ARMY MILITARY OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO

ATTENTIONOF

22 May 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue. Fort Myer.
VA 222l l-l I99

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay restarting
the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to release discoverable
unclassified and classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This consent is necessary in order for
the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-
Martial (RCM). as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classi?cation Authorities
(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classi?ed evidence and information to the defense along with
receiving completed classi?cation reviews. In anticipation of OCA consent. CID began making copies of
classi?ed digital media and evidence for disclosure to the defense. Additionally. the prosecution learned I
that several exhibits and documents in the unclassi?ed CID case ?le require authorization to disclose
apart from any classi?ed information. The U.S. Attomey?s Of?ce for the Eastern District of Virginia is
working to obtain that authorization on behalf of the prosecution from multiple federal districts within the
United States.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonable
delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, for
example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case. or time to secure the
availability of evidence.

4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation
until the earlier of the completion of the OC A Disclosure Requests. OC A Classi?cation Reviews. and
authorization to disclose protected unclassi?ed information or 27 June 201 I. For the reasons stated
above. the United States requests the period between 22 April 201 I and the restart of the Article 32
investigation be designated as excludable delay under RC 707(c). The prosecution will provide you an
update no later than 25 June 20l 1.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?.




ASHDEN
PT, A
Trial Counsel

F:
Defense Counsel

FOR USE





. t3s1aoNLv . 28455

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY murnnv DISTRICT or-' WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FOFIT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL '2 27 June 2011

MEMORANDUM son Commander, Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue. Fort
Myer, VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT Request for Delay of Article 32 investigation United States v. PFC Bradlev E.
Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay
restarting the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to
release discoverable unclassified and classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This
consent is necessary in order for the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under
Article 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to
adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE.

a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classi?cation Authorities
(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense along
with receiving completed classi?cation reviews. This includes the enclosed additional requests
forwarded by the prosecution on 23 June 2011-, after forensic examiners discovered another
document on digital evidence requiring OCA consent to disclose to the defense.

b. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency
(NSA) and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review the
file for classi?ed equities. The SA identi?ed approximately twenty sensitive documents
requiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA is continuing their review of
the documents.

c. The U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia is continuing to work on
obtaining authorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution to
disclose certain exhibits and documents to the defense. Most of the relevant disclosure orders
have been signed, but a few remain outstanding.

d. Since the previous request, the prosecution received approval to produce the Secretary of
the Army AR 15-6 and related documents. After the defense acknowledges your protective
order, dated 22 June 2011, the prosecution will immediately produce these documents and
continue to produce all related documents. As the prosecution receives other approvals, it will
continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



FOR OFFICIAI. USE ONLY


SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 investigation United States v. PFC Bradley E.
Manning

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a
reasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay
include, for example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or time
to secure the availability of evidence.

4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32
investigation until the earlier of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA
Classi?cation Reviews, authorization to disclose protected unclassified infonnation, and final
review of the CID case ?le by the NSA and OGA, or 27 July 2011. For the reasons stated above,
the United States requests the period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32
investigation be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will
provide you an update no later than 25 July 2011.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

..
.


Encls $513514

as CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF:

Defense Counsel
2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



0 28457

fills?

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

25 July 201 I
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Joint Base yer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue. Fort
Myer. VA 99

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 33 Investigation _Ij__nited States v. E.


l. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay
restarting the Article 33 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to
release discoverable unclassified and classified evidence and information to the defense. This
consent is necessary in order for the United States to fulfill its discovery obligations under
Article 4n, UCMJ and the Rules for Cot1rts?Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to
adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE.

a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities

to obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense along

with receiving completed classification reviews. The classified CID forensic reports are
prepared for disclosure. pending final approval by the relevant OCAs and final review of
references to classified information within forensic reports.

b. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency
(-NSA) and another file for classified equities. The NSA identified approximately twenty sensitive documents
requiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA identified approximately six
sensitive. documents requirirtg further review by their subject matter experts. Those reviews are
ongoing.

c. The LCS. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia is continuing to work on
obtaining authorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution to
disclose certain exhibits and documents to the defense. Most of the relevant disclosure orders
have been signed. but a few remain outstanding.

d. Since the previous request, the. prosecution produced the Secretary of the Army AR
and related documents, as well as the complete record of the MSG Adkins reduction board-
approximately ltt,t)tlI) pages of documents in total. The prosecution intends to produce portions
of the unclassified CID case file that have been approved for release by relevant stakeholder
agencies no later than the date of this memorandum. As the prosecution receives other
approvals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.





0 28458




SUBJECT: Request l0!" Delay of Article 33 ljnited States v. PFC Bradles?
:.V1_u.t_mi_n.L:

3. DELAY. As the convening authority, you the autltority to grant a
reasortahle delay under the {acts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay
include. for example. the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the ease. or time
to secure the availability of evidence.

4. REQLFEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32
investigation until the earlier of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests. OCA
Classification authorization to disclose protected unclassified information. and ?nal
review of the CID case file by the NSA and OGA, or 37 August 3011. For the reasons stated
above. the United States requests the period between 23 April 2011 and the restart of the Article
32 ime.stigat?0n be designated as exeludablc delay under RCM 7(J7(c). The prosecution will
provide you an update no later than 25 August 2011.

5. The point of Contact for this memorandum is the urtdersigned at


CPT. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
Defense Counsel

I.)





0 . 28459

FOR USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIFI, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

25 August 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall,
204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley
Mannino



1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay
restarting the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to
release discoverable unclassified and classified evidence and information to the defense. This
consent is necessary for the United States to fulfill its discovery obligations under Article 46,
UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare
for the Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE.

a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities
(OCAS) to obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense along
with receiving completed classification reviews.

b. CID is conducting a secondary review of the derivative classification of the forensic
reports. Recently, the government?s security expert reviewed the forensic reports and advised
that portions of the reports should be reviewed based on the Security Classification Guides
governing the information. The prosecution intends to produce the full reports once a final
determination of the derivative classi?cation is made by CID Command and the Army G2 gives
release consent. Three of these reports are unclassi?ed in their entirety, and were given to the
defense on 25 July 2011.

c. The prosecution submitted the unclassi?ed CID case file to the National Security Agency

. (NSA) and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review the

file for classified equities. The NSA identified approximately twenty sensitive documents
requiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA identi?ed approximately six
sensitive documents requiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA
completed its additional review, but the NSA review is ongoing.

d. The U.S. /\ttorney?s Of?ce for the Eastern District of Virginia has obtained all
authorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution, and the
prosecution is currently obtaining signed protective orders from defense, as required by the
district court judges, to allow disclosure of all relevant exhibits and documents to the defense.

USE 0NI..Y

. 28460

FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley
Mannino



e. The prosecution is continuing to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) to receive authorization to disclose relevant portions of
any case ?les. This includes obtaining copies of the FBI and DSS case ?les, if any, to conduct a
search of the ?les for discoverable information.

f. Since the previous request, the prosecution produced 21,442 pages of documents (bates
numbers 021364-042806). The evidence and information disclosed included the vast majority of
the unclassi?ed CID case file, the MAJ Clausen administrative reprimand file, recordings of all
visits with PFC Manning at MCB-Q, and various other documents. As the prosecution receives
other approvals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a
reasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay
include, for example, time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases, time to obtain
appropriate security clearances for access to classi?ed information, or time to secure the
availability of evidence. RCM 707(c), Discussion.

4. REQUEST. Given the complexity of this case, stemming from the number of classi?cation
authorities involved and the volume of information requiring classi?cation reviews, the
prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation until the earlier
of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA Classification Reviews, final
determination of derivative classifications, final review of the CID case ?le by the NSA, and
release authority from relevant district court judges, or 27 September 2011. The prosecution has
actively and diligently worked to resolve all outstanding issues to ensure timely release of all
possible information to the defense so their ability to represent and potentially defend their client
will be in no way impaired. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period
between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32 investigation be designated as excludable
delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will provide you an update no later than 23
September 2011.

5. The point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at



ASHDEN EIN

CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF:

Defense Counsel
2

FOR USE ONLY





0 0 28461

FOR IESE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A srneer
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 203195013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



26 September 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee
Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above?referenced case requests you continue to delay restarting
the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to release discoverable
unclassi?ed and classified evidence and information to the defense. This consent is necessary for the
United States to fulfill its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts?MartiaI
(RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE.

a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) to
obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense and to receive completed
classification reviews. Since the last request, the prosecution received a classification review from the
OCA at U.S. Cyber Command. Additionally, the prosecution is working closely with the Department of
State and U.S. Southern Command and expects to receive classification reviews for more than eighty
documents within the next two weeks.

b. CID started the necessary secondary review of the derivative classification of the forensic reports,
and the forensic reports are currently in the final stages of review before release. After CID completes its
review and once the Army G2 gives consent to release, the prosecution intends to produce the full reports,
with their enclosures and attachments to the defense.

c. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency (NSA)
and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review the file for
classified equities. Both the NSA and OGA completed their additional review. The prosecution is
working with the NSA to provide portion-marked version of the documents they deemed classified.

d. The U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia obtained all authorizations from the
relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution is continuing to obtain signed
protective orders from the defense, as required by the district court judges, to allow disclosure of all
relevant exhibits and documents to the defense.

e. The prosecution continues to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) to receive authorization to disclose relevant portions of any case files.
The prosecution received copies of the FBI and DSS case files and started to review these files for
discoverable information. Once the prosecution identifies discoverable information, it will work to obtain
the proper authorization to produce the relevant portions to the defense.

f. Since the previous request, the prosecution produced 2,494 pages of documents (bates numbers
042807-045301). The evidence and information disclosed included documentation from the confinement

FOR USE

0 28462

FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
ECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

facilities, as well as the majority of two classified military intelligence investigative case files. As the
prosecution receives other approvals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.

g. The prosecution continues to work with the defense to frontload any administrative requirements
for the defense members and their forensic computer experts to review classified information and
evidence. Since the last request, the prosecution provided the defense with specialized hardware and
software so that they are able to review all classified discovery and their experts may use their own
personal equipment to analyze and review forensic duplicates of the evidence. Additionally, the
prosecution provided a large volume storage device to CID so that a forensic duplicate of the evidence is
available to the defense once the final authorization to release classified information is obtained.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonable
delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, for
example, time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases, time to obtain appropriate security
clearances for access to classified information, or time to secure the availability of evidence. RCM
707(c), Discussion.

4. REQUEST. Given the complexity of this case, stemming from the number of classification
authorities involved and the volume of information requiring classification reviews, the

prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation until the earlier of the
completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA Classification Reviews, final determination of
derivative classifications, receipt of signed protective orders from the defense, and properly portion-
marked classified documents by the NSA, or 27 October 2011. The prosecution has actively and
diligently worked to resolve all outstanding issues to ensure timely release of all possible information t0
the defense so their ability to represent and potentially defend their client will be in no way impaired. For
the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of
the Article 32 investigation be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will
provide you an update no later than 25 October 2011.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

I
I


ASHDEN IN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
Defense Counsel

FOR ONLY



. 0 28463

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJ A-C 2 5 October 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Anny Garrison, Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall,
204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 2221 1-1 199

SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay
restarting the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to
release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This consent is
necessary for the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and
the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the
Article 32 investigation.

2. UPDATE.

a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classi?cation Authorities
(OCAS) to obtain consent to disclose classi?ed evidence and information to the defense and to
receive completed classi?cation reviews. Within the last several days, the prosecution received a
classi?cation review of approximately one hundred documents and a video from the OCA at
U.S. Central Command. Additionally, the prosecution is continuing to work closely with the
Department of State, a government intelligence agency (OGA), and U.S. Southern Command
and expects to receive classi?cation reviews for more than eighty documents before 1 November
201 l.

b. CID completed the necessary secondary review of the derivative classi?cation of the
forensic reports, and the prosecution is currently processing and packaging the forensic reports,
enclosures, and attachments for delivery to the Army G2 no later than 27 October 201]. These
reports consist of over 40,000 documents totaling more than 300,000 pages. The prosecution
will release the ?nal forensic reports to the defense once the review by the Anny G2 is complete
and consent to disclose is received.

c. The prosecution submitted the unclassi?ed CID case ?le to the National Security Agency
(N SA) and an OGA to have their experts review the ?le for classi?ed equities. Both the NSA
and OGA completed their additional review. Absent an unforeseen administrative issue, the
prosecution will produce portion?marked versions of the documents deemed classi?later than 27 October 201 I.

d. Based on discussions with multiple OGAs, the prosecution's security expert is developing
an evidence classi?cation guide (ECG) to aid law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and other

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



0 0 28464

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley
Manning

government officials in understanding what speci?c investigative infonnation is classi?ed.
Although this guide will not be a security classi?cation guide published by an OCA, this guide
based on derivative classi?cations can be used by all parties and potential witnesses to
understand what information is classi?ed or not. In the short-term, the guide will be used by
CID agents and other government officials when discussing the case with the defense.

e. The prosecution continues to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) to receive authorization to disclose relevant portions of any
case ?les. The prosecution received copies of the FBI and DSS case ?les and started to review
these ?les for discoverable information. Once the prosecution identi?es discoverable
information, it will work to obtain the proper authorization to produce the relevant portions to the
defense.

f. Since the previous request, the prosecution produced 771 pages of documents (bates
numbers 045302-046073). The evidence and information disclosed consisted of additional
documents from the CID case ?le. As the prosecution receives other approvals, it will continu
to disclose evidence and information to the defense. I

g. The prosecution scheduled a meeting with the defense for 8-9 November 201 1. The
purpose of the meeting is for the prosecution to present its case, including a discussion of the
evidence supporting the charges against the accused, and present potential plea terms. The goal
of the meeting is to help the defense focus their review of the voluminous forensic evidence and .
potentially minimize ?iture delays.

h. The prosecution continues to work with the defense to frontload any administrative
requirements for the defense members and their forensic computer experts to review classi?ed
information and evidence. Since the last request, the prosecution effected the re-imaging of three
classi?ed laptop computers previously provided to the defense to process classi?ed information.
Additionally, the prosecution ordered several items requested by defense counsel, including a
color printer, a GSA?approved shredder, and large courier bags for transporting classi?ed
infonnation.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a

- reasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay

include, for example, time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases, time to obtain
appropriate security clearances for access to classi?ed information, or time to secure the
availability of evidence. Si RCM 707(c), Discussion.

4. REQUEST. Given the complexity of this case, stemming from the number of classi?cation
authorities involved and the volume of information requiring classi?cation reviews, the
prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation until the earlier
of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA Classi?cation Reviews, and receipt of
signed protective orders from the defense, or 28 November 201 1. The prosecution has actively

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





FOR USE OFVLY

ANJA-C
SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley
Manning

and diligently worked to resolve all outstanding issues to ensure timely release of all possible
information to the defense so their ability to represent and potentially defend their client will be
in no way impaired. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between
22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32 investigation be designated as excludable delay
under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will provide you an update no later than 23 November

201 1.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
Defense Counsel

3

FOR OFFICIAL ONLY





28466
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl 2 OR 3)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or
210 A srneer
FOFIT LESLEY .1. MCNAJFI, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF
16 November 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee
Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211-1 199

SUBJECT: Request to Restart Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case makes a two-fold request. First, the
prosecution requests you direct the investigating of?cer to restart the Article 32 investigation. The
prosecution is prepared to proceed and, by December 20] 1, should receive all approvals and
classi?cation reviews necessary to proceed. Second, the prosecution requests the period from the date of
this memorandum to 16 December 20] be approved as excludable delay.

2. ARTICLE 32 RESTART REQUEST. The prosecution requests you direct the investigating of?cer
to restart the Article 32 investigation. Since 25 October 2011, the prosecution has continued to work
diligently to resolve the following issues that served as a basis for the delay of the Article 32
investigation:

a. Ori 'nai Classi?cation Authorities OCA reviews of classi?ed information. The prosecution
received completed classi?cation reviews for all charged documents, except the ?nal charged document
relevant to Speci?cation l.5 of Charge II. See Enclosure 1. On l4 November 201 l, the prosecution
received written con?rmation from an OCA delegate that the classi?cation review for the ?nal charged
document will be completed no later than 1 December 201], if it is determined that such a declaration is
necessary. See Enclosure 2. Based upon this commitment, the prosecution requests the Article 32
investigation restart at this time to avoid further delay.

b. OCA consent to disclose classi?ed information. Under Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as
applicable) and Army Regulations 380?5 and 380-67, the United States cannot release classi?ed
information originating in a department or agency to parties outside of the executive branch without the
consent of the OCA or their delegate. The prosecution worked diligently with all of the departments and
agencies that originally classified the infonnation and evidence sought to be disclosed to the defense and
the accused, including CID, whose unclassi?ed case ?le consisted of several exhibits and documents
containing classi?ed information. The prosecution disclosed such information upon receipt of the
Department of the Army?s approval. The prosecution recently produced approximately 380,000 pages of
discovery, including (1) all charged documents; (2) all ?nal forensic reports; (3) the complete unclassi?ed
CID case ?le; (4) classi?cation reviews; and (5) two classified military intelligence investigative case
?les.

c. Defense request for atmronriate securitv clearances for the defense team and access for the accused.
On 3 September 2010, the defense submitted a request for security clearances for the defense team and
access for the accused. See Enclosure 3. All members of the defense team received their security
clearances on or before 13 October 201 1. On 4 November 201 l, the prosecution received the ?nal
approval necessary for the defense team and accused to access all the charged classi?ed information. See

Enclosure 2.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURES 2 OR 3)





28467
FOR OFFICIAL Ubrs ONLY wl 2 OR 3)


SUBJECT: Request to Restart Article Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The prosecution requests the period from the date of this memorandum to
16 December 201 be approved as excludable delay under RCM 707(c) for the following reasons:

a The prosecution is continuing to work with a relevant OCA to obtain a completed classification
review for the ?nal charged document relevant to Speci?cation l5 of Charge II. The prosecution
received written con?rmation from the delegate that the classi?cation review for the final charged
document will be completed no later than 1 December 2011. See Enclosure 2.

b. The command requires adequate time to execute OPLAN BRAVO. a prerequisite for the Article 32
proceeding given the facts and circumstances of this case and the public interest in this hearing. See
Enclosure 4.

OPLAN BRAVO directs early planning for, and ensures coordinated and support
of, all aspects of the Article 32 proceeding. On order, OPLAN BRAVO requires the command to
coordinate travel, security, public affairs, infrastructure support, including Department of Army assets for
movement, and interagency support for both the substance and administration of the above-referenced
case. The mission?s key tasks include safely and securely transporting and maintaining custody of the
accused, providing physical security and support at all stages of the proceeding, and conducting public
affairs and mediaisupport.

(2) The command, including its subordinate units and staff sections, requires thirty days to initiate
OPLAN BRAVO to execute the speci?ed tasks outlined in Enclosure 4, including allowing adequate time
for contracts to be executed. OPLAN BRAVO and its associated tasks/requirements do not begin until
you restart the Article 32 investigation. I

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?.





I

1
4 Encls FE-LIN
1. Classification Reviews (x7) CPT, JA
2. Email, 14 Nov ll Trial Counsel
3. Memo, 3 Sep 10
4. OPLAN BRAVO wl Attachments (LBS)
CF:

Defense Counsel (wo/encls)

Note: Enclosure 1 was produced in discovery. Enclosures 2 and 4 are on file with the prosecution and
available anytime for inspection by the defense.

2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURES 2 OR 3)

m_

28468

UNITEDSTATES OFAMERICA
v^
Manning,BradleyE.
PFCUSArmy,
HHCU.S.ArmyCarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 12
lOOctober 2012

28469

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

^

r^'EADQUARTERS 25 3W3ADS COMBAT T=At«
1'J~H MOUNTAIN DIVISION (LIGHT INFANTRY)
UNITED STATES DiViSlDN - CENTER
COS HAMMER, IRAt
AE 03C38

^ ' ' ^ ^ ^ i # % ; : * ^ ^ Kw.

'

L

jti'"'

„•

\I!,M()R \N:)1 M I'ilRl Captain Paul Bouchard. I ri il Defense Service. C'amo l.ibcnv I i-elc
(inicc C imr .ihc ly Iraq. .\?0 Ai: 09344
:'"":\aic irs, % iiss Bradic} F. Manning. Headquuncrs and Hcadquaners Cumpai:>. 2d
lir gade Special :'T,)ops Oattaiioi:. 2d Brigade Combat fearn. IOlh Mountain Division C.igh:
'""^rLinin APt ; )co.";S
^1 B. i't
'/q.e^i or Delay in ihe Article 31 Invest gation in the I aye of Lnited Slates v."Tvalc I .rsi . .;iss intdtcv I.. Muni^inK

' ^
. " appointed Lieutenant Colonel Crmg Merutka. Chief .administrative i.au.
mtixl Sintcf c-%:,.\ Iraq. Camp Victor}. Iraq. APO All 09342. as the invcstigming (iHiccr Ibr
r-v-iria. T% csr^tiror pursi:ant tc Article 32. Unilhm Code ofMilitary Justice : C V J i n mc
ISC ufP IV-;. [':-;t (lass Bradley I . M&mning. Headqiianct"s and llcadquaners {'Dmnany. 2U
B: :iiaJc ."peeiul r nns Banaiinn. 2d Brigade Combat Team. ;#th Mountain !)i\:sicn (I.iuhi
l:i anir) .APO \ I ")^WX. On 10 .iuly 2010. Liewlcnail Colonel Mcruika notified you that the
."-tnal! "ivs-.s^yaicn would occur on 14 Julv 2010.
. 2'i'. i. you requested I delay the Artic'e 32 Invettitialion until a 706 DOarU is
;;!";::• OJ can rcsolvc issues relating to civilian defense counsel and delense c.vncrt

I Lriuit \
rcs. . cji tb: a acis> until 16 August 20 (I. This is a delense rcquesuju acia> Hv
ninuscs v. Kuic
f oun
m

DAV D M. MILLER
COL. IN
Comnandinu

Unclassified_Discovery_ManningB_000472

28470

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEEAVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

I 2 AUG 20K]
IMND-MHH-ZA
MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Almamca, 151th Judge Advocate General Detachment,
Legal Suppor! Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center. 6901 Telcgtaph Road,
Alexandria. VA 22310
FOR MAJ Thomas F Hurley, U.S. Anny. Trial Defense Service. Defense Counsel Assistance
Program, Arlington. VA 22203
SUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation of PFC Bradley Manning

Your request for delay in the Article 32 investigation of PFC Manning is:
(
approved, in accordance with Rule for Courts-Marlial (R.C.M ) 717(c), the period
tiom 11 August 2010 until the R C M 706 Sanity Board completion is excludable defimse delay.
(

) disapproved.

CARL R. COFFMAN. JR,
COL AV
Commandinii

Unclassifie(J_Discovery_ManningB_000473

28471

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199

25 AUG 21G
i
IMND-MHH-ZA
MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Forensic Psychology Fellowship. Waller Reed Anny Medical
Center, Washington. DC 20307
SUBJECT: Defense Delay Request ofR.C.M. 706 Sanity Board of PFC Bradley Manning
I reviewed the defense request to delay the RCM. 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. The
request is:
.'C
.ti^^

VT.

LF

( Y y approved. The Sanity Board is delayed until the GCMCA takes action on the defense
request for appointment of a forensic psychiatry expert consultant. The period between 27
August 2010 and until the GCMCA takes action on the defense request is excludable delay under
R.C.M. 707(c).
(

) disapproved. The Sanity Board vvill proceed as previously ordered.

I \.,^>-eARirR. C O F ^ ^ . JR.
T " COL. AV
Commanding

Unclassified_Discovery_ManningB_000474

28472

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MHH-ZA

2 9 APR 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT; Delay of Article 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. On 25 April 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives consent from all the Original Classification .Authorities (OCAs) involved
in this case to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure I .
On 26 April 2011, the defense provided a response which acknowledged the need for the classified
information and made three specific requests. See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
(uB»)
approved. The .Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classification Reviews or 25 May 2011. The period between 22
April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Court-Martial
(RCM) 707(c). The .prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 23 May 2011.
(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case file, it is my understanding that ongoing national
security concems exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC
Manning and others. In light of the national security concems and ongoing investigation(s), the
prosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of information, but will comply with its
obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In
addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to the
defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution Request, 25 Apr 11
2. Defense Request, 26 Apr 11
DISTRIBUTION: '
I-Article 32 10
1 -Trial Counsel
I -Defense Counsel

f/ULL-

CAKLTl.
COFFMAN, JR.
AmJR. COFFMAN,
JI
COL, .AV
Commanding

28473

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HEiTOERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRQINIA 2221M 199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MHH-ZA

"Z (^Hhi TA'W

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

I . On 22 May 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassified evidence and
information, as well as consent from all the Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) involved in this
case to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense, whichever is earlier. See
Enclosure 1. On 24 May 2011, the defense provided a response which maintained its 26 April 2011
position acknowledging the need for additional discovery and noting the potential for further delay for
defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32. See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
((5^^
approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion ofthe
OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classification Reviews, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassified information, or 25 June 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of
the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). The
prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 June 2011.
(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions ofthe case file, it is my understanding lhat ongoing national
security concems exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement Lnvestigation(s) into PFC
Manning and others. In light ofthe national securiiy concems and ongoing investigation(s), the
prosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure ofinformation, but will comply with its
obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In
addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to the
defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution Request, 22 May 11
2. Defense Request, 24 May 11
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article 32 IO
1-Trial Counsel
I -Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28474

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
JOINT BASEMYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

5dU^^^|^

IMNDMHHZA

MEMORANf^UMFORSEEDlSTRIBU^'ION
SUBJECT:DcIay of Article 32 Investigation PFC BradleyEManning

l . O n 27 June 2011.the prosecution submittedarequest to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassified evidence and
infortnation,as well as consent frotn all the Original Classification Authorities(OCAs)inv"olved in this
case to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense, whichever is earlier, .^c^
Enclosurel. On 29 Jutie 2011,the defense providedaresponse which maintained its 26 April 20II
position acknowledging the need for additional discovery and noting the potential for further delay for
defence to adequately prepare for the Article 32. .^^^^ Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
( ^ ^ ^ ) approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
OCA Disclostirc Requests and OCA Classitication Reviews, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassilied information, or 27 July 2011. The period between 22 April 2011and the restart of
the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c).The
prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 July 2011.
(
) disapproved^eArtic1e32InvestigationwiIIresiartwithinthirtydaysoflhis
memorandum.
3 Alter reviewing pertinent p^irtionsof the case file, it is my understanding that ongoing national
security concerns exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcementinve.stigation(s)inio PFC
Manning and "others. In light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s). the
prosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of informatitin, but will comply with its
obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In
addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed informatlLin to the
defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.

^^^^^^^^^^^
2Encls
1. Prosccution Request, 27JuneI1
2. Defense Resp^^nse,29JuneIl
DISTRIBUTION:
lArticlc32IO
l-Trial Counsel
i Defensc Counsel

CARLR.COFFMAN,JR.
COL,AV
Commanding

28475

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTION OF

•M.O-MHH.Z.

2 6 JUL 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. On 22 July 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassified evidence and
information, as well as consent from all the Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) involved in this
case to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure 1. On 25
July 2011, the defense renewed its requesi to order the United States to provide either a substitute for or a
summary of the information for the relevant classified documents; to allow the defense to inspect any and
all unclassified documents, tangible items, and reports within the govemment's control; to provide
discovery lo the defense either previously denied or not provided; and to provide access to all CID and
other law enforcement agents who have worked on this case. See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
((j^>'""'^')^pproved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classification Reviews, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassified information, or 27 August 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restart
of the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). The
prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 August 2011.
(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days ofthis
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case file and receiving an update ofthe procedures being
followed in this case, il is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light ofthe
national security concems and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure ofinformation, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46. UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM
701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
utmecessary delay.

4^y&!Mr
2 Ends
1. Prosecution Requesi, 25 July 2011
2. Defense Response, 25 July 2011
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article 32 10
1-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28476

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

IMMD-MHH-ZA

:9 AUG 2 011

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley Manning
1. On 25 August 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until tlie United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassified evidence and
information, as well as consentfromalltiieOriginal Classification Audiorities (OCAs) involved in this
case to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure I . On 27
August 2011, the defense maintained its previous position that any additional delay should not be
excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
(0^—y^approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classification Reviews, final determination of derivative
classifications,finalreview of the CID case file by the NSA, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassified information, or 27 September 2011. Tlie period between 22 April 2011 and the
restart of the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution is required
to provide me an update no later than 23 September2011.
(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the casefileand receiving an update of the procedures being
followed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light of the
national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed witii the
disclosure of information, bul will comply witii its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM
701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the autiiority to
disclose previously undisclosed information totiiedefense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution Request, 25 August 2011
2. Defense Response, 27 August 2011
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article 32 10
I-Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28477

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

^ ^ ^ 5 ? 2^//

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

1. On 26 September 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32
Investigation until the completion of Original Classification Authority (OCA) disclosure requests, OCA
classification reviews, a final determination of derivative classifications, receipt of signed protective
orders from the defense, and properly portion-marked classified documents by the National Security
Agency (NSA), or 27 October 2011. See Enclosure 1. On 27 September 2011, the defense maintained its
previous position that any additional delay should not be excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM)
707(c). See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
( \ f h ^ ^ approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion ofthe
OCA disclosure requests, OCA classification reviews, a final determination of derivative classifications,
receipt of signed protective orders from the defense, and properly portion-marked classified documents by
the NSA, or 27 October 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32
Investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution is required to provide me an
update no later than 25 October 2011.
(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case file and receiving an update ofthe procedures being
followed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light of the
national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM
701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution Request, 26 Sep 11
2. Defense Response, 27 Sep 11
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article32 10
1-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

fe WM^

COFFM, JR.
CARL R. COFFMAN,
COL, AV
Commanding

28478

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MHH-ZA

27 OCT 2 t 11

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

1. On 25 October 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32
Investigation until the completion of Original Classification Authority (OCA) disclosure requests, OCA
classification reviews, and receipt of signed protective orders from the defense, or 28 November 2011.
See Enclosure 1. On 25 October 2011, the defense maintained its previous position that any additional
delay should not be excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). See Enclosure 2.
2. This request is:
( C ^ ' T ' ^ p r o v e d . The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier ofthe completion ofthe
OCA disclosure requests, OCA classification reviews, and receipt ofsigned protective orders from the
defense, or 28 November 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32
Investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution is required to provide me an
update no later than 2 3 November 2011.
(
) disapproved. The Artide 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.
3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case file and receiving an update of the procedures being
followed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light ofthe
national security concems and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM
701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution Request, 25 Oct 11
2. Defense Response, 25 Oct 11
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article 32 IO
1 -Trial Counsel
1 -Defense Counsel

UAuxa

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28479

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

tkNoOil

IMND-MHH-ZA
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Excludable Delay - United Stales v. PFC Bradlev Manning

1. On 16 October 2011, the prosecution submitted a request to exclude the period between the date of this
memorandum and 16 December 2011 as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The reasons for the
request were for the prosecution to obtain the final classification reviewfroman Original Classification
Authority and to provide the command adequate time to execute OPLAN BRAVO. See Enclosure 1. On
16 November 2011. the defense objected to the government's proposed start date and proposed the Article
32 start on 12 December 2011. Additionally, the defense maintained its previous position that any
additional delay should not be excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). See Enclosure 2. I
reviewed both the prosecution's request and its enclosures and the defense's response.
2. This request is:
( )
approved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart no earlier than 16 December 2011.
The period between 22 April 2011 and 16 December 2011 is excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
(
) approved, in part. The Article 32 Investigation will restart no earlier than 12 December
2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and 12 December 2011 is excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
(

) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart no earher than 12 December 2011.

(
) disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within tiiirty days of this
memorandum.

2 Ends
1. Prosecution RequesL 16 Nov 11
2. Defense Response, 16 Nov 11
DISTRIBUTION:
1-Article 3210 .
1-Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

-W*CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28480

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA

Manning,Brad1eyE.
PFCUSArmy,
HHC,U.S.ArmyOarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Enclosure 13
lOOctober 2012

28481

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

R£?i.Y ro

HEADQUARTERS, 1ST ARMORED DIVISION AND
UNITED STATES DlVISiON-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ
APOAE 09)44

*TTS«T!OIS O f

AHTV-THZ

28 July 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR C*mmander. US Anny Military District of VVashingl«n. Fort Mver.
VA 2221 t
SI )HJ l-CT: Transler uf United Stales v. Private First Class Bradlev K. Manning, xxx-xx-9504,
Headquarters and 1 Icadquancrs Company, 2d Brigade few bat leant, lO"' Mountain Division
(Light inlantry)

1. Pursuant to Article 22 ofthe Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, 1 am the General CourlM:jrtial Convening Authority for the abtve-rcferenccd case. The case is pending an Article 32.
UCMJ Investigation and has nut been forwarded to me ftr action
2. ! hereby request the iranbLr t f this case to the Commander, US Army .Militarv District of
Washington for disposition as deemed appropriate.

^
" ^ ^ ^ ^

TERRrX. WOLFF
Major Ciencral. USA
Commanding

- • •-LiLWpt/ikt not m!A*t the transfer of U.S. v. Private First Class Bradlev E Manning as the
Commander. US .Amiy Military District of VVashi:iglon.
IAW AR 27-10, paragraph S-2/?(l). I direct Private First Class Bradley F-.. Manning to he
attached lo llcadquurlcrs and llcadquurlcrs Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Mycry
. T\ X ,
llendcrson Hall (WOUCOl).

r


(Llt'X
IjlORSr
MajOrGcnrral,USA
(omnwnding

Unclassified_Discovery_ManningB_000412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, US. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28482

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 14

10 October 2012



RECEIPT FOR INMATE OR DETAINED PERSON

28483



1. RECEIVED FROM (Unit or Agency and Station)
CAMP ARIFJAN DETENTION FAC
ARMY euaope

2. TIME
0001

3. DATE
2010/07/29

4. INMATE NAME (L855. Firs:
SEE BELOW

5. SSN

6. GRADE

SEE i SEE BELOW



7. ORGANIZATION
SEE BELOW

8. STATION
SEE BELOW

9. OFFENSE
SEE BELOW

10. PERSONAL PROPERTY
RETAINED BY ESCORTS

1-1. REMARKS
PRISONER RELEASED TN APPARENT GOOD HEALTH AND CONDETION

12. NAME AND TITLE OF EERSON INDIVIDUAL
/sun. . Jr

15. RECEIVING UNIT OR AGENCY AND STATDON






DD FORM 2708, NOV 199:1

9. TNMATESI

mm

ORGANIZATION: CAMP ARIFJAN oerennow FAC
STATION: CAMP ARIFJAN DETENTION FAC
OFFNESES:

128-8 ASSAULT: BY BATTERY [1

134-2 OTHER 134 [1 comm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer?Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28484

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 15

10 October 2012

'0 2646:?

DEPARTMENT 0! THE ARMY
Area support Group?Kuwait
APO AZ 09366

209-001 23 July 2010

0.. - prc. me. 2241: nor. 1017: am. on (LI). cos
rmaan, IRAQ APO AZ 09303

You will proceed on permanent change of station as shown.

Assigned to: UNITED STATES ARMY PERSONNEL CONTROL FACILITY, FORT
SILL. OR 73503

Reporting date: 30 JULY 2010

Temporary duty at: COXP BASE QUANTICO BRIG. MARINE CORP BASE.
QUANTICO, VA 22134

Reporting date, temporary duty station: 30 JULY 2010

Additional Instructions:

Prisoner shall be confined at con? sass QUANTICO BRIG. MARINE comb
BASE, QUINTICO, V: 22134. Prisoner is also assigned for all courts, boards,
and UCK3 action.

You are authorized two pieces of tree baggage. Bach piece is
not to exceed 70 pounds of 62 linear inches of combined length, width and
height.

You are authorized to hand carry one piece of baggage. If it exceeds 100
pounds, it must be moved as air cargo and paid by you.

IAN JPTR paragraph ERG transportation authorization does not
exist tor a member who is transferred as.a prisoner to a place of detention
or in confinement. except as provided in ?aragraphs 05370-31 and D5370-32
(see also Paragraphs and Pursuant to AR 190-47 (10-8-F)
questions concerning the disposition of household goods and dependent travel
will he referred to the prisoner's prior unit coander and the supporting
transportation officer.

Information concerning your port call will be provided separately.

Soldier must have an escort to execute this move.

FOR ARMY U83:

Auth: AR 190-47
CCEO

HOR:

PPD:

201h53

ORDERS 209-O01

Aval date: 30 July 2010
Format: 410

FOR THE COMMANDER:

DISTRIBUTION:

MPRJ (1)

CPF (1)

PAS (1)

Raasaignment Packet (1)
(1)

23 July 2010


OFFICIAL
HQ, ASG-KU

BYRON K. JACKSON
MAJ, AG

GROUP 51

CDR: EEC, 2ND IDTE MTN, DIV (LI) COS HAMMER, IRAQ APO AB 09308

PFC EARNING (5)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



28487

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 16

10 October 2012

1' V0




i

28488

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARAIY
u.a Anuv un.mnv or wnnuerou
103 mm AVENUE
FORT LESLEY J. ucvma. oc

2 AUG 2%

MEMORANDUM FOR Commandet. U.S. Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-3 Hall.

204 La: Avenue. I-?on Myer. VA 2221 I-I 199

Release or Jurisdiction Bradley!-1. Manning

The charges cm 5 July 2010, against Bradley E. Manning
Headquarters and Company, U.S. Anny Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Mail.
are released to you for disposition as you deem appropriate.







-I

?Juu.R.?u
Major Cxencrz?l. U.S. Armg
(?nmmanding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



. 28489

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 17

10 October 2012



. 28490

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucmuun, DC 20319-5013

1 REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANIA-CL 15 August 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Section Chief, Counterespionage Section,
Counterintelligence Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT: Request for Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Case File United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning -

1. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the FBI case file and its sub-files
relevant to PFC Bradley Manning. This request is in addition to the requests made by
prosecution on 19 April 2011 and 28 July 2011.

2. On 27-29 April 2011 and 18 May 2011, the prosecution reviewed FBI case files relevant to
PFC Manning and determined that not only were the majority of the investigative ?les relevant
or helpful to the prosecution of PFC Manning, but that the entire case ?le could become relevant
and possibly discoverable in the future.

3. Your release of the FBI case file to the prosecution will only be kept within the prosecution's
file and not released to the defense or any other entity without prior authorization by the FBI. If
the prosecution determines information or documents in its possession are discoverable, we will
request further authorization. Releasing the case file will n_ot affect the classification of the
subject information, and all information will be handled in accordance with its classi?cation.

4. The point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at? or


ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, IA
Trial Counsel



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Halli
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



. 28491

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 18

10 October 2012

28492

mm: mo?.

3.8.3 8:88 as ..88.: mmomwm. m?mnmoo - 8 883 8:83 2 o>oEu
eu 488: S: - .: 883 8:83 o>o\8 2-50-2

as SN. 883cc - 883:: 8 888 8:83 2 ?38 8-60-2

eu ?umm: - 838cc 8 888. 8:83 o>n<8 :-Uo-m

:o_umE.o.E_ u3m_mn_ mt - 883 8:83 3 o>oBu 2-33-2



:8 m:o_8m_88:_ 2855. 488: 5; 883a: - 8 888 8:83 2 o>Q8 S888
.u.EmE:uon_ EmEm:c:ou .783 wmomv - mmumm mmc?wo 3
?0.28 8.: 3:5 U8 688: 88. - 8 883 8:83
as .58: 2 - 8. 888 8:83 o>E8

as .88: 8: S888 - m$mmo_oo 883 8:83 3 o>E8

eu ?omm: mam. - 8 888 8:83 2 o>E8

82 :8 .388. omen. - 8 88: 8:83 2 32:8

8583 98 +88: 2 - 8 88: 8:83 2 o>n<8
8:083 ma 3. .888. 33 ?mamas: - SE88 8 883 8:83 o>E8 2-8.2-2

8:o83 ma 5 .283 3 8288 - 8288 8 883 8:8.3 3 o>E8

:o:mE:o.E_

:o_:8_8_8m_u 3:38 +88: - 8 8.3 8:83
__8_8_8m_u:3 8:283 84 t< .888. S: .. 3380:. 883 8.:83 3 S-a
8:288. m8 5. :2 S888 - 338cc 8 883 8:83 3 32:8

:8_8_8m_u:a

8:983 mm? E. 82:25 .28 6.. 2E. :8 ?omm: S8: - 883 8:83 3 o>E8
mm: 38.: - 83.8 8: 885.8 3 - 83 8:83 o>oEu 2-0.88
8883 mm: - 8.3 8:83 8 S-:8-m

_B_8_88_u:a_ 83 .983 8. S888 - SE88 8 83 8:83 o>E8 :w:2-S

488: 8: E888 - 83:8: 8 88: 8:83 9 n_>E8
.88: mm u_uE< mm: - 8 883 8:83 2 2-82-3
Evian. Nm o_u_t< ?wmma #5 .. mwumm mmc?mn 3
:88: Nm o_uE< 588: . .: 883 8:83 2 2-82-2
E8: imam: 83 8388 - 8888 8 8:83 2 S-uo--

oz< 5.92:2 85? zo_b:ooE kc oo_.E__2 >E>oum_o

mm: mo?.

28493



mmNmm?moo - Emommoo 8 o>oB0
$2 mesa Em 90 S. omwommoo - 33:50 momma 9 o>oE0
mm:_E00m__ EwEw:_mE00
_2_m tome ?8Eo mm S. wwmozmoo - 88:50 3, 3:300 2 02:00
Em .3 S838 - wmmommoo 2 0>oE0

:o:mE.oE_ EmEm:_mEou _m_bm:n_ ucm 8 hmmo?uoo - Dmoojwoo mmumm Ow ?-umn_-mH
0.0 m: mwmozmoo - E8250 o>oE0 S-umm_-m

2sm_>? __mm_EEm 0.0 - m_>n_E0 . :-mmo-m

_u:m 5:005 ?03 0050 Mummzuum >Em:w at - mmc?wo 3 o>o\ou HH-umo-n
?05.00 in umm m: - mm: o>oEu :-umo-m
0.0 Re - 3 02:8 2-80-0
?05.00 0-2 umm ?ow: Emmomoo - 8 o>0\0u :-mm0-m
2: W8 _2_m 0.0 mam: - Smmomoo o>oE0 2-82-2
?05.00 0-2 umm SS. - 9. 0530
5.8 <0 mmowmmoo - o>o\ou
?0200 0-3 >53 Ema - n_>oE0 2-82-:

tam ucm n__U VQ - mmumm mmc?mo Ow
can nmEmm.m_u_
90 Em mm: Emwmmoo - R3200 2 o>Eo0
3.mmE.._o> ohwmmoo - ohwmmoo 3:300 o>oE0 S->oz-m

mu .m=_mE8oo _8m.m5 - 2 o>E8
ma - o>oE0 _..T6z-m
nz< 5.22:2 20.52005 00:55 E40 >E>oum_a

mm: mom

28494

mm: mom





Mme. Em .3$E3o_o .2: ea N8 Sages - moqmeqoo 2:8 a?mo 938
_m_umam :o:.:uwmo.a
.2 8.8 V33 <6 3 oemmomoo - a 8:5 525.
Emeawam ?mass. 23 ..8m3 8: Sqm?oo - m?meqoo m?mm acute 2 9,38
_o::ou
_m._umam 53> cozsummoa 53> :o_Bmam:_ 5.. m_nm__m>m toqwm co:mE.ot._ <5 :o_Summo.n_ Hm teams.
moo .?wm3 N. - Smmsao 8.8 acyao 2 o>E8
mtaesou .2: gamma mam: oqmmsao . mqmt?oo 8.8 $5.6m. 2 o>oBu
.u.EmE:uou _m_b new .co:mE.o.E_ .
o_u aoaoza new mmcazoum. om. a?mnwwoo - mvmneqoo mmamm mwc?mo 3
<6 Ea ncmeaomm ommsmo Hm. mqmc?oo - ma mt?oo 85. omc?mo 3 o>E8 3-35-3
33.. .256 S: 2 muses - Saunas 8.8 Scmta o>Q8
_.u.w5mmw_2
_o::ou _m_umQm 53> nwc_.u.mm_u_ cozzummoi 5.. m_nm__m>m EmEmmomm< ?20 cozzummoi um ..umnm:_
Em .9. fag RN. mma?eoo - os??oo m?mm m..,5to o>E8
Bcoeamam mm??oo - 3. W33 n_>oEu
.
wmmEm_u _ucm .3:mE:uou Ham. - mmoncqoo mmcmu?o 3 o>o\ou
co:mE.o.E_ _mu_ mam: Eot?oo - qommqqoo m?mm $5.6m 3

.95 2228 ac $32 mommqeoo - mowmzao 938 acemo 2 o>oBu
o_u:m macaw;
?mmwq mm: - Duom?uoo mwumm wmc?wo 3
Ea Ea ??eaou .2: .__mEm m-ov_< _838m SE Semzwoo - ?mhqoo weewo 3 o>Q8
.2 Home Smheoo - So?eoo a 35m SE8 8 o>oEu
as
$3 Eu RN: - Bm?qoo 3.5.8 o>oEu

mama?? - .3:qEou em. GOMHHUOO - mmc?wo 8. o>o\ou ~H-cmTn~

oz< E2222

3255.

M55

mm: mo?.

28495

mm: mo:

<5 Rm: - Smv?oo .: 338 3:38 3

<5 .33: m. oemqmgo - mm?mqoo 3:38 3 EEBU

<5 338:: - 8:38: 3: 338 3:38 3

<5 .83: mmoxaoo - $o$:oo 3:38 3 o>:Bu

:o:3E3:_ <5 .32 SSm:o: - $33.8: 33: 3:38 3

<5 :33: 3 E898: - 8:88: 3 338 3:38 3 n_>Q8

<5 433:: mo: mwBm:o: - :B8:o: 33:: 3:38 3

<5 .33.: 2 R888: - 28:8: 33. 3:38 3

:o:3E3:_ <5 imam: mm. - 33:: 3:38 3 928

<5 5 Hmoomwoo - m$om:oo 338 3:38 3 82:8

<5 33:: mo: :Som:8 - Nmmomaoo 33:: 3:38 3

<5 :33: N. Smo?oo - ommomgo 333. 3:38 3

<5 :33: - 88:5: :3 33:: 3:38 3

<5 :33: N. - 33: 3:38 3

<5 mm. - 389:: .3 338 3:38 3 n_>E8 .

:o:mE:o.E_ <5 .83: - .3 338 8:369 3

<5 S. - m.:.mm::oo .: 338 3:38 3 o>n<8

<5 :33: 3 - Emmcao .: 333. 3:38 3

<5 :33: 2 ?mm?oo - 3 333. 3:38 3

<5 33:: 3 - mommtao 333. 3.:38 3

3 <5 3: wommtao - 33: 3:38 3 :>oBu

<5 .33: 2 383:: - A 3:38 3 a>oBu

E2 - 338 3:38 3
amass: E: 43mm: :3 833:: - 3.33:: :3 333. 3:38 3
:62 3:3: mm: 833:: - Smmsao 333. 3:38 3

8: ..33..: cm: - mmkz?oo 333. 3:38 3

<8 :83: :2 Smmgoo - 338 3:38 3


:o:3 u_mcEo? ?Em mmc__Boum: EmEm:..:Eou 43.8: mi - mmc?mo 3
.
m__mEm Mummsuum ucm 33:3 n__u gamma: mm. - mmwmiwoo mmamm wmc?wo 3
oz< 5:522 35: zocbaoox: :o oo_.E.s_

mm:

28496

. 55:

.555.555_5. 55.555555. 55.55.55. ..55j<555. .8555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 9. 5>5\55 55-5555.55.55.555. <5 55.55.55. 555555 55. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5.555555 2 5555 2-52-5
5o:5E.o55_ 55.55.55. ..55j<555. .8555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 52.5555 2 5>5\55
.555_555_5. 55.555555; <5 52.55.55. 55555.. 5: 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 585555 3 5555
.55_5_555_5. 55.55.55. .55555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 5555 55-5.5-5
555555555. <5 55.55.55. 555555 55: 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 8 5>5\55
55.5.5555? 55.55.55. ..55j<555. ..55555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 2 5>5\55
.555_555.5. 555525555. <5 55.55.55. 555555 555. 55555555 - 5255555 5 55555 5555555 9. 5>5\55 55-5.5-5
<5 55.55.55. .55j.555_555_5. <5 55.55.55. 555555 5: $5 55555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 5555 55-5.3-5
55.555555. <5 55.55.55. .8555 5. 555 55555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 2 5555 55-5.5-5
A ..555_555_5. 5o55_Eot__ <5 555555 5: 555 55555 - 55555555 5 55555 5.555555 2 5>5\55 2-53-5
.55_5_555_5. <5 55.55.55. .5555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 2 5>5\55 55-5.5-5
.55_5_555_u. 55:55.85. 55.55.55. 555555 5: 55555555 - 2555555 5 55555 5555555 5>5\55 2-53-5
.555_555_u. 55.555555. <5 55.55.55. .8555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 8 55555 55-5.5-5
<5 55.55.55. 555555 5. 55555555 - 5555555 5 55555 525555 5>5\55 3-5.5-5

55:55.25. 55.55.55. .5555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 2 5>5\55 2-55.5-5
55.555555. <5 55.55.55. ..55555 55. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 55555
.555_555.5. 555555555. <5 55.5255. ..55d<555. 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 55555 55-5.5-5
<5 55.55.55. 555555 55. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 2 5>5\5u 2-52-5
._55_5_555_5. 55.558555. <5 55.55.55. ..55j5\5u 55-5.5-5
555565555. <5 55.55.55 555555 55. 55555555 - 2.555555 5 55555 5555555 3 5555 55-5.3-5
555555555. <5 55.55.55. 55555.. 5. 55.555555 - 2.555555 5 55555 5555555 2 5555 55-5.3-5
.555_555_5. 55555555. <5 5555.55. 555555 55. 55.555555 - 55.555555 5 55555 5555555 5>5\5u 2-5.2-5
.55_5_555_5. 55:55.55. <5 55.55.55. .8555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 8 55555
<5 55.55.55. 555555 55. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 52.5555 2 5>5\55 2-53-5
:o:5_Eot__ <5 55.55.55. ..55j<555. .5555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5.555555 2 5555 55-5.3-5
.555_555_5. 55.555552. <5 55.5255. 555555 55. 55.55555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 5>5\55 2-52-5
.555.555_5. 555555555. <5 55.55.55. .3555 5. 5555555 - 55555555 5 55555 52.5555 2 55555 55-5.5-5
.55_5_555_5. <5 55.55.55. 555555 555. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 525555 3 5555 55-5.3-5
.555_555_5. <5 55.55.55. ..55j<555. 55555 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 52.5555 2 5555 55-5.2-5
5o_55_E5_.5_ <5 55.55.55 55555.. 55: 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 3 E555 2-53-5
<5 55_5=_55_ .5552. 5. 55555555 - 55555555 5 55555 5555555 2-53-5

525. 55552 555.5

zo_U:5o55

5:55 >55>ou5_5

mm: 5.05



28497

mm: mo?.

mzo mmsumoo - mmq?moo 5 me?mo 8 988
=8c_&m_25_ S: Bq?moo - v?imoo 8 o>o\8
_m_umam ?35 moo um mH-n_mm-3
moo ?mma mam: - 5 23mm 5
_o::ou _m_umam 5:5 cozzuwmoa .
is 3.. m3m__?m :80 Ba <5 ?mwma mam. wmmimoo - Smimoo 35$ 68.2. ~H-n_8-3
.u.__mEm 8.226 Ems mm?nmoo - Bm?moo mama Seats 8 o>o\8
_o._Eou _m_umnm 5:5 _zn_O Hm .8 wEm__m>m x_u2 um
<5 ?ommg mum. mmomoo - Smmomoo 5 W33 mmcemo 8 o>n_Bu
_o._Eou _m_umnm 5:5 cozzummoa
5.. Eou?ecma ..8m3 Ema mom?moo - Bmmomoo 5 93mm um
Eou?mbma 88. ommwomoo - 3.8 acmto 2 o>n<8 2-9.4-3
8_Em=d SE - Smmomoo 5 $25 agate 9. n_>oEu
co_umE.o.E_ ou::m:.O 2 - mnmoomoo mmumm mmcmu?o 3 2-9.4-3
Em. mnwmomoo - mommomoo mmc?mo 3
5
?cm?suon _umw.m_._u go new co:mE.ouE_ Hm? mowmomoo - mmumm 3
..8m8_ 5 Emmomoo - Emmomoo 5 82$ 35.3 8 938
>225 .5 mtaemaam mamas. S. - mommomoo 5 m?mm . acute 2 o>E8
_m_uwn_m 5:5 _m:m=u cozsummoi pm ?a2_
_o._Eou _m_uma_m 5:5
3.558% So 30:2, as Smmomoo - E?omoo 3.8 acsmo 2 o>E8
n__u new mmi mm.? momoo - Hmomomco 5. 93mm 9. n_>oEu
. seams
ncmeamam mamas. <5 Ea moo <5 48?: Em. Somomoo - Nmsamoo m?mm memto 2

35580.. .2: Em ?mma S. S?omoo - E?omoo m??mo 8 o>o\8
.
5:8 Ba <5 ..8m8 33.. omssmoo a??o 8 o>Q8

n_z< E2222

zo_U:ooE no 3:55.

m:E>oum_a

mm: mo?.



28498

mm:

ma com 3 co

.8 w_nm__m>m mumE _zoO cam <5 ?ommq - aomvamoo mwumm :25 omc?wo 5:5 mH.qmm-m~
NH 8 .5

.2 mums Eou?m?ma msE._s__ gamma Emu momzmoo - Smmomoo 8.8 :25 8:38 582% ~H-8m-m~
. NH new 3 co cozumqm? .8 m_nm__m>m mums.

623 moo ~$m~moo - a 8:5 acemo 8 o>o\8

_Bc_3m_u_ .2 mm: Nmm?moo - w?m?moo a meg acemo 8 o>o\8 3-8m-o~

?25 83:30 ..8mS 23 $838 - m??moo a mes 8:88 8 o>o\8

<6 9; <5 Se Nqm?moo - was magma 8 938

woo .:mm8 3 oom?moo - amszmoo a 8:5 8:38 8 938 3-8m-2

oz< 522:2 $53 zo_U:ooE mo 8:55. 22. >E>oum_o

mm:



28499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for LacL of SpeedyTrial
Manning,BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC,U.S.ArmyCarrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Enclosurell
mOctober 21112

28500

OEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY
U.S. ARM'r MiUTART OiSTRlCT OF WASHINGTON
m THIRD AVENUE
FORT LESLEY J. McNAtR, OC 20319-5059
/IgPLY TC

f r5«»Ti,';-N <

ANCG

JUN 0 3 m

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Assumption of Command By Authority of Paragraph 2-6, AR 600-20

The undersigned assumes command ofUnited States Army Military District ofWashington
(WOGVAA). Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319, effective 0001, 3 June 2011.

- # , 6 ^
MICHAEL S. LIN
MG, US Army
Commanding
DISTRIBUTION:
B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S.'Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



28501

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 20

10 October 2012





0 wk on xi 0 285?

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY munmr or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
soar LESLEY J. ueum, oc 203155013

REKY To

ATTENTION OF

28 July 201!

EMOR AN UM THR

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon.

Washington. DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for 2200 Anny Pentagon, Washington. DC 203l0

FOR Commander. US. Army Intelligence and Security Command. 8825 Beullah Street. Fort Belvoir. VA
22060

EC Tr Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - l_J_nited States v. PFC Bradlev E, Manning

1 . PU RPOS E. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request. dated 18
March 201 I.

2. BACKGROUND. Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs. and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorialiaes previous discussions eoneeming the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classification of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10. UCMJ. when an accused is in pretrial con?nement. the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See 10 U.S.C. ?8lO. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice. Additionally. the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Earka v. 407 US. 414 (l 972). All existing and future delays by your
organization could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPICNSE. [he prti_sgcutioii reviews 10 August 201 The purpose
of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution taim has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any ?xture delays.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at-.

M. --

ASHDEN Fl?lN

CPT. A

Trial Courscl
CF:
Mr. (OTJAG, DA)

Ms. - DOJ)

Ul"l'7lf. Hi i.



. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY . 28503

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. AHIIY ururnnv or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FOFIT ussuzv J. MOHAIR. oc 20319-5013

7 September 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU

Office of the Judge Advocate General 22(1) Arrny Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310 A

FOR Commander, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 8825 Beulah Street, Fort
Belvoir, VA 22060

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written
request, dated 18 March 2011. This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July
2011. -I

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,

photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (S IPRNET) websites and
transfening them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law. This request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions
concerning the use of documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the
classi?cation of those documents and evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the
United States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving
criminal cases. See 10 U.S.C. ?810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of
the charges with prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the
accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 414 (1972).
All existing and future delays by your organization could severely hinder the prosecution-
Enclosed is an information paper to further explain an accused's speedy trial rights in the military
justice system.

4. SUSPENSE. The rosecution re uests A rev'ew be In leted 11.

The purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation
for the pretrial investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



0 0 28504

FOR OFFICIAL USEONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradlcv Manning

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at_

UK

Encl ASHDEN FEIN
as CPT, IA
Trial Counsel

CFD01)

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





I A

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. mm IIUTARY DISTRICT 05
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. ucmm, DC 20319-5013


30 November 2010
70*?




MEMORANDUM THRU

Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Reviews

I. The prosecution team in the case of United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradiev E.
?1_n_n_i_gg requests your assistance and direct oversight in ensuring the appropriate Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) or their subject matter expert conduct a classi?cation review of
the following Department of Defense material no later tl_i__a_n 1 .lanuan' .2010:

a. PowerPoint presentation ?le named ?Brief to- Findings and Recs 8 Juneppt?
(enclosed).

b. PowerPoint presentation file named ?Farah Brief FINAL v8 24 May 09.ppt? (enclosed).
c. JTF-Guantanamo Bay Detainee Assessments (enclosed).
2. PFC Manning is currently charged with downloading various documents, photographs,
and videos from Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) websites and transferring them to his
personal computer. PFC Manning subsequently transmitted this infomiation to persons or
organizations not entitled to receive them, in violation of U.S. law.

3. The classi?cation review should answer the following questions:

a. Whether the information was appropriately classi?ed under applicable law at the time it
was compromised?

b. What is the current classi?cation level of the infomtation in the document?

c. Whether disclosure of the information to the public could reasonably be expected to cause
damage to the national security of the United States in the degree warranted by the
classi?cation?

. . 28506
ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review

4. The prosecution team requests each OCA or their subject matter expert on classi?ed
information use the enclosed sample declaration to answer the above questions. This request
supplements previous informal requests made by the prosecution team to the different OCAs.

S. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at -or


kg
Encl ASHDEN FEIN
as

Chief, Military Justice

2





FOR OFFICI .. om); wf 1; 285"

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY mmanv DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. ucmun, oc 20319-5013

ANJA-CL 13 March 2011
MEMORANDUM Tritium Law Enforcement
and Intelligence, United States Department of State

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), United States Department of State

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Class (PFC)
Bradlev E. Manning



1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate
authority ?nalize their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. See Enclosure 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
Information to the Accused and the Defense, dated 14 March 2011.



1 PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and B4 ofthe UCMJ (I8 U.S.C. 793 and I8 U.S.C. I030). See Enclosures 2 and 3.

FOR OFFICIAL ONLY WI ENCLOSURE I)



A it 10 ?ll . tr? 28508


SI EBJ Request for Classification Review United _States v. Private ljirst (?lassg PFC)


FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all information presently within the
possession of law enforcement and the prosecution which is expected to he used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure 1. The prosecution team may submit future requests for classification reviews
ifadditional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. ln addition, the prosecution may submit future requests for classification reviews of
classilied information the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED

21 l3etain_Qlassiticjat_i_Qn. This request will not affect the classification ofany ofthe subject
information.

2 ?lfthe accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassilied information in any
manner in connection with a court?martial proceeding. the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file :1 copy ofsuch notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the militaryjudge under subdivision or. ifno time has been speeilied- prior to
arraignment ofthc accused." S05(h)(

?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced ifthc proceedings remain open; (3) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interesr. (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c findings on the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(3). A classification review ofthe information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceed ings remain open.



ts: ri\t?i i-at



DH-it 1.. st t)\l 1, 28509


SUBJECT: Request for (?lassilication Review - United Statesv. Privag?rst (PIE)
Bradley E, Manning

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to clmsilied information. each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 6.

e. Clearances Each member of the deferue team has security clearances ul the minimum level
of "Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of "Top
Secret.?

d. cure Facilitv. All classified information will be stored ina United States government
appmved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and US. Army regulations

e. Security At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified infonnation. at
least one defense security expert. appointed and employed by the United States will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed infonriation. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. team requests this approval by 31 March lol I. The purpose of

this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre?trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ.

8. "ll-re point for this request is the undersigned at

I


6 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
Classified lividence for Review CPT. JA
. Charge Sheet. 5 Jul l0 Chief. Military Justice


2
3. Charge Sheet. Marl

4. Sample Aflidavit

5. Sample (?over letter for OCA
6. Protective Order. l7 Sep I0

(OTJAG. DA)



3
Hill i'l( f)\l t\l-t RF v\ Hi





tutti?! HI ID an; ml 0 23510

DEPARTMENT 0? THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY HIUTARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. UCNAIR DC 20319 5013

REPLY TO
5

18 March 20l

Tl-lRli

Oftice ofthe Judge Advocate General -. 2200 Army Pentagon.?

Washington. DC 20310
Deputy For Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington. DC
20310

FOR Commander, US. Army Intelligence and Security Command. 8825 Beullah Street. Fort
Belvoir. VA 2060

SUBJECT: Request for (?lassi?cation Review l_i_r_i_ited States v. Private First
Bradley E. Mannine -

l. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate
authority?nalize their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. Sec Enclosure 1.

2. BACK GROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs, and videos from Secret lnternet Protocol Router Network websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organivations not entitled to receive it in violation of United States
law.? This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation ofthose documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose (?lassilied
lnformation to the Accused and the Defense, dated l4 March 201 l.



Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the violating Aniclcs

92. I04. and l34 ofthe UCMJ (l3 USC. 793 and l8 I030). Sec Enclosures land 3.

{Kt -z\i ?xi

?wt 2-



Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. Private First Class



Bradlet lei. Mannine



4. FUTURE This request includes all information presently within the
possession of law ettforcemetit and the prosecution which is expected to be used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure l. The prosecution team may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews
if additional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. in addition, the prosecution may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews of
classi lied infonuatioit the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIHED

3 ?ifthc accused reasonabiy expects to disclose or to cause the discio~3ure ofclassilied ittforntatiori in any
manner in connection with a court?martial proceeding. the accused shall notify the trial cotmsei in writing
oisuch intention and tile a cop); of such notice with the judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the under subdivision or. ifno time has been speci?ed. prior to
arraignment ofthe accused? 505th)( i.

ii "Courts-martial shaft be open to the public unless there a substantial probability that an overriding.
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate: and (4) the rnilitary judge ma kes case-specific Findings on the record justifying closure."
RCM 80b(b)(2). A classilicatioit review oi? the information is the usuai method ol'detnonstr2ttim_1 the
?overriding i nterest? that be prejudiced ifthe proceed ings remain open.



st rm ll 28512

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - t5 v. Private ?rst lass LPF
Bmdlev hlmnirtg

a. Retain Classification. This request will affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information

Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information. each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
aeoes and use. See Enclosure 6.

Clearanggs. Each member of the defense team has security clearancs at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the converting authority
and PFC Manning will have acecs to the disclosed infomtation. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret."

d. Secure Facilitv. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tsted
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and US. Army regulations.

e. Securitv At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information. at
least one defense security expert. appointed and employed by the United States. will be
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. The prosecution team ncauests this approval bv 31 . The purpose of
this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32.

8. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned a



6 Encls FEIN
l. lassified Evidence for Review CPT. IA

1 Charge Sheet. 5 Jul l0 Chief, Military Justice
3. Charge Shoct. I Mar I

4. Sample Aflidavit

5. Sample Cover Letter for

6. Protective Order. 17 Sep I0

CF: (wlencls)

Mrl(l~ at.? \t Kl li





2 ?at; .1 il\i?; '15: -
. 0 23513

I - l?.l

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARIIY
U.S. ARMY HIIJTARY OF WASHINGTON
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. ucmun. DC 20319 5013

T0
ATTENTION OF

18 March 20ll
THRU Office of the General Counsel.
National Security Agency

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA). National Security Agency

Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private Fir_st_?lass


l. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate
authority /inulizc their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. Sue Enclosure l.

2. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classified documents.
photographs and videos from Secret lntemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States
law.' This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
to the Accused and the Defense, dated :4 March 20:1.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ. including violating Articles
92. I04, and I nfthe UCMJ (l 8 USE. 793 and l8 l030). Sec F.nclosures 2 and 3.

I-tit.? ?l?lli ll 1 l\Iil 1'18! l:




Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First (?lags
Liras?ci

4. This request includes all information presently within the
possession oflaw enforcement and the prosecution which is expected to be used at triaL as set
forth in Enclosure l- The prosecution team may submit future requests for classification reviews
if additional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. In addition. the prosecution may submit future requests for classification reviews of
classified information the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
proctxiures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED

EL Retain Classification. This request will not affect the classification ofany of the subject
infomtation.

3 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassified information in any
manner in connection wih a court-martial proceeding. the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy ofsuch notice with the Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the militaryjudge under subdivision or. if no time has been specified. prior to
arraignment ofthc accused." .'v1Rli S05(h)(l).

"(?oui1s?mz1rtial shall be open to the public unless( there 6 a substantial probability that an overriding,
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) rtzsonablc alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate. and (4) the military judge makes case-specific findings on the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2i. A classification review oftlte information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

(Pi ivtt ft

FUR SF l) 28515

-
SUBJECT: Request for Classification Review - United States v. Private First
Bg?lgv l-L Manning

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent acces to classi?ed inl'ormation..each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Encloatre 6.

. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information. under supervision All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facilitv. All classified information will be stored in a United States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility.-pursuant to Executive Order and US. Anny regulations

e. S?ct_t_r1?ty At all times during the viewing or testing of classilied infonnation. at
least one defense security-expert. appointed arri employed by the United States. will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the clmsifred infortmtion. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings

7. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team this approval bv 3| Mich 20l I. lhe purpose of

this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation forthe we-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ.

8. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

Lang?

6 F.ncls ASHDEN FEIN
l. Classi?ed Evidence for Review CPT. JA
2. Charge Sheet. 5 Jul IO (mar. Military Justice

3. Charge Sheet, Mar I I
4. Sample Aliidavit
5. Sample Cover Letter for OCA

Protective Order. I7 Sep I0

CF: (w/ends)
Mr. (OT JAGill" ll





. i_ . . I 28516
\i t?

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARIIY
u.s. ARIIY HILITARY or WAS moron
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucmun, oc 203195013

REPLY TO
ATTENTKN OF

I8 March 201 1
Intelligence. Ollie:
ofthe Director olilxatio ml lritelltgerice

FUR Original Classi?cation Authority ()tTiee olithe Director ofNational Intelligence

SUBJECT: Request for Classification Review - United States v._Private first Class Ll?l?C)
Bradl ex" i_n_g

. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced ease requests the appropriate
authority ?nalize their classification reviews ofthe enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution ot?l?l7C Manning. See Enclosure .

2- PFC Manning is charged with downloading various elassitied documents.
photographs and videos from Secret lnternet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
infonnation to persons or organimtions not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States
law.? This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation ofthose documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classified
lnfomiation to the Accused and the Defense, dated l4 March 20l .



Manning is currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ. including violating Articles
I04. and l3~l ofthe UCMJ (I8 793 and I8 U.S.C. 53 W30). Sec Enclosures la?: bit 1.

as 9-. -5 :3 s, ?vi.
.: WV: 3

A NJ
SUIEJECT: Request for Classification Review linited States V. Private First Class


. 28517


-1. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all inliirrnation presently within the
possession of law enforcement and the prosecution which expected to be used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure l. The prosecution team ntay submit future requests for classification reviews
ifadditional documents and eviclence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. in addition. the prosecution may submit future requests for classificmion reviews of
classi?ed i ttliinnution the defense intends to introduce during the court-rnitrtial- subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED

This request will git aftect the classi?cation fan}; of the subject
information.

I ?lfthe accused reasonably expects to disclose one cause the disclosure of classitied information in any
manner in with a cnu.rt-ma rtial proceeding. the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
olisuch intention and lile :1 copy oil such notice with the military ridge. Such notice shall be given within
thetime specified by the military judge under subdivision let or. ifno time has been speci?ed. prior to
arraignment otitht: accused.? RE 5/ll?lhlt ll.

5 ?Cntu1s-martial shall be open to the public unlessl there :1 substantial that an overriding
interest will be preiudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (3) closure is no broaderthan necessary to
protect the overriding. interest: (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and the military makes case~spccitic ?nding;-; on the record justifyittg closure-"
RCM 806l_b)t 2). A clzuzsiliczitiun review of the information is the usual method the
?m?'erriding interest" that ill be prejudiced iltht: proceedings remain open.

it 3. ~31 3 .


Request for Classification Review - vi Private First Class


h. P_r_otective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classilicd information. each
member ofthe defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See linclosttre o.

c. l-Lach member olithe defense team has security clearances or 1/14: mmimum /ever?
cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed infomtation. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level ol"?Top
Secret.?

d. All classilied information will be stored in a United States govemment
approved secure and storage container. The infomtation will only be viewed or tested
within a secure tiacility. pursuant to I-Ixecutive Order and LS. Army regulations.

e. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information. at
least one defense security expert- appointed and em?plo_yed by the United States will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage ofthe classified information. A government security
expert will be present For all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SIISPEEVSE- this approval h\ 3! March 201 I. The purpose of

this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 31

8. The point ofcontact for this request is the undersigned at

6 lincls

l. (?Eassitied Evidence for Revieu
2. (?harge Sheet. 5 Jul It") (Thief. Militar_\' Justice
(?harge Sheet. .\lar

4.
5. Sample Cover Letter for
6. Protectiveorder. 17 Sep

Cl?: (w/encls)




Mr. (NSA)
Ms .

V)





rm: unit I xi? rm . rxi re? 28519

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY uruunv DISTRICT or wssumoron
210 A smear
soar LESLEY J. ucumn, oc 20319-5013

REPLY 70
or

18 March 2011

EMO RAN DU THRU

(mice of the Judge Advocate General i_ 2200 Anny Pentagon.

Washington. DC 20310
Deput) Chiefol?StatT for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington. DC
203 l0

FOR Commander, US. Southern Command. 351 1 Northwest 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33l72

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review States v. Private First Class I l?l'C)
8. rd. d.

l. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate
authority finalize their classification reviews ofthe enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution Manning. Sec Enclosure 1.

2. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs. and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRN ET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
infomiation to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation ol'United States
law.? This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation ofthosc documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
Information to the Accused and the Defense, dated 14 March 20l .



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ. including violating Articles
92. 104. and I34 ofthe (I8 U.S.C. 703 and I8 I030). Sec Enclosures 2 and 3.

i\l. i \l U515 UNI it



A 28520




ANJA-CL
Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. Private First (?lass Pi)
Bradlev E. Manninu



4. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all information presently within the
possession of law enforcement and the prosecution which '5 expected to be used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure l. The prosecution team may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews
if additional documenm and evidence are detemiined to be useful during the court-martial
process- ln addition. the prosecution may submit future requests for classification reviews of
classi?ed information the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

3 "If the accused reasonably expects to disclose orto cause the disclosure ofclassi?cd information in any
manner in connection with at court?mania| proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy ofsuch notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the militaryjudge under or. if no time has been specified. prior to
arraignment ofthe accused." S05(h)( I.

i ?Courts-martial chall be open to the public l)there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open: (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding ititerest: (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the tnilitaryjudge makes case?s'peci?c findings on the record justifying closure.?
806(b)(2). A classification review ofthc information is the usual method
"overriding interest? that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

ix)



. K. -.
?ti


Request for (?lassitication Review - United States v. Private First tl?l??f.t


a. Retaivii This request will n_ot affect the classi?cation ofany ofthe subject
information.

b. l_?_rot_ecti_ve Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information. each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 6.

C. Each member ofthe defense team has security clearances at the minimmn level
of"Secret cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed infonnation. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of "Top
Secret."

d. All classilied information will be stored ina United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and US. Artny regulations.

e. At all times during the viewing or testing ofthe classi?ed information. at
least one defense security expert. appointed and employed by the United States. will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classified information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SIESPENSR. ]'he team requests this approval ht? 31 March 201 l. The purpose of

this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pretrial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ.

8. The point ofcontact for this request is the uttdersigned .

linels |7lili\7

6

l. Classified lividence for Reviev. CPT.

2. (?harge Sheet. 5 Jul 10 Chief. Military Justice
3. Charge Sheet. I Mar ll

Sample .-\lTidavit
Sample Cover Letter for
Protective Order. l7 Sep I0



(?Fr (xv/encls)

Mr. (NSA

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MELITARY OF wnsumcmn
210 A STREET
roar LESLEY J. MCNAER, DC 20319 5013

REFLY
ATTENTKEW OF
13 March 20] 3

- if.) i .5 hr!" TH

of the Jiidge Genera! 2200 Anny

Wzishington. DC 20316
Deputy for iriteliigence if Ami}: DC
203 I0

FUR Coiiminnd, 35 South Boundary: Btiulcvard. A FB, FL
33623 -



Requ??i Ebr
Brodie?;

The prosecution team in the case requests the appropriate
authority their ctassitication reviin the criminal Manniitg, Encttisiire E.

2. 1). PFC Nlaiinittg is charged with downloading various clzissitied documents,
and videos from Secret Protocoi Router Network ET) websites and
transikrring them to his pezsonai computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons organizsations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
iawzi This request meinoriaiixcs {irevious discussions the use of documents and
evidence at triai originating in your aggency and the classification ofthose documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disciosc Clzissi?ed
lnfonnation to the Accused and {he Detierise. dated 34 March 20} 1.

PFC Mzittning is with intsiripic of the iinicies
1021. and E34 ofthe UCMJ 18 793 and E8 IUSO). .9c=c* Enciosures 2 and 3.

3i i

28522







0 28523

?l at l-;l

tikt?llafl


Request for Classification Review - United States v. Private First (?lass




4. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all infomtation presently within the
possession of law enforcement and the prosecution which is expected to be used at triaL as set
forth in Enclosure l. The prosecution team may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews
ifadditional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. ln addition, the prosecution may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews of
classi?ed infomtation the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED

3 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassified information in any
manner in connection with a court-mania! proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
ofsuch intention and file a copy of such notitr with the militaiyjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the militaryjudge under subdivision or. ifnu time has been specified, prior to
arraignment ofthc accused." RF 505(h)( I).

shall be open tothe public unless( I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest (3) reasonable alternatives to closure vs ere considered and found
inadequate, and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c findings on the recordjustifying closure."
A classification review ofthe information is the usual method ofdemonstrating the
"overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.



w\l I



. 28524
Hits? - lust

ANJA-C
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United ?es v. Private First Class (l?l?Q_t
Bradlcv E. Manning



a. Retain lassilication. This request will r_i9_t affect the classi?cation of any ofthe subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information. each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
acces and use. See Enclosure 6.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information. under supervision. All panel

members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret."

(1 Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. Sccuritv At all times during the viewing or rating ofthe classi?ed information. at
least one defense security. expert. appointed and employed by the United States. will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the clasilicd infomiation. A security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SUSPENSE. prosecution team rcgucsts this approval by 3| March 201 l. 'lhe purpose of
this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ.

8. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned a

6 F.ncls ?Ksitotsu

lassi?ed Evidence for Review PT.

Charge Sheet. 5 Jul I0 Chief. Military Justice
Charge Sheet. I Mar ll

Sample Aflidavit

Sample over Letter for OCA

Protective Order. l7 Sep l0



CF:

Mr. (NSA)
Ms. . D01. 28525



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY HHLITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR, DC 20319 sma

REFLV TO
ATTE NHGH OF



ts March 201 1

TI IRE

Adxtocate Gettertti 2200 Army

\Vash?ngt-an, DC 3031 (.1
Deputy Intelligentze \Vashim_zt0n. DC
203% 0 -

[7 Cenmtand. Savage R0311. Fart George Ci. Meade. E)

213755

Request for - Iin?tcd States 2. Private First Ciass
Bres?iss

I. T111: team in the case requests the appropriate
authority firtuhsrz their ciassi?cation of the enclosed and evitience to he used
in the criminal prosecution 01? PFC Enciosure

2. Manning; is charged with classified documents.
photngraphs, and videus from Secret Internet Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
trartsfenixtg them to his personal camputer. PFC Mannin5._: is also charged with transmitting; this
inibrmation to persons or Qrganizatiotts not emitted to receive it. in violation United States
{aw} This request memerializcs previous discussions concemting the use and
cvidettce at triai originating in your agency and the classi?cation ofthosc: documents and
cvidettce. This request is in addition t0 the Request for Cunsent? to Disciosc Ciassi?ed
htformatimt to the Accused and the Defense. dated 14 March 31)} I.



PFC 2??v?iz?mni:t3; is with znuttipie viutaticms ofthc UC MJ, inciuding vicniating Articles
02, I04. and {Set UCMJ U.S.C. 793 and I8 lindostsres 2 and 3.





0 0 28526

-at It mi: ts!


F.CT: Request for Classilication Review - United States v. Private First




4. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all information presently within the
possession oflaw enforcement and the prosecution which is expected to be used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure 1 . The prosecution team may submit future requests for classification reviews
ifadditional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial
process. In addition. the prosecution may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews of
classified infonnation the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED

I accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassilied in formation in any
manner in connection with a coun-martial proceeding. the accused shall notify the counsel in writing
ofsuch intention and ?le a copy ofsuch notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the military judge under subdivision or. if no time has been specified. prior to
arraimnt ofthe accused." MRE 50S(h)(

?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless I) there is a substantial probability that an oveniding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open: (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest: (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the militaryjudge makes case?specific findings on the recordjustifying closure."
RCM A classification review ofthe information is the usual method ofdemonstrating the
"overriding, interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

In)

.l



0 28527
(?)FFtt . .. ts/I Rt ll

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United Snares v. Pritga?fiirst
Etecilsl?-iv?aniys

a. Retain This request will g_o_t affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information. each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 6.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of "Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and Manning will have access to the disclosed information. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security elmrances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classilied inl'orrnation will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The infonnation will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and US. Army regulations.

e. Seeuritv At all times during the viewing or testing ofthc classi?ed information. at
least one defense security expert. appointed and employed by the United States. will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage ofthe classi?ed information. A govemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. The prosecution team requests this apgoval by 31 March ZOI I. The purpose of
this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation forthe pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UC

8. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned .

6 FEIN

l. Classified Evidence for Review CPT. JA

2. Charge Sheet. 5 Jul l0 Chief. Military Justice
3. Charge Sheet. Mar I I

4. Sample A?idavit

5. Sample Cover Letter for

6. Protective Order. l7 Sep l0

CF:




(NBA



iv?: I i



HER (it! it 1..
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. mm or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. ucnmn, oc 20319-5013

I8 March 201 I

THRIF I ()flice ofthe
General CounseL l)cfense lnfonnation S3 (1 \\'cttue. Fort George (3.
Meade. MD 20755

FOR Director. Defense Information Systems Agency. 6910 Cooper Avenue. Fort George G-
Meade. MD 20755

SUBJECT: Request for (?lassitication Review - United States v. Private First Class (PFC)
E. Manning

I. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate
authority finalize their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used
in the criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. Sec Enclosure 1.

PFC Manning is changed with dovmloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs. and videos from Secret lnternet Protocol Router Network websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
infonnation to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States
law} This request memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classilication ofthose documents and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
lnformation to the Accused and the Defense. dated I4 March 201 I.

Manning '5 currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ. including violating Articles
92. l04_ and l34 ofthe (l8 U.S.C. 793 and l8 1030). Set? Enclosures 3 and 3.

sec? ..

28528





0 28529

if \l H\l ?i "sit - ii


Request tor Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private (Pl-?Ct




4. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all infomiation presently within the
possession of law en forcement and the prosecution which is expected to be used at trial. as set
forth in Enclosure I . The prosecution team may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews
if additional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-mania!
process. ln addition. the prosecution may submit future requests for classification reviews of
classilied infonnation the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial. subject to the
procedures outlined below.

6. OF CLASSIFIED

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will not atiect the classi?cation of any l?the subject
inlionnation.

3 "If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassitied hformation in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding. the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
ofsuch intention and tile 2: copy ofsuch notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or. ifno time has been speci?ed, priorto
arraignment ofthe accused." MRF. 50S(h)( i

??Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (3) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-specific lindings on the recordjustifying closure.?
A classification review ofthe information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest" that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

7

'lFl '1 Kl "1 11*? Ni? ll



i. 28530
l?


SU Request for Clssilication Review - United States v. Private First Class

gag]; E., Manning

b. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information. each
member ofthe defense team will sign a protective order. acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 6.

c. lcarances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of "Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed infomiation. under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearmces at the minimum level of "Top
Secret.?

d. Secure All classified information will be stored in a United States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility. pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. Security At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information. at
least one defense security expert. appointed and employed by the United States. will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage ofthe classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this approval by 31 March 201 l. The purpose of
this susperme is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Aniclc 32.

8. 'lhc point of contact for this request is the undersigned a



6 Encls
Classified Evidence for Review PT. JA

Charge Sheet. 5'Jul l0 Chief. Military Justice
Charge Sheet. I Mar ll

Sample Aflidavit

Sample Cover Letter for

Protective()nder. l7 Sep I0



CF:



(OTJAG



0 0 28531

51'.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY IILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucauun. oc 2031:5013

ANJA-CL 28 July 201]



Oflice of the Judge Advocate Ge-neral 2200 Army Pentagon.

Washington. DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence 2200 Anny Pentagon. Washington. DC 203l0 .

FOR ommanda. U.S. aitral ommand. 7| I5 South Boundary Boulevard. MacDill AFB. FL 33621

Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v- PFC Bf21dlC}?

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority

their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request. dated 18
March 20] 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs. and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRN ET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documatts and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classification of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10. UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial confinement. the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See 10 U.S.C. ?8l0. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice. Additionally. the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. $11139. 407 U.S. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
organization could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSI-I. rgquests your reviews be completed bv 10 August 201 l. The purpose
of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

FEIN

PT.

Trial Counsel
CF:
Mr._ DA)
M31

(til if i\l.





0 0 28532

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. DISTRIBT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STFIET
FORT LESLEY J. IICNAIR, DC 20319-5013

7 September 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

FOR Commander, U.S. Central Command, 7115 South Boundary Boulevard, MacDill AFB, FL
3362]

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written
request, dated 18 March 2011. This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July
201 1 .

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law. This request is the second written request that rnemorializes previous discussions
concerning the use of documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the
classi?cation of those documents and evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial confinement, the
United States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving
criminal cases. See 10 U.S.C. ?810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of
the charges with prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the
accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingg, 407 U.S. 414 (1972).
All existing and future delays by your organization could severely hinder the prosecution.
Enclosed is an information paper to further explain an accused?s speedy trial rights in the military
justice system. .

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution reguests your reviews be completed by 3] September 2011.

The purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation
for the pre-trial investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28533
FOR OFFICIAL USE ON LY


SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - ugigeg v, Bradlcv Manning

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned a*

(L

Encl ASHDEN FEIN
as CPT, A

Trial Counsel
CF:

Mr. OTJAG, DA)
Ms

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMAND OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WAS-IINGTON
210JSTREET
FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR. DC 20319-5013



6 October 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU

Of?ce of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Anny Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC

20310
FOR Commander, U.S. Central Command, 7115 South Boundary Boulevard, MacDill AFB, FL
3362]

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the aboveereferenced case requests the appropriate authority
complete their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written
request, dated 18 March 201 1. This request is in addition to previous requests, dated 28 July
2011 and 7 September 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. The accused is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. The accused is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law. This request is the written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning
the use of documents and evidence at trial originating in your command and the classi?cation of
that information. I

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the
United States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving
criminal cases. See 10 U.S.C. 810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of
the charges with prejudice, a result that may forever bar re?Iitigating this case- Additionally, the
United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy
trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 414 (1972). All existing and ?iture delays by your
command could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests your reviews be completed no later than 31 October
201 1. Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the prosecution must have your command?s completed
classi?cation review to proceed. The prosecution strongly anticipates the Article 32
investigation will occur in November. Any delay by your command to comply with this ?rm
deadline may severely jeopardize the prosecution.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

28534

0 28535

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFQ Bradley Manning

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undetsigned at




FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel
CF:
Mn CNSA)
D01)

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





0 28536

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOS 1}

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY EISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR. DC 20319-5013

ANJA-CL 18 October 2011

MEMORANDUM TH RU

Of?ce of the Judge Advocate Genera1 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAM I-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

FOR Commander, U.S. Central Command, 7115 South Boundary Boulevard, MacDill AFB, FL
33621

SUBJECT 2 Additional Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. Private First Class
PF Cl Bradlev Mannina

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
conduct a classi?cation review of the enclosed documents to be used in the criminal prosecution
of PFC Manning. See Enclosure 1. This request supplements the prosecution's previous request,
dated 18 March 2011. -

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
info1;mation to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.



1 PFC Manning is cunently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 of the UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 3} 1030). See Enclosure 2.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w! ENCLOSURE 1)



28537
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE I)


SUBJECT: Additional Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Class
QPFQ Bradley Manning

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Eetain Classi?cation. This request will Q93 affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 5.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret-? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel

1 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the ti me speci?ed by the rnilitaryjudge under subdivision or, if no time been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused." MRE 505(h)(l

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than neccssary to
protect tle overriding intermt; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A clasi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating tle
?overriding interest" that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE l)

. . 28538

FOR OFFICIAL USE ON LY wl ENCLOSURE I)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Additional Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Class
(PFC) Bradley Manning

members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret."

d. Secure Eggilitv. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. Security Exp_e_ns. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed infomiation, at

. least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present

to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classified information. A govemmeut security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests immediate review of these additional documents and
inclusion in the rcview of documents and evidence conducted in response to the prosecution's I8

March 2011 request and subsequent correspondence.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned a

/1



5 Encls
l. Classi?ed Evidence for Review CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Trial Counsel
3. Sample Af?davit
4. Sample Cover Letter for OCA
5. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10
CF:
Mr. NSA)
mm. no?
3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE l)







FOR OFFICIAL IFSE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARIN uunnv or WASHIIGTON
210 A STREET
roar LES.EY J. ucuuz. Dc 20319-am

ANJA-CL 7 September 201 I

MEMORANDUM 0? the General

Central Intelligence Agency
FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Central Intelligence Agency

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classification Review - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority complete
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request, dated I8
March 201 1. This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July 20l I.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret lntemet Protocol Router Network (S IPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organimtions not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL Under Article l0, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See I0 U.S.C. ?8l0. The only remedy for an Article I0 violation is dismissal of the charges with

prej udice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Baker g. Wingo. 407 U.S. 4140972). All existing and future delays by your
agency could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests v' ws com I

purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ, and to minimize any future delays. Enclosed is an
information paper to ?mher explain an accused's speedy trial rights in the military justice system.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at




lg:


Enel ASHDEN EIN
as CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

cl-2'

DA)

M5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





0 . 28540

l-tn-i UH-ll"! ?ti l\l:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY uturatnv or WASHINGTON
210 A STREEI
roar LESLEY J. utcmua. oc 20319-5013

TD
ATTENTION OF

28 July 20ll

MEMORANDUM Tatum raw Enrorcemcm and
United States Department of State

FOR Original lassi?cation Authority (OCA). United States Department of State

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. Manning

. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request. dated 18
March 201 l.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that mernorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10. UCMJ. when an accused is in pretrial con?nement. the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to conttnue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See l0 U.S.C. 558 I 0. The only remedy for an Article l0 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice Additionally. the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Qgrker v. Wingt_i, 407 U.S. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
department could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENS E. The prosecution requests vour reviews be completed by 10 August 20l_l_. The purpose
of this stspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

FEIN
PT. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:

Mr._ (OTJAG. om
00?





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (CONFIDENTIAL wl ENCLOSURE I)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARIYILITARY or wasmucrou
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. ucwm. oc 20319-5013

LY
ATIENWQ OF

4August 2011

MEMORANDUM mu Law Enrorcemem

and Intelligence, United States Department of State

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), United States Department of State

SUBJECT: Request ?r Classi?cation Review - Lgrited Stat; v. Private Fm Clog (EEQ)
AmEg

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
finalize their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used in the
criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. See Enclosure 1. This request supplemmts the
prosecution's previous request, dated 18 March 201 l.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning '5 charged with downloading varhus classi?ed documents,
and videos from Secret lntanet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferringthem to his personal mmputa: PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting th's
inforrmtion to persons or orgariizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.' This request mernorializes previous discussions concerning the use of docurnerts and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence This request is in addition to the Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
lnibrmation to the Accused and the Deferse, dated 14 March 2011.

PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ. including violating Articles
92, I04, and l34 ofthe UCMJ (I8 U.S.C. 793 and I8 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosure 2.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (S wl ENCLOSURE I)

28541





. . 28542

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (CONFIDENTIAL wl ENCLOSURE l)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Class (PFC)
Bradley E. Manning

4. FUTURE REQUESTS. ?This request includes all information presently within the
possession of law enforcement and the prosewtion which is expected to be used at trial, as set
forth in Enclosure 1. The prosecution may submit ?xture requests for classi?cation reviews if
additional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial process.
In addition, the prosecution may submit ?iture requests classi?cation reviews ofelassi?ed
information the defense intends to introduce during the court-martiaL subject to the procedures
outlined below.

6. PROTECTION on CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will not a?ect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or. if no time Ins been specified, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE

'1 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain opal; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the infonnation is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2
FOR OFFICIAI, USE ONLY (CONFIDENTIAL wl ENCLOSURE l)





. 0 28543

FOR USE ONLY (CONFIDENTIAL wl ENCLOSURE ll

AN JA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Cl_2_1ss PF C)
Bradley E. Manning

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 5.

c. . Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the de?ense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

(1. Secure Facility. All clmsi?ed infomiation will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations

e. At all times during the viewing ortestingof the clmsi?ed information, at
lemt one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed infonriation. A government security
expert will be present all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SUSPENSE. The prosecution 201 1. The
purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution has the adequate documentation for the pre-

trial investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ.

3. The point ofeontact ?ir this request is the undersigned at

/3


5 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
l. Classi?ed Evidence Review CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar ll Trial Counsel

3. Sample Affidavit
4. Sample Cover Letter for OCA

5. Protective Order, 17 10

CF: (w/encls)
(OTJAG, DA)

Mr-

90?)

3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE I)



28544

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY IIUTARY DISTRICT OF VIASHIIGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. BOMB. DC N319-5013

7 September 2011

MEMORANDUM Foam Law Enrowemcm and
Intelligence, United States Department of State

FOR Original Classification Authority (OCA), United States Department of State

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classification Review - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority comglete
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution?s original written request, dated 18
March 2011 . This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photogaphs, and videos front Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorialize-s previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial confinement, the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See 10 U.S.C. ?8l0. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Qrker v. Wingo, 407 US. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
department could severely hinder the prosecution. Enclosed is an information paper to further explain an
accuseds speedy trial rights in the military justice system

4. SUSPENSE. The rosecu i v?ew com leted 21 2 11. The
purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.



5. The point nr contact fol? this memorandum is the undersigned at -u2_


Encl ASHDE
as CPT, IA
Trial Counsel

CF

Mr. (OTJAG, DA)
Ms. D01)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28545
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARHY
U.S. ARMY MLITARY OF WASRINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. 20319-5013

6 October 201

MEMORANDUM roam Law Enforcement and
intelligence, United States Department of State

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), United States Dqaartment of State

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United gates v. PFC Bradley Manning

l. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority complete
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request, dated l8
March 20] I. This request is in addition to previous requests, dated 28 July 2011 and 7 Sqrtembcr 20l l.

2. BACKGROUND. The accused is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret lntemet Protocol Router Network websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. The accused is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law. This
request is the gig written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trialoriginating in your department and the classi?cation of that information.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article l0, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial confinement, the United
States is required to use ?reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See 10 U.S.C. 8l0. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice, a result" that may forever bar re-litigating this case. Additionally, the United States must ensure
it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial- See 407 U.S.
4 I4 1972). All existing and future delays by your department could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests your reviews be completed no later than 31 October 2011.
Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the prosecution must have your department's completed clas??cation
review to proceed. The prosecution strongly anticipates the Article 32 investigation will ocqrr in
November. Any delay by your department to comply with this firm deadline may severely jeopardize the
prosecution.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

FEIN

CPT, .lA

Trial Counsel
CF:
Mr. (OTJAG, DA)
MS-

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



. . 28546

-.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. Armv uunnv DISTRICT or-' wnsumsrou
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. ucum, oc 20319-5013

REPLY 1'0
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 23 July 2011

THRU

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon.

Washington. DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAM 2200 Anny Pentagon. Washington. DC 20310

FOR Commander. U.S. Southern Command. 35! Nortliwest 91st Avenue Miami. FL 33172

Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PEC Bradlev E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. 'llte prosecution in the above?refenenccd case requests the appropriate authority cin;iQl_t;1_g_
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request, dated l8
March 201 l.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs. and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organimtions not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classification of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article l0. UCMJ. when an accused is in prdrial con?nement, the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on rcsolving criminal (2356.
See 10 U.S.C. {$810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal ofthe charges with
prejudice. Additionally. the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wig. 407 US. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
organimtion could severely hinder the prosecution

4. SUSPENSI-1. The prosecution reguests mur reviews be 10 August 201 1. The purpose
of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the prc?tria1
investigation. pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

ASHDEN
PT. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:

DA)
(CtiS. DOJ)

i Hi





28547
FOR OFFICIAQUSE ONLY wl ERLLOSURE I)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY Dlsralcr or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. ucmun, oc 20319-5013

'1 REPLY To
lTl"EN'l'lOll OF

ANJA-CL 4 August 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU

O?ice of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310

Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310 7

FOR Commander, U.S. Southern Command, 3511 Northwest 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33172

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. Private First Class (PFC)
Bradlev E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority

._/inalize their classi?cation reviews of the enclosed documents and evidence to be used in the

criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. See Enclosure 1. This request supplements the
prosecution's previous requst, dated 18 March 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos ?'om Secret lntemct Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.' This request memorialize; previous discussions concerning the use of documents and
evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documaits and
evidence. This request is in addition to the Requests for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed
Information to the Accused and the Defense, dated 14 March 2011 and 4 August 2011-



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and 134 ofthc UCMJ (18 793 and I8 1030). See Enclosure 2.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wt? ENCLOSURE I)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE l)

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First (PFC)
Bggley E. Manning

4. FUTURE REQUESTS. This request includes all inforimtion presently within the
possession of law en?ircement and the prosecution which is expected to be used at trial, as set
forth in Enclosure 1. The prosecuion my submit future requests for classi?cation reviews if
additional documents and evidence are determined to be useful during the court-martial process.
In addition, the prosecution may submit future requests for classi?cation reviews of classified
information the defense intends to introduce during the court-martial, subject to the procedures
outlined below.

1 ?Ifthe accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclostne of classi?ed information in any
manner in connaztion with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and tile a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given? within
the time specified by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, (tic! to
arraignment of the accused" MRE 505(h)(l).

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an ovariding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding intaest; (3) rmsmable alternatives to closure were considaed and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case?speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings rennin open.

2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURE I)

28548



28549
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE l)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request ?ir Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First
Bradley E. Manning

6. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. This request will n_ot affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

1). . Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 5.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clmrances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defeme team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearancs at the minimum level of ?Top

(I. . All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States govanment
approved secure facility and storage container. The will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. . At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be prment for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

7. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests this i cati review be co leted 19
201 l. The purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution has the adequate documentation

for the pre-trial investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ.

8. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned a




5 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Classi?ed Evidence for Review CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Trial Counsel

3. Sample Affidavit
4. Sample Cover Letter for OCA
5. Protective Order, l7 Sep IO

CF: (w/encls)


D01)

3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE l)



FOR OFFICLAL USE ON LY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .
U.S. ARIIY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

FORT LESLEY J. IICNAIR, DC 20319-5013

7 September 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU

Of?ce of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310

Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310 0

FOR Commander, U.S. Southern Command, 3511 Northwest 91st Avenue, Miami, Fl. 33172

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

- 1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority

g1tgI_gt_e_' their classification reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written
request, dated 18 March 2011. This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July
201 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRN ET websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Marming is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitied to receive it, in violation of United States
law. This request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions
concerningthe use of documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the
classification of those documents and evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the
United States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving
criminal cases. See 10 U.S.C. ?810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of
the charges with prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the
accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 414 (1972).
All existing and future delays by your organization could severely hinder the prosecution.
Enclosed is an information paper to further explain an accused's speedy trial rights in the military
justice system.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests your reviews be completed Qy 21 September 201,1.

The purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation
for the -pre-trial investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

FOR OF FICLAL USE ONLY

28550

. 0 28551

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

OK

Encl ASHDEN FEIN
as CPT, JA

Trial Counsel
CF:

Mr. OTJ AG, DA)
Ms. D01)

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





28552
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY HJTARY DETRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. HCNAIR. 20319-5013

ANJA-CL 6 October 201 1

MEMORANDUM THRU

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310
Deputy Chief of Sta?? for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

FOR Commander, US. Southern Command, 3511 Northwest 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33172

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PU RPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
complete their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written
request, dated 13 March 201 1. This request is in addition to previous requests, dated 28 July
2011 and 7 September 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. The accused is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret lnternet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. The accused is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law. This request is the th? written request that mernorializes previous discussions concerning
the use of documents and evidence at trial originating in your command and the classi?cation of
that information.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the
United States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving
criminal cases- See 10 U.S.C. 810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of
the charges with prejudice, a result that may forever bar re-litigating this case. Additionally, the
United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy
trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 4M (1972). All existing and future delays by your
command could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests your reviews be completed no later than 31 October
2011. Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the prosecution must have your command?s completed
classi?cation review to proceed. The prosecution strongly anticipates the Article 32
investigation will occur in November. Any delay by your command to comply with this ?rm
deadline may severely jeopardize the prosecution.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



. 0 28553

FOR OFFICIAL USE ON LY

ANJA-C

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at W.



ASHDEN FEIN
PT, IA
Trial Counsel
CF:
Mr.? (OTJAG, DA)
D01)
2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



. 28554
HM: hi 3 ~41

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MIJTARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A sneer
roar LESLEY J. ucimn. oc 203195013

28 July 201!

. Intelligence. Office of

the Director of National Intelligence
Original Classi?cation Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Updated Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?utl Information and Classi?cation Review -
United Smes

I. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority gonz?cn:
both the consent to disclose classi?ed material in discovery outlined in the prosecution?s original written
request. dated l4 March 2011. and the classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's
original written request. dated 18 March 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Mamiing is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents.
photographs. and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive IL, in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that memorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence in discovery and at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those
documents and evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article I0, UCMJ. when an accused is in pretrial eon?nemenL the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on rsolving criminal cases.
Sec 10 U.S.C. The only remedy for an Article I0 violation is dismissal ofthe eharga with
prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial. See v. 407 U.S. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
department could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENS E. _1_1_ig: prosecution request_s_the c_onsent_:_1nd your reviews be__c_ornple_t_ed by _l0 Augu _s_t
2011. The purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution tam has the adequate documentation for
the pre-trial investigation. pursuant to Article 32. UCMJ and to minimize any future delays.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?

ASI lDl~1N rriiw
cpr. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
Mr. (OTJ AG?xi txi o?r\t






FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRKIT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. IICNAIR. DC 20319-5013

7 September 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU omee or

the Director of National Intelligence

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), Office of the Director of National Intelligence

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classification Review -

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests the appropriate authority
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecutions original written request, dated 18
March 2011- This request is in addition to the previous request dated 28 July 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Protocol Router Network (SIPRNEF) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it. in violation of United States law. This
request is the second written request that mcrnorializes previous discussions concerning the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your agency and the classi?cation of those documents and
evidence.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial confinement, the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence? to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases
See 10 U.S.C. ?810. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice. Additionally, the United States must ensure it does not violate the accused?s Sixth Amendment

right to a speedy trial. See 407 U.S. 414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your
department could severely hinder the prosecution. Enclosed is an information paper to further explain an
accused's speedy trial rights in the military justice system.

4. SUSPENSE. The prosecution your Lgviews be by September Z11 I. The

purpose of this suspense is to ensure the prosecution team has the adequate documentation for the prc-trial
investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delays

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned






line! A HDEN FETN
as CPT, JA

Trial Counsel
CF:


r. OTJAG, DA)
DOJ



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

28555



28556
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE
u.s. ARIY urumrv or wasuucrou
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucrwn. no 203195013

l3 October 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU or

the Director of National Intelligence
FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), Office of the Director of National Intelligence

SUBJECT: Updated Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced use requests the appropriate authority complete
their classi?cation reviews of the documents listed on the prosecution's original written request, dated 18
March 201]. This request is in addition to previous requests, dated 28 July 2011 and 7 September 2011.

2. BACKGROUND. The accused is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNEF) websites and
transferring them to his pasonal computer. The accused is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law. This
request is the third written request that memorializes previous discussions conoeming the use of
documents and evidence at trial originating in your department and the classi?cation of that information.

3. SPEEDY TRIAL. Under Article 10, UCMJ, when an accused is in pretrial con?nement, the United
States is required to use "reasonable diligence" to continue forward motion on resolving criminal cases.
See 10 U.S.C. 8 I0. The only remedy for an Article 10 violation is dismissal of the charges with
prejudice, a result that may forever bar re-litigating this case. Additionally, the United States must ensure
it does not violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 US.
414 (1972). All existing and future delays by your department could severely hinder the prosecution.

4. SUSPENSF. The prosecution requests your reviews be completed no later than 3] October 2011.
Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the prosecution must have your department's completed classi?cation
review to proceed. The prosecution strongly anticipates the Article 32 investigation will occur in
November. Any delay by your department to comply with this firm deadline may severely the
prosecution.

5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at -




ASHDEN FEIN

Trial Counsel
CF:
DA)
545- 90?)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28557
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 1)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U3. ARUY UIJTARY 03711? 3 WASHRTON
210 A STREET
gnyro FORT J. KNNR. DC

ANJA-CL 16 September 201 I

MEMORANDUM THRUT. o?iec ofmc Gum?

Counsel. Central Intelligence Agency

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Central Intelligence Agency

SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - United States v. Private First Class (PFC)
Bgdley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in tlie above-referenced ease requests the appropriate authaity
conduct a classi?cation review of your agency's equities in the enclosed document to be used in
the criminal prosecution of PFC Manning. See Enclosure 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.' The enclosed document for review was published by the Army Counterintelligenee Center
and released publicly by the Wikibeaks organization on 15 March 2010. It contains potentially
classi?ed information belonging to your organimtion.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 ofthc UCMJ (18 use. 45 793 and I8 1030). see Enclosure 2.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 1)

28558
FOR OFFICIAQ USE ONLY wl l)

ANIA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Classi?cation Review - l_}Qted States v. Private First Class (PFC)
Bradley E. Manning

4. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will n_ot affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
infonnation.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 5.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed infomiation, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret."

d. ??gure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed within a
secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Anny regulations.

5. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests this review bv 30 September 201 1. The purpose of
this suspense is to ensure the prosecution has adequate documentation for the pre-trial
investigation, pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ and to minimize any future delay.

6. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned a




5 Encls ASHDEN EIN
l. Classi?ed Evidence for Review CPT, IA

3. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 1] Trial Counsel
4. Sample Affidavit -

5. Sample Cover Letter for OCA

6. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (wlencls)

Mr._ (OTJ AG, DA)

Mr-? (NSA)

90?)

2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE I)

28559

Appellate Exhibit 339
Enclosure 21
8 pages
classified
"CONFIDENTIAL"
ordered sealed for Reason 3
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

28560

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Y.

Manning,BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Endosure 22
lOOctober 2012

28561

26 Aueust 2010
MEMORANDUM THRU Staffjudge Advocate. Office ofthe Staffjudge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 30219
FOR Commander, US A m y Military District ofWashington. Fort Lesley J. McNair.
Washington D.C. 20319
SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the R.C.M. 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on
Disclosure of Classified Information in United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

1. Pursuant to Executive Order 12958. Section 4.1. defense counsel hereby requests the
conv ening authority delay the R.C.M. 706 board until procedures can be adopted to safeguard
any classified information that will be discussed during the board's detemiination.
2. In support ofthis request the defense provides the following:
a. On 25 .\ugust 20! 0 defense counsel spoke with PFC Manning telephonically to determine
ifhe would need to discuss classified information during the R.C.M. 706 board inquiry.
b. Based upon our discussions vvith PFC Manning, the defense counsel believes that in order
for him to participate in the R.C.M. 706 process and aid the members in their determination of
his mental state at the time ofthe alleged incidents, he will need to divulge classified
infomiation.
c. The information that PFC Manning will need to divulge will be Secret Sensitive
Compartmented Information and Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information.
3. Based on the preceding infonnation. the defense requests that the Government determine
from the Original Classification Authority (OCA) that the R.C.M. 706 has a "need to knovv" as
part of their assessment of PFC Manning's mental condition.
4. Additionally, pursuant to Executive Order 12958. 12968. and 13292 the defense requests that
all members ofthe R.C.M. 706 board possess the requisite seeurilv clearances and that all
required steps are taken in order to safeguard the infomiation that they receive from PFC
Manning.
5. Since board members notes and any recordings vvill contain references to classified
information, the defense requests that the government appoint a security officer to the board to
assist them in the proper handling oftheir notes and disposal ofany information that may
contain references to classified information.
6. The defense also requests the results of the government's classification review by the OCA.
Specifically, the determination ofthe classification review regarding (1) the classification level
ofthe information alleged to have been disclosed by PFC Manning when it was subjected to

28562

SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the R.C.M. 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on
Disclosure of Classified Information in United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

compromise; (2) a determination whether another command requires review ofthe information;
and (3) the general description of the impact of disclosure on affected operations.
7. Finally, the defense requests strict compliance vvith the disclosure prohibitions ofMilitary
Rules ofEvidence 302 and R.C.M. 706. Specifically, the defisnse requests that the board
members are informed of the restrictions on disclosure referenced in R.C.M. 706 (c)(5).
8. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombsfo)armycourtmartialdefense.com.

D.AVIDE. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

UNITED STATES OF
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28563

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial-
Enclosure 23

10 October 2012



28564

FOR ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. Aauv MILITARY or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucrmn. DC 20319-5013

ANJA-CL 14 March 2011

MEMORANDUM TH RU Of?ce of the Judge Advocate General
2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 203 l0

FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified lnforrnation to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class Bradley E. Mg)

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classified by your
department or agency.



PFC Manning i_s currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, l04, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and I8 U.S.C. l030). See Enclosures 1 and 2.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy of such notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been specified, prior to
arraignment of the accused." MRE 50S(h)(l).

FOR USE ONLY

28565
FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed lnforrnation to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Mannimg



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies? of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed infonnation
identi?ed as originating from the Department of Defense. -This evidence is listed on Enclosure 3.
This request also includes derivative uses of the classi?ed information originating from the
evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general law enforcement

reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and prosecution case
?les.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Qlassi?cgtion. This request will mt affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. . Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning willhave access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at theiminimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewedor tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classification review of the infonnation is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR USE ONLY



28566
FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Cla_ss_ (EFC) Bradley 5.

e. Securig At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classified information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. nt by 21 March 20] 1. The purpose of
this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The int of contact for this uest is


4 Encls ASHDEN EIN
l. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 1 Chief, Military Justice

3. Classi?ed Evidence List. 14 Mar 1
4. Protective Order, I7 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)

(OTJAG, DA)

DISA


ms 118000

3

FOR USE ONLY



. . 28567

FOR

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY murmv or wasumcrou
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. ucrmn. oc 20:19-501:

ANJA-CL 14 March 2011

MEMORANDUM Tritium Law Enforcement
and Intelligence, United States Department of State

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), United States Department of State

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Clakss (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below.? This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
infonnation to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.' During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency. -



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and I34 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. I030). See Enclosures and 2.

2 ??If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the militaryjudge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE

FOR

28568
FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed lnfomiation to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private Fig Clg?' 5 (EFC) Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed information
identi?ed as originating from the Department of State. This evidence is listed on Enclosure 3.
This request also includes derivative uses of the classi?ed information originating from the
evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general law enforcement
reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and prosecution case
?les.

A 5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will n_ot a??ect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Qder. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Sayre Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The infomiation will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Amy regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (l there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the militaryjudge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the recordjustifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR USE ONLY

0 28569

FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United v. Private First ?ags (PEC) ?gag?gy E, Manning

e. ?gigty At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. he rosecution uests this consent 2 2011. The purpose of
this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

4 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar ll Chief, Military Justice

3. DOS Classi?ed Evidence List, l4 Mar ll
4. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)
(OTJAG. DA)

3

FOR (WFICIAI. USE ONLY



. . 28570

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013



REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 21 March 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU Of?ce of the
General Counsel, Defense Information Systems Agency, 6910 Cooper Avenue, Fort George G.
Meade, MD 20755

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), Defense Infonnation Systems Agency

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information original_1y your
department or agency.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosures 1 and 2.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed infonnation in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such-notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE 505(h)(1).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

28571
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL .
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed information
identi?ed as originating from the Department of Defense. This evidence is listed on Enclosure 3.
This request also includes derivative uses of the classi?ed information originating from the
evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general law enforcement
reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and prosecution case
?les.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will mt affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the militaryjudge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United ?States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (1) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY







FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed lnforrnation to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class C) Bradley E. Manning

e. Security At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed infomiation. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team remuests this consent by 28 March 201 1. -The purpose of
this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should be attached as an enclosure.

7, The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at


4 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul l0 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Chief, Military Justice

3. Classi?ed Evidence List, 14 Mar 1 1
4. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)

Mr. (OTJAG, DA)

3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28573
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or:
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. Mcuma. oc 20319-5013

REPLV TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 14 March 201 1

MEMORANDUM THRU Of?ce of the General Counsel,

National Security Agency A
FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), National Security Agency

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders l29S_8 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Marming is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and I34 ofthe UCMJ (I8 U.S.C. 793 and l8 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosures 1 and 2.

2 ?lf the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment ofthe accused.? MRE 505(h)(l).

FOR USE ONLY

. I . 28574
FOR OFFICIAL ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed information
identi?ed as originating from the National Security Agency. This evidence is listed on
Enclosure 3. This request also includes derivative uses of the classi?ed information originating
from the evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general law
enforcement reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and
prosecution case ?les.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

Retain Classi?cation. This request will not affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (l)there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review ofthe information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR USE ONLY

28575
FOR USE

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class (EFC) Bradley E. Manning

e. Securig At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classified information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. prosecution team reguests this consent by 21 March 201 1. The purpose of

this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea

negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

4 Encls ASHDEN EIN
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 1 1 Chief, Military Justice

3. NSA Classified Evidence List, 14 Mar 1 1
4. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)

Mr. (OTJAG, DA)

3

FOR ONLY



0 28576

FOR IISE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

14 March 201 1

MEMORANDUM THRU Intelligence, Of?ce
of the Director of National Intelligence

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA), Office of the Director of National Intelligence

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and I8 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosures 1 and 2.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed infonnation in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the militaryjudge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE S05(h)(

FOR USE ONLY

28577

FOR OFFICIAL ONLY


SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class 1 Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed information
identi?ed as originating from the Of?ce of the Director of National Intelligence. This evidence
is listed on Enclosure 3. This request also includes derivative uses of the classi?ed information
originating from the evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general
law enforcement reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and
prosecution case ?les.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will n_ot affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding

interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case?speci?c findings on the recordjustifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR IJSIC

28578
FOR USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class Bradley E. Manning

e. Security Exgns. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent bL2l March 2011. The purpose of
this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassified? and, if required, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

4 Encls ASHDE
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Chief, Military Justice

3. ODNI Classi?ed Evidence List, 14 Mar 11
4. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)
Mr.? (OTJAG, DA)

3

FOR ONLY





. . '28579

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s_ ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. oc 20319-501 3

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 21 March 20ll

MEMORANDUM THRU Of?ce
of the General Counsel, Defense Intelligence Agency

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Defense Intelligence Agency

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRN ET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Marming is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency.



1 PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (I8 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosures 1 and 2.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the militaryjudge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE 505(h)( 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28580
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the?Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED IN FORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of the classi?ed digital evidence, forensic copies of the digital evidence, and
copies of the documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classi?ed information
identi?ed as originating from the Department of Defense. This evidence is listed on Enclosure 3.
This request also includes derivative uses of the classified information originating from the
evidence listed on Enclosure 3 and contained in forensic reports, general law enforcement

reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and prosecution case
?les.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will not affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information. -

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 4.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances ht the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel

members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

cl. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Anny regulations.

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (1) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c findings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



28581
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A govemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent by 28 March 2011. The purpose of
this short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassified? and, if required, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

?y

4 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 CPT, JA
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Chief, Military Justice

3. Classi?ed Evidence List, l.4 Mar 11
4. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

CF: (w/encls)

Mr.? (OTJAG, DA)

3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



FOR OFFICIA ,sl: ONLY wl l?nosvlua 2) 28582

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
soar LESLEY J. oc 20319-5013

ATTENTION OF
urn TO 0
ANJA-CL

MEMORANDUM
Law, Federal Bureau of lnvestigat ion .

urit

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E.

JI-






1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenc uests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), cons nt dis se classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Mannirl appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. Th' conse required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice ibr Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and

701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged &mg various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Intemet ocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. ing is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations tl to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigat examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigato ered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency. -















2' I
PFC Manning isizii? charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ, including violating Articles

92, l04. and l34 - (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosure 1.

onably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
on with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing

the ti ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
the accused." MRE 505(h)(l

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)





FOR OFFICIA ONLY w/ ERLOSURE 2) 28583

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

accused. The classi?ed document contains information originating? ltiple agencies, but a
portion of the document has been identi?ed as originating from Bureau of
Investigation. See Enclosure 2. -

?e

5. PROTECTION or CLASSIFIED
as

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will aff?t;he cl i?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and sub 't access to classi?ed infomiation, each
member of the defense team will sign a protea da, acknowledging their limitations of

access and use. See Enclosure 3.
if?

c. Clearances. Each member of the has security clearances at the mzmmum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access osed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge wilg?i? mgicurity clearances at the minimum level of ?Top

Secret.?





in

.
fomation will be stored in a United States government
. container. The information will only be viewed or tested
0 Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.




(1. Secure Facility. All
approved secure facility
within a secure facility, .

e. Security Expert . all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense pert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
SE
5-




it; open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
iced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect th 7 ing interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found

the military judge makes case-speci?c findings on the record justifying closure.?

A classification review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the

uiterest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.




2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)





28584
FOR OFFICIA ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)


SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class PFC Bradle . Mannin



0
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A goverrun?

expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.






6. SUSPENSE. The secution team co ent Jul 2011. Th
short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data deriva
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate p?t .
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to dum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should be att an enclosure.



ofthis



7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

3 Encls ASHDE
I. (U) Charge Sheet, 1 Mar ll

2. Referenced Classi?ed Document el

3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

w/
OTJAG, DA)

CF:
Mr.

3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)



0 28585

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAJR, oc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 4 August 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU National Security

Law, Federal Bureau of Investigation
FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests, in "accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret lntemet Protocol Router Network SIPRN ET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classified by your
department or agency.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosure 1.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment ofthe accused.? MRE 505(h)(l).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)





28586
FOR ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)


SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of one classi?ed document recently extracted ?'om digital media seized ?'om the
accused. The classi?ed document contains information originating from multiple agencies, but a
portion of the document has been identi?ed as originating ?'om the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. See Enclosure 2.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will not affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 3.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. ?Security Experts. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes casc~speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?
RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method ofdemonstrating the
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open.

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)



28587
FOR OFFICIAQUSE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURE 2)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classified information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests this consent by 19 August 2011. The purpose of this
short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution also requests your response to this memorandum be kept
?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at -


3 Encls FEIN
l. (U) Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 CPT, JA
2. (U) Referenced Classified Document Trial Counsel
3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10
CF: (w/encls)
Mr.? (OTJAG, DA)
3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURE 2)



28588
FOR OFFICIA USE ONLY w/ ENLLOSURE 2)



DEPARTMENT or THE ARMY
4 U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20315-5013 0
ATTENTION OF .
neeu TO 0
ANJA-CL 2% 1 1
i
MEMORANDUM THRU ecurity
Law, Federal Bureau of Investigation .

FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to i and the

Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E.

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-refcren ?e%uests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and l3526 (as applicable), cons nt d? se classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Marmin appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. Th" oonse required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and

701, and applicable case law.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged witQn.loading various classi?ed documents,

photographs, and videos ?'om Secret Internet ocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. mg is also charged with transmitting this

infomiation to persons or organizations 1 to receive it, in violation of United States
examination of digital media and docimients
ered information originally classi?ed by your

law.? During the course of the investigat
associated with this case, investigator
department or agency.








PFC Manning with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and 134 3% CMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 1030). See Enclosure 1.

onably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classified information in any
on with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing

4 '9 and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within
- ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been specified, prior to

of the accused." -MRE 505(h)(1).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)





FOR OFFICI USE ONLY wl LLOSURE 2)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

ia seized ?'om the

request consists of one classi?ed document recently extracted from d?
accused. The classi?ed document contains information originating?ggn
portion of the document has been identi?ed as originating ?om the

Investigation. See Enclosure 2.

an-.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED



ltiple agencies, but a
Bureau of



a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will not atres?

he ki?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subs access to classi?ed information, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 3. at

12*

c. Clearances. Each member of the has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access osed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge wi
Secret.? -,








(1. Secure Facility. All -.
approved secure facility cl

within a secure facility,




Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

e. Security ExpeI?l?9 all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
pert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present

least one defense
.
.

5'


?am

2



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)



28589







FOR OFFICIAQ, SE ONLY w/ CLOSURE 2) 28590

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense United Stiates v. Prixgzge First Class (PFC) E. Manning

0
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A governm?
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this cent by; July 2011. Th A
short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data deriv
reports, and other related material in discovery purposes and to facilitate pd! . -
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to .- dum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should" be att





7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at

3 Encls ASHDEN
I. (U) Charge Sheet, I Mar ll CP

2. Referenced Classi?ed Document Tri&
3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10 a

CF:

w/encls
Mr. OTJAG, DA) 0

3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)



28591
FOR OFFICIAEJSE ONLY EPJLOSURE 2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, Dc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 23 June 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU Of?ce ofthe Judge Advocate General
-1, 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310

OR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMI), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law. This request supplements the prosecution?s previous request, dated
14 March 201 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States
law.1 During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your
department or agency.



1 PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 of the UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosure 1.

2 ?If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classi?ed information in any

manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and ?le a copy of such notice with the military judge. Such notice shall be given within

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)

ron or1:1c1AP..sE ONLY wl EQLOSURE 2) 28592

.
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning



4. APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. The classi?ed information for this
request consists of one classi?ed document recently extracted ?'om digital media already
approved by your agency for release to the accused and defense counsel. The classi?ed
document contains information originating ?'om multiple agencies, but a portion of the document
has been identi?ed as originating ?om the Department of Defense. See Enclosure 2.

5. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

a. Retain Classi?cation. This request will affect the classi?cation of any of the subject
information.

b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classi?ed infomtation, each
member of the defense team will sign a protective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. See Enclosure 3.

c. Clearances. Each member of the defense team has security clearances at the minimum level
of ?Secret.? Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum level of ?Top
Secret.?

d. Secure Facility. All classi?ed information will be stored in a United States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
within a secure facility, pursuant to Executive Order and U.S. Army regulations.

the time speci?ed by the military judge under subdivision or, if no time has been speci?ed, prior to
arraignment of the accused.? MRE 505(h)(1).

3 ?Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (I) there is a substantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2) closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found

inadequate; and (4) the military judge makes case-speci?c ?ndings on the record justifying closure.?

RCM 806(b)(2). A classi?cation review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the.
?overriding interest? that will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open-

2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY wl ENCLOSURE 2)

FOR OFFICIAQJ SE ONLY w/ EQLOSURE 2) 28593

ANJA-CL
SUBIECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed lnforrnation to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing or testing of the classi?ed information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage of the classi?ed information. A government security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.

6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent by 5 July 2011. The purpose of this
short suspense is to provide the defense with copies of the forensic data, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, if any. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept ?Unclassi?ed? and, if required, any classi?ed material should be attached as an enclosure.

7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at -

3 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. (U) Charge Sheet, I Mar 11 CPT, JA

2. Referenced Classi?ed Document Trial Counsel

3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep l0

3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURE 2)



28594
FOR OF FICLQ JSE ONLY w/ 2)



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s- ARMY muruzv or vusumcrou
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319-5013

of the General Counsel, Defense Intelligence Agency
FOR Original Classi?cation Authority, Defense Intelligence Agency

SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution team in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classi?ed information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law. This request supplements the prosecution?s previous request, dated
14 March 20] 1.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classi?ed documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transfening them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organimtions not entitled to receive it?, in violation of United States
law.? During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classi?ed by your

department or agency.



PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, I04, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793 and I8 U.S.C. 1030). See Enclosure 1.



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY w/ ENCLOSURE 2)

FOROFFICI^^SEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/^^LOSURE2)

28595

ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defonse United Statesv.Private First Class (PFC) BradleyE. Manning

4APPLICABLECLASSIFIEDINFORMATION.Thedassifiedinformationforthis
request consistsofone classified document recently extracted from digital media already
approved by your agency for release to the accused and defonse counseL The classified
document contains information originating from multiple agencies, butaportionofthe document
has been identified as originating from the Defonse Intelligence Agency. See Enclosure 2.
5 PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
a. Retain Classification. This request will not affoct the classificationofany ofthe subject
information.
b. Protective Order. Priorto disdosure and subsequent access to classified information, each
memberofthe defonse team will signaprotective order, acknowledging their limitationsof
access and use. SeeEnclosure3.
c. Clearances. Each member ofthe defonse team has security clearances ^//^^B^/^/^^B^/eve/
of"Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defonse team bythe convening authority
and PEC Maiming will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum levelof'Top
Secret"
d. Secure Facility. All classified information will be stored inaUnited States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
withinasecure facility, pursuant to Executive Order andU.S. Army regulations.
e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing ortestingofthe classified information, at
least one defonse security expert, appointed and employed by the United States,will be present

^ "Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (l)thereisasubstantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2)dosure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest; (3) reasonable altematives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and(4) the military judge makes case-specificfindingson the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2). Aclassification review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORNW/ENCLOSURE2)

^Rl,

FOR O F F I C I I ^ S E ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)
ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Informationfothe Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

to oversee the proper handling and storageofthe classified information. Agovemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.
6.SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent by5July 2011. The purposeofthis
short suspense is to provide the defonse with copies oftheforensicdata, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, ifany. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept "Unclassified" and, ifrequired, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.
7.The point of contact forthis request is the undersigned at (b) (6)

3 Ends
1. (U) Charge Sheet, I Mar 11
2. (S//NF) Referenced Classified Document
3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF: ( w / e n d s ^ ^ ^
Mr. [ ^ ^ ^ m ^ O T JAG,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORNW/ENCLOSURE2)

28596

28597

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)
OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
U.S.ARMYMILITARY DISTRICTOFWASHINGTON
210ASTREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR, DC 20319 5013
REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

ANJA-CL

MEMORANDUM THRU ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ • ^ • H H
Law, Federal Bureau oflnvestigation

4 August 201:

^Nationalsecurity

FOR Original Classification Authority, Federal Bureau oflnvestigation
SUBJECT: RequestforConsent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and tbe
Oefense United Statesv. Private First Class (PFC) BradleyE. Manning

1. PURROSE. The prosecution in the above-reforenced case requests, in accordance witb
ExecutiveOrders 12958 and 13526(as applicable), consenttodisdosedassified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defonse
team, subject to the protections described below. Tbisconscnt is required for discovery^ under
Article46, Uniform Code ofMilitarY Justice (UCMJ), RulesforCourts Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law.
2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classified documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Intemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transforring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation ofUnited States
law.' During the course ofthe investigation and examination ofdigital media and documents
associatedw iththiscase, investigators encountered information originally classified by your
department or agency.

^ PFCManningiscurrentlychargedwithmnllipIeviolationsoftheUCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 oftiieUCMJ (18 u s e §793 and 18 u s e § 1030) See Enclosure L
^ "Ifthe accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassified infomnation in any
niianner in connection with a court-rnartial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
ofsuch intention and file a copy ofsuch notice with the militaryjudge Such notice shall be given within
thetimespecifiedbythemilitaryjudgeundersnbdivision(e)or,ifno time has been specified, priorto
arraignment oftheaccused." MRE 505(h)(1).

EOR O E E I C ^ ^ S E ONLY ^SECRET^^OEORNw^ENCLOS^JRE^^

28598

FOROFFICIAL L^SEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENcLOSURE 2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defonse United StatesvPrivate First Class(PFC) BradleyEManning

4 APPEICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.Theclassified information forthis
request consistsofone classified document recently extracted from digital media seized from the
accused. The classified document contains information originating from multiple agencies, buta
portionofthc document has been identified as originating fromthe Federal Bureauof
Investigation. See Enclosure 2.
5 PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
a. Retain Classification. This request will not affect the classificationofany ofthe subject
information.
b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information, each
memberofthe defonseteam will signaprotective order,acknowledging their limitationsof
access and use. SeeEnclosure3.
c. Clearances Each memberofthe defonse team has security clearances ^///le^/^/^^^/eve/
of"Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defonse team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum levelof"Top
Secret"
d. Secure Facility. All dassified information will be stored inaUnited States government
approved secure facility and storage container The information will only be viewed ortested
withinasecurefacility, pursuantto Executive Order andU.S Armyregulations.
c. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing ortestingofthe classified information, at
least one defonse security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present

^ "Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless(l)thcrcisasubstantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (2)closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest (3) reasonable altematives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and(4)the military judge makes case-specificfindingson the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2). Aclassificationreview of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overridinginterest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE 2)

28599

FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE 2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defense UnitedStatesvPrivateFirst Class (PFC) BradleyE.Marming

tooverseethepropcrhandlingand storageofthe classified information Agovemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.
6. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests this consent byl9Augiist 2011 The purposeofthis
short suspense is to provide the defonse with copiesoftheforensicdata, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, ifany. Thcprosecutionalso requests yourresponscto this memorandum be kept
"Unclassified" and, ifrequired, any dassified material should be attached as an enclosure.
7. The pointofcontact for this request is the undersigned at (b) (6)

3 Ends
1. (U) Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11
2. (U) Referenced Classified Document
3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF: (w/cncls)
M r . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ m (OTJAG, DA)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)

28600

l ^ l USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)
FOR OFFICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J . MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLYTO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL

4 August 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU Office ofthe Judge Advocate General i
^ ^ g g , 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington, DC 20310
FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intdligcnce (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defonse
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under •
Article 46. Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ). Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law. This request supplements the prosecution's previous request, dated
14 March 2011.
2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classified documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Intemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation ofUnited States
law.' During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classified by your
department or agency.

' PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
92, 104, and 134 of the UCMJ (18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 1030). See Enclosure I .
^ "If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classified information in any
maimer in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy of such notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)

• ,s.

28601

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORNW/ENCLOSURE 2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defonse United Statesv Private First Class (PFC) BradlevE.Manning

4 APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.Theclassified information forthis
request consistsofone classified document recently extracted from digital media already
approved by your agency for release to the accused and defense counsel. The classified
document contains information originating frommultiple agencies, butaportionofthe document
hasbeenidentified as originating from the DepartmentofDefense. See Enclosure 2.
5 PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
a. Retain Classification This request will not affect the classificationofanyofthc subject
information.
b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information, each
memberofthe defonse team will signaprotective order,acknowledging their limitationsof
access and use. SeeEnclosure3.
c. Clearances. Each memberofthe defonseteam has security clearances i^/z/ie^/^/^^^/eve/
of"Secret" Only cleared individuals appointed to the defonse team bythe convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum levelof'Top
Secret"
d. Secure Facility. All dassified information will be stored inaUnited States government
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
withinasecure facility, pursuant to Executive Order andU.S.Army regulations.

the time specified bythe military judge under subdivision(e)or,if no time has been specified, prior to
arraignment ofthe accused." MRE 505(h)(1).
"^ "Courtsmartial shall be open to the public unless(l)thereisasubstantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2)closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest (3) reasonable altematives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and (4) the militaryjudge makes case-specificfindingson the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2) Aclassification review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE 2)

28602

FOROFFICIAL L^SE ONLY (SECRET/ZNOFORNw/ENcLOSURE 2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to DiscloseClassified Information to theAccused and the
Defense-United StatesvPrivateFirst Class (PFC) BradleyE Manning

e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing ortestingofthe classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storageofthe dassified information. Agovemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.
6 SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests fhis consent b y l 9 August 2011 The purposeofthis
short suspense is to provide the defense with copies oftheforensicdata, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, ifany. The prosecution also requests your response to this memorandum be kept
''Unclassified"and, if required, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.
7.The point of contact forthis request is the undersigned at (b) (6)

3Encls
1 ( U ) Charge Sheet.lMarlI
2. (U) Referenced Classified Document
3 (U)ProtectiyeOrder.l7SeplO

ASHDENFEIN
CPT.JA
TrialCounsd

FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE 2)

28603

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J . MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL

4 August 2011

MEMORAN DUM THRU g g g ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g
ofthe General Counsel. Defense Intelligence Agency

Office

FOR Original Classification Authority, Defense Intelligence Agency
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Maiming

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose classified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46, Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and
701, and applicable case law. This request supplements the prosecution's previous request, dated
14 March 2011.
2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various dassified documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Intemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation ofUnited States
law.' During the course of the investigation and examination of digital media and documents
associated with this case, investigators encountered information originally classified by your
department or agency.

' PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles
. 92. 104, and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 1030). See Enclosure 1.
" "If the accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassified information in any
manner in connection with a court-martial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of such intention and file a copy of such notice with the militaryjudge. Such notice shall be given within
the time specified by the militaryjudge under subdivision (e) or, if no time has been specified, prior to
arraignment ofthe accused." MRE 505(h)(1).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)

28604

FOROFFICIB^SEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/^LOSURE2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defonse United StatesvPrivate First Class(PFC) BradleyEManning

4 APPLICABLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.Theclassified information forthis
request consistsofone classified document recently extracted from digital media already
approved by your agency for release to the accused and defonse counsel. The classified
document contains information originating from multiple agencies, butaportionofthe document
has been identified as originating from the Defonse Intelligence Agency. See Endosure 2.
5 PROTECTION OFCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
a Retain Classification. This request will not affect the classificationofany ofthe subject
information.
b Protective Order Priorto disclosureand subsequent accessto classified information, each
memberofthe defonse team will signaprotective order,acknowledging their limitationsof
access and use. SeeEnclosure3.
Clearances. Each memberofthedefonse team has security clearances ^///^e^/^/^^^/eve/
of"Secret." Only cleared individuals appointed to the defonse team by the convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the military judge will have security clearances at the minimum levelof"Top
Secret"
d. Secure Facility. All classified information will be stored inaUnited States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed ortested
withinasecure facility, pursuantto Executive Order andU.S.Armyregulations.
e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing ortestingofthe classified information, at
least one defonse security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, wifi be present

^ "Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless (l)lhereisasubstantial probability that an overriding
interest will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open; (2)closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest (3) reasonable alternatives to closure were considered and found
inadequate; and(4) the military judge makes case specificfindingson the recordjustifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2). Aclassification review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overridinginterest" that will bcprcjudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

FOR OFFICIAL USEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)

28605

FOROFFICI^^SEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/^^LOSURE2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defense United Statesv Private First Class (PFC) BradleyE Manning

tooverseethepropcrhandlingand storageofthe dassified information. Agovemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings.
6.SUSPENSE. The prosecufion requests this consent by 19 August 2011. The purposeofthis
short suspense is to provide the defense with copiesoftheforensicdata, derivative forensic
reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations, ifany. Theprosecution also requests yourresponsc to this memorandum be kept
"Unclassified" and, ifrequired, any classified material should be attached as an enclosure.
7 The pointofcontact forthis request is the undersigned at (b) (6)

3 Ends
1. (U) Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11
2. (U) Referenced Classified Document
3. (U) Protective Order, 17 Sep 10

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF: (w/encls)
M r . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ m (OTJAG, DA)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORN wl ENCLOSURE 2)

CONFIDENTU.

(SECRET//NOFORN//ORCON wl ENDOSURE I)

28606

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL

11 August 2011

MEMORANDUM T H R u g g g ^ ^ ^ g g g g ^ g g ^ ^ g g 1. Office of the General Counsel,
Central Intelligence Agency (C)
FOR Original Classification Authority, Central Intelligence Agency (C)
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Additional Detainee Assessment to the Accused and
Defense - United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning (U)
1. (U) PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with Executive
Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable), consent to disclose one additional Joint Task Force Guantanamo
(JTF-GTMO) Detainee Assessments Brief (DAB) to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defense
team, subject to the protections described below. This request supplements the prosecution's previous
request to disclose four DABs, dated 6 May 2011. This consent is required for discovery under Article
46, Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 and 701, and
applicable case law. The prosecution intends to include this DAB as one of the charged documents
during the Article 32 and at trial.
2. (U) BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with downloading various classified documents,
photographs, and videos from Secret Intemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and
transferring them to his personal computer. PFC Manning is also charged with transmitting this
information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it, in violation of United States law.' The
DAB referenced in this request was found in the unallocated space on PFC Manning's personal computer.
This request memorializes previous discussions conceming the use of this DAB and its classification.

\

4. (U) PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
a. (U) Retain Classification. This request will not affect the classification of any of the subject
information.

' (U) PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ, including violating Articles 92, 104,
and 134 ofthe UCMJ (18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 1030). See Enclosure 2.

CONFIDENTIAL (SECRET//NOFORN//ORCON w/ENCLOSURE 1)

,j

28607

CONF10FN^^^L^(SECKFT//NOFORN//OKCONw/FN^^SUKFI)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Additional Detainee Assessment tothe Accused and
Defonse United Statesv Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning (U)
b. (U) Protective Order. Priorto disclosure and subsequent access to classified information, each
member ofthe defonse team will signaprotective order,acknowledging their limitations of access and
use. SeeEnclosure4.
c. (U) Clearances. Each member ofthe defense team has security clearances ^^//te^/^/B^i^^/eve/of
"Secret" Only cleared individuals appointed tothe defense team by the convening authority and PFC
Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel members and the
militaryjudge will have security clearances at the minimum level of"Top Secret"
d. (U) Secure Facility. All classified information will be storedinaUnited States govemment
approved secure facility and storage container. The information will only be viewed withinasecure
facility.pursuanttoExecutive Order andU.S.Armyregulations.
e. (U) Security Experts. At all times during the viewing ofthe classified information, at least one
defonse security expert, appointed and employed by the United States, will be present to oversee the
proper handling and storage ofthe classified information. Agovemment security expert will bepresent
for all pretrial and trial proceedings.
5. (U) SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent bvl9August 2011. The purpose ofthis
short suspense is to provide the defonse with copies ofthe forensic data, derivativeforensicreports, and
other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea negotiations, ifany.
6. (U) The point ofcontact for this request is the undersigned at (b) (6)

4Encls
1. (U) Classified EvidenceforReview
2 (U) Charge SheetlMarll
3. (U) ExcerptsfromForensic Reports
4 (U) Protective Order, l7SeplO

ASHDENFEIN
CPT,JA
TrialCounsd

(OTJAG, 1^A)(U)
(NSA)(U)
^DOJ)(U)
(ODNI)(U)

CONFIDENTIAL (SEGRET//NOFORN//ORCONW/ENGLOSURE1)

l.

28608

FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)
OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
USARMYMILITARYDISTRICT OFWASHINGTON
210ASTREET
F0RTLESLEY.1MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

ANJACL

26October2011

MEMORANDUMTHRUOfficeoftheJudgeAdvocatcGeneraL
g ^ ^ g ) , 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington, DC 20310
FOR DeputyChiefofStafffor Intelligence (DAMI-ZB),2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defense United Statesv.PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests, in accordance with
Executive Ordersl2958andl3526 (as applicable),consent to disclose classified information
originating in your department or agency to PFC Manning and his appropriately cleared defonse
team, subject to the protections described below. This consent is required for discovery under
Article 46. Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ). Rules forCourtsMartial(RCM)405 and
701. and applicable case law.
2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intdligence.a
violation of Article 104.Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) Additionally.PFC Manning
is charged with downloading various classified documents, photographs, and videos from Secret
Intemet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) websites and transferring them to his personal
computer and transmitting this information to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it,
in yiolation ofUnited States law.' During the course ofthe investigation and examination of
digital media and documents associated with this case, investigators encountered information
originally classified byyour department or agency.

' PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple violations ofthe UCMJ. including violating Articles
92, I04,andI34oftheUCMJ(18USC§ 793.18 U S C ^ 1030,andl8USC§641) See Enclosure
L
^ "Ifthe accused reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure ofclassified information in any
manner in connection withacourtmartial proceeding, the accused shall notify the trial counsel in writing
of suchintentionandfileacopy of such notice with the military judge.Such notice shall be given within

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)

28609

FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and the
Defonse United Statesv PFC BradleyManning

4 APPLICABLECLASSIFIEDINFORMATION.Theclassifiedinformationforthis
request consists ofthe classified digital evidence, forensic copies ofthe digital evidence, and
copies ofthe documentary evidence collected in this case that contain classified information
identified as originating from the Department ofDefense. This evidence is listed on Endosure 2.
This request also includes derivative uses ofthe classified information originating from the
evidence listed on Enclosure2and contained in forensic reports, general law enforcement
reports, and other compiled documentation within the law enforcement and prosecution case
files. US Army CID completedareview of theforensicreports, listed in Enclosure2and
determined none ofthe information was classified pursuant to CID'soriginal classification
authority. SeeEnclosure4.
5 PROTECTION OFCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
a. Retain Classification. This request will not affect the classification ofany ofthe subject
information
b. Protective Order. Prior to disclosure and subsequent access to classified information, each
member ofthe defonse team will signaprotective order, acknowledging their limitations of
access and use. SeeEnclosure3.
c. Clearances. Each member ofthe defense team has security clearances ^///^e^/^/^i,^^/eve/
of"Secret" Only cleared individuals appointed to the defense team bythe convening authority
and PFC Manning will have access to the disclosed information, under supervision. All panel
members and the militaryjudge will have security clearances at the minimum level of"Top
Secret"

the time specified by the military judge under subdivision(e)or,if no time has been specified, prior to
arraignmentofthe accused." MRE 505(h)(1).
"^ "Courts-martial shall be open to the public unless(l)thereisasubstantial probability that an overriding
interest will he prejudiced if the proceedings remain open; (2)closure is no broader than necessary to
protect the overriding interest (3)reasonable altematives toclosure were considered and found
inadequate; and(4)the military judge makes case-specificfindingson the record justifying closure."
RCM 806(b)(2). Aclassification review of the information is the usual method of demonstrating the
"overriding interest" that will be prejudiced ifthe proceedings remain open.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE2)

^ f
FOROFFICIAL L^SEONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENcLOSURE
2)
ANJACL
SUBJECT: Request for Consent to Disclose Classified Information to the Accused and fhe
Defense United Statesv.PFC BradleyManning

d. Secure Facility. All classified information will be stored inaUnited States government
approved secure focility and storage container. The information will only be viewed or tested
withinasecure focility,pursuant to Executive Order andU.S Armyregulations.
e. Security Experts. At all times during the viewing or testing ofthe classified information, at
least one defense security expert, appointed and employed by the United States,will be present
to oversee the proper handling and storage ofthe classified information. Agovemment security
expert will be present for all pretrial and trial proceedings
6.SUSPENSE. The prosecution team requests this consent bylNovember 2011 The purpose
ofthis short suspense is to provide the defense with copies oftheforensicdata, derivative
forensic reports, and other related material for discovery purposes and to facilitate potential plea
negotiations,ifany. The prosecution team also requests your response to this memorandum be
kept "Undassified" and, ifrequired, any classified material should be attached as an endosure.
7. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at (b) (6)
.

4Encls
1 Charge Sheet.lMarlI
2 DoD Classified Evidence List, 26 O c t l l
3. ProtectiveOrder,17Sep 10
4. E m a i l , 4 0 c t l I

ASHDENFEIN
CPT,JA
TrialCounsd

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY(SECRET//NOFORNw/ENCLOSURE 2)

28610

28611

Appellate Exhibit 339
Enclosure 24
21 pages
classified
"CONFIDENTIAL"
ordered sealed for Reason 3
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall

Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28612

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 25

10 October 2012





DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY

P. 0. BOX 549
FORT MEADE. MARYLAND 20755-0549



2 4 2011
Lit: ChiefofStaff(DS)

MEMORANDUM FOR CAPTAIN ASHDEN FEIN, TRIAL COUNSEL U.S. V. MANNING
SUBJECT: Authorization to Disclose Classi?ed DISA Data to Accused and Defense Counsel

Reference: Your Memo, Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information
Correspondence section to the Accused and the Defense United States v.
Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, 21 Mar 11

1. In response to the reference, as the successor to the original classi?cation authority (OCA)
who issued Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Circular 300-115-3, Defense
Information System Network (DISN) Secret Internet Protocol Routing Network
Security Classi?cation Guide, 26 September 2007, I hereby authorize the disclosure of the
classified DISA data specified in enclosure 3 of your memorandum to the accused and defense
counsel, so long as all the protective measures referenced in your memorandum are imposed.

2. My point of contact for this matter is Ms. at or
jodisamnil.



Brigadier General, USA
Chief of Staff



. . 28614

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100

7 April 2011

To: Staff Judge Advocate
Military District of Washington
ATTN: CPT Ashden Fein .
210 A Street
Fort Lesley . McNair
Washington, DC. 20319-5013

Subject: Disclosure of Classi?ed Information to Defense Counsel and Experts United States v.

Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning
1. This responds to your request of 21 March 2011 seeking DIA approval to disclose unspeci?ed
DIA-originated classi?ed information to PFC Manning and his cleared defense counsel and
experts in conjunction with pre-trial discovery and preparations.

2. On 5 April, the_ Defense Counterintelligence and Human

Intelligence Center, approved your request. In granting his &1pproval,? emphasized
several points, as follows:

a. Security issues are of paramount importance and all information disclosed to the
defense team must be handled in compliance with the Protective Order for Classi?ed
Information. No i-nforrnation classi?ed greater than Secret will be released to the defense team.

b. Based on the results of lnforrnation Review Task Force (IRTF), DIA is not
aware that any DIA-originated information is included on the electronic media listed on
Enclosure 3 to your request.

c. DIA requests that if during pre?trial preparations the prosecution or defense teams
identify any intelligence reports or intelligence-related infomiation contained on the electronic
media listed on Enclosure 3 of your request not previously discovered, that you notify this
agency so those items may be reviewed in connection with responsibilities that have been
assigned to the IRTF.

cl. - approval is limited to discovery and pre-trial preparations only and does not
include_ authorization to use any DIA information at trial. Any proposed use of DIA information
at trial will require an inforrnation-speci?c request.





. . 28615

3. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please contact Mr.

Assistant General Counsel at_ or by e-mail to



- General Counsel




. . . 28616

United States Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520



March 29, 2011

Captain Ashden Fein

Chief, Military Justice

U.S. Army Military District of Washington
210 A Street

Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5013

RE: Request for Consent to Disclose Classi?ed Information to the Accused and the Defense
United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning

Dear Captain Fein:

This letter responds to the request in your letter, dated March 14, 2011 (?disclosure
request letter?), for consent to disclose classi?ed Department. of State information to Pfc.
Bradley Manning and his appropriately cleared defense team as part of discovery in the above-
referenced case. The Department has approved the disclosure of the information listed on
Enclosure 3 of the disclosure request letter, with the exception of the item listed as 2(c) (Voucher
124-10, Item 1), on which the Department takes no position as we understand this item does not
implicate Department of State equities.

The Department gives its consent to disclose this information subject to the protections
stated in your disclosure request letter, which include that all individuals who receive the
information must sign a protective order, that the information will remain classi?ed and will be
handled consistent with that classi?cation, and that use of the information at trial would require
prior approval of the military judge and imposition of protective measures such as redactions or
closing the courtroom to the public for portions of the proceedings. Should there be any change
in those protections and applicable arrangements for the handling of classi?ed information by the
defense team, the Department requests that you provide us with prompt noti?cation.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.



Enforcement and Intelligence

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



0 28617

Zmasmil-m? on beha"



2
Subjed: (U) ICO PFC Manning

Date: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:30:55 PM

Classi?cation: TO USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL

Ashden -

Thanks for taking the time to meet with us this afternoon regarding our review of the infonnation
provided by you on a CD that is proposed for discovery in the court-rnartial process as it relates to PFC
Bradley Manning. Our Agency has reviewed the documents and information provided on the CD and
has no objection to providing that information to cleared defense counsel pursuant to the protective
order with the understanding that the documents will be properly stored, handled and maintained.

If you have any questions or concerns or want to discuss in more detail, please let me know. Thanks.

v/

Of?ce of General Counsel (Litigation)

Attorney Client Privileged//Attorney Work Product//Do Not Release without OGC Approval

Derived From: 1-S2
Dated: 20070108
Declassify On: 20360401

Classi?cation: TO USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL

28618

Appellate Exhibit 339
Enclosure 26
1 page and 4 CDs
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason 2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



28619

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 27

10 October 2012




. 0 28620

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
150TH JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DETACHMENT (LSO)
MG ALBERT c. LIEBER
6901 TELEGRAPH ROAD

REPLY To ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINA 22310-3320
ATTENTOON OF



ARRC-CAR-LSQ I2 August 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer,
VA 2221

SUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation of PFC Bradley Manning

1. On 1 I August 2010, the defense submitted a request for delay in the Article 32 investigation
pertaining to PFC Manning. The defense requested that the delay be granted until the Rule for

Courts-Martial 706 Sanity Board is completed. I recommend that you approve the defense delay.

2. I you approve the defense request, I recommend that you attribute any delay to the defense.

3. Point of contact is the undersigned at




Investigating Of ticer

ManningB_O0000428



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

#

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 28
10 October 2012

28621

28622

DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY

I^EPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

J0INT9ASE MYER-HENOERSON HALL
20^ LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211 1199

IMNO^MHHZA

Ol^T

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under RuleforCourts Martial 707(c) U.S. V.
PFC Bradlev Manning

1 PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accountingforany
excludable delay under RuleforCourts Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above referenced matter.
2. E^CLUO^BLEOELAY. Tbe period Irom 12 July 20IOuntil^date of this memo^and^
is excludable delay under RC M 707(c).
3. BASISOFDELAY. Theabovedelay is based on the following defonse requests, responses,
and the facts and circumstances ofthis case:
a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews ofclassified information.
b I^fonsc RequestforSanity Boa^ dat^d I I JBy 2010 a ^ D c f o a s c R o ^ ^
Sanity Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).
c. f^fonseRequestlbr Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic Psychiatry to
Assisttbe Defonse dated25 August 2010(enclosed)
d. Delense RequestforDelay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply withProhibitionson
Disdosure ofclassified Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).
e. Defi^nse Requestfor Results ofthe Government sC^Iassification Reviews bythe OCA.
dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).
f Delense RequestforAppropriate Security Clearancesforthe Defonse Team and Access for
PFC Manning, daled 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
g. Preliminary Classification Review of the Accused s Mental Impressions, dated 17
September20IO^endosed), and Superseding Order, dated 22 September 2010 (enclosed).
h. Defonse Response to the Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused s Mental
Impressions, dated 2^ September 2010 (enclosed).

28623

IMNDMHHZA
AccotintingofE^cludableDelayunderRulelbrCourts-Martial707(c)^Ij.S V PFCBradle
Manning

4 PREYIOUSDELAYS.This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede
anypreviousddaysbut merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to
the date ofthis memorandum

Knds
as

CF: (wo/encls)
I -Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL. AV
Commanding

28624

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

10 NOV

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 12 October 2010 until the date ofthis memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and the
facts and circumstances of this case:
a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for Sanity
Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure of
Classified Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
f. Preliminary Classification Review of the Accused's Mental Impressions, dated 17 September 2010
(enclosed), and Superseding Order, dated 22 September 2010 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.

tefctJT
Ends
as
CF: (wo/encls)
1-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL. AV
Commanding

28625

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

figPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

17 DEC

IMND-MHll-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c)-U.S. v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

!. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 10 November 2010 until the date ofthis memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c),
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and the
facts and circumstances ofthis case:
a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews ofclassified information.
b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated I 1 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for Sanity
Board, daled 18 July 2010 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board lo Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure ol
Classified Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Results of the Government s Classification Reviews by the OCA. dated 24
.August 2010 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, bul merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting |# the date ofthis
memorandum.

-^^U^oMb—
Ends
as
Cl"; (wo/encls)
l-Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL AV
Commanding

28626

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
JOINT RASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211 1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

1 4 JAN 20n

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting ol Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Marlial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is lo provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule lor Courts-Marlial (RCM) 7()7(c) in Ihc abovc-rclcrcnced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 17 December 2010 until the date of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the Ibllowing defense requests, responses, and the
facts and circumstances of this case;
a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for Sanity
Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board lo Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure of
Classified Informalion, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Results ofthe Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request lor Appropriate Security Clearances lor the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended lo supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the dale of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).

(!;)bUUUu
Ends
as

CF: (vvo/cncis)
l-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28627

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLYTO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEEAVENUE
FORTMYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

15 Feb 2011

IMND-MHH-ZA
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC Bradley
Manning
1. PURPOSE, The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The periodfrom14 January 2011 untiltiiedate of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and the
facts and circumstances of this case:
a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for Sanity
Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed). Completed 3 February 2011 (enclosed).
c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure of
Classified Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed). Completed 31 January 2011.
d. Defense Request for Results ofthe Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed). Completed 3 February 2011.
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date ofthis
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).

Ends

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.

as

COL, AV

Commanding
CF: (wo/encls)
l-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

28628

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY

^

REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

JOINT 6ASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

IMND-MHH ZA

18

^11

M^MORANOUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under RuleforCourts Martial 707(c) U S. V
PEC Bradlev Manning

I PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any
excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above reforenced matter.
^ E^CLUOABLEOELAY. Tbe period Irom 15 February 20IIuot^I tbe dato of tbis
memorandum is excludable delay under RCM 707(c)
3 BASISOFDELAY. Theabovedelay is based on thefolloyvingextensions, defonse requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances ofthis case:
a OriginalClassification Authorities (OCA) reviews ofclassified information
b OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. DefonseRequestforSanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defonse Renewed Request for
Sanity Board, dated 1^ July 2010 (enclosed)
d. Defonse Request for Results ofthe Government's Classification Reviews by tbe OCA,
dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed)
e. DefonseRequest for Appropriate Security Clearancesforthe Defonse Team and Access
forPFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
f RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, dated 14 March 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede
any previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays fiom the previous accounting to
the date ofthis memorandum
5. Thepreviousmemorandum, dated 15 February 2011, inaccurately refiected that the sanity
board was completed on 3 February 2011 The sanity board is ongoing. The memorandum also
inaccurately refiected that PFC Manning was granted access to classified information on 3
February 20IL Todate, the various C^As involved in tbiscasc have not granted PFCMannmg
access toclassified information originating fiom their department or agency.

28629

IMND-MHH-ZA
AccountingofExcludable Delay under Rule
Manning

forCourts-Martial707(c)-USyPFC

Bradley

6 lacknowledge and reviewed the defense request forspeedy trial,dated 13 January 2011
(enclosed).

Ends
as

CF: (wo/encls)
1 -Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28630

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY

REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

JOINT 8ASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEEAVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

IMND-MHH-ZA

22April2011

MEMORANDUMFORRECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting ofExdudable Delay under Rule forCourts-Martial707(c)-U.Sv
PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provideaperiodic accounting for any
excludable delay under Rule forCourtsMartial (RCM) 707(c)in the above-reforenced matter.
2 EXCLUDABLE DELAY.Theperiodfroml8March2011until the dateofthis
memorandumisexdudabledelay underRCM 707(c).
3 BASISOFDELAY. The above delay is based on thefollowingextensions,defense requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances ofthis case:
a. Original Classification Authorities'(OCA)reviews of dassified information
b. OCA consent to disclose dassified information.
c Defonse RequestforSanity Board,datedllJuly20lOand Defense Renewed Request for
Sanity Board, datedl8July2010(endosed)
d Defonse RequestforResults of the Govemment'sClassification Reviews by the OCA,
dated 26 August 2010(endosed)
e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the DefenseTeam and Access
for PFC Manning, dated3September20I0(endosed).
f RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, datedl4March2011(endosed)
g RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, dated 15 April 2011(endosed)
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede
any previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to
the date ofthis memorandum.

28631

IMNDMHFIZA
AccountingofExcludable Delayunder RuleforCourtsMartial707(c)-US.yPFCBradlev
Manning

5 lacknowledge and reviewed the defense requestforspeedytrial,dated 13 January 2011
(enclosed)

Ends
as
CF: (wo/encls)
l-Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

%

.• / /

-/c;^%&;(&
COL, AV
Commanding

28632

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

f^EPLV TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

1 2 MAY 2011

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC Bradley
E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced maUer.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 22 April 2011 until the date ofthis memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case;
a. Original Classification Authorities'(OCA) reviews of classified information.
b OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for .Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
e. Government Request for Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation, dated 25 April 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).

Ends
as
CF: (wo/encls)
1 -Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

CXRL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28633

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
JOINT 6ASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211 1199
REPLY YO
ATTENTIONOF

^ 7 2011

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJEC T; Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c)
E. Manning

U.S. v. PFC Bradley

1. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the abovc-rcfercnccd matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 12 May 2011 until the dale ofthis memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. B.AS1S OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:
a. Original Classification Authorities'(OCA) reviews of classified informalion.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified informalion.
c. Delense Request for Results of Ihc Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for .appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
e. Government Request lor Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 22 May 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, bul merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).

Ends
as

CF; (wo/encls) ,
l-Trial Counsel
I -Defense Counsel

CARLR. COFFMAN. JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28634

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

IMND-MHH-ZA

^ 3 JUL 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT; .Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC Bradlev
E. Manning

I - PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Marlial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 17 June 2011 until the date of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:
a. Original Classification Authorities'(OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
iManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 5 Jul 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).

-^kWctrEnds
as

CF; (wo/encls)
I -Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28635

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MHH-ZA

1^ A/Cr H

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT; Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - United Stales v.
PFC Bradlev E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is lo provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 13 July 2011 until the dale of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,
responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:
a. Original Classification Authorities' (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Appropriate Securiiy Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
c. Government Requesi for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of cxdudable delay is nol intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting lo the dale of ihis

memorandum.
5 I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),
and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).

J^pjdtm^
Ends
as

CF: (wo/ends)
l-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARLR. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28636

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

IMND-MHH-ZA

15 SEP 2» 11

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delayunder Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 10 August 2011 until the date of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The period of excludable delay is reasonable based on the following extensions,
defense requests, responses, and the facts and circumstances ofthis case:
a. Original Classification Authorities' (OCA) reviews ofclassified information.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results ofthe Govemment's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 25 August 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),
and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).

•^TfefeW^
Ends
as

CF: (wo/encls)
1 -Trial Counsel
1 -Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28637

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

1 4 OCT 2011

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT; Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 15 September 2011 until the date of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The period of excludable delay is reasonable based on the following extensions,
defense requests, responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case;
a. Original Classification Authorities' (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results ofthe Government's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFC
Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).
• c. Govemment Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 26 September 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),
and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).

Ends
as

CF; (wo/encls)
l-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28638

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

ik MD\] lj

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT; Accounfing of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is lo provide a periodic accounfing for any excludable
delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 14 October 2011 until the date of this memorandum is
excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The period of excludable delay is reasonable based on the following extensions,
defense requests, responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case;
a. Original Classification Authorities' (OCA) reviews of classified information.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results of the Govemment's Classificafion Reviews by the OCA, daled 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 27 October 2011 (enclosed).
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended lo supersede any
previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounfing to the date of this
memorandum.
5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),
and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).

Ends
as

CF; (wo/encls)
l-Trial Counsel
I -Defense Counsel

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28639

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1139

STAttfg»(2^

IMND-MHH-ZA

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludable
delay under Rule for Cou rts-Mart ial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.
2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 16 November 2011 up to and including 15 December
2011 is excludable delay under RCM 707(c).
3. BASIS OF DELAY. The period of excludable delay is reasonable based on the following extensions,
defense requests, responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case;
a. Original Classification Authorities' (OCA) reviews of classified informafion.
b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.
c. Defense Request for Results of the Govemment's Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26
August 2010 (enclosed).
d. Govemment Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigafion, dated 10 November 2011 (enclosed),
4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede any
previousdelays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of this
memorandum.
5. 1 acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),
and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).

Ends
as
CF: (wo/encls)
1 -Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

-4Mfct7

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28640

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 29

10 October 2012







DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE IIYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT men, VIRGINIA 222114199

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

'5 FEB

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief, Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 20307 5001

SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

l. Background. On 3 August 2010, I ordered a medical examination into the mental capacity
and mental responsibility of PFC Bradley Manning, Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, Army Garrison, Fort Myer, Virginia, 22211. Prior to the board
beginning their assessment, I received a request from defense counsel on 25 August 2010 to
delay the board until an expert consultant in forensic could be appointed to the
defense team. I approved that defense delay request on the same day. On 26 August 2010, I
received an additional defense request to delay the board until procedures could be adopted to
have the board comply with disclosure prohibitions on classified information. 1 approved that
delay and subsequently addressed defense concerns involving the disclosure of classified
information during the board process.

2. Order. I order your team to resume the medical examination into the mental capacity and
mental responsibility of PFC Bradley Manning.

3. Reasons. The reasons for my previous order were based on the information contained in the
Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and the Defense Renewed Request for
Sanity Board, dated 18 July 2010. According to the defense request, PFC Manning had been
diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct. The
defense alleged that PFC Manning's leadership repeatedly expressed concerns about his mental
health, and PFC Manning was placed on suicide watch while in pretrial confinement in Kuwait.

4. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706(c).
the board shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical
Defense requested that the board consist of three members, including at least one forensic
one forensic and one You may, but are not required
to comply with the defense request. At least one member of the board, however, shall be either a
or a clinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriate
personnel from within your staff to comprise all or part of the board.

5. Defense Request for Appointment of an Expert Consultant. I appointed CAPT Kevin D.
Moore as a defense expert consultant in forensic and a member of the defense team
under U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule ofEvidence 502. The
defense requested this expert be permitted to evaluate and work with PFC Manning prior to the
R.C.M. 706 board and that the expert be permitted to monitor the examinations conducted by



. . 28642

IMN D-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

members of the board. As such, I authorize the senior member of the board, in consultation with
PFC Manning's primary behavioral health care provider, to address the defense requests and
determine the extent to which the defense expert consultant may participate in the board?s

inquiry.

6. Special Security Instructions. The defense proffered that PFC Manning would likely need
to divulge information potentially rising to the level in order to aid the members in their
determination of his mental state at the time of the alleged incidents. The following special
instructions apply to the portion of the board requiring discussion of classi?ed information with
PFC Manning:

a. Each member of the board will be cleared up to the level and be read on to the
following compartments: Until each member of the board is read-on, the board
will not conduct the portion of the examination requiring discussions with PFC Manning.

b. Each member of the board has a ?need-to-lclassified information with PFC Manning during theirinquiry. The only classified information
available to the board is the mental impressions of PFC Manning.

c. Each member of the board will read and acknowledge the enclosed Protective Order no
later than three duty days following the date of this memorandum.

d. The board will conduct all their examinations and testing in an unclassi?ed
environment, except the portion of the examination and testing requiring discussions with PFC
Manning will occur in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The board will
organize their inquiry and examinations in a manner that minimizes the impact of delay due to
issues arising from the disclosure of classi?ed information by PFC Manning.

e. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than four duty days before conducting the
portion of the board requiring interviews with PFC Manning. The trial counsel is responsible for
identifying an appropriate SCIF for the discussion of classi?ed information and providing
adequate privacy for the board.

f. To the extent possible, the board will take and maintain only unclassi?ed notes and
transcriptions; however, any notes or transcriptions that must contain classi?ed information or
potentially classi?ed information will be handled in accordance with applicable law, regulations,
the Protective Order, and any speci?c security procedures your security of?cer delineates. A
security of?cer will review all notes and transcripts to determine the proper classi?cation.

g. I appointed Mr. Charles Ganiel and Mr. Cassius Hall as defense security expert
consultants. Mr. Ganicl or Mr. Hall will also act as the security officer for the board and should
be consulted when classi?ed information issues arise. The security expert is directly responsible
for storage and handling of all classi?ed information, to include the board members? notes and
any transcriptions. The security expert is not required to participate in the board proceedings,



. . 28643


SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

but will be physically present at the location for on-site consultation, security inspections, and to
assist with handling and storage of classi?ed information.

h. All reports drafted and submitted by the board to the parties in this case will be
unclassi?ed. If a report must contain classi?ed information, submit a written request to me,
through the trial counsel.

7. Required Findings. The board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinct
?ndings as to 7a-7c (below), using diagnostic tools that the board, in its professional discretion,
believes to be necessary and appropriate. In their request, defense counsel posed a number of
speci?c requests for matters to be evaluated and speci?c tests to be conducted. You may,
therefore, conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in 7f 7k
and 9 (below), but are not required to do so.

a. Does PFC Manning currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If the answer to
is yes, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the American
Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?
(3) What is PFC Manning?s prognosis for recovery?

(4) Can this severe mental disease or defect be successfully controlled by treatment
with drugs?

(5) Does the long-terrn commitment of PFC Manning appear to be a necessary
alternative?

b. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the
proceedings and the seriousness of the charges against him? If the answer to is no, answer
the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment
with drugs?

(3) hat is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

c. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in his own
defense? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

DJ



. . 28644

IMND-MHH ZA
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be- successfully treated/controlled by treatment
with drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

d. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did PFC Manning have a severe mental
disease or defect? If the answer to is yes, answer the following four questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe
mental disease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality or
wrongfulness of his conduct?

(3) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality
caused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, or
cultural standard ofconduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

(4) Was this impairment complete?

e. At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mental
disease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of
his conduct? If the answer to is yes, answer the following three questions.

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality
caused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, or
cultural standard of conduct, which differs from that of society as a whole?

(3) Was this impairment complete?

f. Was PFC Manning, at the time of the offense, able to formulate a specific intent to
commit the alleged acts, to know the probable consequences of his actions, or to premeditate a
design to commit the acts? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

What personality type does PFC Manning possess?

rzo

h. What is the PFC Manning's intelligence level?



IMN
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

i. Does PFC Manning suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with his
ability to think, respond emotionally, remember, communicate, interpret reality, and behave
appropriately? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?

j. Does PFC Manning have an organic brain/nervous system disorder or impairment that
would impact his ability to think reason, perceive, recall, or in any way control hisbehavior or
his thoughts? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?

k. Does PFC Manning suffer from any level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? If the
answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?
8. Consideration.

a. The sanity board should, at a minimum, consider all of the following materials in
reaching their findings:

(1) The results of and neurological tests, including raw
test data.

(2) PFC Manning?s mental health records.
(3) PFC Manning?s medical records.

(4) Interviews with PFC Manning.

(5) The charge sheet.

b. You may consider, at your professional discretion, any additional questions or matters
posed by the defense if such matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of this
memorandum.

9. In conjunction with the sanity board, you shall also complete a comprehensive neurological
examination to include a CAT scan.

. . 28646

IMND-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning

10. Movement for Appointments. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than four
duty days before any scheduled appointment for medical evaluation or testing, in order for the
trial counsel to arrange adequate transportation and security.

1 1. Release of Report. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with the
disclosure prohibitions of Military Rule of Evidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3) and the special
security instructions in paragraph 6, above. Only a statement consisting of the sanity board?s
ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 7a through will be provided to the trial
counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC Manning or any evidence
derived from such statements, should be provided to PFC Manning's civilian and military
defense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs and MAJ Matthew Kemkes.

12. Telephone Numbers. CPT Ashden Fein is the government counsel. PT Fein may be
reached at?. lnforrnation pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from his
defense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs, at l-800-S88-4156 or his military defense counsel, MAJ

Kemkesa at?-

l3. Suspense. This medical examination and your findings shall be completed no later than
four weeks from the date of this memorandum. Any extension of time must be submitted

through the trial counsel to me for approval.

5 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
1. RequestsCOL, AV

2. Protective Order, 17 Sep 10 Commanding

3. Protective Order Acknowledgment

4. Charge Sheet

5. Allied Documents

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28647

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 30

10 October 2012





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
warren seen Anuv HEDICAL cemsn
warren new HEALTH cm:
. oc 20007-5001

MCHL-FPS 14 March 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY, COL CARL R. COFFMAN, Jr.,
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL, 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER, VIRGINIA
2221 l-l 199

SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.

1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFC
Bradley Manning. The original order asked that the report be completed by 3 March 201 1.

2. The evaluators are coordinating suitable dates and times for the final evaluation session to
take place. This involves multiple parties. Additionally, the ?nal interview will take place at a
SCIF and this has resulted in the consumption of extra time for this aspect of the evaluation to be
coordinated. We anticipate that the final date for the evaluation should take place in the first ten
days of April 201 and are expecting that this will be confirmed today.

3. We are asking for three weeks from the date of the final interview to deliver the completed
evaluation reports to the respective parties. Hence, we ask for a suspense date of Friday, 29
April 201 l.

4. POC for this memorandum is Dr. Michael Sweda, WRAMC Department,

Forensic Service,


MICHAEL PH. D, AB PP (Forensic)
CHIEF, FORENSIC SERVICE
Forensic -





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
WALTER REED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, Dc 20301-5001

MCHL-FPS 15 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY, COL CARL R. COFFMAN, Jr.,
JOINT BASE HALL, 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER, VIRGINIA
22211?1 199

SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.

1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFC
Bradley Manning. The current suspense is 16 April.

2. The final interview with SPC Manning was conducted on 9 April. The Board has been
diligently working on completion of the long report. We are nearing ?nalization of the report,
but have had limited availability to meet as a full board to discuss the report. This is because of
con?icting schedules and demands of the three board members.

3. The board respectfully requests an extension of the suspense to COB on Friday, 22 April
2011 to allow full and adequate time to discuss and review all pertinent findings.



MICHAEL SWEDA, . ABPP (Forensic)
CHIEF, FORENSIC PSY HOLOGY SERVICE
Forensic



28650

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for LacL ofSpeedyTrial
Manning,BradIeyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC,U.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

^^^^^

Endosure31
lOOctober 2012

28651

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORTMYER, VA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MHH-ZA

' ^ ^^'^ '^^'^

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief Forensic Psychology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 20307-5001
SUBJECT: Extension Request for RCM 706 Sanity Board - U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

I have reviewed the request for an extension ofthe RCM 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. The
request is;
) approved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than 16 April 2011. Any other
extension of time must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.
(

) disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.

Q_WLW,
CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL, AV
Commanding
CF; (wo/encls)
1-Defense Counsel

28652

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORTMYER, VA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTION OF

l^A^IC^^I

IMNDMHHZA

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief, Forensic Psychology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 20307-5001
SUBJECT: Extension Request forRCM 706 Sanity Board^USv.PFC Bradley Manning

lhave reviewed the request for an extension ofthe RCM 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. The
request is:
( ^ ^ ) approved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than 22 April 2011. Any other
extension oftime must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.
(

) disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.

iinix
CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding
CF: (wo/encls)
1-Defense Counsel

28653

Appellate E^hihit33^
Enclosure 32
^pages
ordered sealed for Reasons
^ilitar^^udge^s Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the original Record
ofTrial

28654

Unmarked redactions where present in this document when it was received by the Army

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Y^

Manning, BradleyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Mofion to Dismiss
for LacL ofSpeedyTrial
Endosure 33
lOOctober 2012

28655

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

BCPLYTO
ATTBmONOF;

HEADQUARTERS, 1ST ARMORED nVISiON ANO
UNITED STATES DIVISION - CENTER
CAMP UBERTY. IRAQ
APOAE 09344

AETV-THZ

22 October 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: United States v. Manning, events surrounding the appointment of a RMC 7(K Board
1. This memorandum provides dietimelineand action taken myself and others to coordinate
for a Rule fcr Courts-Martial (RCM) 706, inquiry into the mental capadty or mental
responsibility of Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning.
2. On 29 May 2010 PFC Manning entaed preti-ial confinement at the Theater Field
Confmonent Facility (TFCF) at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait On 28 J u n c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g g g g
lllfllllllllllllll^^
Area Support Group-Kuwait, contacted the trial
counsel. Captain (CPT) Alison Atkins to notify us that PFC Manning was exhibiting behavioral
problems and would have to be transferred to a Regional Confinement Facility (RCF) soon ifhe
were to stay in pretrial confinemenL

Jime thejgggggjggggggggggg^^
m B H H H H c o n t a c t e d g ^ g g g g g g g . United States Forces - Iraq (USF-I) SJA to
find out the plans for moving PFC Manning to a longterm confinement facility. The leadership
at the TFCF relayed that PFC Manning was refusing to comply with Cadre guidance, that he
display"ed alleged mental status changes, and that he was seen by doctors at the TFCF medical
facility for self-inflicted injuries.
4. On I July, in antidpation of a defense request for a RCM 706 board, and the possibility ofour
transferring PFC Manning to the Mannheim Area ConfiiKment Fadlity (ACF) in Germany
(based on the TFCF's request for transfer), CPT Atkins contacted medical personnel at Europe
Regional Medical (Command and Landstuhl Regional Medical Command lo begui coordination
for the board and to identify a fwovider.
5. On 3 Jdy the Expeditionary Medical Facility in Kuwait examined PFC Manning and wrote a
memo stating that PFC Manning's mental condition had deteriorated and that they recommended
that he be moved to a correctional facility that codd provide him with additional care. On 4 July
^ m m i
infbnriedgggggggggggg^
that the CG, Third Army /
USARCENT ordered that we transfer PFC Manning from the TFCF due to their lack of
resources to provide specialized moital health care as soon as we identified an appropriate
facility that was willing to accept him.
6.1 discussed the issue with CPT Atkins and g g g g g g and we decided that the best course of
actfon was to prefer charges and get the RCM 706 board and Artide 32 hearing conducted before

28656

AETV-THZ
SUBJECT United Stales v. Manning events surrounding the appointment ofa RMC 706 Board

transferring him out of theater. We made this decision in part based on the request of his defense
counsel in Iraq
7. On 5 July the government preferred charges against PFC Manning; the spedal court martin
convening authority (SPCMCA) appointed LTC Craig Merutka as the Article 32 officer on 7
Jdy. LTC Memtka scheduled the Article 32 for 14 July. On 11 Jdy. PFC Manning's defense
counsel. CPT Paul Bouchard, made a formal request for a RCM 706 board and a delay in die
Article 32 hearing. Upon receiving CPT Bouchard's request, CPT Atkins contacted t h e g g g g
jllllllgglllllllg^
gg^ (hg name of the provider who would conduct
the board, g g g g g g j requested assistance from
to task a provider to conduct the board,
I recommended that we ask CENTCOM for
assistance.
8. To comply with the Thini Army / USARCENT CG s transfer request,
signed a memorandum on 11 July requesting that the Commander, Army Corrections
Command transfer PFC Manning to the Mannheim ACF located in Germany.
9. On 12 Jdy the SPCM A approved defense's request fbr a delayforthe Article 32 hearing until
16 August. Additionally, CPT Atkins reengaged w i i h ] g g g g g g a n d ^ ^ ^ g j ^ g ^ g ,
^ B H H H H H H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B and expressed the urgency of identifying a provider to
conduct the boanl. g g g g g g g j responded that no one would volunteer due lo the ume
requirements and told CPT Atkins that she would need to go through cither CENTCOM or
ARCENT for the tasking.
to. At this point on 12 July, I contacted by email t h e l l H ^ ^ ^ l ^ l ^ ^ m ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ l
g g g g g g g for assistance. I explained that USD-C only had one provider qualified lo conduct
the board (I found oui later thai she was not qualified) and lhat she could not perform the board
due to a confiict ofinterest As a result I asked if USF-1 would be willing lo task a provider.
I . Based on my r«]uest, ^ g g g g g contacted f / f / j / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ^ ^
for
assistance; g g g g g g grespondedthat because PFC Manning was locaial in Kuwait it was
outside his area of operation and could not task a provider. Later thai night 1 spoke
telephonically vvithgggggg requestingmi^UNMI assistance in having USF-I task a
provider on the basis that although PFC Manning was located in Kuwait, he still belonged to
USD-C and we were requesting a USF-I doctor
12. On 13 July ^ B B H H I contacted me to emphasize that we needed to transfer PFC
Manning as soon as we found an appropriate facility and not to wait until after the RCM 706
called and informed me that USF-I would facilitate getting the
board. Shortly after.
RCM 706 provider appointed; at that point I asked him to hold off because I was working to
identify a confinement facility near mental health resources to transfer PFC Manning. I expected
the process to take two tofivedays.

28657

AETV-nU'.
SUBJECf: United Stales v Manning, cvoits surrounding the appointment of a RMC 706 Board

15 From 13 lo 15 July I worked with LTC Brian Hughes, Chief Military & Civil Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate, US Army Europe and g g g g g g g ^ ^ ^ g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
g j g ' . Army Corrections Command to try and transfer PFC Manning to the Mannheim ACF.
Ibe Mannheim ACF was unable to take him. At that point g g g g g g g identified the Army
RCF at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. Due to issues unrelated to this case, we could not
transfer PFC Manning to the RCF at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. On 27 July gggggg,
gggjjggggUS Army Military District of Washington (MDW) agreed to lake General Court>4aTtia1 jurisdiction over PFC Manning. The Army Corrections Command transferred PFC
Manning on 29 July ta the brig ai Quantico Nfarine Base, Virginia.
14. Additionally, on 27 J d y ^ ^ ^ g reengaged g [ ^ g # g g for her assistance on getting a
provider appointed to conduct the RCM 706 board because we had heard that the transfer would
take up to another week to complete. The issue became moot when g g g g g g g notified us that
PF(- Manning would depart Kuw^ait on 29 Jdy.
15. Immediately upon PFC Manning's arnval at the Quantico Brig Marine on 29 Jdy 2010. the
trial counsel at US Army MDW began to coordinate for the RCM 706 board.

Deputy Staff JtKige Advocate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



0 28658

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 34

10 October 2012





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT cormnno
HEADQUARTERS. us. ARMY GARRISON
204 LEE AVENUE
roar MYER. VA 22211-1199



REPLY TO
ATTENTTON O5

IMNE-MYR-ZA 3 AUG

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Washington. DC 20307-500!

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

I. Order. 1 order a medical examination into the mental capacity and mental responsibility of PFC
Bradley Manning?. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S. Army Garrison.
Fort Myer. Virginia. 222l l.

2. Reasons. The reasons for this order are based on the information contained in the Defense
Request for Sanity Board. dated July 20|0 and the Defense Renewed Request for Sanity Board.
dated I8 July 20 I 0. According to defcnse?s request, PFC Manning has been diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances ofemotions. conduct. Defense also alleges that PFC
Manning?s leadership repeatedly expressed concerns about his mental health and PFC Manning was
placed on suicide watch while in pre-trial con?nement in Kuwait.

3. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) the
board shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical Defense
requests that the board consist of three members. including at least one forensic one
forensic and one neuro You may. but are not required to comply with
defense?s request. At least one member ofthe board, however. shall be either a or a
clinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriate personnel from
within your staff to comprise all or pan of the board.

4. Required Findings. The Board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinct
?ndings as to 4a-4e (below). using diagnostic tools that the Board, in its professional discretion,
believes to be necessary and appropriate. in his request, the defense counsel posed a number of
speci?c requests for matters to be evaluated and specific tests to be conducted. You may. therefore.
conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in 4f-4k and 6 (below).

but are not required to do so.

a. Does the accused currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If the answer to is yes.
answer the following questions:

I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the American Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM
(7) Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?

n.

(3) What is the accused?s prognosis for recovery?







IMNE-MYR-ZA
-SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

(4) Can this severe mental disease or defect be successfully controlled by treatment with
drugs?
(5) Does the long'?term commitment ofthe accused appear to be a necessary altemative?

la. Does the accused have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and the
of the charges against her?? If the answer to is no, answer the Following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment with
druas?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

c. Does the accused have the mental capacity to cooperate inte'lligentl_v in her own defense? if the
answer to is no. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treatecL?controlled by treatment with
drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did the accused have a severe mental disease or
defect? lf the is yes. ansvver the following four questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as result of such severe mental
disease or defect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongftilness of her
conduct??

(3) is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect olicharacter or personality caused
by inadequate training and development. lack of moral restraint. or a personal. social. or cultural
standard ofconductt which differs from that of society as a whole?

('4)Was this impairment complete??
e. At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result ofsuch severe mental disease or
defect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or of her conduct? ll?

the answer to is yes. answer the following three questions.

(it What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

la.)

nclassi?ed__Discovery_Manning 5





0 . 28661
IMN F.-MYR-ZA

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning

(2) is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality caused
by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal. social, or cultural
standard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

(3) Was this impairment complete?

f. Was the accused, at the time of the of fensc. able to formulate a specific intent to commit the
alleged acts, to know the probable consequences of her actions, or to premeditate a design to commit
the acts? lfthe answer to is no. answer the following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

g. What personality type does this Soldier possess?

h. What is the Soldier's intelligence level?

i. Does the Soldier suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with her ability to
think. respond emotionally, remember, communicate. interpret reality, and behave appropriately? If
the answer to is yes. answer the following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

j. Does the Soldier have an organic brainfnervous system disorder or impairment that would
impact her ability to think reason, perceive. recall. or in any way control her behavior or her
thoughts? If the answer to is yes. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

it. Does this Solidcr stiffer from any level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? If the answer to
is yes. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?
5. Consideration.

a. The sanity board should, at a minimum, consider all of the following materials in reaching their
?ndings:

The results of and neurological tests.



UncIassi?ed_Discovery_Manning



. 28662
IMN E-M YR-ZA

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

(2) Accuscd?s mental health records.
(3) Aecuscd?s medical records.
(4) Interviews with accused.

(5) The charge sheet.

b. You may consider. at your professional discretion. any additional questions or matters posed by
the defense if such matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of this memorandum.

6. ln conjunction with the sanity board. you shall also complete a comprehensive neurological
examination to include a CAT scan.

7. Release of Report. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with the
disclosure prohibitions of Military Rule of Evidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3). Only a statement
consisting of the sanity board?s ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 4a through 4k
will be provided to the trial counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC
Manning or any evidence derived from such statements should be provided to PFC Manning's
defense counsel, Cl?? Paul Bouchard, Trial Defense Service. Camp Liberty. Iraq.

8. Telephone Numbers. CPT Ashden Fein is the government counsel. PT Fcin may be reached at
. Information pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from his defense counsel.

-
CPT B?u?hard~ --

9. Suspense. This medical examination and your Findings shall be completed no later than 20
August 20! 0. extension of time must be submitted through the Government counsel to me for
approval.

I0. Delay. The period between the request for a delay, on 12 July 20lO. and the date the R.C.M.
706 inquiry is complete is excludable delay IAW R.C.M. 707(c).

RL R. COFFMAN JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

7

28663

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Mofion to Dismiss
for Lacl^ ofSpeedy Trial
Manning,BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Endosure 3^
10 October 2012

28664

15 August 2010
MEMORANDUM THRU Staffjudge .Advocate. Office ofthe Staffjudge Advocate. US Anny
Military District of Washington. Fon Lesley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 302 N
FOR Commander. US Army Militarv- District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair.
Washington D.C. 20319
SUBJECT: RequestforAppointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic Psychiatry to .Assist
the Defense in Untied Stales v. PFC Bradlev Manning.
1. On 18 July 2010.tiiedefei"ise requested that a R.C.M. 706 sanity board be appointed in the
case of United States v. Manning, and that a separate medical expert be appointed to the defense
to observe the R.C.M. 706 board.
2. On 25 August 2010. the defense received notification that a R.C.M. 706 board would begin its
assessment of PFC Manning on 27 .August 2010. The defense requests that the sanity board be
delayed until a forensic psychiatrist can be appointed to the defense team. Ifthe govemment has
denied the former requesL the defense herebyrenewsits request.
3. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d). PFC Bradlev Manning requests that a forensic psychiatrist from
another branch of serv ice be designated as a member ofthe defense team under Militarv Rule of
Evidence M.R.E, 502 and L'MW.%(7/&9 r T^WfJb. 25 M.J. 270 (CMA 1987). PFC Manning
also requests that appropriate arrangements be madeforthe forensic psychiatrist to travel to
Quantico, Virginia to evaluate and work v\ ith PFC Manning prior to the R.C.M. 706 board.
4. A militar) accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, arightto expert
assistance w hen necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Gurries. 22 M.J. 288
(CMA 1986); i'nileJSlates v. Rt>hinson 39 M.J. 88 (CMA 1994). and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470
U.S. 226 (1971). The Court of .Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a three-part test fbr
determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The defense must show:
"First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert assistance accomplish
for the accused. Third, why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the expert assistant
would be able to develop." Umted States v. Gonzalez, 39 M J. 459 (1994).
5. All ofthe above requirements tor employment ofan expert are present and the defense is
entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The government has
begun the process ofconducting a sanilv board on PFC .Manning and is presumably using the
best available .Army doctors for this purpose. PFC Manning is only requesting a single forensic
psythiatrisi from another btanch of service be appointed to the defense team to assist in
understanding and preparing his defense.
a. Why Is Expert .Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense in
understanding medical information concerning the mental status of PFC Manning on the daids)
of the alleged crimes, to determine whether he is able to understand the nature and quality ofthe

28665

Sl 'BJECT: Request for .Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic Psychiatry to .Assist
the Defense in United Stales v. PFC Bradley Manning

wrongfulness ofhis conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able to inieltigemlv assist in
his defense, and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation and mitigation tor die
accused. The knowledge required to do fhis is specialized, and concems medical and psychiatric
data which is beyond the scope of defense counsel 's understanding.
b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the .Accused? ,A forensic psychiatrist
assigned to the defense would assist the defense by explaining complex medical terms and the
psychology involved at the time ofthe alleged crimes. The expert would also administer tests
which would aid in potential diagnosis and treatment, Finally, the expert would be able to
explain medical research in the field offorensic psychiatrv- and its relevance lo the present case.
c. Why is the Defense I nable to Gather this Evidence on Its Ow n? The defense has neither
the experience nor expertise to adequatdv prepare this case. The defense counsd needs a basic
understanding of psychiatrv in order to present the defense case, including the need to prepare
defense experts to testify. It would be impossible for the defense to properlj prepare without
having an individual who has the confidentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. As a member
ofthe defense team,tiiedefense appointed expert can freely discuss the defense theories ofthe
case without fear of compromising PFC Manning's rights.
6. For the above reasons, the defense requests that you issue an order appointing a forensic
psychiatrist from another branch of service as an expert: that you insimci him'her that he/she is a
"defense representative" and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to him/her
duringtiiecourse ofhis emplojrnent as a member of ihe defense team will be confidential.
Finally the defense requests that you direct that ihe R.C.M. 706 board be delayed until the
defense appointed fbrensic psychiatrist can be made available to monitor the examinations
conducted by the members ofthe board. The defense believes that the presence ofa member of
the defense team will increase PFC Manning's willingness to cooperate vvith the sanity board.
Moreover, il vvill ensure that the defense team hasfirst-handknowledge ofthe accuracy and
quality ofall examinations conducted by the members ofthe board. This will ultimately reduce
the need for future litigation on such issues.
7. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombs:«iarmveourtmartialdefense.com.

6

^

y/r-C
/

^AVID E. COOMBS^
Civilian Defense Counsel

28666

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Manning,BradIeyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lad^ ofSpeedyTrial
Endosure 36
lOOctober 2012

28667

25eptember201D
MEMORANlTUMTHRUStaff^JudgeAdvocate.OfiiceoftheStafTJudge Advocate, USArinv
MilitarvOistrictofWashington.Fort Lesley .LMcNair.Washington D.C. 30219
FORCommander.LS.Army Military District ofWashington.Fort Lesley J.McNair,
WashingtonDC 203l9
SLlBJECT:Request fbr Appropriate Security Clearancesforthe Defonsefeam and Access for
PFC Bradley Manning
1. Tl^e defonse believes that in order to adequately represeiit our clienL each member of the
defense team will needaTopSecret^SensitiveCompartmented Information (TS-SCl)
clearance. The defonse team is currently comprised ofthe fbllovvitig counsel: Mr.David
Coombs(M.A.I(Pl in theUnited States.Atmy Reserves); MAJ Matthew .L Kemkes; CPT Paul R.
Broiichard;andCPTMichael L. Eaton.
2. Accessforeach ofthe defense counsel is necessary in order fi:ir PFC Marming to recdvedue
process andalair trial. Denial of access would impede PFC Manning'sdefonse and prevent full
discussion conceming thii^ case vvith our client. Therefbre. expedited access is requested
3. The defense also requests limited aiithoriB:ationforPFC Manning^saccess to dassified
inlormation. It is likely that PFC Manning'saccess has been suspended due to the prden"ed
charges. It is anticipated that the defonse w ill need to discuss and share access to the dassified
infbrmation at issue in this case with our diem Therefore, the defense requesied authori^tion
for lintited access to classified information by the acctisedit^accLirdance vvith M.R.E. ^05(d)f4).
4. The POC is the undersigned at(401)744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombs^^^armycourtmartialdefonse.com.

COOMBS
Civiliai"! Defonse Counsel

28668

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Prosecufion Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Manning,BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Endosure 37
lOOctober 2012

28669

REPLYTO
ATTENTIONOF

OEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
JOINTBASEMYERHENDERSONHALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211 1199

I^^INO^MHHZA

17S^tcmbor20I0

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SOBJECT: ProtectiveOrderforClassificdInformation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis Protective Order is to provent the unauthori2:cd disclosure
or dissemination ofclassified national security information in the subject named case This
Protective Order covers all information and documents previously available toti^eaccused in the
course of his employment with the United States Govermnent or which have been, or wifi be,
reviewedormadeavailabletotheaccused, defonse counsel, and other recipients ofclassified
information in this case.
2

APPLICABILITY. ^^Persons subject to tins Protective Order^^ include tiie following:
a

theAccused^

b. Military and Civilian Defonse Counsel and Detailed Military Paralegals;
c MomborsoftboDofonsoTcamlAWMT^ E 50ZandU^ V Tol6do.25MT 270
^ C J ^ ^ 19^7)^
d. Security Officers^
e

Members ofthe Rule for Courts Martial 706 Inquiry Boards and

f.

Behavioral Health Providers for the Accused.

3. ORDER. Inordertoprotectthenationalsecurity and pursuant to the authority granted under
Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 505, relevant executive orders of the President of the United
States, aiTd regulations ofthe Departments ofDefonse and ofthe Army, it is hereby ORDERED:
a. The procedures set forth in this Protective Order and the authorities reforred to above will
applytotheRuleIbrCourts Martial(RCM)706inquiry, Article 32 investigation, protrial, trial,
post-trial, and appellate matiers conceming tins case.
b. The term ^^dassified information^^ refors to:
(I)

any classified document (or information contained theroin)^

28670

l^NDMHll-ZA
SLIBJECT: Protective Order for Classified Infoi"mation^United Statesv.PFC Bradley Manning

(2)
infonnation knowi^ or that reasonably should be known by persons subject to tins
Protective Order to be classifiable. Ifpersons subject to this Protective Order are uncertain as to
whether the information is classified, they must confinnvvhether the infoi mation is classifieds
(3)
classified documents(otinfoimation contained therein) disclosed to persons
subject to this Protective Order as part ofthe proceedings in this case^
(4)
dassified documents and information whichhave otherwise been made kt^own to
persons subject to this Protective Order and which have been mai"ked or described as:
^^CONFlDENTlAL",^^SECRET^^,or'TOPSECRET^^
c. All such dassified documents ai^d information contained therein shall remain dassified
unless such classified infot"mation bear clear indication they have been declassified by the
government agency or department that originated the document or information contained therein
(heieinafler refeired to as ^^original classification authority").
d. The words ^^documents^^ or ^^associated materials^'as used in tl:us Protective Order
include, but are t"iot limited to, all vvritien or printed matter ofany kind,fonnal or infonnal,
including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether diffei"et:itfi:om the original by reason
of any notation made on such copies or otherwise,it^cluding,without limitation, papers,
con"espot^dence, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, reports, summaries, it:itei"-officeai^d intraoffice communications, notations of any sot"t, bulletins,teletypes, telefax, inyoices,worksl"ieets,
and all drafis, alterations, modifications, changes, and ainendment ofany kind toti:teforegoing,
graphicorauial records or i"epi"eset"itations of ai"iy kind, including,without limitation,
photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, mici"ofilm,yideo tapes, sound recordings of any kind,
motion pictures, any electronic, mechanical or electric records or lepiesentations ofany kind,
including,without limitation, tapes, cassettes, CDs,DVDs, thumbdrives,hard drives, other
recordings, films, typewriter ribbons at^d word processor discs or tapes.
e. The word ^^or" should be intei"pi"eted as including ^^and",and vice versa^^^he" should be
interpreted as including ^^she",and vice versa.
f. Persons subject to this Protective Older are advised that direct or indirect unauthorised
disclosure, retentiot:i,ornegligent handling ofclassified itiformation could cause serious and, in
some cases,exceptionally grave damage to the national security ofthe United States, ot" may be
used to the advantageofaforeign nation against the interests ofthe United States. These
security pioceduies are designed to ensure that persons subject to this Protective Order will never
divulge the classified information disclosed to them to anyone who is not auti:iori^ed to receive it,
without prior written authorisation from the original classification authority and in conformity
with these procedures.
g. Persons subject to this Protective Older are admonished that they ate obligated by law
and regulation not to disclose any classified information in aiT unauthorised fashion.

28671

IIVIND-MHII-ZA
SdBJECT: Piotective Order lor Classified Infom^ation^United Statesv.PFC Bradley Mantting

h. Persons subject to this Protective Order are admonishedti:iatany breachofthe security
procedures in this Protective Ordeimay result in the termination oftheir access to classified
infonnation. In addition,ti^eyare admonished that any unauthorised disclosure, possession, or
ha^^dling ofclassified infonnation may constitute violatioi^sofUttited States ciimitial laws,
including but not limited to, the provisions ofSections 641,793,794, 798,and 9^2, Title 18,
Utiited States Code, and Sections 421ai^d 783(b), Title ^0, United States Code In addition, for
those persons who are attorneys,areport will be filed with their State Bar Association.
4 Prior to at^y RCM 706 it^quiry,Ai"ticle 32 investigation, or court-martial proceeding,a
security officer will be appointed in writing and served withacopy ofthis protective order.
5. Peisotmel Securityfovestigationsai^dClearances
a. The storage,hai^dling, and control ofclassified infonnation requires special security
precautions mandated by statute, executive orders, and regulations, and access to which requirea
security cleai ai^ce.
b. Onceaperson subject to this Protective Older obtainsasecuiity clearance and executesa
non-disclosure agreement (SF312), that person is eligible for access to dassified infonTiation,
subject to the convening authority'sdisclosuredetennination.
c Asacondition ofreceiving classified it:ifoni^atiot^, any retained civilian defense counsel
will agree to the conditions specified herein at^d execute all necessary fonns so that the
Departmentofthe Army may complete the necessary pei"som:iel security investigation to makea
determination whether to grant access Any i"etait:ied civilian defense counsel will also sign ti:ie
Acki^owledgment of Protective Order (lieieinafter^^Acki^owledgment"). Any retained civilian
defense counsel shall also signastandard form nondisclosure agreement (SF312)asacondition
of access to classified information.
d. In addition to the Acki"iowledgment, any person who asaresult ofthis case gains
access to information contained in any Departmentofthe Army Special Access Program,
as that temi is defined in Executive Oi"derl3526 ^or for events occurring before 27 June
2010, E.O.12958j, or to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), shall sign any
nondisclosure agreement which is specific to that Special Access Program or to that
Sensitive Compartmented lnfoi"n"iation.
e. All other requests for clearances for access to classified itiformation in this case for
persons not named in this Protective Order or for clearances toahigher level of classification,
shall be made through the trial cotmsel to the convening authority.
f The security procedures contained in this Piotective Older shall apply to any civilian
defense cout^sel retained by the accused, and to any other persons who may later receive
classified infotT:t^ation from theU.S.Department ofthe Anny in cot^nection with this case.
6. ITatTdlingat^d Protection ofclassified Information

28672

IIVINDMIIIT-ZA
SL1B.1ECT: Protective Order for Classified Information^United Statesv.PFC Bradley Mamnt^g

a. All persons subject to this Protective Order shall seek guidance from their respective
security oflicers with regard to the appropriate storage and use ofclassified infonnatiot^.
b. The defense security officerwill ensure appropriate physical security protection for any
materials prepared or compiled by tl:ie defense, or by aity person in relation to the preparation of
theaccused'sdefense or submission Hinder MRE ^05. Tl^e materials and docuinents(defit^ed
above)i"equit"ing physical security include,without limitation, any notes,cat"bon papers, letters,
photographs, drafts, discarded drafts, memoranda, typewriter ribbons, computer diskette,
CO/DVDs, magnetic recording, digital recordings, or other dociimet"its or any kind or
description.
c. Classified infonnation, or infonnation believed to be classified, shall only be discussed in
an area approved byasecurity officer, and in which persons not authorised to possess such
itiformation cannot oveihear such discussions.
d. No ot"ie shall discuss any classified infonnation overastandardcomt"i^ercial telephone
instriiment, an inter-office communication system, or inti^epresence of any person who is not
authot"i:^ed to possess such information.
e. Written materials prepared for this case by persons subject to this Protective Order shall
be transcribed, recorded, typed, duplicated, copied, or otherwise prepared only by persot^s who
have received access to classified infomiation pursuai^t to thesecurity procedures contait^ed in
this Protective Order.
f All mechattical devices, of at"iy kind, used in the preparation or trat"ismission of classified
infonnation in this case may be used ottiywith the approval ofasecurity officer.
g. Upon reasonable advance notice to the trial counsel orasecurity officer, defense counsel
shall be given access durit^g normal business hours and at other tit^Tcs on reasot"iable request, to
classified documents which the goven:ii"i;iet"it is required to make available to defet:tse coimsel but
elects to keep in its possession. Persons permitted to inspect classified documents by this
Piotective Order may make written notes ofthe documentsand their contents. Notes ofany
classified portions of these documents,however,shall not be disseminated or disclosed in any
mai^ner or fonn to any person not subject to this Protective Order. Such notes will be secured in
accordance with the terms ofthis Protective Order. Persons permitted to have access to
classified documents will be allowed to view their t^otes within an aiea designated byasecurity
officer. No person pen"i"iitted to it:tspect classified documents by this Piotective Order, including
defense counsel, shall copy or reproduce any part of said documents or their contents in any
maimer orfonn, except as provided byasecurity officer, afier he has cot"tsulted with the trial
counsel.
h. Tl"ie persons subject to this Protective Order shall not disclose the cot:ttet:its ofany
classified documents or infonnation to any person not named heiem, except the tiial cout^sel and
militaryjudge.

28673

IN^NDMHHZA
SL1B.IECT: ProtectiveOrderfor Classified Infonnation^United Statesv.PFC Bradley Manning

i. All persons given access to classified infon^^attonpiiisuat^t to this Piotective Order ai"e
advised that all infonnation to which they obtait:i access by the Protective Order is now and will
forever remain the property of theUnitedStates GovemmenL They shall return all materials
which may have come into their possession, or for which they are responsible because of such
access,upon demand byasecurity officer.
j . All persons subject to this Protective Order shall sign the Ad^iovvledgment, induding the
defense counsel and accused. The signing and filing ofthis Ackt"iowledgmentisacondition
precedent to the disclosureofany classified information to at"iy person subject to this Protective
Order
7 This Protective Order supersedes all previous protective orders. Nothing contained in this
Protective Order shall be construed asawaiver of any lightofthe accused.

CARLRCOFFMANJR
COL,AV
Commai"iding
DISTRIBUTION:
l-Trial Counsel
1-Civilian Defense Counsel
1-SettiorMilitary Defense Counsel
1-Accused
1-Defense Experts
1-R C.M. 706 Inquiry Board

28674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Y^

Manning,BradleyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
Fort Myer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Enclosure 38
lOOctober 2012

28675

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 1ST ARMORED DIVISION AND
UNITEDSTATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ
APO AE 09344
REPLY TO

ArrmpnOM ar

f # j % 3K

AETV.THZ
MEMORANDUM FOR SHF DISTRIBUFION
SUBJECT: Protectiv e Order

I. tn order to protect the national security and pursuanl to the aulhoruy granted under Militaiy
Rule of Fvidence LMRE) 505. relevant executive orders ofthe President of the United States, and
regulations of the Department of the Army. I ORDER
ii. Ike following sccurii) procedures. MRE 505. and the authorities referred to above will
appiv 10 all matters conceming the mvestigation into alleged Dffciiscs. pre-trial negotiation), and
Anicic 32. Unilbmi Code of Military Justice (UCMJ}, pre-trial investigation in this case.
f>, .As used herein, the tenn ""classified information or document" refers to:
(I I any cl'dssificd document (or infomiation containcc tiicrein);
(21 information known by the accused or defense counsel to be cfassiriablc:
(3) classified documents (or information contained therein I disclosed to the accused or
dci'cnse cotinsd as pan ofthe proceedings -.n this case;
(4) classified documents and informalion which have otherwise been made knuwn to the
accused oraefcnse counsel and which have been marked or described as: "CONTIDHNl IAL."
••SECRFT." or"i «P SECRFT
c. .All such classified documents and information contained therein shall remain classified
un;ess ihev bear a clear inuicaiion tiiat ihey have been officially declassilied by the Government
agency or department that originated the document or the infomiation contained therein
{hereinafter referred to as the "originating agency").
d. The words "documents"" or ""associated materials" as used in this Order include, but ate
not limited to, ali written or primed mailer ofany kind, formal or informal, including the
originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any
notation made on such copies or otherwise, induding. without limitation, papers,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, reports, summaries, inter-office and intraoffice commtmicaTion.^. notations of any sort bulletins, teletypes, telex, invoices, worksheets, and
all dralT-s. alterations, modifications, changes and amendment ofany kind to the foregoing,
graphic or aural records or representations ofany kind, induding. witliout limitation,
photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, sound recordings of anv kind.

Unclasslfied_Discovery_ManningB_000394

28676

.AEIV-TH/
SUBJECT: Protective Order
notion pictures, any electronic; mechanical or electric records or representations ofany kind,
mcluding without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs, recording, films, typewriter ribbons and
word processor discs or tapes.
e. The word "or"' should be interpreted as including "and" and vice versa.
f Those named herein are ad\ :sed that direct or indirect unautho.n/cd disdosure. retention,
or negligent handling ofclassified infomiation could cause serious and. in some cases,
exceptionally grave damage to ihc national security ofthe Urited Stales, or may be used to the
advantage of a foreign nation against the interests uf ihe L'nited States. These Security
Procedures are tu ensure that persons subject to these Procedures will never divulge the classified
infbrmation disclosed to ihcm lo anyone who is not authorized by the originaiing agency and in
conl'onnity with these proi edurc^.
g Persons sulked m these Procedures arc admonished that they are obligated by law and
regulation not to disclose any classified national security infomiation in ao unauthonzed lUshion.
h. Persons subject to these Procedures arc admonished that any breach ofthese
Procedures may result m the temiination oftheir access to classified infonnation. In addition,
they are admonished thai any unauthorized disclosure, possession or handling of classilied
inlbrmation may conslimte \ iolations of United States criminal laws, including hut not limited
to. the provisions of Sections 641. 793. 794. 798 and 952. Tiile 18. t_ nitcd States Code, and
Sections 421 and 7X3(b). Title 50. United Slates Code. In addition, for those persons who are
attorneys, a report will be filed with iheir State Bar Association.
2, Infonnation in the public domain is ordinarily not classified. However, if classifiec
information is reported in the press or otherwise enters the public domain, the int'omiauon does
not lose lis classified status merely because i1 is in the public domain, Any attempt by rhc
delense to have classified information that has been reported in the public domain but which ii
knim s or has reason to believe is classified, confirmed, or denied at trial or ir. any pubT.c
pniceeding in this case shall be governed by Section 3 ofthe Classified Infonnation Procedures
Act. 1X U!s. Code Appendix 111.
3. Personnel Security Investigations and Clearances. Thi5 case vvill invnivc classilied national
security information or documents, .he storage, handling, and control of which requires special
security precautions mandated by statute. e.\ecutive orders, and regulations, and access to which
requires a special security clearance.
a. 1 hc Convenmg .'\uthority has been advised that the Invesugating Officer has the requisite
security cisaranceto have access to the classified information and documents which will be at
issue in this ease The Investigating Officer is to have unfettered access to thai dassirlcd
infomiation necessary to prepare for this investigation, subject to requiremcjil in paragraph 3.g.
beUm
D. The Convening Authority has been advised that the guvenunem trial counsd working on
thii case have ihe requisite security clearances to have access to the classified information and

Unclasslfled_Discovery_ManningB_000395

28677

AFTV-IIIZ
S I K J F C T"

Protective Order

ici'umenls which will be at issue in this case. The govemment trial counsel are lo have
unfettered access to classilied infonnation necessary to prepare for this investigation, subject to
the requirements in paragraph 3.g. belOw.
c. The Convening .'Xuthoniy lias been advised that Private First Class (PFC) Brad.ey
Manning's detailed defense counsd have ihe requisite security clearance to have access to the
relevant and necessary classified infonnation and documents which w ill be at issue in this ca:se.
.•\s a condition of receiving classified infomiation. the detailed defense counsel agree to the
conuitions sped lied herein this order,
ti As 3 condition ofreceiving classified infonnation, any retained defense counsd will
agree to the conditions specified herein and execute all necessary forms so that the Government
may complete the necessary personnel security background investigation to make a
detenriinalior. whether defense counsel is eligible for a limited access authorization Any
retained defense counsel wilt also sign the statement in paragraph 3.e. I pon the exeettlion and
flhng of the siiilemcnts set T»rth in paragraphs 3.e and 3.f by any retained defense counsel
requiring access to classified infomiation. the Government shall undertake, as expeditiously possible, the lequarcd inquiries to ascertain defense counsel's eligibility for access to classified
inf«i"maunn.
e. There are two conditions precedent to obtaining access to the classilied infonnation at
issue in tills ease.
(1) All individuals, other than the Investigating Officer, Government and
detailed defense counsels and personnel of the originatmg agency, can obtain access only after
having provided the necessary infonnation required fbr, and having been granted, a security
clearance or Limited .Access .Authorikaiion by the Depamnenl of the Army or Depanmcnt of
State, through the Investigation Secunty Oflicer; ai"id
(2) Each person, other than the Department of Anny employees na/ncd herein and
personnel of the onginaiing a*cncy. before being granted access to dassified information must
dsu sign a swom statement thai states;
UE.MOR.A.\DU\f(ft

C\l}PRSTA.\DJ.\U

I.
I
undcrsiand that I may he the recipient ot informauon
ami lnu'li!jiencUnited Siuh's This information and intelligence, together wnh ilw ntctlmd-; af
cnlleciinti and handling il, arc classified according to security standards esiuhhshtfd
h\ the US Government I have read and unJersiaiui the provision \ nfihe cspionui^e
/lAi'v (svciions '^x "94 and "98 uf lillc /disclosure nf informaticm relating to the nalinnal defense and the provisions of the
Intelligence kieininef. Protection Aci (section -121 of iiiii' 50. United .SUI/L'S Code) ond
! iiitt familiar willi the peiialiic^, provided for the violaiii.-n llien'of.

Unclasslfied_Dlscovery_ManningB_000396

28678

.\E;v-iii/
Sl'BJECl • Protective drder

2.
/ agi-ev rlial I will never divulge, publish or n'\ea\. cither hi ward cuinhict or
•jny (ithcr mean.*., such informalion or inicllisienci' unless specifically authorized in
^riiin^a y„ Jo SQ 6) an auihOnzeJ representative ofthe L'..S. Ctnwnment or os
othen^ise ordered hy the Cnun I further auny article, sptii'ch. or other piihlicatlon derived from cr Aa.fif upon experience or
informal ion gained in the cow.'te of Cniied Slulcs v. I^nviite First ('luss Bradlev 8
\4anning. 1 imderstand ihis revii-v. « vu/c/y lo ensure that no classifted naiirmal
^ecurify tnfonvahon is containedliwuin
S.
1 understand ihut this agrecweni M ;// remain binding upon mc after tite
conclusion of theproccedinas irj the case uf l'nited Slates v Private First Class
Brgdln E. Manning
V, / have received, read and undcrsiand the Scciirity l*rcK i'diircs entered b\ thtConvening Auihoriix on
. 2011) in the case of United States v
Privute First Class Bradle\-> E. .Manning reJali/ig tu cla.\sjrii:d informutirm. and I
agree lu comply with the pravisions thereof

Sigmiitire-Date
Any MOI with u retained delense counsel shall include a statement expressing his
understanding that the failure to a"t>ide by the terms ofthese Security Procedures v\ ill result in a
repori lo his Slate Bar Association. Each such pcrscn executing the above statement must tile an
original with the investigating Officer and provide an original each to the Investigation Security
Officer and the Govemment Counsel
f. in addition to signing the MOU ir. paragraph 3.e. any person who. as a result ofthis
investigation, gains access to infonnation contained in any Depariment ofthe .'Vrmy Special
.Access Program, as lhat lemi is defincvJ in section 4.2 ol" Executive Order 12356. t« Sensitive
Compartmented Infomiation (SCI), or to any informalion subject in Special Category (SPEC.AT)
handling procedures, shall sign any non-disclosure agreemeni which is spec ilic to ifiat Special
.Vccess Progra.':i. .Sensitive Conipanmented Infonnation. or SPEC.AT infonnation.
g All ntiiei requests for clearances for access to classified information m tiiis case by
persons not named in these Procedures, or requests for ciearanees for access to informauon at a
higher tevc! of dassification. shall he made to the Investigation Security OtT'cer. w ho, upon
approval (;f the Convening Authority, shall promptly process fhe requests.
h. Before any person subject to these Securiiy Procedures, oiher than govcmmem
uiaTeounsel. detailed defense counsel, and personnel ofthe originating agency who have
appropriate level security clearance:,, receives access to any classified infonnation, iltai person
shall be served with a copy of these Procedux.s and shall execute the written agreement set ferth
in paragraph 3.c.

Unclassifiecl_Discovery_MannlngB_000397

28679

AFTV-THZ
SUBJEC T: Protective Order

The Procedures shall apply toany defense counsel ofthe accused, and tu any other
persons who may later receive classified informauon from the Department of the .Army oi
Dcpanmeni ofState in connection with this case,
4 Handling and Protection ol Classified Inlbrmation.
a. All counsel shall seek guidance from the liivcsligatiun Security Officer with regard lo
appropnaie storage and use ofclassified information.
b. The Investigation Security Officer will provide appropriate physical security protection
Tor any m.atcrials prepared or compiled by the defense, or by any person in rdetion to oe
preparation oTthe accused's defense or submission under MRE 515. I he materials und
doeumcttts (dctined above) requiring physical security include, without limitation, any notes,
carbon papers, letters, photographs, drafts, discarded drafts memoranda, typewriter nbbons,
magnetic recording, or other documents or any kind or description. Classified materals prepaied
by ihc defense shall be maintained by the investigation Security Officer in a separate scaled
container to v^-hieh only the defense cqunsei shall have access,
c. Classified documents and information, or information believed to be dassified shall be
discussed only in an area approv ed by die Inv estigation Security Officer, and in vv"hich persons
not authorized to possess such infomiation cannot overhear such discussu^ns.
J. No one shall discuss any classified infonnation over any .standard commercial telephone
instrument or any imer-olTice communication system, or in Tne presence of any person who is not
authorized to possess such information
c. Wntten materials prepared for this case by ilie accused or defense counsel shall ne
transcribed, recorded, typed, duplicated, copied or oiherw ise prepared only by persons who are
cleared for access lu such information.
l". .All mechanical devices ofany kind used in the preparation or transmission ofclassified
infbrmation in this ease may he used #nly wiih ihc approval ofthe !nvci?iigaiion Security Officer
and in iiccordance v/\th instructions he or she shall issue.
g. Upon reasonable advance notice ofthe Invcstigatioa Security Officer defense cshall be given access during normal business hours, and at other times on reasonable request, to
classilied national security documents v>hich the government is required lo make available to
defense counsel but elects to keep in its possession Persons permitted to inspect dassified
documents by t.icsc Procedures may make w ritten notes of ihe documents and their comcnts.
Notes ofany dassirlcd pon ions ol these documents, however shall not be disseminated or
disclosed in any manner or form to any person not subject to these Procedures. Such notes vvill
be secured in accordance with the temis of these Procedures. Persons permitted to have access to
classified documents will be allowed to view their notes widtin an area designated by the
Investigation Security Officer, So person permitted to inspect dassified documents by these
Prccedures. mctuding defense counsel, shall copy or reproduce any pan *Tsaid documents or

Unclasslfied_Discovery_ManningB_000398



.\ETV.:ii/

SL BJECI: Protective Order
ttieir contents in any manner or fomi, except as provided by the Investigation Securiiy Officer,
after he or she has consulted with flic Convening Authority.
h. Without prior authorization ofthe Depaitmen: ofthe .Army or Department of State, there
shall be no disclosure to anyone not named in these Procedures by persons who may later receive
a security clearance or limited access authorization from the Dcpanmeni ofthe Anny or
Depanment of State in connection with this easel except to or from govemment employees
acting in the course of their official duties) of any c/assified national security infoimation or
national security document (or infomiation contained therein* until such time, il ever, tliat such
documents or i:tibcmation are declassified.
T The defense shall not disclose the contents of any classified documents or infonnation lo
any person except those persons identified to them by the Investigating Officer as. having the
appropriate deatances. and a need to knovv.
). All persons given access lo classilied informalion pursuant to these Procedures are
advised that all infomiation to which ihey obtain access by these Procedures is now and will
forever remain the property of the United Slates Govcmmem They shall retum all maleriais
w Tich may hav e come into their possession, or Tor which they are responsible because of such
access, upon demand by ihe Investigation Security Officer.
k. .A copy of these Procedures .ihall issue forthwith to defense counsel, with further order
iftat the defense uounsd advise the accused named herein ofthe contents ofthese Procedures,
and furnish htm a copy. The accused, through defense counsel, shall forihwiih sign the
statements set forth in paragraph 3.fol these Procedures, and counsel shall fbnhwith tile an
original with the Investigating Officer and provide an origii"iai each to the Investigation Security
Officer and the Government Counsel. The signing and filing ofthis statement by the accused is
a condition precedent tu die disdosure oT classified infonnation to the accused
5 Nothing contained in these Procedures shall be constmed as waiv er of anyrightofthe
accused

\

TERRYA. WOLFF
Major General. USA
Commandinc
DISIRIBLTIO\:
Investigating Officer
Trial Counsel
Defense Counsel

Unclassified_Discovery_MannlngB_000399

28680

28681

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND ARRANGING RECORD OF TRIAL
USE OF FORM - Use this form and MCM, 1984,
Appendix 14, will be used by the trial counsel and
the reporter as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court-martial
cases in which a verbatim record is prepared. Air
Force uses this form and departmental
instructions as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court-martial
cases in which a summarized record is authorized.
Army and Navy use DD Form 491 for records of
trial in general and special court-martial cases in
which a summarized record is authorized.
Inapplicable words of the printed text will be
deleted.

8. Matters submitted by the accused pursuant to
Article 60 (MCM, 1984, RCM 1105).

COPIES - See MCM, 1984, RCM 1103(g). The
convening authority may direct the preparation of
additional copies.

12. Advice of staff judge advocate or legal officer,
when prepared pursuant to Article 34 or otherwise.

ARRANGEMENT - When forwarded to the
appropriate Judge Advocate General or for judge
advocate review pursuant to Article 64(a), the
record will be arranged and bound with allied
papers in the sequence indicated below. Trial
counsel is responsible for arranging the record as
indicated, except that items 6, 7, and 15e will be
inserted by the convening or reviewing authority,
as appropriate, and items 10 and 14 will be
inserted by either trial counsel or the convening or
reviewing authority, whichever has custody of
them.

13. Requests by counsel and action of the
convening authority taken thereon (e.g., requests
concerning delay, witnesses and depositions).

1. Front cover and inside front cover (chronology
sheet) of DD Form 490.
2. Judge advocate's review pursuant to Article
64(a), if any.
3. Request of accused for appellate defense
counsel, or waiver/withdrawal of appellate rights,
if applicable.
4. Briefs of counsel submitted after trial, if any
(Article 38(c)).
5. DD Form 494, "Court-Martial Data Sheet."

9. DD Form 458, "Charge Sheet" (unless included
at the point of arraignment in the record).
10. Congressional inquiries and replies, if any.
11. DD Form 457, "Investigating Officer's Report,"
pursuant to Article 32, if such investigation was
conducted, followed by any other papers which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,
unless included in the record of trial proper.

14. Records of former trials.
15. Record of trial in the following order:
a. Errata sheet, if any.
b. Index sheet with reverse side containing
receipt of accused or defense counsel for copy of
record or certificate in lieu of receipt.
c. Record of proceedings in court, including
Article 39(a) sessions, if any.
d. Authentication sheet, followed by certificate
of correction, if any.
e. Action of convening authority and, if appropriate, action of officer exercising general courtmartial jurisdiction.
f. Exhibits admitted in evidence.

6. Court-martial orders promulgating the result of
trial as to each accused, in 10 copies when the
record is verbatim and in 4 copies when it is
summarized.

g. Exhibits not received in evidence. The page
of the record of trial where each exhibit was
offered and rejected will be noted on the front of
each exhibit.

7. When required, signed recommendation of
staff judge advocate or legal officer, in duplicate,
together with all clemency papers, including
clemency recommendations by court members.

h. Appellate exhibits, such as proposed instructions, written offers of proof or preliminary
evidence (real or documentary), and briefs of
counsel submitted at trial.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000

Inside of Back Cover

e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh