Title: Volume FOIA 089

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 28682

Volume 89 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

28683

*L

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 39
10 October 2012

28684

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORTMYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

IMND-MHH-ZA

17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Security Expert Consultant- U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

I appoint Mr. Charles Gaiuel, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, as an expert consultant
in seciuity matters for the defense in tiie above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Ganiei be
designated a member of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo. 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and
Militai"y Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States
beyond mileage reimbursement, i f applicable.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

y

28685

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 40
10 October 2012

28686

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

IMND-MHH-ZA

17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUB.TECT: Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions - U.S v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. According to your four requests, dated 25 August 2010, 26 August 2010, 3 September 2010
(Expert), and 3 September 2010 (Defense Team), the accused's mental impressions are
potentially classified TS/SCI, which would require defense counsel, the RCM 706 boaid, and
any defense expert to possess security clearances at the TS/SCI level, in order to allow the
accused to flilly participate in his defense and board.
2. Order. No later than 24 September 2010 and absent an extension by me, the accused is
ordered to meet with your security expert consultant and disclose tiie classified information, he
wishes to discuss with you, the defense teani, his detailed behavioral health providers, and the
RCM 706 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary classification
review of this information.
3. Prefiminary Classification Review. No later than 4 October 2010 and absent an extension
by me, the defense security expert consultant will conduct his preliminary classification review
of the infonnation and provide you and the Trial Counsel with a brief suimiiary ofthe review,
without releasing any privileged and substantive information from the accused's disclosures.
4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret,
the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defense
counsel, the defense expert, and the RCM 706 board folly cleared to discuss classified matters
with the accused.
5. The notes firom the defense security expert's meeting with the accused will remain privileged
and be turned over to you at the conclusion of the preliminary review, subject to any security
concems that may be raised by the information.

-kWdr^
CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Coninianding

28687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Y.

Manning, BradleyE.
PFCUSArmy,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
EncIosure41
lOOctober 2012

28688

28 September 2010
MEMORANDUM THRU StafTJudge Advocate. Office ofthe Staffjudge Advocate. US Amiy
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair, W ashington D.C. 30219
FOR Commander. US Armv Garrison, Joint Base Mver-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia
22211
SUBJECT: Preliminary Classification Review ofthe .Accused's Mental Impressions - United
Stales V. PFC Bradley Manning
1. The defense has received your superseding preliminary dassification order dated 22
September 2010. The defonse has discussed this order with PFC Bradley Manning and with the
defense appointed security expert. Mr. Charles Ganiei.
2. Based upon the defense's discussions with Mr. Ganiei. the preliminary classification review
cannot be started until the following issues have been resolved:
a. .Approved Facility; Mr. Ganiei does not believe that the Quantico Confinement Facility
has the required area in orderto speak to PFC Manning about any classified infonnation.
Specifically, tor any Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), the discussion and storage of
the infonnation received must be in a facility that meetstiiestructural and securiiy requirements
for a Sensitive Compartmented Infonnation Facility (SCIF). SCI material cannol be viewed or
discussed unless in a SCIF in accordance vvith DoD 5105-21-M-1. chapter 3. page 3-1, paragraph
,A(4). Therefore, unless Mr. Ganie: conducts his discussions vvith PFC Mamiing in an approved
SCIF. he vvill nol be able to begin his preliminary classification review.
b. Limited .Access: It is likely that PFC Manning's access to dassified information has been
suspended due to the preferred charges. Mr. Ganiei will not be able to discuss or validate any
classified information with PFC Manning unless PFC Manning is given an interim clearance.
Additionally, PFC Manning vvill not have access to any secured sites, specifically a SCIF, unless
he has the requisite security clearance. .See DoD 5105-21 -M-1.
c. Storage: .Mr. Ganie! will need the government to provide him with a Govemment Service
.Administration (GSA) approved security container to store Secret and Confidential infonnation.
.Additionally. Mr. Ganiei vvill need the same GSA approved security container with tiie requisite
additional securiiy precautions for the storage of Top Secret information in accordance with
Army Regulation 380-5. chapter 7. paragraph 7-4. Finally. Mr. Gaitiel will need to liave access
to a SCIF to store any Special Access Program (SAP) or SCI information in accordance witb
DoD 5105-21 -M-1, chapter 3. page 3-10.
d. Verification: Anything revealed to Mr. Ganid has to be verified before he can make a
determination whether it is dassified and. if necessary, i ts level of classification. This is a time
consuming process that Mr. Ganiei does not believe can be completed within the time
restrictions listed in die preliminary classification review order.

.

28689

SUBJECT; Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions - United
States V. PFC Bradley Mamiing
e. .Additional Security Expert: Given the task required by the preliminary classification
review order. Mr. Ganiei has requested that an additional security expert be appointed to the
defense team. Mr. Ganiei believes that the additional expert will help expedite the process by
assisting him in reviewing tiie information, conducting document verification, conducting
document preparation, and by providing a second opinion regarding infonnation that is either
SCI or is part of a SAP.
3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombsfit amiycourtmartialdefense.com.

DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsd

28690

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v^
Manning,BradIeyE.
PFCUSArmy,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
Fort Myer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Endosure 42
lOOctober 2012

28691

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

IMND-MHH-ZA

22 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUBJECT: Preliminary Classification Review of the Accused's Mental Impressions - U.S v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. According to your four requests, dated 25 August 2010,26 August 2010, 3 September 2010
(Expert), and 3 September 2010 (Defense Team), the accused's mental impressions are
potentially dassified TS/SCl, which would require defense counsd, the RCM 706 board, and
any defense expert to possess security clearances at the TS/SCI level, in order to allow the
accused to fully participate in his defense and board.
2. Order. No later than 8 October 2010 and absent an extension by me, the accused is ordered
to meet with your security expert consultant and disclose the classified informalion the accused
wishes to discuss with you, the defense team, his detailed behavioral health providers, and the
RCM 706 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary dassification
review of this information.
3. Preliminary Classification Review. No later than two weeks after the accused's final
interview and absent an extension by me, the defense security expert consultant will conduct his
preliminary classification review of the information and provide an unclassified written response
to the following questions:
a. Is the information provided by the accused classified at a level above Secret ("Yes " or
"No")?
b. Ifany of the information provided by the accused is classified above Secret, does any of the
information fall within SCI compartments, and ifso, what compartments?
4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret,
the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defense
counsel, the defense expert, and the RCM 706 board fully cleared to discuss classified matters
with the accused. I will also make a determination on whether to authorize the accused to
disclose his classified information to the RCM 706 board and his behavioral health providers.
5. The notes from the defense security expert's meeting with the accused will remain privileged
and be turned over to you at the conclusion of the preliminary review, subject to any security
concerns that may be raised by the information. Under no circumstances should your security

28692

IMNDMHHZA
SUBJECT: Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused'sMental Impressions U.Sv.
PFC Bradley Manning

expert consultant release any privileged or substantive information from the accused's
disclosures to anyone outside ofthe defense team.
6. The sole purposeofthispreliminary dassification review is to provide the defense and United
States withabasis for granting security clearances to the defense team and the accused's
behavioral health providers, and determining the appropriate level ofdassificationforthe RCM
706 board. This preliminary classification review is notasubstitute for an official dassification
review conducted by an original classification authorily(OCA)or an official designated by an
OCA
7. This order supersedes my order datedI7September 2010.

CARLRCOFFMAN,JR.
COLAV
Commanding

28693

UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA
Y^

Manning,BradIeyE.
PFCUSArmy,
HHC,U.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
Fort Myer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Enclosure 43
lOOctober 2012

28694

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REPLYTO
ATTENTIOMOF

JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211 -1198

12 OCT 2.:

fMND-MHH-ZA
MEMORANDllM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs. Civilian Ddcnsc Counsd

SUBJECT: Appointment of Additional Defense Security Expert Consultant - U.S. v. PFC
Bradlev Manning
In response to your requestforan additional security expert dated 28 September 2010.1 aDpoin!
Mr Cassius N. Hall. U.S Anny Intdligcnce and Security Command, as an additional expert
consultant in security matters for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr.
Hall be designated a member oftbe defense team under U.S. v. Toledo. 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A.
1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is af no expense to the
United States beyond mileage reinibiirsemcnl, if applicable.

^XUUJL CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL AV
Commanding

28695

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

Enclosure 44
lOOctober 2012

28696

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

25 October 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defonse Attorney
SUBJECT: Presentation of Prosecution's Case - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. As previously discussed and to assist in the disposition of this case, the United
States is willing fo present the evidence supporting the charges against the accused and propose
potential plea terms. This memorandum sets out the agreement for the meeting scheduled fbr 8-9
November 2011.
2. GROUND RULES. The United States invites the accused, defense attomeys, defense
computer experts, and defense security experts to attend the meeting, and it is within your
discretion to decide which of them will attend. The United States expects only the four
prosecutors to be present and the presentation will primarily be in the form of PowerPoint (PPT).
Because we want the meeting and presentation to be as productive as possible and a usefol and
efficient vehicle to understand the classified evidence, the following ground rules will apply:
a. No statements made by the prosecutors in connection with the presentation of the
prosecution's case and discussion of a plea shall be used in any way by the defense in any
judicial proceeding related to this case, including, but not limited to, any pre-trial, trial,
sentencing, appellate, and/or post-conviction proceeding, whether or not such judicial
proceedings are classified. Moreover, neither statements made by the prosecutors in connection
with the presentation of its case, statements made by the prosecutors in connection with plea
negotiation, nor the PPT shall be discoverable. The defense, however, may make derivative use
of, and may pursue any investigative leads suggested by, statements made in the meeting.
b. The United States docs not expect to use the PPT presentation as evidence at the Article
32 investigation or trial. Therefore, we will not provide a copy of the PPT to the defense. You
may take notes during the presentation, but given the classified nature of the information being
discussed, any notes must be handled in accordance with their classification level and the
applicable Protective Orders and Handling and Use Orders.
c. There will not be a question and answer session with regard to the matters presented.
3. ACCUSED'S PARTICIPATION. If you decide not to include the accused in this meeting,
but later decide that it would be beneficial for the accused to receive the same presentation, the
United States will immediately coordinate the accused receiving the briefing. The same ground
rules, listed above, will apply to the subsequent meeting.

28697

ANJACL
SUBJECT: Presentation ofProsecution's Case-United Statesv.PFC Bradley Manning

4 ACRNOWLEDGMENT. Ifyou would liketo go forward withtheproposed meeting,
please have all attendees sign the enclosure. Once signed, please retum the original to us and
retainacopy for your files.
5. CLASSIFIEDEVIDENCE. Once fhe prosecution received the appropriate OCA approvals,
it will continue to work actively and diligently to ensure timely releaseofall possible
information to the defense so their ability to represent and potentially defond their client will be
in no way impaired. This proposed meeting is not intended to impede this release and any such
release will occur irrespectiveofthis meeting.
6. The pointofcontact forthis request is the undersigned.

End
as

CF:
Senior Defonse Counsel

ASHDENFEIN
CPT,JA
TrialCounsd

28698

^^^^

Acknowledgment bythe Defonse
lhave read and understand the PresentationofProsecution's Case Memorandum, dated 26
October 2011 l ^ e e to complywith the provisions thereof Furthermore,lunderstandthat
neitherlnor any memberofthe defonse team will in any way use the statementsofthe
prosecution presented during the presentationofthe prosecution's case and discussionofaplea
as evidence in the Article 32 investigation or anyjudicial proceedings related to this case.

DavidCoombs

Date

Erik Lakes

Date

Matthew l^emkes

Date

Trent Struttman

Date

Paul Bouchard

Date

Charles Ganiei

Date

JoshuaTooman

Date

Cassius Hall

Date

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

Vi??i\i\iVi\iV?V

0 28699

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 45

10 October 2012



. . 28700




From: n-nc mrtialfn.

To: MrrwIJo AFH$15; Fgin, ?hggn (E Ll? 515

Subject: RE: PCRO Update (UNCLASSIFIED)

Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:50:02 AM

Joe,

I met with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel yesterday. They would like to start their work by meeting with PFC
Manning at the FIU next Wednesday (27 October) at 1000. They anticipate this ?rst meeting to last
approximately three hours. This is the only meeting that they want to schedule for the ?rst week.
Based upon this meeting, they will be in a better position to determine how many additional meetings
may be necessary and an estimated time-line for the veri?cation process.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have requested the following additional information:

a) A POC at the FIU with a phone number to ensure the necessary arrangements have been made for
the PCR. I will let Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel know that the FIU needs their full names and social security
numbers. I believe they would like to give this information directly to the POC at the FIU instead of
going through multiple layers;

b) Do the guards from the con?nement facility understand that they cannot be inside the room with
PFC Manning during the meeting with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel? What arrangements have been made to
ensure that this is not an issue;

c) PFC Manning's training records;

d) Any documentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security;

e) A list of all CI that PFC Manning has been read in on;

f) A list of any refresher training PFC Manning has received;

g) A list of any in-country training PFC Manning has received;

h) Who was the security manager at the time for the TSCIF PFC Manning worked in and can you give
Mr. Ganiel and Mr. Hall contact information for this person;

i) What was the SOP for the TSCIF PFC Manning worked in;

j) What kind of entry/exit inspections were performed at the

k) A copy of the Security Classi?cation Guide for the

With regards to the ?ve discs that were previously given to the defense. These discs will likely assist in
the veri?cation process. Mr. Ganiel and Mr Hall wouid like to know if these discs are classi?ed or not?
If so, who classi?ed the discs? What is the highest level of classi?ca?on for the information on the
discs? If the classi?cation is unknown or uncertain, Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel would need to have a
stand-alone system provided to them classi?ed at (laptop with removable hard drive) for them
to review the information on the ?ve discs.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Of?ce of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?ce: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896



- i ef

Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-

. . 28701

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

-- Original Message

Subject: RE: PCRO Update (UNCLASSIFIED)

From: "Morrow JoDean, CPT USA



Da e: pm

To: , "Fein, Ashden CPT USA

Cc: "Matthew kemka" Paul Bouchard"





ie, ll ry ce
USA Regimental Judge




"Autry. Carolyn Ms CIV
-



Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir,

Please send your expert's thoughts on timing and when they are ready to start
so we can plan the ?rst of multiple meetings (I assume). The rehearsal went
well and the JBM-HH DES is ready to transport PFC Manning from Quantico
directly to the FIU. The FIU is ready to receive PFC Manning, except we will
need to obtain the Full Name and SSN of your experts please send at your
earliest convenience. There are currently no date or time restrictions,

although we would like to knock out the physical meetings during the week,
but can possibly coordinate weekends, if needed. If the review process ends
up taking more than two weeks, then please send a request a few days out so
we can present it to the CA for his approval/disapproval of an extension.

As for a request for delay to start the PCR: Based on the PCRO, dated 22 Sep

i 10, your security expert consu|tant(s) were directed to start meeting with
the accused NLT 8 Oct 10, absent an extension by the CA. Subsequently your

security expert, through you, requested an additional expert, storage

facilities, and ultimately a SCIF. The CA acted on that request on 12 Oct
10. I do not think the defense needs to request the extension as required by
the PCRO because the subsequent order dated 12 Oct 10 essentially grants a de
facto extension. Your security experts started to coordinate to meet ASAP
with the accused and we are coordinating that meeting for youorder.

We are not sure how lines got crossed with COL Benedek. We were under the
impression that he had been detailed to the case by Dr (COL) Ricky Malone,
Chief, Forensic for DOD and the USA. It is possible that COL
Benedek was confused about the Defense vs. Prosecution team.

CPT John Haberiand (CCed) is the main POC from the prosecution team for
coordinating with FIU and the escorts for PFC Manning. Please send the
information requested above (full name and SSN of defense experts) to him so
he may pass along the info to the FIU.

Thanks.

28702

Ashden

CPT Joe Morrow
Trial Counsel
US Arm Military District of Washington





From:


Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:48 PM

To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA

Cc: Matthew kemkes; Paul Boudiard; Rose,Luke CPT SJA Chief,Military
Justice; Haberland, John CPT USA Regimental Judge Advocate; Zimmemwan, Sara
J. SGT USA JFHQ- Autry, Carolyn Ms CIV
Morrow JoDean, CPT USA SJA

Subject: RE: PCRO Update

Ashden,

I spoke with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel. I am meeting with them tomorrow to
discuss the PCR and their anticipated time-line for their work. After my
discussion, Iwill give you more information on when they will be ready to

start their review. How did the rehearsal go? who will be the POC for the
movement of PFC Manning? How often during any given week can Mr. Ganiel and
Mr. Hall meet with PFC Manning at the Are there any day/time

restric?ons on their meetings?

Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel believe that a two-week time period is
unrealistic to complete the verification process. Does the CA have a date
that he would like the investigation to either be completed or for the
defense experts to submit justification for additional time?

On an unrelated note, I spoke widi COL Benedek last week. He was unaware of
his pending appointment to the defense team. He told me that he believed he
could act as the defense appointed expert, but that he would new speak to

his boss to be sure. I haven't heard back from him yet.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?ce: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain con?dential 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

USA Regimental Judge Advocate"



-- Original Message

Subject: PCRO Update

From: "Fein, Ashden CPT USA



Date: ue, 0 19, 2010 10:29 am

To: "Morrow JoDean, CPT
USA


Cc: "Matthew kemkes"








aul Bouchard"
D-C SJA

"Haberland, John
CPT






"Zimmerman, Sara J. SGT USA JF -

"Autrv. Carolvn Ms CIV
-

Sir,





Have you been able to speak with your security experts and see when
they will

be ready to start the review. The rehearsal for PFC Manning's
movement from

Quantico Brig to the FIU and procedures within FIU should be
completed this

morning. A?er that we will be ready to schedule the first of however
many

meeting need to occur for your team. Thank you.

v/r
Ashden

Ashden Fein

CPT, JA

Chief, Military Justice

U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)
COMM: 202-685-4903 (osu 325)

CELL: 202-450-8230
NIPR:
SIPR:





From:

.

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:41 PM

To: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA SJA

Cc: Matthew kemkes; Paul Bouchard; Rose,Luke CPT USD-C SJA
Chief,Mi|itary

Justice; Haberland, John CPT USA Regimental Judge Advocate;
Zimmerman, Sara

J. SGT USA Autry, Carolyn Ms CIV
Fein,

Ashden CPT USA SJA

28703

"Zimmerman. Sara J. SGT USA JF

28704

Subject: RE: CA Actions (US v. Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Joe,

I am not for sure at this point, however, I don't see why they
couldn't begin

their work as soon as the transportation piece is resolved. I will
speak

with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel and get back with you.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Office: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896





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

-- Original Message
Subject: RE: CA Actions (US v. Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: "Morrow JoDean, CPT USA


Date: Thu, October 14, 2010 1 pm

To:
Cc: "Matthew kemkes"





"'Paul Boudiard"
ose, SD-C SJA
"Haberland, John


-

"Autrv, Carolyn Ms CIV
"Fein, Ashden

ie
CPT
USA Regimental Judge Advocate"







CPT USA

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir,

We are conducting a rehearsal next Tuesday, the 19th, and should be
ready



after that. I know that Mr. Ganiel returns on the 18th. When do you
think
your experts will be able to proceed?

CPT Joe Morrow

Trial Counsel

US Army Military District of Washington
Phone:
NIPR:



SIPR:

Message-?-?-
From:

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:54 AM

To: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA SJA

Cc: Matthew kemkes; Paul Bouchard; Rose,Luke CPT USD-C SJA
Chief,Military

Justice; Haberland, John CPT USA Regimental Judge Advocate;

Zimmerman, Sara

J. SGT USA JFHQ- Autry, Carolyn Ms CIV
Fein,

Ashden CFT USA SJA

Subject: RE: CA Actions (US v. Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Joe,

I have reached out to both defense appointed experts. I hope to be
able to

speak to Mr. Hall later today. when do you believe the government
will be

complete the arrangements for the transportation of PFC Manning from
Quantico

to the FIU location?

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Of?ce of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?ce: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896





Notice: This transmission, induding attachments,
may

contain con?dential 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





Original Message

Subject: RE: CA Actions (US v. Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)

From: "Morrow JoDean, CPT USA



Date: u, October 14, 2010 8:24 am

To: "Fein, Ashden CPT USA

Cc: "Matthew kemkes"








"Paul Bouchard"
"Rose,Luke CPT SJA
"Haberland, John







USA Regimental Judge Advocate"
"Zimmerman, Sara J. SGT USA JFHQ-
"Autry, Carolyn Ms CIV


I

JFH -NC MDW

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir,
COL Benedek can be reached a-9?-l or
Mr. Han can be reamed at jar

We will produce a bates-stamped copy of the undassi?ed portion of
the case

?le by next Friday (22 October) at the latest - what has already
been

provided and updated information.

CPT Joe Morrow
Trial Counsel
US Arm Military District of Washington





SIPR:

?-??-Original Message?--?-

From:
I

Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:50 PM

To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA

Cc: Matthew kemkes; Morrow JoDean, CPT USA
Paul

Bouchard; Rose,Luke CPT SJA Chief,Military Justice; Haberland,
John CPT

USA Regimental Judge Advocate; Zimmerman, Sara J. SGT USA JFHQ-


Autry, Carolyn Ms CIV SJA

Subject: RE: CA Actions (US v. Manning)

Ashden,

Thank you. Can you provide me with contact information for COL
Benedek and

for Mr. Hall? Also, do you have a time-line on the bates stamped copy
of the



unclassi?ed portion of the case ?le?

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq. A

Law Of?ce of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?ce: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896




Notice: This transmission, including attadwments,
crgoariytain con?dential attomey-dient information and is intended for
g1e(:son(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient,
the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure,
copying or

use of this information may be unlawful and is

-- Original Message
Subject: CA Actions (US v. Manning)
From: "Fein. Ashden CPT USA

Date: 0 r1, 0108: pm
To:

Cc: "Matthew kemkes" "Morrow m,






JoDean,
CPT USA "Paul
Bouchar ose, - SJA










Chief, Military Justice "Haberland, John
CPT USA Regimental Judge Advocate
"Zimmerman. Sara J. SGT USA JFHO- A

?Aulrv. Carolyn Ms CIV

Sir. Attached are the following ?ve convening authorities actions:

1. Excludable Delay Memorandum

2. Appointment of 2d Defense Security Expert

3. Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic
4. Response to Defense Request to Amend the Protective Order

5. Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information

We are still working on your request to receive a bates stamped copy
of the
unclassi?ed portion of the case ?le.

V/r
Ashden



Ashden Fein

CPT, JA

Chief, Military Justice

U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)
COMM: 202-685-4903 (DSN 325)

CELL: 202-450-8230

NIPR:

SIPR:

Message?-?--
From:

mail mb arm a ial e.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:15 AM
To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA
Cc: Matthew kemkes; Morrow JoDean, CPT USA
Paul
Bouchard
Subject: RE: SCIF Location

Ashden,

I am sorry, I believed that I was supposed to get back to you on
Friday only

if the defense had any issues. The FIU location is ?ne for the PCR,
client

meetings, and the 706 board.

Please let me know the contact information for the second security
expert as

soon as you can so that I can get him/her up to speed. As I mentioned
before,

Mr. Ganiel will be out of the loop until the 18th of October.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Of?ce of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?ce: (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896




Notice: This transmission, including attachments,
rcnc>an?tain con?dential attorney?client information and is intended for
or company named. If you are not the intended recipient,
Ei?t?fire the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure,
copying or

use of this information may be unlawful and is

0 28709

Original Message

Subject: SCIF Location

From: "Fein, Ashden CPT USA


Date: Tue, 0 am

To:

CC: .q"Morrow JoDean, CPT USA JFHQ-NC




Sir. Good morning. When we spoke last Thursday, you were going to get
back

to me on Friday to let me know if the Defense wants to give input

into the

Convening Authorities decision on dwoosing to use the Field
Investigative Unit

(FIU) SCIF for the Preliminary Classi?cation Review and, depending

on the

results of the classi?cation review, client meetings and RCM 706.

Please let

. me know ASAP so we can present to the CA early this week. Thank you.

Ashden

Ashden Fein

CPT, JA

Chief, Military Justice

U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)
COMM:
CELL:
NIPR:
SIPR:



Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

28710

UNITEDSTATES OFAMERICA
v.
Manning,Brad1eyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Endosure 46
10 October 2012

28711

28Ocfober2010
MEMOR^ANDUMTHRUStaffJudgeAdvocate,OfiTceoftheStaffJudgeAdvocafe, USArmy
Military District ofWashington, Fort LesleyJMcNair,WashingtonD.C, 30219
EOR Commander, US ArmyGarrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer,Virginia
22211
SUBJECT;RequestforAppointment of anExpert with Expertise in Information Assurancefo
Assistthe Defonse in the case of l^i^^/i^^^^^/^.:^y/^^^^^/^^
LPurpose. Pursuantto R.C.M 703(d),theaccused,PFCBradleyManning,requestsan
Information Assurance expert be designated asamember ofthe defonse team under Military^
RuleofEyidenceM.RE 502,and(^^i^^^,^r^/^,^vT^^/^^o,25ML270(CMA1987)^
2. Law. Amilitary accused has, asamatter ofEqual Protection and Due Process,arightto
expert assistance when necessary^ to present an adequate defonse. ^'^//^^^/i;^^^.:i v.G^r"^/^^, 22
M.J.288(CMA1986)^^^^/^^^/^/e^vJ^^^^^L^^^39MJ88(CMA1994
(^^^^o^^, 470 U.S 226i (191^1). Tlie Court of Appeals for the Armed Fotceshasembraceda
tbree-parttest for determining whetiiergovemment-ftinded expert assistance is necessary.The
defonse must show: ^^First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, y^hat would the expert
assistance accomplish forthe accused.Third, vyhy is the defonse unable to gather the evidence
that the expert assistant would be able to deve1op.''L^^//^^^/i:^/i^.^vGi^^^/^^, 39 M.J.459
(1994).
3. Basis. Mr. Charles Gartiel and Mr. Cassius Hall, defonse security experts, are in the process
ofconducting their preliminary dassification review pursuantto your order dated 22 September
2010. On 27 October 2010. Mr. Ganiei and Mr. Hall metv^itb PFC Manning. During their
discussion they obtained informationfi"omPFC Manning that they belteye necessitates the
assistance ofanlnformation Assurance expert.
a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defonse team in
completing the preliminary dassification review inatimely manner. Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiei
have informed the defonse that they do not have the requisite expertise to deal with some ofthe
issues thatthey have identified based upon the disclosures ofPFC Manning. The knowledge
required to address the issues identified by Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiei are spedali2:ed, and concems
knowledge which is beyond the scope of thdr expertise
b. What Would tbe E^pertAssistance accomplish forthe Accused? An information
assurance expert would assist the defonse'ssecurity experts in completingtheir preliminary
classification review, Specifically.itvYould allow themfo understand thepolicies and
proceduresforprotedingfhe systems that were in place at thetimeofthe alleged disclosures and
fbiisthe level ofinformation RFCManning could havededt with atthattime.
c. WbyTs tbe Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Tbdr Own? Tlie defense s
security experts have indicated that they have neitherthe experience norexpertise to adequatdy

28712

SUBJECT: Request for Appointinenf of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manning

assess some ofthe information assurance issues that have been raised during the course of tiieir
preliminary dassification review. The resolution to the issues identified will assist the defease
experts in determining the answers lo the preliminary classification review order.
4. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the defense requests that you issue an order appointing
an information assurance expert to the defense team; tiiat you instruct this individual that he/she
is a "defense representative" and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to
hinx'her during the course of his/her employment as a member of the defense team will be
confidential.
5. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombs@armycourtmarfialdefensc.com.

.-f
c" t
'
DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel



28713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Prosecution Response to

v. Defense Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Speedy Trial
Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army, Enclosure 47
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall 10 October 2012
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211





Subject: PCR Information
Date: Monday, November 01, 2010 5:51:24 PM

Ashden,

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel need to obtain the following additional information for their PCR. I have cc'd
them on this request.

Please send them the damage assessments that were conducted by the OCAs in this case. They also
want the SCG used to classify the information. Finally, they have asked for the government computer
link to the video that was allegedly released by PFC Manning.

Feel free to call me if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) 744-3007

Of?cez (508) 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential attomey-
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

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 48

10 October 2012



28715



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
- 204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTION or



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance for Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s
Mental" Impressions U.S v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. This purposeiofthis memorandum is to provide supplemental guidance on the
defense expert consultant?s access to classified information and information systems while
assisting the defense team in this case.

2. ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED SYSTEMS. In
accordance with the enclosed authorization provided by the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence. U.S. Army, the defense security experts may have access to classi?ed information
up to and including TOP SECRET (SCI) for purposes ofconducting the preliminary
classification review ofthe accused?s mental impressions and to provide confidential security
expert assistance to you throughout the case. This authorization includes access to the Secret
lnternet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence
Communication System (JWICS) for the sole purpose ofconducting a preliminary classi?cation
review ofthe accused's mental impressions.

3. COMPUTER HARDWARE. In accordance with the enclosed authorization, INSCOM will
issue a dedicated government laptop computer or workstation with access to the SIPRN ET and
the JWICS, as necessary. for your security expert consultants to conduct their preliminary
classification review. The expert consultants will aiso be issued portable external hard drives.
authorized for use on JWICS and SIPRN ET, to conduct their review and to segregate and
securely store ?confidential defense information? derived from their review.

4. STORAGE. In addition to my facility and storage order, dated l2 October 2010, INSCOM
will provide appropriate storage space for the expert consultants to store information and
information systems that may be classified up to the TOP SECRET (SCI) level.

5. LIMITATIONS. This memorandum does authorize the expert consultants to disclose
any classified information to the remainder of the defense team without prior written
authorization from the undersigned; however, after the preliminary classification review, I will
make an additional request for the remainder of the defense team to have appropriate access to
discuss and viewthis information. This memorandum does not authorize the expert
consultants to use JWICS, SIPRNET. or any other classi?ed information system beyond
that necessary to conduct the preliminary classi?cation review ofthe accused?s mental

0 NOV 2010

28716 I



IMND-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance for Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s
Mental Impressions - U.S v. PFC Mannintt

impressions. Should the defense team request further use of these or other classi?ed
information systems. you must submit a written request along with the proper justification.

6. The point ofcontact for this memorandum is CPT Ashden Fein at-



Encl CA I. R. COFF-MAN. JR.
HQDA G2 Memo. I0 Nov l0 COL. AV
Commanding

Ix)

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 28718

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 49

10 October 2012







DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES ARIJY TEST AND EVALUATION COMMAND
4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVENUE
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21005-3103

13 December 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 30219

FOR Commander. US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fon Myer, Virginia
22211

SUBJECT: Preliminary lassi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions United
States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The defense security expert consultants have completed their preliminary classi?cation
review. Based upon your memorandum dated 22 September 2010, here are the unclassi?ed
written responses to your questions:

a) Is the information provided hy the accused classi?ed at a level above Secret?
Answer: Yes.

b) If any of the information provided by the accused is classi?ed above Secret. does any of -
the information fall within SCI compartments? Answer: Yes.

c) Which compartments? Answer: Gamma, HUMINT and SIGINT.

2. The points of contact for this memorandum are the undersigned Mr. Charles J. Ganiel

- and Mr. Cassius N. Hall at?

/1 .

C. 5
CHARLES J. GANIEL SIUS .
Command, SSO lnformati Security Division, G2

Army Test Evaluation Command Intelligence and Security Command
Alexandria, VA Fort Belvoir, VA



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



28720

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 50

10 October 2012





. . 28721

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.5. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. HCNAIH, Dc 20319-5013
- REPLY TO
ATTENTWN OF
ANJACL I3 January


I ..
MEMORANDUM THRU

Staff Judge Atlvo .y Military District of Washington. (ANJA), 210 A Street, Fort
Lesley]. McNair, DC

Office: of the Judge Advocatc Gt:ncra1 2200 Army Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for intelligence (DAMLZB), 2220f) Army Pentagon, Washi.n-gton, DC
2031i] -

SUBJECT: Request to Provide Personnel Access to Classi?ed information L13 v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. The pr0Set:uti0n team in the case of US. v. PFC Bradlev E. Manning requests that the
following active: duty service members and civilians be grantcd the appropriate security
clearances and access to classi?ed information up to the TOP SECRET (Sensitive
Compartmented information) level to include thetcompartments HCS, and G. Thesa
individuals need such access to participate in the Rule for Courts-Martial 706 Inquiry into the
Mental Capacity or Mental Responsibility of the Accused and any subsequent court-martial
proceeding.

21. Prosecution Team

(1) CPT Ashdon Fem,-
(2) CPT JoDean Morrow,
(3) CPT John Haberland,
(4) PT Angel
(5) SFC Monica Carlile?
(6) Ms. Carolyn Autry.





Ix De.

(1) MAJ Matthew

(2) CPT Paul Bombard-

(3) CAPT Kevin Moore, USN, Forensic Expert,-
cr. Treat-inn Phvs:icia.ns

(1) COL Ricky Malone. Clinical Consultant,-





ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Request to Provide DOD Personnel Access to Classi?ed lnformation US v. PFC

Bradlev Manninv



d. R.C.M. 7061 Board Members





(I) Dr. Michael Sweda, Forensic
(2) LTC Marla Hemphill, Forensic
(3) CPT Samantha Benesh, Forensic

e. Article 32 lnvestigglina Officer

(1) LTC Paul Alman2a,?

2. The above lisl is not all?im:lusive. Throughout the coun-martial process, there will likely be
additions and subtraciians, which will require adjustments in access.

3. The point oficomacl for this request is the undersigned a1(20'2) 683~49fl3 or






Encls ASHDEN FEIN
CPT. JA
Chief, Military Justice

Pd





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
219 A srneer
FORT LESLEY J. uctwn. ec 20319-5013



I3 January 20!

t, 3-M


.
MEMORANDUM THRU
Staff Judge Advo e. US. Army Military District of Washington (AMA), 210 A Street. Fort

Lesley]. McNair. DC 20319

Office of the Judge Advocate General 2200 Army Pemagom

Vvushington, DC 2tl3 ll)

FUR Deputy Chiefnf Staff for intelligence (DAMI-ZB). 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington. DC
2031!}

SUBJECT: Request to Provide Civilian Defense Counsel Access to Classi?ed lrtforntation
LES v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The prosecution team in the case of U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning requests that Mr. David
Coombs, ?1 civiliun defense counsel be authorized access to classified. information. His
infonnation is us

Mr. David Coombs

SSN:

DOB: I969

FOB: Boise, ID
Citizenship; United States

2. Mr. Coornhs currently represents PFC Manning who is charged with multiple specifications of
violating Articles 92 and 134, ljnifonn Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Each speci?cation and
Charge is associated with the unauthorized downloading and release of classi?ed information
from of De classi?ed information systems.

3. Mr. Coombs requested access to classi?ed information to properly defend PFC Manning
during the court-martial process Mr. Coornbs holds a DOD granted security clearance with
. eligibility up to the SECRET level in his capacity as :1 US. Arm}-t Reserve Officer. A

preliminary classification review of the mental impressions of PFC Manning indicates that Mr.
Coorribs needs to be granted the appropriate security clearance and be provided access to
classi?ed information up to the TOP SECRET (Sensitive Cornpartmented lnfonnation) level to
include the compartments HCS, and G. Mr. Coombs is well aware and willing to submit
the appropriate paperwork and to execute 2: Non-Disclosure Agreement for
this purpose.

. 28724
A-C

SUBJECT: Request to Provide Civilian Defense Counsel Access to Classi?ed Information
US v. PFC Bradlev Manning,

4. I support the defense request for access to classi?ed information. In order for Mr. Coombs to
properly defend his client and provide adequate legal representation, he needs access to the
above listed classi?ed information levels.

5. The point ofcontact for this request is the undersigned at or


i
I

N.

Encls ASHDEN FEIN

CPT, JA
Chief, Military Justice

28725

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PFC, U S Army,
HHC,U.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

Enclosurell
lOOctober 2012

28726

UNCLASSIFIED
DECLARATION OF JOHN F. HACKETT,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE,
CHIEF OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

I,

John F. H a c k e t t , d e c l a r e

t h e f o l l o w i n g t o be t r u e and

correct:
1.

I am t h e C h i e f o f I n f o r m a t i o n Management f o r t h e O f f i c e

of the D i r e c t o r o f National
capacity

I n t e l l i g e n c e ("ODNI").

I n this

I oversee t h e ODNI I n f o r m a t i o n Management Program,

w h i c h p r o v i d e s guidance and o v e r s i g h t

f o r the creation,

maintanence, use, p r o t e c t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n , d i s p o s i t i o n , and
release

o f t h e ODNI's r e c o r d s i n compliance w i t h a p p l i c a b l e

and r e g u l a t i o n s .

laws

As p a r t o f ray o f f i c i a l d u t i e s , I serve as t h e

ODNI f o c a l p o i n t f o r d e v e l o p i n g and i m p l e m e n t i n g p o l i c i e s and
p r o c e d u r e s t o ensure t h e s e c u r i t y , i n t e g r i t y , a u t h e n t i c i t y ,
organization,

storage,

and a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f ODNI r e c o r d s .

a l s o s e r v e as an ODNI r e c o r d s c u s t o d i a n ,

which a u t h o r i z e s

I
me

access t o and r e v i e w o f a l l i n f o r m a t i o n h e l d w i t h i n t h e ODNI.
2.

I have TOP SECRET o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y

d e l e g a t e d by t h e D i r e c t o r o f N a t i o n a l

I n t e l l i g e n c e ("DNI")

p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 1.3 o f E x e c u t i v e Order 13526.
authorized,

I am

t h e r e f o r e , t o conduct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e v i e w s and t o

make o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and d e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s .

UNCLASSIFIED

ManningB_00410761

28727

UNCLASSIFIED
3.

I make t h e s t a t e m e n t s

h e r e i n on t h e b a s i s o f my

p e r s o n a l knowledge as w e l l as on i n f o r m a t i o n made a v a i l a b l e t o
me i n t h e c o u r s e o f p e r f o r m i n g my o f f i c i a l d u t i e s .

^

ODNI background
4.

Congress c r e a t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e D i r e c t o r o f

National Intelligence

(^^DNl^^l

i n t h e I n t e l l i g e n c e Reform and

T e r r o r i s m P r e v e n t i o n A c t o f 2004, Pub. L. No. 108 458,
1011(a) and 1097, 118 S t a t . 3638, 3643-63, 36^8-^^ (2004)
(amending s e c t i o n s 102 t h r o u g h 104 o f T i t l e I o f t h e N a t i o n a l
S e c u r i t y A c t o f 1947).

S u b j e c t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y , d i r e c t i o n , and

c o n t r o l o f t h e P r e s i d e n t , t h e DNI serves as t h e head o f t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s I n t e l l i g e n c e Community (^^IC^^) and as t h e p r i n c i p a l
a d v i s o r t o t h e P r e s i d e n t and t h e N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y C o u n c i l f o r
i n t e l l i g e n c e matters r e l a t e d t o the n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y .
U.S C
5.

403(b)(1),

50

(2).

The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a u t h o r i t i e s o f t h e DNI a r e s e t

f o r t h i n t h e N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y A c t o f 1947, as amended.

These

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s inc^lude e n s u r i n g t h a t n a t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e i s
p r o v i d e d t o t h e P r e s i d e n t , heads o f t h e departments and agenoies
o f t h e E x e c u t i v e branch,

t h e Chairman o f t h e J o i n t C h i e f s o f

S t a f f and s e n i o r m i l i t a r y commanders, and t h e Senate and Tfouse
of Representatives
403-l(a)(1).

and committees t h e r e o f .

The DNI i s charged w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e

o b j e c t i v e s o f ^ determining t h e reguirements

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0762

50 U.S.C.

and p r i o r i t i e s f o r ^

28728

UNCLASSIFIED
and managing
production,

and d i r e c t i n g t h e t a s k i n g , c o l l e c t i o n ,
and d i s s e m i n a t i o n

o f n a t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e by

elements o f t h e I n t e l l i g e n c e Community.
l(f)(l)(A)(i)
6.

analysis,

50 U.S.C.

403^

and ( i i )

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y A c t o f 1947, as

amended, s t a t e s t h a t ^ ( t j h e D i r e c t o r o f N a t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e
s h a l l p r o t e c t i n t e l l i g e n c e sources and methods f r o m
disclosure.50

U.S.C. ^ 403 l ( i ) ( l ) .

unauthorized

Consistent w i t h t h i s

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e DNI e s t a b l i s h e s and implements

guidelines

f o r t h e I n t e l l i g e n c e Community f o r t h e c l a s s i f i c a t ^ i o n o f
i n f o r m a t i o n under a p p l i c a b l e law. E x e c u t i v e Orders, o r o t h e r
p r e s i d e n t i a l d i r e c t i v e s and f o r access t o and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f
intelligence.
7.
created

50 U.S.C. ^ 4 0 3 - l ( i ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , ( 8 ) .

F i n a l l y , t h e N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y A c t o f 1^47, as amended,
an O f f i c e o f t h e D i r e c t o r o f N a t i o n a l

I n t e l l i g e n c e . The

f u n c t i o n o f t h i s O f f i c e i s t o a s s i s t t h e DNI i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e
d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e D i r e c t o r under t h e A c t and
o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n o f law, and t o c a r r y o u t such o t h e r
d u t i e s as may be p r e s c r i b e d

by t h e P r e s i d e n t

purpose o f t h i s
8.

o r by law.

Declaration

The purpose o f t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n i s t o p r o v i d e

background on t h e c l a s s i f i e d I n t e l i n k program and I n t e l i n k
l o g s , and t o e x p l a i n t h e bases o f my c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

audit

decisions

p u r s u a n t t o E x e c u t i v e Order 13526, as amended, f o r i n f o r m a t i o n

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f076^

28729

UNCLASSIFIED
concerning t h e matter o f United States v. P r i v a t e F i r s t

Class

B r a d l e y E. IManning.
^.

T h i s d e c l a r a t i o n i s UNCLASSIFIED.

As a r e s u l t , t h e

d e s c r i p t i o n s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n have been g e n e r a l i z e d t o m a i n t a i n
t h e UNCLASSIFIED d e s i g n a t i o n .

Much o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h I n t e l i n k i s c l a s s i f i e d a t t h e SECRETBBNOFORN
l e v e l b u t i s unnecessary f o r a g e n e r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
I n t e l i n k program and i t s a u d i t l o g s .

Information i s classified

a t t h e SECRET l e v e l i f i t s u n a u t h o r i z e d d i s c l o s u r e r e a s o n a b l y
c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o cause ,serioLi^ damage t o t h e n a t i o n a l
security.

NOFORN o r ^^NF^^ stands f o r '^No F o r e i g n Dissemination^^

and means t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n can be d i s s e m i n a t e d t o U.S.
persons o n l y and cannot be d i s s e m i n a t e d t o f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l s .
background on I n t e l i n k
10.

I n t e l i n k i s a s u i t e o f web-based a p p l i c a t i o n s ,

tools,

and c o l l a b o r a t i v e s e r v i c e s t h a t i n c l u d e w i k i s i t e s , b l o g s ,
i n s t a n t messaging, and a search c a p a b i l i t y t h a t can be used t o
f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n h o s t e d on t h e IC and Department o f Defense
networks.

These s e r v i c e s a r e managed by t h e I n t e l i n k

o r g a n i z a t i o n and e x i s t on v a r i o u s c l a s s i f i e d and u n c l a s s i f i e d
networks

i n c l u d i n g t h e s e c r e t - l e v e l Secure I n t e r n e t P r o t o c o l

Router Network (^^SIPRNet^^), t o w h i c h I have been i n f o r m e d t h a t
P r i v a t e F i r s t Class B r a d l e y E. Manning (^^Manning^^) had access.

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0764

28730

UNCLASSIFIED
11.

The I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n has t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and

c a p a b i l i t y o f a u d i t i n g t h e use o f i t s s e r v i c e s and t h i s
i n f o r m a t i o n i s captured
a u d i t data captured

i n I n t e l i n k logs.

I n t e l i n k logs contain

from p r o x y s e r v e r s t h a t c o n t r o l access t o

I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s and show t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f u s e r s and systems
t h a t connect t o and use t h e I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s w h i l e on
classified
12.

o r u n c l a s s i f i e d networks.
The I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n o b t a i n s , manages, and s t o r e s

i t s a u d i t d a t a as necessary t o p e r f o r m

i t s day-to-day

operations

o f I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s on t h e c l a s s i f i e d and u n c l a s s i f i e d
networks.

Among i t s many r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,

in^iries,

t r o u b l e s h o o t s t e c h n i c a l problems, and m o n i t o r s and

maintains

i t responds t o u s e r

t h e performance o f t h e I n t e l i n k s u i t e o f s e r v i c e s .

To

do t h i s , t h e I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n r e g u l a r l y r e v i e w s t h e a u d i t
d a t a o f I n t e l i n k u s e r s as t h a t d a t a p r o v i d e s

the Intelink

o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on how i t s s e r v i c e s a r e used,
w h e t h e r I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s a r e f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y , and whether
a d j u s t m e n t s s h o u l d be made t o these s e r v i o e s .

Ihe Intelink

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o r o u t i n e l y reviews t h e a u d i t data t o solve
t e c h n i c a l o r s e c u r i t y i s s u e s , t o r e v i e w d a t a t r e n d s , and t o
d e v e l o p a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n management s t r a t e g i e s .
A u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f b u s i n e s s Records
13.

The I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n m a i n t a i n s

and s t o r e s t h e

I n t e l i n k Passport account p r o f i l e s o f r e g i s t e r e d I n t e l i n k

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0765

users.

28731

UNCLASSIFIED
S p e c i f i c a l l y , an I n t e l i n k Passport account i s an I n t e l i n k
unigue i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

(^^ID^^) p r o f i l e and

user^s

password-enabled

account t h a t p e r m i t s t h e user t o a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e on many
I n t e l i n k s i t e s and s e r v i c e s .

The p a s s i v e v i e w i n g o f and

s e a r c h i n g w i t h i n t h e I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s , however, does n o t
r e g u i r e an I n t e l i n k Passport
14,

account.

Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e g u e s t e d a copy o f f^anning^s

Passport account p r o f i l e , w h i c h p r o v i d e s d e t a i l s c o n c e m i n g h i s
I n t e l i n k account such as h i s I n t e l i n k Passport
The

ID and password.

I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n l o c a t e d a copy o f Manning^s I n t e l i n k

Passport account p r o f i l e i n i t s databases

and p r o v i d e d a copy t o

Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s .
15.

Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l s o r e g u e s t e d a u d i t d a t a

p e r t a i n i n g t o Manning^s I n t e l i n k a c t i v i t i e s on SIPRNet f r o m
October

I , 200^ t o June 1, 2010. A l t h o u g h Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s

specifically
addresses

i d e n t i f i e d Manning^s I n t e r n e t P r o t o c o l (^^IP^^)

as 22.224 4 1 ^ ^

(^^.22^^) and ^ ^ ^ ^ 5 41.40 (^^.40^^), t h e

ODNI d i r e c t e d t h e I n t e l i n k o r g a n i z a t i o n t o d u p l i c a t e t h e SIPRNet
I n t e l i n k a u d i t d a t a from p r o x y s e r v e r s c o l l e c t e d between Ootober
1, 200^ t o June 1, 2010 and t o p r o v i d e i t t o Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s .
The e n t i r e s e t c o n t a i n e d l o g s o f a c t i v i t y from t h e .22 and .40
IP addresses

as w e l l as a u d i t d a t a n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h i s

case.

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e ODNI p r o v i d e d t h e I n t e l i n k a u d i t d a t a on t b e

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0766

28732

UNCLASSIFIED
c o n d i t i o n t h a t Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s e x t r a c t o n l y those
b e l o n g i n g t o f^anning^s

.^2 and .40 1 ^ address a c t i v i t i e s .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f I n t e l i n k Passport
16. An I n t e l i n k Passport
user i d e n t i f y i n g

logs

Account

account p r o f i l e c o n t a i n s

general

i n f o r m a t i o n t y p i c a l o f a system d i r e c t o r y w h i c h

i n c l u d e s name, e m a i l address, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l assignment, phone
number, and i d e n t i f i e r s o f o t h e r I n t e l i n k s e r v i c e s .
g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s UNCLASSIFIED.

A Passport

This

p r o f i l e also

c o n t a i n s p e r s o n a l i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e form o f ^^secret^^
g u e s t i o n s and answers used by t h e I n t e l i n k o f f i c e t o a s s i s t
users

i n r e s e t t i n g access t o t h e i r Passport

accounts.

This i s a

t y p i c a l p r o c e s s used i n some i n f o r m a t i o n systems t o a s s i s t

users

i n t h e r e n e w a l o f passwords o r g a i n i n g s u p p o r t desk a s s i s t a n c e .
T h i s g u e s t i o n and answer method t y p i c a l l y asks g u e s t i o n s
o n l y t h e u s e r would know.

T h i s g u e s t i o n and answer f e a t u r e

a s s i s t s i n v a l i d a t i n g a user^s
s u p p o r t desk a s s i s t a n c e ,

that

i d e n t i t y when r e g u e s t i n g

Intelink

because these g u e s t i o n s and answers

s e r v e as meohanisms t o ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y

and i n t e g r i t y o f

t h e c l a s s i f i e d network access process and c o u l d u l t i m a t e l y l e a d
t o d i r e c t access t o s e n s i t i v e n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y i n f o r m a t i o n ,
t h e y a r e p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d a t t h e SECRETBBNOFORN l e v e l .
Unauthorized
expected

d i s c l o s u r e o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be

t o cause s^erious damage t o t h e n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y .

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0767

28733

UNCLASSIFIED
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f I n t e l i n k Logs
17.

The ODNI r e v i e w e d a l i s t p r o v i d e d by Army

investigators

o f s e a r c h terms used by Manning and d e t e r m i n e d

t h a t some o f t h e s e a r c h terms were c l a s s i f i e d and o t h e r s were
u n c l a s s i f i e d b u t t h e o v e r a l l l i s t o f search terms was c l a s s i f i e d
a t SECRETBBNOFORN.

The o v e r a l l l i s t o f search terms c o n t a i n s

s e n s i t i v e s e a r c h terms t h a t Manning may have e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e
course o f h i s d u t i e s

as a m i l i t a r y a n a l y s t who had access t o

c l a s s i f i e d inform,ation.
in

I n a d d i t i o n , some o f t h e search terms

t h e a g g r e g a t e can be p i e c e d t o g e t h e r t o r e v e a l

what t h e I C c o l l e c t e d o r sought t o c o l l e c t .

insights into

And f i n a l l y t h e r e

are i n d i v i d u a l s e a r c h terms on t h e l i s t t h a t a r e u n r e l a t e d t o
his duties

as a m i l i t a r y a n a l y s t and u n c l a s s i f i e d such as

^ ^ ^ i k i l e a k s , ^ ^ ^^Julian A s s a n g e , ' ^ A s s a n g e , ^ ^ ^ i r g i t t a J o n s d o t t i r , ^ ^
J o k e s , ^ ^ F u n n y Joke,^^ and ^^criminal

^^Iceland,^^

investigation

d i v i s i o n . T h e s e terms a r e u n c l a s s i f i e d as t h e y do n o t r e v e a l
an i n t e l l i g e n c e source o r method.
1^.
the

I n t e l i n k l o g s a r e c l a s s i f i e d a t SECRETBBNOFORN because

f u l l content o f the a u d i t data contains i n f o r m a t i o n

o n l y t h e i n d i v i d u a l search t e r m s .

The I n t e l i n k l o g s

s e a r c h t e r m r e s u l t s and a u d i t d a t a t h a t r e v e a l
information

national

defense

s e n s i t i v e sources and methods, and s p e c i f i c

c o n c e r n i n g t h e IC^s e l e c t r o n i c

UNCLASSIFIED

l^anningB^004f0768

contain

i n t h e form o f c l a , s s i f i e d i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n

and a n a l y s i s ,
information

beyond

communications

28734

UNCLASSIFIED
network.

The d a t a a l s o c o n t a i n s

i n d i v i d u a l l y imclassified, or

o f f i c i a l o r otherwise c o n t r o l l e d u n c l a s s i f i e d data items t h a t i n
t h e a g g r e g a t e would p r o v i d e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e IC^s o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
functions, s t a f f i n g , a c t i v i t i e s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s ,
o r i n t e l l i g e n c e sources o r methods.

T h e r e f o r e , t h e .22 and .40

l o g s e x t r a c t e d b y Army i n v e s t i g a t o r s from t h e I n t e l i n k

audit

d a t a s e t a r e c l a s s i f i e d a t SECRETBBNOFORN and d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g
a u d i t a c t i v i t y t h a t go beyond t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s

i n this

d e c l a r a t i o n would l i k e w i s e r e v e a l s e n s i t i v e , c l a s s i f i e d
information.
1^.

The c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e I n t e l i n k

l o g s as d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n c o n t a i n e g u i t i e s b e l o n g i n g
to various

IC elements and t h e v e r y sources and methods t h e DNI

is entrusted

t o p r o t e c t p u r s u a n t t o E x e c u t i v e Order 12333. Our

i n t e l l i g e n c e sources and methods a r e o f g r e a t
f o r e i g n i n t e l l i g e n c e services,

interestt o

t e r r o r i s t groups, and o t h e r

h o s t i l e groups who have an i n t e r e s t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g what t h e IC
c^ollec^ts and what concerns t h e I C .

Failure t o protect

i n f o r m a t i o n from u n a u t h o r i z e d d i s c l o s u r e

this

r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d be

e x p e c t e d t o cause se;r"ii^iis damage t o t h e n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y .

UNCL.ASSIEIED

l^anningB^004f0760

28735

UNCLASSIFIED

Conclusion
20.

I n the foregoing, 1 have attempted t o e x p l a i n the

background on I n t e l i n k and the bases f o r my judgment t h a t
d i s c l o s u r e o f the c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n described

above

reasonably could be expected t o cause serious damage t o the
national security.

I c e r t i f y under penalty o f p e r j u r y t h a t the foregoing i s
t r u e and c o r r e c t t o the best of my knowledge and b e l i e f .

Executed t h i s - \

day of December, 2011.

r Z

/-^
M ^

. /

/ /?/ ^:- . . . / / / - ' ^

John F. Hackett
O f f i c e o f f the D i r e c t o r o f National I n t e l l i g e n c e
Chief, Information Management

UNCLASSIFIED

ManningB_00410770

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 28736

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 52

10 October 2012





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
21 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. De 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 6 October 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Third Army, United States Army Central (ACEN -1 A),
Shaw Air Force Base, SC 29152

SUBJECT: Requestto Located and Preserve Evidence United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The prosecution in the above-named case requests that you eonduct.a thorough
and comprehensive search for all theater provided equipment (TPE) hard drives used between 1
November 2009 and 27 May 2010 in the Tactical Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
and the Tactical Operations Center of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq.
If you locate any TPE hard drives, then please take all reasonably and necessary steps to preserve
such hard drives.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is the subject of an ongoing investigation and criminal
prosecution based on the alleged illegal collection and disclosure of national defense and foreign
relations information to the WikiLeaks organization. WikiLeaks released national defense and
foreign relations information allegedly provided to them by PFC Manning on the internet. PFC
Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of federal law under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), including violations of 18 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. 1030, and 18
U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence, in
violation of Article 104, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 904). See Enclosure 1. PFC Manning was
apprehended by CID in Iraq on 27 May 2010 and has been in pretrial con?nement since 29 May
2010.

3. SUSPEN SE. Please acknowledge receipt of this request and notify the prosecution of the
results of your search and the steps you took to locate any hard drive by 12 October 201].

4. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.

a. If you identify or locate any relevant hard drives, please take all reasonable and necessary
steps to preserve the hard drives. The prosecution will provide additional instructions on
disposition.

b. This request is designed to preserve materials and information requested by the defense
counsel for PFC Manning. See Enclosures 2 and 3. It is not intended, nor should it be
interpreted, to ascribe any legal relevance to the materials and information requested, including
whether or not such materials and information may be provided to the defense in discovery.

. . 28738
ANJA-C

SUBJECT: Request to Located and Preserve Evidence United States v, PFC Bradlev Mannin



C. If you are unsure whether certain materials should be preserved, please err on the side of
caution and preserve the materials. Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials,
electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against the United States, based on PFC
Manning's rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.

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



dil-

3 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 2 Mar 11 CPT, JA
2. Defense Request, 21 Sep ll Tnal Counsel

3. Explanation Emails, 29 Sep 11





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

REP LY TO
ATTE NTION OF

4 October 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light
Infantry), Fort Drum, NY 13602

SUBJECT: Request to Located and Preserve Evidence United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-named case requests that your unit conduct a
thorough and comprehensive search for all hard drives used between 1 November 2009 and 27
May 2010 in the Tactical Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility and the Tactical
Operations Center of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq. If you locate any
hard drives, then please take all reasonably and necessary steps to preserve such hard drives.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is the subject of an ongoing investigation and criminal
prosecution based on the alleged illegal collection and disclosure of national defense and foreign
relations information to the WikiLeaks organization. WikiLeaks released national defense and
foreign relations information allegedly provided to them by PFC Manning on the internet. PFC
Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of federal law under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMI), including violations of18 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. 1030, and 18
U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence, in
violation ofArticle 104, UCMI (10 U.S.C. 904). See Enclosure 1. PFC Manning was
apprehended by CID in Iraq on 27 May 2010 and has been in pretrial con?nement since 29 May
2010.

3. SUSPENSE. Please acknowledge receipt of this request and notify the prosecution of the
results of your search and the steps you took to locate any hard drive by 12 October 2011.

4. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.

a. If you identify or locate any relevant hard drives, please take all reasonable and necessary
steps to preserve the hard drives. The prosecution will provide additional instructions on
disposition.

b. This request is designed to preserve materials and information requested by the defense
counsel for PFC Manning. See Enclosures 2 and 3. It is not intended, nor should it be
interpreted, to ascribe any legal relevance to the materials and information requested, including
whether or not such materials and information may be provided to the defense in discovery.

c. If you are unsure whether certain materials should be preserved, please err on the side of
caution and preserve the materials. Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials,

. . 28740
AN JA-CL

SUBJECT: Request to Located and Preserve Evidence United States v. PFC Bradley Mannirm -

electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against the United States, based on PFC
Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.

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

1
Ox

3 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 2 Mar ll CPT, JA
2. Defense Request, 21 Sep 11 Trial Counsel

3. Explanation Emails, 29 Sep 1 1

CF:
BJA, ZBCT, lOth MTN DIV (Ll)
SJA, lOth MTN DIV (Ll)



0 0 28741

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

REPLY TO
ATTE NTION OF

4 October 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Computer Crime Investigative Unit, U.S. Army Criminal
Investigative Command, Quantico, VA 22134

SUBJECT: Request to Preserve Evidence United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-named case requests that your organization take
all reasonable and necessary steps to preserve any computer forensic evidence held or obtained
by your organization during the investigation of PFC Manning?s alleged misconduct, including
hard drives used between 1 November 2009 and 27 May 2010 in the Tactical Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility and the Tactical Operations Center of Headquarters and
Headquarters Company,2d Brigade Combat Team, l0th Mountain Division (Light Infantry),
Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq, and all forensic images of all computers seized by the
United States.

2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is the subject of an ongoing investigation and criminal
prosecution based on the alleged illegal collection and disclosure of national defense and foreign
relations information to the WikiLeaks organization. WikiLeaks released national defense and
foreign relations infonnation allegedly provided to them by PFC Manning on the internet. PFC
Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of federal law under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), including violations ofl8 U.S.C. 793, I8 U.S.C. 1030, and I8
U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence, in
violation ofArticle I04, UCMJ (IO U.S.C. 904). See Enclosure 1. PFC Manning was
apprehended by CID in Iraq on 27 May 2010 and has been in pretrial confinement since 29 May
2010. -

3. SUSPENSE. Please acknowledge receipt of this preservation request and notify the
prosecution by 12 October 2011 that you have complied with this request.

4. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. This request is designed to preserve materials and
information requested by the defense counsel for PFC Manning. See Enclosures 2 and 3. It is
not intended, nor should it be interpreted, to ascribe any legal relevance to the materials and
infomiation requested, including whether or not such materials and information may be provided
to the defense in discovery. If you are unsure whether certain materials should be preserved,
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to preserve and retain any
pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against the United States,




0 28742

ANJA-CL
Request to Preserve Evidence United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and
applicable case law.

5. The point of Contact for this request is the undersigned at
0*

3 Encls ASHDEN FEIN
1. Charge Sheet, 2 Mar 11 CPT, JA

2. Defense Request, 21 Sep 11 Trial Counsel
3. Explanation Emails, 29 Sep I 1

CF:
Legal Advisor, CCIU





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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION

October 4, 201 1

Criminal Law Division, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate

National Security Law Branch
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Ave NW
Washington, DC 20535

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning



The U.S. Arrny prosecutors in the above-named case (hereina?er "the prosecution")
request the Federal'Bureau of Investigation (FBI) take all reasonable and necessary steps to
preserve any computer forensic evidence held or obtained by the FBI-during the investigation of
PFC Manning?s alleged misconduct, including hard drives used between November 1, 2009 and
May 27, in the Tactical Sensitive Compartmented lnfonnation Facility and the Tactical
Operations Center of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq, and all forensic
images of all computers seized by the United States.

PFC Manning is the subject of an ongoing investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal collection and disclosure of national defense and foreign relations
information to the WikiLeaks organization. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign
relations information allegedly provided to them by PFC Manning on the intemet. PFC
Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of federal law under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), including violations ofl 8 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. 1030, and 18
U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence, in
violation of Article 104, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 904). Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the
charge .sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative
Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial con?nement since May 29, 2010.

Please acknowledge receipt of this preservation request and notify the prosecution by 12
October 2011 that you have complied with this request. If you are unsure whether certain
materials should be preserved, please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials.
Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in
sanctions against the United States, based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the
Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.



This request is designed to preserve materials and information requested by the defense
counsel for PFC Manning. Also enclosed with this letter is a copy of the defense request and a
series of explanation emails. This request is not intended, nor should it be interpreted, to ascribe
any legal relevance to the materials and information requested, including whether or not such
materials and information may be provided to the defense in discovery.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to
Department of Justice, and Supervisory Special Agent Washington Field

Office. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at
0* (Secure email)-



,1

k/
Ashden Fein
Captain, U.S. Anny
Trial Counsel

Enclosures

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



. 28745

Prosecution Response to

Defense Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 53

10 October 2012



. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY . 2874

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 203195013

May 25. 2011

Office of the General Counsel

Criminal Law Division. Office of the Staffludge Advocate

Defense Intelligence Agency

200 MacDill Boulevard
Washington. DC 20050-6563
Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC 1 Bradle . no
Dear Sir:

The LES. Army Prosecutors in the above-refer (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two-fold request to the Defense Intelligence Agenc First, the prosecution requests

that your agency take any and all reasonable and steps to preserve any information
held by your agency. which concerns or refe? nning and/or ikiLeaks.
Secondly. the prosecution requests that yo a thorough and comprehensive
search of its records for certain informati low, which directly implicates the
evidence in the above?referenced case.

PFC Manning is the subje ng investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal collection an Io of national defense and foreign relations

information to the WikiLeaks or ti . PFC Marming is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law Un rm Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of 8 U.S.C. .C. 1030. and I8 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Encm iving Intelligence. in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial






con?nement since Ma l0. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
ed to them by PFC Manning on the intemet.

information allegw
~'ard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was

born on Dec 1987, and his Social Security Number is -. He has been
following physical addresses:

. PFC Manning is also believed
ted with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of
cation:







FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



b. Social Networking:



c. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225.41.40

71.190.140.39
As indicated above. in ad ader request for preservation of all records

relating to PFC Manning and/or
immediate and thorough prude ch of your records for the information provided above.
and also for anv informati concerning PFC Marming including but not limited to any
documents that discuss dam caused by PFC Manning and WikiLeaks and any
measures considered or taken in ponse to the activities of PFC Mannino and WikiI.eaks. The
search for WikiLeaks information should be limited to all records from November 1,





2009 to the present as with the disclosure of classified information to WikiLeaks, the
possession of classi 'e ation by WikiLeaks. or the dissemination ofclassitied information
by WikiI,eaks.




This i esigned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available an 1d a records by other government agencies. lt is not intended to, nor should it
be interp a scribing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
pro ?de 1 very, to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
?a order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information

or by Julv 5, 2011, on a CD
ny information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive compartmented




FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



287
. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY .
0?

information". should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making future
the need arises. and specifically before the trial, if the case is referred to court-m

As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all doc ents
information. including data stored on electronic media, pertaining to PFC
Wikibeaks, whether or not such information is directly responsive to the tial search
request. Furthermore, please take steps to preserve materials related to PFC

Wilmaterials should be preserved, please err on the side of caution and






Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to

Department of Justice. The point of contact for this req?is the undersigned at

(secure email).

0


shden Fein

Captain, U.S. Anny
Tn'al Counsel



Q)

Q)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



. . 28749

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

May 25, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate

i i - 210 ASTREET
-, FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
ii i TO
ATTENHON or

Department of Defense
1600 Defense Pentagon
Washington. DC 20301-1600

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bra
Dear Sir:

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-referenced case (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two?fold request to the Department of Defense (?agency?). First, the prosecution requests that
your agency take any and all reasonable and necessary steps to preserve any information held by
your agency. which concerns or references PFC Manning. WikiLeaks, or the investigation
directed by the Secretary of Defense on December 14, 2010 into the compromise of
classi?ed information to WikiLeaks [?th lnvestigati0n?]. Secondly, the prosecution
requests that your agency conduct a thorough a rehensive search of its records for certain
information, detailed below, which direct the evidence in the above-referenced case.






PFC Manning is the subject of an
on the alleged illegal collection an
information to the WikiLeaks orga
violations of federal law under
violations of 18 USC. 793
charged with Aiding the
Enclosed with this letter

ing investigation and criminal prosecution based
national defense and foreign relations
PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). including
C. 1030, and I8 U.S.C. 64]. PFC Manning is also
ng Intelligence. in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the










WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
to them by PFC Manning on the intemet.

87, and his Social Security Number is He has been
owing physical addresses:

FUR INF.

. . 28750

0


-2-



a. Email:
?1
?n
?1

b. Social .\'etworking:



IP Addresses:
22225.4 .22
22.225.41.40
71.190.140.39

(7


















As indicated above. in addi
relating to PFC Manning, Wikil.e'
conduct an immediate and tho

roader request for preservation of all records

DOD lnvestigation. the prosecution requests thatyou
tial search of your records for the information

ation directlv concerning PFC Manning including but
not limited to am docume discuss damage or harm caused bv PFC Manning and
WikiLeaks and anv mea .
and WikiI.eaks, Th Wikil.eaks related information should be limited to all records
from 7 esent associated with the disclosure of classi?ed information to
Wiltileaks, the po assi?ed information by Wikil.eaks. or the dissemination of
classified info Wil
signed to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
cords by other government agencies. lt is not intended to. nor should it
ascribing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
tery. to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information
or by August 1. 2011, on a

FOR



. mu itss: . 28751




compartmented information". should be made available for inspection. We anticipate
future requests as the need arises. and speci?cally before the trial. ifthe case is to
martial.

As stated above. the prosecution requests that you preserve all docu an
information. including data stored on electronic media. pertaining to PFC -
or the Investigation, whether or not such information is directly re
search request. Furthermore, please take steps to preserve materials rel
WikiLeaks. or the Investigation from any routine data de
unsure whether certain materials should be preserved, please
preserve the materials. Failure to preserve and retain any pe
otherwise, may result in sanctions against the United States, bas .
under Article 46. UCMJ. the Rules for Courts-Martial. and applicab

Wil








to the prudential
Manning,
s. Ifyou are
of caution and
ls, electronic or
tights
ase law.



I am forwarding a copy ofthis letter to_,
Department of Justice.? The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at



(secure email).





ii/Ysliden Fein

Captain, US. Army
Trial Counsel
Enclosure

FUR IKE




.. 28752

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO

I ArrEm1oNoF
May 25. 201

Criminal Law Division. Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
Law Enforcement and Intelligence

United States Department of State

Room 5419.

2201 Street. NW

Washington, DC 20520

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. annina

Dear Sir:










The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the abov cfere case (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two-fold request to the U.S. Department of First. the prosecution requests that
your agency take any and all reasonable a
your agency, which concerns or referenc
prosecution requests that your agency co
records for certain information, deta'
above?rcferenced case.

ing and/or WikiLeaks. Secondly, the
ough and comprehensive search of its

- 1030, and 18 use. 641. PFC Manning is also
by Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.

Army grim? ton Command in Iraq on May 27. 2010 and has been in pretrial

con?nement sin
information 3 .-

nication:



a. Email:



b. Social Networking: 0

c. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225.41.40
71.190.140.39









As indicated above, in to a oader request for preservation of all records

relating to PFC Manning and the prosecution requests that you conduct an
immediate and thoroug earch of your records for the information provided above,
and also for anv informat '-.s-oneemine PFC Manning including but not limited to am
documents that discuss xs rm caused by PFC Manning and WikiI.ealmeasures considered in rnonse to the activities of PFC Manning and Wiki1..caks. The








search For WikiLe 4' 1 formation should be limited to all records from November 1,
2009 to the prese f} '21. rith the disclosure of classi?ed information to WikiLeaks, the
ation by Wiki1,eaks. or the dissemination of classi?ed information

designed to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available records by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it

bei J. is

1.1" I
$15? 58!. 1 hr.




information?. should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making
the need arises, and speci?cally before the trial. if the case is refer-ned to

As stated above. the prosecution requests that you preserve all

information, including data stored on electronic media, pertaining to
WikiLeaks. whether or not such information is directly responsiv to the pru

Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials, clectr
sanctions against the United States. based on PFC Manning?
Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to

Ashden Fein
Captain, U.S. Army
Trial Counsel



(secure email).

Enclosure

Z.-KL l?Si4'



28755

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

May 25, 2011



Criminal Law Division. Oliicc of the Staff Judge Advocate

Office of the General Counsel
National Security Agency

9800 Savage Road

Fort George Meade. MD 20755-5999

Re: United States v. Private First (PFC) Bradley . inu

Dear Sir:





The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above?re case (?prosecution?) hereby make a
your agency take any and all reasonable and ne . . to preserve any information held by
your agency, which concerns or references .. is
prosecution requests that your agency cond a th 4 ugh and comprehensive search of its
records for certain information, detailed belo -
above-referenced case.





PFC Manning is the suns? ng investigation and criminal prosecution based
- ure of national defense and foreign relations

PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law under the Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of18 U.S.C. 3. 18 U.S.C. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the };Giving Intelligence. in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this lett the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the I
U.S. Army Criminal 1 Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial

con?nement since 0. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information alle ed to them by PFC Manning on the intemet.







. He has been



ollowing physical addresses:








. anmng is a so hcved
the following means of



arming an

List?.




49%

b. Social Networking:






c. Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225.41.40
71.190.140.39




relating to PFC Manning and/or? *1 prosecution requests that you conduct an

I . 4-: of your records for the information provided above,
and also for anv information dir lv
documents that discuss damage or caused bv PFC Mannine and WikiLeaks and anv
measures considered or in response to the activities of PFC Manning and WikiLeaks. The
search for WikiLeal




This designed to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available




prov: to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials

im te 11 order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information
that bv Julv 5. 2011. on a CD

0 information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive

. 28757








As stated above. the prosecution requests that you preserve all doc .
information. including data stored on electronic media, pertaining to PFC
Wikileaks. whether or not such information is directly responsive to
request. Furthermore. please take steps to preserve materials related
Wikilxaks from any routine data destruction practices. If you are uns
materials should be preserved. please err on the side of caution and prese the materials.
Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials, electronic otherwt may result in
sanctions against the United States, based on PFC Manning?s righ der Article 46, UCMJ. the
Rules for Courts-Martial. and applicable case law.







I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Ms.
De artment of Justice. The int of contact for this



(secure email).

Ashden ein
Captain, U.S. Army
Trial Counsel
Enclosure

USE

28758



DEPARTMENT or THE ARMY C)
US. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013
REPLY TO
R11-ENTTON OF
Ma, 25. 2011 .9
Criminal Law Division. Office of the Staff Judge Advocate



Office of the General Counsel
Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Washington. DC 20511

Re: United States v. Private First Class PFC Bradlev E. gm.?

Dear Ma'am:

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-refe se (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two-fold request to the Office of the Director of elligence ("agency"). First, the
prosecution requests that your agency take any a a asonable and necessary steps to preserve
any information held by your agency, which co?or references PFC Manning and/or
WikiLcaks. Secondly. the prosecution rcqucs
comprehensive search of its records for cenain
implicates the evidence in the above-rcfere?d case.

our agency conduct a thorough and
ation. detailed below, which directly





PFC Manning is the subject 0 investigation and criminal prosecution based
information to the WikiLeaks org at'n. PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law undert -. -
violations -of 18 U.S.C. 793. .
charged with Aiding the Erie
Enclosed with this letter --.
Army Criminal In 2 on Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
con?nement since May 2 10. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information allcgedlwvided to them by PFC Manning on the internet.

w'md Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was
bom on 1987, and his Social Security Number is . He has been
associated @}th th ollowing physical addresses:












PFC Manning is also believed
to ciated with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of
co cation:





Z-Dix". 1'54?)





.


b. Social Networking:

I as

e. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225.41.40 0
71.190.140.39
der request for preservation of all records

ne prosecution requests that you conduct an
1? your records for the information provided above,



As indicated above. in addition
relating to PFC Manning and/or Wik
immediate and thorough prudential
and also for anv information dire .
documents that discuss damage
measures. considered or ta__lgg_i onse activities of PFC Manning and WikiI.eaks. The
search for ikiLeaks lo? ation should be limited to all records from November 1,
2009 to the present ass 3" .V1th the disclosure of classi?ed information to WikiLeaks, the
possession of classi?ed ation by ikiLealby WikiLeal













This re ?signed to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and records by other govemment agencies. It is not intended to. nor should it
be interpre as.

ribing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
covery. to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
. A order to expedite this process. please provide the requested information
- or bv Julv 5. 2011. on a CD



F?lli

. . 28760
FOR OFFICKAL usr. ONLY
-3-

information, including data stored on electronic media, pertaining to PFC or
WikiLeaks, whether or not such information is directly responsive to the prude arch
request. Furthermore, please take steps to preserve materials related to PFC 5; and/or
WikiLeaks from any routine data destruction practices. If you are unsure certain
materials should be preserved, please err on the side of caution and pre th materials.
Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials, electronic or oth . may result in
sanctions against the United States, based on PFC rams rights ?cle 46, UCMJ. the

Rules for Courts-Martial, and applicable case law.





I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Ms.
Department of Justice. The point of Contact for this rcques

or

(secure email);

the undersigned at

Ashden ein

Captain, U.S. Army

e?
wo Tnal Counsel


Enclosure

0 FOR USE ONLY

3,4

.4 .. . . 28761


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0

21 A smear
roar LESLEY J. MCNAIR. oc 20319-5013

ATTENTWON 0:
TO
Ma; 2 20] 0

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

Office of the Director of?\?ational Intelligence
Office of the National Counterintelligencc Executive

Washington, DC. 205] 1

Re: United States Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning





Dear Sir:

The Anny Prosecutors in the above-refece (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two-fold request to the National Counterintellige 1 ("agency"). First. the
prosecution requests that your agency take any anr\ onable and necessary steps to preserve
any information held by your agency. which references PFC Manning and/or

WikiLeaks. Secondly. the prosecution our agency conduct a thorough and
comprehensive search of its records for certa if ation, detailed below. which directly






re of national defense and foreign relations

i . PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
orm Code of Military Justice (UCLMJ), including

. . 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the lin iving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this letter i. . of the charge sheet. Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal Inv :1 Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
con?nement since May 10. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information alleg pr ed to them by PFC Manning on the internct.

PFC Manning is the subject of
on the alleged illegal collection and
information to the Wilviolations of federal law under
violations of 18 U.S.C. 793,










9 -
ing investigation and criminal prosecution based

PFC 'ard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was

born on DecW7. l987. and his Social Security Number is He has been
associated ym ollowing physical addresses:







. PFC Manning is also believed





Social Networking:



IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
32.225.41.40
71.190.140.39

is
~81


As indicated above, in addition der request for preservation of all records
relating to PF Manning and/or WikiLt prosecution requests that you conduct an
immediate and thorough prudential 3 of your records for the information provided above.
and also for am? information dir
d_ocuments that discuss damage




ation should be limited to all records from November 1,
'n the disclosure of classified information to Wik-iLeaks, the

by Wikileaks.

"s igned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
eld as records by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
?cribing any legal relevance. including whether such information may be
to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials

This reque
available an




or bx? Julv 5. 2011, on a CD
information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive compartmented
should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making future requests as

Fif?wf 1.751%:



WikiLeaks. whether or not such information is directly responsive to the pr earch
request. Furthermore. please take steps to preserve materials related to PF andlor
WikiLeaks from any routine data destruction practices. If you are unsure certain
materials should be preserved, please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials.
Failure to preserve and retain any pertinent materials, electronic or 0th may result in
sanctions against the United States. based on PFC Manning?s rights rticle 46. UCMJ. the

Rules for Courts-Martial. and applicable case law.




I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Ms.
Department of Justice. The point of contact for this request is the undersiged at






(secure email).



0


cn

Captain, U.S. Anny
Trial Counsel



0

0%


.
U515



FOR OFFICIAL USE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us ARMY MIUTARY olsmicr or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
roar LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319-5013

REPLY to
OF



June 27, 2011


Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate mx



National Security Law Branch

Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Ave NW

Washington, DC 20535

Re: United St v. 'v~ate irst Class PFC Bradle

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-referenced-A Emma?) hereby make a two-fold
request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the prosecution requests that
your agency conduct a thorough and comrehens ?of its records for information which
concerns or references PFC Manning and/or Wi including certain information, detailed
below, which directly implicates the evidence the above-referenced case. Secondly, the
prosecution requests that your agency take all gnable and necessary steps to preserve any
responsive ?les gathered as a result of yo urgq?? for information.

PFC Manning is the subject of ario?gying investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal collection and is _3ure of national defense and foreign relations
information to the WikiLeaks organ . PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law under ihenplfom Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations ofl8 U.S.C. 7933 13' LSTC. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the iving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this lett is of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal Im a Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
con?nement since May 29. O. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information alleged to them by PFC Manning on the internet.

t?

Ehard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was
born on Decent ?r 7?

1987, and his Social Security Number is . He has been
associated Ei?ollowing physical addresses:
. PFC Manning is also believed
elated with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of

nibation:

-3
if :5















PFC Br








FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

F.


KL



FUR USE

Email:
.



b. Social Networking:



c. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22 0.
22. 225.4 .40
71.190.140.39


As indicated above, the pros?cgzqii requests that you conduct an immediate and thorough
prudential search of your records ?iriheinformation provided above, and also for any
information directlv including but not limited to any documents that
discuss damage or harm causigd ManninsL1nd WikiLeaks and any measures considered
or taken in response to of PFC Manning and WikiLeaks. The Search for WikiLeaks
related information to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present
associated with the infomiation to WikiLeaks, the possession of
classi?ed infomm by WiltiLeaks. or the dissemination of classi?ed information by
WikiLeaks.

This regucst-is?esigne? to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and records by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
to the information requested. The prosecutors rcxluire such materials
order to expedite this process, please provide me requested information
thatis or by August I, 2011, 0Q



Any information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive

information", should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making

.7


FOR OFFICIAL USE

28766

OQ



?xture requests as the need arises, and speci?cally before the trial, if the case is ref
martial.

As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all res nsi?d 'nts and
infor-rnation, including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a result 0% ?ch for
information detailed above. lf you are unsure whether certain materials .9 i preserved.
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to pg?s ?ind retain any
pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions aga United States,

based on PFC Manning'g rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules s-Martial, and
applicable case law.

I am rbrwanding a copy ofthis letter to?

Department of Justice. The point of Contact for this ucst is the-tan







.Ashden Fein
Captain, U.S. Army
Trial Counsel

Enclosure

OFFICIAL USE

ron OFFICIAL use ONLY 28767

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
roar LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319-5013



June 27, 2011

Criminal Law Division, O?ice of the Staff Judge Advocate .
5.



l'nited States Department of Justice
950 Avenue NW
Washington. DC 20530-0001




Re: United States x. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manni


4..
Dear-:
The U.S. Anny Prosecutors in the above-refere %rosecution") hereby make a
two-fold request to the United States Department of ncy?). First, the prosecution
requests that your agency conduct a thorough and comp i Search of its records for

information which concerns or references PF arid/or WikiLeaks. including certain




information, detailed below, which directly imp es the evidence in the above-referenced case.
Secondly, the prosecution requests that your 9 all reasonable and necessary steps to
preserve any responsive ?les gathered as aI&?lt ggour search for information.

PFC Manning is the subject of
on the alleged illegal collection and di







olii?xinvestigation and criminal prosecution based
national defense and foreign relations
information to the Wik iLeaks organja Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations offederal law under th 1" ode ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of18 u.s.c. 793, la; and I8 u.s.c. 541. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Enegg? Intelligence, in violation of 10 u.s.c. 904.
Enclosed with this xofthe charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
confinement since released national defense and foreign relations
information allegedly to them by PFC Manning on the internet.


Bradl?y Manning is an enlisted membenof the United States Army. He was

born on Dace I 3? and his Social Security Number is
associated w? (1 owing physical addresses:








PFC Manning is also believed

FOR OFFICIAL USE

ia

FOR IAI. ONLY

-2-



h. Social Networking:



c. IP Addresses:

22.225.41.22



7l . I 90. 40.39

As indicated above, the prosecution redqests that you conduct an immediate and thorough
prudential search of your records for provided above, and also for any
information directlv concerning PFC including but not limited to any documents that
_c1g_rriag? or harm caused bym?gg and WikiLealt;r_taken in response to the oi" Nlannirigind WikiLeaks. The search for Wikilseaks
related information should be pm i? I to all records from November 1. 2009 to the present
associated with the information to Wikilseaks, the possession of
classified information or the dissemination of classi?ed information by
WikiLeaks. i

4.).


This to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be interpreted as, use mag? any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
provided in d? information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
In order to Lxpedite this process, glease provide the requested information
that is or bv August classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive
should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making
as the need arises. and speci?cally before the trial, if the case is referred to court-

ti

. 1?
0'

FOR OFFICIAL l.lSl~I ONLY

FOR LSF.

-3-

As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all responsive
inforrnation, including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a result of seaiqh??ir
information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials should beprgseijf?d.
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to presergefanqxretain any
pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against States,
based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for and
applicable case law. 4




I am forwardinsz a co of this letter to Mr.
Criminal
tern Virginia; and -

The point of contact for






undersigned at





Fein
U.S. Army
Trial Counsel

Enclosure

FOR USE



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 23770

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT J. DC 20319-5013



June 28, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

Office of the General Counsel
Defense Information Systems Agency
Fort Meade, MD 20755

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradlev E.

Dearj:

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-referenced case secution") hereby make a two-fold
request to the Defense Information Systems Agency . First, the prosecution requests
that your agency conduct a thorough and comprehe of its records for information
which conoems orreferenoes PFC Manning and/or ale, including certain information,
detailed below, which directly implicates the in the above-referenced case. Secondly,
the prosecution requests that your agency take a asonable and necessary steps to preserve any
responsive ?les gathered as a result of your s@ or information.

. 9.
PFC Manning is the subject of investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal collection and di of national defense and foreign relations

infonnation to the WilciLeaks or PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law under thevl?ii Code of Military ustioe (UCMJ), including
violations of 18 U.S.C. 793, 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.



Enclosed with this letter is agiiwpy of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
us. Army Criminal mvegttgauoi Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
con?nement since May 9 2010. Wikileaks released national defense and foreign relations
information allegedlyiproyided to them by PFC Manning on the intemet.
s,

PFC Brad] kEd:rard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was

born on Decem 517;, 1987, and his Social Security Number is -. He has been

associated wi ~-following physical addresses:








PFC Manning is also believed
i ed with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of
co untcation:

Email:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONIY



b. Social Networking:
I
C. IP Addresses:

22.225.41.22
22225.41.40
71.190.140.39
0

As indicated above, the prosecution? ?e?u,ests that you conduct an immediate and thorough
prudential search of your records for the,infor?niation provided above, and also for any
information directlv concemin PFC includin but not limited to ?y documents gt;
discus?_dgma2e or harm caused by Pl"CtsT2in11ing and WikiLeaks and any measures considered
or taken in response to the Manning and Wikileag The search for WikiLeaks
related information should be -to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present
associated with the assi?ed information to WikiLeaks, the possession of
clusi?ed information by or the dissemination of classi?ed information by
WilciLeal:s. K.



This request i??c]?slgned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and held as re??rds by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be interpreted as, ?gribing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
provided in disc veg/,ito the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
immediately. order to expedite this process, please provide the reguested information
that is or by Angst 1, 2011, on a
CD or information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive
com information?, should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making
futu jequests as the need arises, and speci?cally before the trial, if the case is referred to court-

'1

.
41>





FOR OFFICIAL USE



FOR OFFICIAL USE





information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials should be ed,
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to prese any
ted States,

pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against the
based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Co -Martial, and
applicable case law.




I am forwarding a copy of this letter to




Widen Fein
6 ptain, U.S. Army

rial Counsel
Enclosure

KO


Q)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 28773

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

August 15, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007-1312

Re: United States v.

Dear

the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Federal
enclosed letter, the prosecution became awar investigative activities undertaken by
your office and the FBI in your district inv eaks and its associates may have
generated information responsive to 31 e, therefore, should have addressed the
original letter to you as well. The pr on quests that you execute the enclosed

PSR by August 26, 2011. JN

I am forwardin 11 of ?s letter to
poi of contact for this request is the undersigned at






Ashden Fein
Captain, U.S. Army
Trial Counsel

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



no 0.
DR

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY murARv or WASHINGTON
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0?

June 6. 20ll

Criminal Law Division, O?ice ofthe Staffludge Advocate

Departmciit of



l600 Defense Pentagon -
Washington. 2030l-1600

Re: States v. Private First Class LPFQ _Brad_l_e_y
Dear Sir:

The U.S. Anny Prosecutors in the above?referen ?d case cution") hereby make a

two-fold request to the Department of Defense (?agency
your agency conduct a thorough and comprehensive
concerns or references PFC Manning, WikiLeaks, th - vestigation directed by the
Secretary of Defense on December I4, 20 0 intot ?promise of classi?ed information
to WikiLeaks |?the lnvestigation?|, i. ding certain information, detailed below, which
directly implicates the evidence in the abo ed case. Secondly, the prosecution requests
that your agency take all reasonable an steps to preserve any responsive files gathered
as a result of your search for inform . rt purposes ofthis request, please exclude the
Defense Information Systems Age? tional Security Agency, and the Defense

First, th prosecution requests that
ts records for information which













Intelligence Agency. These ag - eceivc separate letters.

PFC Mannin I is i?sift ?%'fan ongoing investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illega A and disclosure ofnational defense and foreign relations
information to the \fl ?brgani7ation. PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of fedcr?l" er the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of ig-. 793, 18 U.S.C. HBO, and I8 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with he Enemy by Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclos - etter is a copy of the charge sheet. Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. A inal investigation Command in lraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
ince May 29. 2010. Wikil.eaks released national defense and foreign relations



I provided to them by PFC Manning on the intemet.

PFC Bradley Edward Manning is an enlisted member ofthe United States Army. He was
honi on December l7, I987, and his Social Security Number is . He has been
associated with the following hysical addresses:









. PFC Manning is also believed

Sill-', Hl"lVlI'

.. 28775
associated with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of
communication:



h. Social Networking:



IP Addresses:
22225.4! .22
22.225.41-40
71.190.140.39

As e, the prosecution requests that you conduct an immediate and thorough
prudential search Q33. for the information provided above, 1150 for any
information di . coming PFC Manninu- including but not limited to any documents that
dis_guss_dai_na caused by PFC Manninzfand WikiLeaks and any measures considered
o_r_t_ake_n i to the activities of PFC WikiLeaLs_. The search for Wikil/eaks
related?d Formai tn should be limited to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present






as. the disclosure of classi?ed information to WikiLeaks, the possession of
i - vmation by WikiLeaks, or the dissemination of classi?ed infonnation by
?i s.

16'
This request is designed to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information

vailahle and held as records by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be interpreted as. aseribing any legal relevance. including whether such infonnation may be
provided in discovery, to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
immediately. In order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information



l"Hl( (it Hi? 2-H 1.31"

.
0s.?
Email:


. 28776
Hlli llhli

-3-

that is or bv Au st 1 2011 on a
CD or DVD. Any information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive
compartmented information?, should be made available for inspection. We anticipate makin
liiture requests as the need arises, and specifically before the trial, if the case is referred to

martial.
As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all respon ive and
. .P . . . - .
information. including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a result or
.










information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials sho ed
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to retain an
pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions a 'nitcd States,

based on PFC Manning's rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the aitial, and
iipplieable case law.



(secure




I



ineerely,
.. I
i

. Ashden Fein
. Captain,U.S. Anny
.
Trial Counsel

Enclosure
.
.
IJ I
I .

g?

l'f)R



t;st~: 28777

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A smear
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIFI. DC 203195013

TO
ATTENTION



June 14, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate



Office of the General Counsel
Defense Intelligence Agency
200 MacDill Boulevard
Washington, DC 20050-6563

Dear-

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-referenced roseeution?) hereby make a two-fold
request to the Defense Intelligence Agency (?agen" st, the prosecution requests that your
agency conduct a thorough and comprehensive records for information which
concerns or references PFC Manning and/or ks, including certain information, detailed
below, which directly implicates the evide?cgr e-referenced case. Secondly, the



prosecution requests that your agency ta and necessary steps to preserve any
responsive files gathered as a result of for information.






PFC Manning is the subject 0 j.
on the alleged illegal collection of national defense and foreign relations
information to the Wilviolations of federal law unde "Va. orm Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of 18 U.S.C. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Ene Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this letter ?s a copy of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
con?nement since Na 10. W?ikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information alleg vtded to them by PFC Manning on the internet.









He has been

. PFC Manning is also believed
the following means of





with name

Email:

FOR USIC



'35

28778



. mi: l_!Sl? our ..

-2-



b. Social Networking:

c. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225 .4 1 .40

71.190.140.39

As indicated above, the prose
prudential search of your
information directly concerning Ping. including but not limited to any documents that
discuss damage or harm caused?-?j? .E anninq and Wikileaks and any measures considered
or taken in response to 0 PFC Manning and WikiLeaks. The search for WikiLealcs
related information should 1 ii?d to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present
associated with the disclosure 0 lassified information to WikiLeaks, the possession of
classified information ?_l_?iltiLeaks, or the dissemination of classi?ed information by
Wikibeaks.



rmation provided above, and also for any

This reque igned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and be interprete bing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be

ry, to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
. order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information
'3 or by Julv 5, 3011, on a CD
information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive compartmentcd

i should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making future requests as
rises, and specifically before the trial, if the case is referred to court-martial. -




FOR USE ONLY

4&1

mu USE ONLY .. 28779



As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all responsive and
information, including data stored on electronic media, gathered an a result of yo for
information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials should rved,
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. "Failure to preser .4: in any








based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules
applicable case law.




I am- forwarding a copy of this letter to
I artment of Justice. The - int of contact for this re



(secure email).

.
Fem

ptatn, US. Army

rial Counsel

5
6?

Q2
52>

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY



.. FOR OFFICIAL use ONLY 2878?

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY mumnv DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR. Dc 20319-5013

.o neruno
ATTENTION as

June 14, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate



Office of the Legal Adviser
Law Enforcement and Intelligence
United States Department of State



Room 5419, IJLEI
2201 Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bra nnin

Ease ("prosecution?) hereby make a

The U.S. Army? Prosecutors in the abov
















-- above-referenced case. Secondly, the

below, which directly implicates the evi - .
?marble and necessary steps to preserve any

prosecution requests that your agency 1 3-

responsive ?les gathered as a resul ch for information.
PFC Manning is the suo_ -- ongoing investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal col ecti -. ?a sure of national defense and foreign relations

information to the Wiki is or . tion. PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple

violations of federal law ?form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of 18 U.S.C. 93, 1 -S.C. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aidin by Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C- 904.
Enclosed with thi py of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the

U.S. Army Crimi
con?nement -

ation Command in Iraq on May '27,_2010 and has been in pretrial
. 2()10. Wikileaks released national defense and foreign relations

He has been





PFC Manning is also believed
- ociated with the name Breanna Elizabeth Manning and the following means of
co "5 5: unication:

FOR USE ONLY

FOR omcuu. use ONLY .. 2878?





IR



b. Social Networking:
c. IP Addresses: 6
22.225.41.22

22.225.41.40
71.190.140.39









As indicated above, the utioquests that you conduct an immediate and thorough
prudential search of your reco for .u ormation provided above, and also for any
information directlv Mannin includin but not limited to an documents that
discuss damage or harm -
or taken in response to nnin and WikiLeaks. The Search for Wildleaks



associated with the - .
classi?ed informa iLeaks, or the dissemination of classi?ed information by
Wikileaks
Thi
'bing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
to the information requested. The prosecutors require such material's

- edite this roce lease rovide the re uested information

;3 1 i . or by July 5. 2011. on a CD
'23 Any information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive compartmented

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





FOR OFFICIAL use ONLY .3 28782

-3-





As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all respo
in?ormation, including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a.
information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain mate
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure

based on PFC Mannin'g?s rights under Artic1e.4.6,. UCMJ, the
applicable case law.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to
Departrnent of Justice. The point of contact for this rcque





(secure -email).

shden Fein

Captain, US. Army
Trial Counsel
Enclosure

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR USE. ONLY 28783

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

5 new: ro
ATTENTCN OF



June 14, 2011

Criminal Law D.ivi:sion, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate



Office of the General Counsel
National Security Agency

9800 Savage Road

Fort George" Meade, MD 20755-5999

Re: United States v.jZrivatc I-Lst Classj PFC) Bradle . Manning

Ag,

The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-refc hereby make a
two-fold request to the National Security Agency . First, the prosecution requests that
your agency conduct a thorough and comprehcnsi a of its records for information which.
concerns or references PFC Manning and/or iL including certain information, detailed

below, which directly implicates the evidcn case. Secondly, the
prosecution requests that your agency take le and necessary steps to preserve any

responsive ?les gathered as a result of ye or information.








violations of federal law under the _u ?rm Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of 18 U.S.C. 3, 18 U. .C. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this lette . - . '0 of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal In 2 .

confinement since






0. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
'ded to them by PFC Manning on the internet.

'ard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was
1987, and his Social Security Number is He has been



A







. - - vs! I CVCL1
. - the following means of



I13. VI
co "es nication:



a. Email:

FOR USE ONLY



28784



b.




Social Networking:

I
7



c. IP Addresses:
22.225.41.22
22.225.41.40
71.190.140.39

., ests that you conduct an immediate and thorough

ation provided above, and also for any

ing, includingbut not limited to any documents that



discuss damage or hann cause anning and Wilor taken in response to th activitie. Manning and WikiLeaks. The search for WikiLeaks
related infonnation shoul imited to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present
associated with the discl - assified information to WikiLeaks, the possession of
classified information aks, or the dissemination of classified information by
WikiLeal

















This requ . . ned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information

available and 2 I, by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be interp . ibing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
providcd?i '7 to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
immed . rder to ex edite this roeess lease Drovide the requested inl"orrn2_1_1ion



that is or by ulv 5. 2011, on a CD
information classi?ed or controlled as ?sensitive compartmented

lI"Sl?

FOR use ONLY 28785

As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all responsive ts and
information, including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a result of yo or
ed,

information detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials shoul
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to preser tain any
States,

pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions against
based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for

applicable case law.






I am forwarding a copy of this letter to

Enclosure

FOR USE ONLY

FOR us?: 28785

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



REPLY TO
mreunou or
June 14, 2011

Criminal Law Division, Office of the Staffludge Advocate



Of?ceof the Director of National Intelligence

Washington, DC 20511

Re: United States v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley
5

The Army Prosecutors in the above-referen \se (?prosecution?) hereby make a
two-fold request to the Of?m of the Director of Nat? lligence (?agency?). First, the
prosecution requests that your agency conduct a and comprehensive search of its
records for information which concerns or refem FC Manning and/or WikiLeaks,

including certain information, detailed below, 'ch directly implicates the evidence in the
above?referenced case. Secondly, the prosectm quests that your agency take all reasonable
and necessary steps to preserve any responsiv gathered as a result of your search for
information.

PFC Manning is the subject 0 ?going investigation and criminal prosecution based
on the alleged illegal oollection and of national defense and foreign relations
information to the Wilcilcaks or on. PFC Manning is currently charged with multiple
violations of federal law under iform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including
violations of 18 U.S.C. 798 .S.C. 1030, and 18 U.S.C. 641. PFC Manning is also
charged with Aiding the Giving Intelligence, in violation of 10 U.S.C. 904.
Enclosed with this letter so of the charge sheet. PFC Manning was apprehended by the
U.S. Army Criminal lnvestition Command in Iraq on May 27, 2010 and has been in pretrial
confinement since 2010. WikiLeaks released national defense and foreign relations
information allega?y vided to them by PFC Manning on the internet.








kilidtvard Manning is an enlisted member of the United States Army. He was
- . He has been






anning IS a so ieved
wing means of




I .
rgunication.

. ?to
a. Email:

FOR ONIX

.0 FOR tisig ONLY 28787



b. Social Networking:



22.225.41.22


c. IP Addresses:



71.190.140.39 i
As indicated above, the prosecu ?c::?equests that you conduct an immediate and thorough i
prudential search of your records for ormation provided above, and also for any


information directly concerning, PF Mhnning. including, but not limited to any documents that
discuss damaoe or harm caused Mannin and Wikileaks and an mea_sures considered
or taken in response to the agti ?ti . Manningand Wikileaks. The search for Wikilxaks

related information sho ed to all records from November 1, 2009 to the present




associated with the disc 'ure classi?ed information to WikiLeaks, the possession of
classified information by alts, or the dissemination of classified information by



This reques?iz?esigned to allow the prosecutors to assess the totality of information
available and he?ecords by other government agencies. It is not intended to, nor should it
be interprete s, ascribing any legal relevance, including whether such information may be
provided in dvery, to the information requested. The prosecutors require such materials
immediatel . order to expedite this process, please provide the requested information
that is or bv July 5, 201l. on; CD
or information classified or controlled as ?sensitive compartmented

i f% should be made available for inspection. We anticipate making future requests as
arises, and specifically before the trial, ifthe case is referred to court-martial.
?l

LiSli

28788

FOR OFFICIAI. USE ONLY

-3. Q)



As stated above, the prosecution requests that you preserve all responsive do %s and
information, including data stored on electronic media, gathered as a result of for
infonnation detailed above. If you are unsure whether certain materials should% . erved,
please err on the side of caution and preserve the materials. Failure to preserv retain any
pertinent materials, electronic or otherwise, may result in sanctions ted States,
based on PFC Manning?s rights under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for artial, and
applicable case law.









I am forwarding a oopy of this letter to
Department of Justice. The point of contact for this request is the




shden Fein
aptain, U.S. Army
Trial Counsel

Enclosure

FOR USE ONLY

28789

Appellate Exhibit 339
Enclosure 54
4 pages
classified
"CONFIDENTIAL"
ordere(i sealed for Reason 3
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

28790

Appellate Exhihit339
Enclosure 55
12pages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

28791

Appellate Exhihit339
Enclosure 5^
15pages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

28792

Appellate Exhihit339
Enclosure 5^
3^ pages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
andReason5
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

28793

Appellate Exhihit339
Enclosure 5^
45 pages
ordered sealed for 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





Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 59

10 October 2012

28794

. . 28795

UNCLASSIFIED WITH IO EXHIBIT 55 Encls)

INVESTIGATING OFFICERS REPORT
(Of Charges Under Article 32, UCMJ and R. CM. 405. Manual for Courts-Martial)

I HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF MY RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED IN THIS INVESTIGATION BY COUNSEL. INCLUDING MY RIGHT TO
CIVILIAN OR MILITARY COUNSEL OF MY CHOICE IF REASONABLYAVAILABLE. I WAIVE MY RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS INVESTIGATION.

neon: mm ofzmm.-gun-ng oizw. b. GRADE c. ORGANIZATION a. DATE
last. First. AW)
Almanza, Paul R. O-5 150th Legal Support Detachment (LSO) I 1 Jan 2012
2a. TO: (Nmne of O?icer who directed the b. TITLE C. ORGANIZATION
imesrigaion - Last. First. MI) . Us Army Gm?son

Co?nm Cu] Jr Commander Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 2221]

3a. NAIITE or ACCUSED (am, First. b. GRADE c. SSN d. ORGANIZATION e. DATE OF CHARGES
Manning, Bradley E. E-3 - HHC, USAG, JB Myer-Ham. Hall I March 201 I

(Check appropriate answer) YES NO
4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 32. UCMJ, AND R.C.M. 405, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL,
I HAVE NVESTIGATED THE CHARGES APPENDED HERETO 1)
5. THE ACCUSED WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL (If not. see 9 beIow)
6. COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED THE ACCUSED WAS QUALIFIED UNDER R.CM. 405(d) (2), 502(6)
mm. b. GRADE 8a. DEFENSE COUNSEL (Ifany) b. GRADE
Coombs, David E. CIV Kemkes, Matthew 1. 0-4
c. c. ORGANIZATION (lfappropriae)
U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Atlantic Region
(1. ADDRESS (lfamropriaze) d. ADDRESS (If appropriate)
I I South Angell St., Suite 3I7 229 Forrest Circle

Providence, RI OZQI6 Fort Myersigned by accused Ifocmsed waives counsel. I/?accused does not sign. investigating o?icer will explain in derail in Item 21.)

a PLACE b. DATE



10. AT THE BEGINNING or THE INVESTIGATION I INFORMED AccusED OF: (cm: appropriate answer)

THE UNDER INVESTIGATION

. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 31

3.
D. THE OF THE ACCUSER

ct

THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

. THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE

WITIESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE KNOWN TO ME WHICH I EXPECTED TO PRESENT

. THE RIGHT TO HAVE AVAILABLE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

TIE RIGHT TO PRESENT ANYTHING IN DEFENSE. EXTENUATION, OR MITIGATION

THE RIGHT TO MAKE A SWORN OR UNSINORN STATEMENT. ORAI.LY OR IN WRITING





f.

g. THE TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES


I

I

1



NOTE: If additional space is required tot any item, entertheaddl?onal materlal In Item 21 of on a separate sheet. Identify such material with
the proper numerical and, Ifappropriate. lettered heading (?zampIe.- Securely attach any additional sheets to the form and add a note in
the appropriate Item of the form: ?see sheet.?

457, AUG 84 EDITION OF OCT 69 Is OBSOLETE. m..p.u.mnua.o

UNCLASSIFIED WITH IO EXHIBIT 55 Encls)

. . 28796

UNCLASSIFIED WITH IO EXHIBIT 55 Encls)

123. THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES TEST IFIED UNDER OATH: (Check appropriate answer)

NAME (Last First, MI) GRADE (If any) ORGANIZATIONIADORESS (Whichever is appropriate) YES NO
l02nd MP Det (CID), Scho?eld Barracks, Ill
Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, CID, Germany
Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, CID, Quantico. VA
U.S. Treasury Department (formerly of Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit, CID)

See continuation sheet

D. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES HAS BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING AND IS ATTACHED.

13a. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. DOCUMENTS. OR MATTERS IAERE THE ACCUSED WAS PERMITTED TO
EXAMINE EACH.



DESCRIPTION OF ITEM LOCATION OF ORIGINAL attached)

See continuation sheet



b. EACH ITEM CONSIDERED. OR A COPY OR RECITAL OF THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE THEREOF. IS ATTACHED

THERE ARE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACCUSED WAS NOT MENTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OR NOT
COMPETENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE. (See R.C.M. 909.

15. THE DEFENSE DID REQUEST OBJECTIONS to BE NOTED THIS REPORT specgy in Item 21 below.)

16. ALI. ESSENTIAL WITNESSES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE EVENT OF TRIAL

17. THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE IN PROPER FORM

18. REASONABLE GROUBDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE ALLEGED



19. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY GROUNDS WHICH WOULD DISQUALIFY ME FROM ACTING AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER.
(See R.C.M. 405(d) (I).

mu
3- TRIM BY CI SUMMARY [3 SPECIAL GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
OTHER (Speci?r in Item 2: below)

FEW (Include. as necessay. explanattonfor any delay: In the investigation. andaplanazionfor any "no"anmer: above.) -
See continuation sheet

(For classi?ed testimony and exhibits, see classi?ed annex. An unclassi?ed memorandum concerning the classi?ed annex is attached as IO Ex. 55.)

22a. TYPED NAME OF INVEST IGATING OFFICER b. GRADE C. ORGANIZATION

93"? R- 0'5 |S0th Judge Advocate General Detachment (LSO)

:1 ?c;nAruaE os INVESTIGATING omcen e. DATE
1 1 Jan 2012


AUG14 .
UNCLASSIFIED WITH IO EXHIBIT 55 ETICIS)



. . 28797

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Item 8a. assistant defense counsel:

Paul R. Bouchard, O-3 (P), U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Atlantic Branch, 4217 Roberts
Ave., 3rd Floor, Fort Meade, MD 20755

Item 12a. witnesses who testified under oath:

O-3, HQ, First Army Division-East, Fort Meade, MD

O-3, 2nd Bde, l0th Mountain Div., Fort Drum, NY

., E-7, 10th Mountain Div., Fort Drum,

W01, Mountain Div., Fort Drum, NY2

E-5, 2nd Bde, 10th Mountain Div., Fort Drum, NY

., Palmyra, VA

NATO Force Command Madrid, Spain

Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, USACIDC, Quantico, VA

., E-4, 62nd Military Police Detachment, Fort Drum, NY

Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, USACIDC, Quantico, VA

Syracuse, NY

., E-6, AF SOUTH BN Naples, Italy

Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, USACIDC, Quantico, VA
Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, USACIDC, Quantico, VA
. Carmichael, CA

2nd Bde, 10th Mountain Div., Fort Drum, NY

O-3, 2nd Bde, 10th Mountain Div., Fort Drum, NY












Item 13a, statements, documents, or matters considered:

The documents considered are listed Evidence List). As the defense
objected on the basis of lack of authentication to several categories of documentsDeterminations Regarding Defense Objections to Government Evidence), I
determined I would consider certain documents subject to authentication. Those documents are
listed below:

IA Exam (Bates 00375768-77])

IA Training Requirement (Bates 003 75772)

IA Virtual Training (Bates 00375773)

IA Virtual Training 2 (Bates 00375774)

Test Results (Bates 00022348)

Al-Qaida Recruiting Video (Bates 00408202-36)

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula Magazine (Bates 0001257071 1)

Enemy 1 Possession Evidence (IIR 6 089 0563 1 1 (Redacted), Bates 0041066064; Metadata
display, Bates 0041065 8-59; and Forensically recovered material, Bates 00410654-57)

?.nvoked his Article 31 rights; I therefore determined he was unavailable and considered his sworn
statements (Bates 00013371-76; 00013378-82; 00013384-87).

2 invoked his Article 3| rights; I therefore determined he was unavailable and considered his sworn
statement (Bates 00013416-20).

. . 28798

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

C3 Document (Bates 00378141?47)

PFC Manning?s Military Intelligence Work Product (Range Story Board, Bates 00410607-09;
multiple SIPRNET email dated 100112, Bates 00410613-14; Multiple SIPRNET email (Bates
00410615-18; SIPRNET email dated 091130 (Bates 00410600-02)

Afghanistan War Logs Posted by WikiLeaks (Bates 00410668-70)

IR 5 332 0069 10 (Bats 00410619-22)

DISA Trickler Report (Bates 00410653)

CIDNE data on the lntemet (Bates 00410554)

NCD Valuation Documents (Bates 00410556-60)

Additionally, I considered the sworn statements of _(Bates 00013371 -76;
00013378-82; 00013384-87) and (Bates 00013416-20), who invoked their
Article 31 rights.

Attached are the following marked exhibits:

10 Ex. l(D) Notice of Appearance, Mr. Coombs

10 Ex. Defense Motion Requesting Recusal of Investigating Officer, 16 December 2011
10 Ex. 3 Writ Seeking Access to the Proceedings (not considered)

10 Ex. Sealed Defense Stipulation of Expected Testimony (not considered)

10 Ex. 5 Closed Hearing Checklist, 18 December 201 1 (not considered)

IO Ex. 6 Government Request for Closed Session, 15 December 2011

10 Ex. 7 Open Hearing Checklist, 18 December 2011 (not considered)

10 Ex 8 Closed Hearing Checklist, 19 December 2011 (not considered)

IO Ex. 9 Open Hearing Checklist, 19 December 2011 (not considered)

10 Ex. Bates 00409680-84, 00409719-21

10 Ex. 1l(P) Bates 00376856, 00409685-718

[0 Ex. 12 Closed Hearing Checklist, 19 December 2011 (not considered)

[0 Ex. 13 Open Hearing Checklist, 19 December 2011 (not considered)

10 Ex. Defense Assertion of Privilege Under M.R.E. 503, 19 December 2011

10 Ex. Government Response to Defense Assertion of Privilege Under M.R.E. 503,

20 December 2011

I0 Ex. 16 Unclassified Closed Hearing Checklist, 20 December 2011 (not considered)
IO Ex. 17 Unclassified Open Hearing Checklist, 20 December 2011 (not considered)
10 Ex. Bates 00410555, 00409679

IO Ex. Lamo Chat

IO Ex. 20 Writ-Appeal Seeking Access to the Proceedings (not considered)

IO Ex. Defense Article 32 Exhibits

[0 Ex. 22 10 Appointment Memorandum, 4 August 2010

10 Ex. 23 Directive to Investigate Additional Charges Memorandum, 18 March 2011
I0 Ex. 24 Special Instructions for Article 32 Investigation Memorandum,

16 November 201 1
10 Ex. 25 Charge Sheet containing Additional Charges I-111 and their Speci?cations,
1 March 2011
[0 Ex. 26 Defense Notice Under M.R.E. 505(h)(3), 22 November 201 1
10 Ex. 27 Article 32 Investigation Noti?cation Memorandum, 23 November 11

2

0 0 28799

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Article 32 Investigation Noti?cation Memorandum Acknowledgement,

28 November 11

Defense Motion for Closed Hearing Under R.C.M 405(h)(3), 28 November 2011
Defense Request for Production of Evidence

GovernmentResponse to Defense Request for Production of Evidence,

30 November 201 1

Defense Request to Compel Production of Evidence, 1 December 2011

Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses, 2 December 2011

Government Requested Evidence List, 2 December 2011

Government Response to Defense Request to Close Article 32 Hearing,

4 December 201 1

Defense Response to Govemment?s 405(h)(3) Filing, 4 December 2011
Government Response to Defense Notice Under M.R.E. 505(h)(3),

5 December 2011

Government Additional Requested Evidence List, 7 December 2011
Government Response to Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses,

7 December 2011

Defense Witness usti?cation, 8 December 201 1

Witness List, 13 December 2011

Closure Determination, 13 December 2011

Evidence List, 14 December 2011

Determinations Regarding Defense Objections to Government Evidence,

14 December 201 1

Determinations as to Defense Requested Evidence, 15 December 2011
Determinations as to Defense Requested Witnesses, 15 December 2011
Determinations as to Defense Requested Witnesses Revised, 16 December 2011
Determinations as to Defense Requested Witnesses Revised, 17 December 2011
Reconsideration of Closure Determination, 20 December 2011

Determination on Defense Assertion of Privilege Under M.R.E. 503,

21 December 2011

Defense Notice of Evidence, 23 December 2011

Memoranda concerning excludable delay, various dates

E-mails discussing consideration of statements under penalty of perjury, various
dates

IO Chronology

Unclassi?ed memorandum, without enclosures, concerning classi?ed annex to
this report containing 10 Exhibits (C) 1 (C) 5, 11 January 2012

Transcript of Hearing (Verbatim 16 December 2011, 17-22
December 2011)



Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Item 21 remarks:



1. Analysis ofthe Additional Charges and Their

The following supports my determination that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the
accused committed the offenses alleged in Additional Charges I-111 and their Speci?cations. In
order that this document may remain unclassi?ed, I have referenced Bates numbers of classi?ed
documents in the record where necessary and have only included unclassi?ed references to the
information contained in those documents Also, in light of the voluminous record in this case,
typically simply refer to Bates numbers of documents instead of referring to documents attached
as hard copy exhibits.

Additional Charge I and its Specification (Art. 104, UCMJ):
Law
In order to prove this o??ense, the govemment must establish the following four elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused, without proper authority, knowingly
gave intelligence information to certain persons, namely: Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida in the Arabian
Peninsula, and a person or entity speci?ed in Bates 00410660-64;

(2) that the accused did so through indirect means;

(3)-that Al?Qaida, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and a person or entity speci?ed in Bates
00410660-64 were enemies; and

(4) that this intelligence information was true, at least in part.

?Intelligence? means any helpful information, given to and received by the enemy, which is true,
at least in part. -

?Enemy? includes not only organized opposing forces in time of war, but also any other hostile
body that our forces may be opposing such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades and
includes civilians as well as members of military organizations.

Under US v. Batchelor, 22 C.M.R. 144, 158 (C.M.A. 1956), ?Article 104(2) of the Code does
not require a speci?c criminal intent of any sort? and thus is a general intent crime.

3 Charges were initially preferred against the accused on 5 July 2010. On 18 Mar 2011, the convening authority
informed me that those original charges were dismissed and directed me not to consider them. See [0 Ex. 23.

4

. 0 28801

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Facts

The evidence showed that PFC Manning knew the enemy received information ?om
WilriLealwere over one hundred searches for Wikilaeaks under PFC Manning?s user pro?les on his
primary and secondary SIPRNET computers.5 More generally, the evidence showed the accused
knew that our adversaries, including enemy governments and non?govemment organizations
such as terrorists, obtained information via the Internet because he was required to conduct a
training presentation on Operational Security as corrective training when he was at Advanced
Individual Training on 13 June 2003.?

Additionally, the evidence showed that the accused was a trained intelligence analyst who was
developing his skills during the deployment.7 Finally, the evidence showed that PFC Manning
signed non-disclosure agreements stating that ?unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed
information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used
to advantage by a foreign nation.? It is reasonable to infer ?'om these facts that the accused
knew enemis of the United States would receive information released by WikiLeaks.

The evidence showed that the accused, at or near Contingency Operating Base Hammer,9
between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, knowingly gave
intelligence information to WikiLeaks, including: a video ?le named ?12 JUL 07 CZ
ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC. Anyone.avi;? more than one classi?ed memorandum produced
by a United Stats Government intelligence agency; the database; the CIDNE -

. Afghanistan database; a United States Southern Command database, more than ?ve classi?ed

records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan, occurring on or about 4
May 2009; a ?le named PAX.zip? containing a video named 22 PAX.wmv;? the
Department of State Net-Centric Diplomacy database; a classi?ed record produced by a United
Stats Army intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008; and the United Stats Forces - Iraq
Microsoft Outlook/Sharepoint Exchange Server global address list? While some of this
information was not classi?ed, the evidence showed that it is all ?intelligence inf orrnation? in
that it would be helpful for the enemy to possess and was true, at least in part. For example, the
CIDNE databases contained a vast amount of information concerning enemy tactics and the U.S.
military?s rsponse to those tactics," while the last item listed, the global address list, would be

See Army Intelligence Forensic Report, Bates 0046452-66 and attachments.

jiesumonyoaj. .
See PFC Manning?: External Hard Drive Foremic Report, Bates 00125270-318, in particular Bates 00125314-
16, for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation the accused gave. also testified that the accused's

corrective training presentation explained that it could be dangerous to use ose classi?ed information because
outside entities could seek U.S. information. Additionally, SF Madrid testified that the accused also submitted a
typed document providing more detail, including references to the relevant regulations.

7 Testimony .

see we Manning's Non?Disclosure-Agreements, Bates 0003680! -02.

9 Throughout the hearing, the witnesses typically referred to Hammer? rather than ?Contingency Operating
Base Hammer.? It was clear, however, that they were referring to the same place.

The analysis of Speci?cations 2-16 of Additional Charge [1 provides more detail about the offense conduct
involving each of these items.

Testimmv 0-

0 28802

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

helpful for the enemy to possess in that it would enable the enemy to engage in a
targeted attempt to gain information from an unsuspecting source by masquerading as someone
the source mists; speci?c infomiation such as knowledge of full names and emails facilitates
spear?shing because it is more likely to make the targeted source believe the spear?sher is
legitimate.?

While the evidence did not show that PFC Manning directly provided this intelligence
information to Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or the person or entity speci?ed in
Bates 00410660-64, the evidence did show that PFC Manning provided this intelligence
information to WikiLeaks, and that enemies of the United States possessed this information For
example, the video named ?l2 Jul 07 C2 ENGAGEMENT ZONE 20 GC Anyone.avi? is
contained in the recruiting video produced by Al?Qaida?s media arm? and is described as
?footage published by the WikiLeaks website,? which clearly indicates that the enemy obtained
this video from WikiI.eaks. That video also speci?cally references the leak of a State
Department cable, which indicates they obtained the cable from WikiLeaks, and also references
WikiLeaks documents describing communications by leaders in Islamic countries with the
United States, which also indicates they are referring to State Department cables they obtained
from WikiLeaks Another example is that the evidence showed the CIDNE-Afghanistan
information was available to the enemy via the Internet.? The accused therefore indirectly
provided this intelligence information to the enemy by providing it to WikiLeaks.

The evidence also showed that Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and the classi?ed
person or entity speci?ed in Bates 00410660-64 are enemies of the United States. First, the
recruiting video produced by Al-Qaida?s media arm? exhorts the viewer to attack the United
States. Similarly, the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula ?Inspire? magazines and associated
explanatory materials? make clear that AQAP is also an enemy of the United States. Finally, the
description of the classi?ed person or entity speci?ed in Bates 00410660-64 leaves little doubt
as to whether that person or entity is an enemy of the United States.

The evidence also showed that the infomiation at issue is true, at least in part. For example, the
video entitled ?l2 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC. Anyone.avi? depicts what it
depicts. There was no evidence that any of the information at issue was false.

Although this o?ense is a general intent crime, the evidence showed that PFC Manning made
statements during a counseling session with then-SPC Showman prior to the deployment to the
effect that the American ?ag meant nothing to him and that he held no allegiance to this country
or to its people." While this statement was made in the context of a counseling session that PFC
Manning was not pleased to be participating in, and thus may have been made primarily to ?push
the buttons? of the person counseling him, PFC Manning was a trained intelligence analyst and
should have known not to make such a statement ?ippantly. Accordingly, there are reasonable

'2 Testimony

'3 Bates 00408202-236.

CIDNE Data on the lnternet, Bates 00410554.

Bates 00408202-236.

Bates 1.

'7 Testimony of_ in defense-requested closed session.

6



. . 28803

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

grounds to believe that PFC Manning meant what he said, which turn would support the requisite
criminal intent were this a speci?c intent crime.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the o?ense
alleged in Additional Charge I and its Speci?cation.

Additional Charge II, Specification 1 (Art. 134, UCMJ):
Law

In order to prove this offense, the govermnent must establish the following two elements:

(1) that at our near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused wrongfully and wantonly caused
intelligence belonging to the United States to be published on the lntemet, having knowledge
that intelligence published on the Internet is accessible to the enemy, and

(2) tint, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

?Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline? is conduct which causes a reasonably direct
and obvious injury to good order and discipline. ?Service discrediting conduct? is conduct
which tends to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in public esteem.

Facts

The facts at issue here are similar to those discussed above concerning Additional Charge I and
its Speci?cation Speci?cally, there is little doubt that between the dates and at the location
alleged, PFC Manning caused intelligence belonging to the United States to be published on the
Internet by providing it to WikiLeaks, and that when he did so he knew intelligence published on
the Internet is accessible to the enemy.

Additionally, testimony was presented that PFC Manning?s conduct was prejudicial to good
order and discipline and service discrediting? The evidence showed that it is impossible to
control or verify each and every download or transfer of information that intelligence
conduct, due to the tempo of operations in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility such
as the facility where PFC Manning worked in Iraq. Because of this, the evidence showed that
trust is important in protecting classi?ed information.? PFC Manning?s violations of that trust
prejudiced good order and discipline and also discredited the service.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the o?ense
alleged in Speci?cation 1 of Additional Charge II.

Testimony of .
'9 Testimony of and 2



. . 28804

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. V. PFC Bradley -E. Manning

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 2 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15
February 2010 and on or about 5 April 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of
information relating to the national defense, to wit: a video ?le named ?12 JUL 07 CZ
ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi?;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, transmitted, or caused to be
communicated, delivered, or transmitted thesaid information to a person not entitled to receive

it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(6) exists; and

(5) that the accused?s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces
and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.?

Facts

The evidence showed that ?12 Jul 07? was searched for from both of PFC Marming?s primary
and secondary SIPRNET computers.21 The evidence also showed that the Apache air strike
video located on the network share drive belonging to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, exactly matched a video identi?ed in
PFC Manning?s user pro?le on PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET computer.22 The evidence

?also showed that a CD-RW containing a video named ?l2 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE

30 GC An one.wmv? was accessed using PFC Manning?s personal Macintosh computer on 15
Feb 2010. Additionally, the evidence showed that a CD-RW created on 27 April 2010
containing a video named 12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyonewmv? (which
did not have all of the content of the video found on PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET
computer), with a sticker on it, was found in PFC Manning?s on-post quarters.? The
evidence showed that WikiLeaks released this video on 5 April 2010.2

While there was no digital forensic evidence from PFC Manning?s personal computer directly
indicating that this video was uploaded to WikiLeal6, the forensic examination did find evidence
in Unallocated Clusters (UC) (brie?y, areas on a disk where the data has been ?deleted? but still

2? These elements are a tailored version of Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 6.l8.1030A.

2? Intelink Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00375116-129, at page 11 (this document also has the relevant dates).

12 10"? Mountain Shares Forensic Report, Bates 00046074-00046097, at 22.

23 See PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at pages 48-49.

2? See PFC Manning?s co Forensic Report, Bates 0019951 1.522, at pages 1, 7-3.

25 PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at Attachment S, Bates 00125269
(carved_13 7890_72473018408_724730241 Murdenpdt).

8

. . 28805

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

remains on the disk and can be recovered forensically) of multiple references to the WikiLeaks
upload webpage, including a webpage containing a link to
upload documents to WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah
records see discussion of Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiI.eaks
website. Moreover, PFC Manning?s chats with a person using the
user name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to
25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to 24 May 2010
discussed uploading material to WikiLeaks27 These facts, taken together, provide circumstantial
evidence that PFC Manning uploaded the video to WikiLeaks.

The evidence also showed that on 19 May 2010, in an email exchange with Eric
Schmiedl, PFC Manning wrote, ?Are you familiar with WikiLeaks,? and then after receiving an
affirmative reply from Mr. Schmiedl, then wrote, was the source of the 12 JUL 07 video from
the Apache Weapons Team, which killed the two jotnnalists and injured two kids??

Additionally, the evidence showed that the accused, in his chats with Mr. Lamo, admitted
forwarding the video that is the subject of this speci?cation, also referred to as the ?collateral
murder? or video, to WikiLeaks. In those chats, a person using the ?bradass87? screen
name, who Mr. Lamo determined to be the accused, made the following statements: (1) ?the CM
video came from a server in our domain! and not a single person noticed;? (2) in response to
Lamo?s question about what CM meant, ?Apache Weapons Team video of 12 Jul 07 airstrike on
Reuters some sketchy but fairly normal street-folk. .. and civilians;? (3) in response to
Lamo?s question of where he (Lamo) could transmit similar material if he had it, ?wl.org
submission system?; and (4) ?i couldn?t let these things stay inside of the and
inside of my head i recognized the value of some knew what they dug
deeper i watched that video cold, for instance at ?rst it was just a bunch of guys
getting shot up by a no big about two dozen more where that came from
but something struck me as odd with the van and also the fact it was being stored
in a JAG of?cer?s so i looked into eventually tracked down the date, and then
the exact GPS co-ordthats what then i went to the
regular and it was still on my so i typed into the date, and the
location. .. and then I see this 3/world/n1iddleeast/ 1 3iraq.html
kegg that in my mind for probably a month and a before I forwarded it to
m.

2? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates O0l24283?362, at 65-67, 77-78.

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

2? See PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-3 62, atpage 44. Note that the login
password PFC Manning?s personal computer was which also was the passplu-ase for PFC
Manning?s GPG keyring which contained a key used to emails between Schmiedl and PFC Manning. The
forensic examiner concluded ?it is likely that PFC Manning neglected to enable when sending the
message quoted above. Id, at 45. was also identified as a password for several instant messaging
accounts, including





Id at I4. The



commonality among these passwords indicates that the same individual used them.
2? lamo Chat 10 Ex l9(D), at 25-26. (This chat is also in the forensic reports at lamo Forensic Report, Bates
00l24l07-3l, at Attachment J.) During his testimony, Mr. lamo explained that the person using the

9

. . 28806

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that WikiLeaks released this video on 5 April 2010.30 WikiLeaks was not
entitled to receive this video, which relates to the national defense because it depicts the
activities of the Also, the evidence shows that PFC Manning had reason to believe that
the video could be used to the injury of the United States in that PFC Manning knew the enemy
accessed information available on the Internet. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists. Finally,
PFC Ma.nning?s conduct in providing this video to WikiLeaks is prejudicial to good order and
discipline and service discrediting. -

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 2 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 3 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between o_n.or about 22 March
2010 and on or about 26 March 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of information
relating to the national defense, to wit: more than one classi?ed memorandum produced by a
United States Government intelligence agency;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the ?advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, transmitted, or caused to be
communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a person not entitled to receive

it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and
(5) that the accused?s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the anned forces
and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. I

Facts

The rnernoranda at issue are at Bates 00378084-090 and were produced by a United States
government intelligence agency. The evidence showed they were properly classi?ed.?

online identity identi?ed himself as Bradley Manning by sending Lamo a friend request when Lamo asked i be was
a facebook user and also by providing Lamo PFC Manning?s AKO account user name and password
3? Intelink Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00375116-I29, at 9. I

3? See document at Bates oo37s14s? 175.

10

. . 28807

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Moreover, the evidence showed that PFC Manning knew they were classi?ed because they were
properly marked

Tstimony during the classi?ed portion of the hearing described the accessing and manipulation
of these memoranda on PFC Marming?s primary SIPRNET computer.?

Analysis of PFC Mam1ing?s personal computer showed a containing a ?le named
?b1ah.zip? was burned on an unknown Windows computer at 12:55 on 22 March 2010 and was
accessed on PFC Manning?s personal computer.? The evidence also showed that on 22 March
2010, a user of PFC Manning?s user account viewed .pdf ?les of the memoranda at issue on his
primary SIPRNET account; the forensic examiner concluded that the sequence of viewing the
?les and then accessing the ?blah.zip? ?le ?could indicate [the memoranda at issue] were
compressed in blah.zip.?34

The contents of the memoranda are such that a person familiar with them would conclude that if
released they could be used to the injury of the United States.

While there was no digital forensic evidence from PFC Manning?s personal computer directly
indicating that these memoranda were uploaded to WikiLeaks, the forensic examination did ?nd
evidence in Unalloeated Clusters (UC) (brie?y, areas on a disk where the data has been ?deleted?
but still remains on the disk and can be recovered forensically) of multiple references to the
WikiLeaks upload webpage, including a webpage containing
a link to upload documents to WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the

I Farah records (see discussion of Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiLeaks

website.? Moreover, PFC Manning's chats with a person using the
user name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to
25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLealdiscussed uploading material to WikiLealevidence that PFC Manning uploaded the memoranda to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks was not entitled to receive these memoranda, which relate to the national defense.
Also, the evidence shows that PFC Manning had reason to believe that the video could be used to
the injury of the United States in that PFC Manning knew the enemy accessed information
available on the Internet. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. 793 exists. Finally, PFC Manning's conduct
in providing this video to WikiLeaks is prejudicial to good order and discipline and service
discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the o?ense
alleged in Speci?cation 3 of Additional Charge 11.

32-Classi?ed testimony of 2 10 Ex. (C) 5 (including relevant dates).

3? 10th Mountain Shares Forensic report, Bates 0046074-97, at 21-22; PFC Manning?s Personal Computer
Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 49.

3? PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-1 10, at 50, 72.

3? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-73.

3? PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

ll



Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 4 (Art. 134, I8 U.S.C. 641):

Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between-on or about 31
December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010, the accused voluntarily, intentionally and
knowingly stole, purloined, or converted a thing of value, to wit: the Combined Information Data
Network Iraq database containing more than 380,000 recordsanother;

(2) that the thing of value belonged to the United States andhad a value in excess of One
Thousand Dollars

(3) that the accused did so with intentto deprive the owner of the use or bene?t of the thing of
value so taken;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 641 exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring" discredit upon the armed forces.

The word ?value? means the face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail,
whichever is greater.

A ?thing of value? can be tangible or intangible property.

It is not necessary to prove that the accused knew that the Government owned the property at the
time of the wrongful taking so long as it is established that the Government did in fact own the
money or property involved, that it had a value in excess of One Thousand Dollars and
that the accused knowingly and willfully stole, purloined, Or converted it.?

Facts

The evidence showed that an SD Card recovered from the residence of PFC Manning?s aunt
contained an archive ?le named When
using ?the ?TWinl-(1492! password mentioned above, this ?le contained the complete
CIDNE databases for Afghanistan (91,911 reports) and Iraq (391,883 reports). It also contained
a file describing the contents and stating, ?It?s already been sanitized of any source
identifying information. You might need to sit on this information, perhaps 90-180 days, to
?gure out how best to release such a large amount of data, and to protect source. This is possibly
one of the more signi?cant documents of our time, removing the fog of war, and revealing the
true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.?3

:7 These elements area tailored version of Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 6.18.641.
?ll PFC Manning?s SD Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 1-2,9.

12

. . 28809

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that PFC Manning was at his aunt?s residence on or about 26 January
2010.39 The evidence also showed that WikiLeaks released 391,340 reports from the CIDNE-
Iraq database.? The evidence also showed that in Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s
personal computer, there was information ?likely obtained? from the database and
that documents containing the same text and associated photographs were found in PFC
Marming?s SIPRNET shared folder; the forensic examiner concluded is likely the photos
and documents in PFC SIPRNET shared folder were copied to [his] personal
computer through the use of removable media.??"

While there was no digital forensic evidence from PFC Manning?s personal computer directly
indicating that the database was uploaded to WikiLeaks, the forensic examination
did ?nd evidence in Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the Wikileaks upload
webpage, including a webpage containing a link to upload
documents to WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah records

(see discussion of Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 10, below to the WikiLeaks website.?
Moreover, PFC Manning?s chats with a person using the .de user

name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to 25 March 2010, and as Julian
Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to 24 May 2010 discussed uploading material
to WikiLeaks.?3 These facts, taken together, provide circumstantial evidence that PFC Manning
uploaded the database to Wil
PFC Manning?s comments in the ?read me? document quoted above indicate that he converted
the database another in that he wanted to make this information
public and thus deprive its owner, the United States, of its use or bene?t. While PFC Manning in
his duties as an intelligence analyst deployed to Iraq had reason to use the database
every day,? he had no authorization to take this database from its owner and thus his taking it
constituted stealing it. -

While there was no direct evidence provided of the value of the database, there was
evidence rovided that the valuation of the Net-Centric Diplomacy database was over $4
million.? This circumstantial evidence supports a conclusion that the value of the
database was over $1,000.

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 641 exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in stealing the
database and converting WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order
and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 4 of Additional Charge II.

39 PFC Manning?s SD Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 7.

CIDNE Files Forensic Report, Bates 00054312-17, at 5; Testimony database
released in October 2010).

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report Bates 00124283-362, at 62-63.

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-78.

?3 PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

Testimony of

'5 NCD Valuation Documents, Bates 0041055660.

13

. . 28810

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 5 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31
December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of
information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classi?ed records from the
Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and

(S) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

acts

The evidence showed that an SD Card recovered from the residence of PFC Manning?s aunt
contained an archive ?le named When
wing the ?TWinkl492!!? password mentioned above, this ?le contained the complete
CIDNE databases for Afghanistan (91,911 reports) and Iraq (39l,883 reports). It also contained
a ?le describing the contents and stating, ?It?s already been sanitized of any source
identifying information. You might need to sit on this information, perhaps 90-180 days, to
?gure out how best to release such a large amount of data, and to protect source. This is possibly
one of the more signi?cant documents of our time, removing the fog of war, and revealing the
true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.?

The evidence showed that PFC Manning was at his aunt?s residence on or about 26 January
2010." The evidence also showed that WikiLeaks released 391,340 reports from the CIDNE-
Iraq database.? The evidence also showed that in Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s
personal computer, there was information ?likely obtained? from the database and
that documents containing the same text and associated photographs were found in PFC
Manning?s SIPRNET shared folder, the forensic examiner concluded is likely the photos

4? PFC Manning?s SD Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 1-2, 9.

PFC Manning?s so Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 7.

'3 CIDNE Files Forensic Report, Bates 00054312-17, at 5; Testimony of database
released in October 2010).

14

. . 28811

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

and documents in PFC SIPRN ET shared folder were copied to . .. [his] personal
computer through the use of removable media.?49

While there was no digital forensic evidence from PFC Manning?s personal computer directly
indicating that the database was uploaded to WikiLeaks, the forensic examination
did ?nd evidence in Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the WikiLeaks upload
webpage, including a webpage containing a link to upload
documents to WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah records
(see discussion of Additional Charge II, Specification 10, below) to the WikiLeaks website.?
Moreover, PFC Manning?s chats with a person using the user
name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to 25 March 2010, and as Julian
Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to 24 May 2010 discussed uploading material
to WikiLeaks.5' These facts, taken together, provide circumstantial evidence that PFC Manning
uploaded the database to WikiLeaks,

PFC Manning?s comments in the ?read me? document quoted above indicate that he knew the
database would .be released and that the information contained in the reports, by ?removing the
fog of war? concerning actions in which U.S. military forces were involved, could be used to the
injury of the United States. His statement in that document that the recipient needed to ?sit on
the infomtation . . . to protect source? indicates that he knew WikiLeaks was not entitled to

receive this information.

The evidence showed that there were more than twenty of these documents? and that they were
properly classi?ed and remain classified,?

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in providing
the database to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 5 of Additional Charge 11.

Additiol Charge II, Specification 6 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 641):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elementszi

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 62?63.
5? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-78.
5 PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

Bates 00377912-378027.

5? Classi?cation Review, Bates 00376879-902.

l5

. . 28812

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31
December 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, the accused voluntarily, intentionally and
knowingly stole, purloined, or converted a thing of value, to wit: the Combined Infomiation Data
Network Afghanistan database containing more than 90,000 recordsanother:

(2) that the thing of value belonged to the United States and had a value in excess of One
Thousand Dollars

(3) that the accused did so with intent to deprive the owner of the use or bene?t of the thing of
value so taken;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 641 exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

The evidence showed that an SD Card recovered from the residence of PFC Manning?s aunt
contained an archive ?le named When
using the password mentioned above, this ?le contained the complete
CIDNE databases for Afghanistan (91,911 reports) and Iraq (39l,883 reports). It also contained
a ?le describing the contents and stating, ?It?s already been sanitized of any source
identifying information. You might need to sit on this information, perhaps 90-180 days, to
?gure out how best to release such a large amount of data, and to protect source. This is possibly
one of the more signi?cant documents of our time, removing the fog of war, and revealing the
true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.?5

The evidence showed that PFC Manning was at his aunt?s residence on or about 26 January
2010,55 ?(he evidence also showed that WikiLeaks released 74,778 reports from the CIDNE-

Afghanistan database.?

The evidence showed that between 1 January 2010 and 7 January 2010, there were 372
connections ?'om the server containing the CIDNE-Afghanistan database and PFC Manning?s
secondary SIPRNET computer, resulting in the transfer of 256.76 MB of data to PFC Manning?s
secondary SIPRNET computer.? The evidence showed that the ?last modi?ed? date for the
CIDNE-Afghanistan ?le contained in the yata.tar.bz2.nc ?le mentioned above was 8 January

5? PFC Marming?s SD Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 1-2, 9.

PFC Manning?s so Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 7.

5? CIDNE Files Forensic Report, Bates 00054312-17, at 5; Testimony of (CIDNE-Afghanistan
database released in July 2010).

57 Centaur Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00046567-76, at l.

16

. . 28813

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

2010.58 The entirety of the CIDNE-Afghanistan database so downloaded was located during the
forensic examination of PFC Manning?s SD card.?

While there was no digital forensic evidence ?'om PFC Manning?s personal computer directly

indicating that the CIDNE-Afghanistan database was uploaded to WikiLeaks, the forensic
examination did ?nd evidence in Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the Wilupload webpage, including a webpage containing a link to
upload documents to Wikileaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah
records see discussion of Additional Charge Il, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiLeaks
website. Moreover, PFC ?Manning?s chats with a person using the
user name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to
25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to 24 May 2010
discussed uploading material to WikiLeaks6l These facts, taken together, provide circumstantial
evidence that PFC Manning uploaded the CIDNE-Afghanistan database to WikiLeaks.

PFC Manning?s comments in the ?read me? document quoted above indicate that he converted
the database another in that he wanted to make this information
public and thus deprive its owner, the United States,? of its use or bene?t. While PFC Manning in
his duties as an intelligence analyst deployed to Iraq had reason to use the database
every day, he had no need to access the CIDNE-Afghanistan database,? and he had no
authorization to take this database ?om its owner and thus his taking it constituted stealing it.

While there was no direct evidence provided of the value of the CIDNE-Afghanistan database,
there was evidence provided that the valuation of the Net-Centric Diplomacy database was over
$4 million.? This circumstantial evidence supports a conclusion that the value of the
Iraq database was over $1,000.

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 641 exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in stealing the
database and converting WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order
and discipline and service discrediting

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 6 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge 11, Specification 7 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

Law

5' PFC Manning's SD Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-?3l, at 9-10.

59 Centaur Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00046567-76, at 7.

PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-78.
PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

Tes?mony of

NCD Valuation Documents, Bates 00410556-60.

17

. . 28814

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31
December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of
infomiation relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classi?ed records from the
Combined lnformation Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and

(S) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

The evidence showed that an SD Card recovered from the residence of PFC Manning?s aunt
contained an archive ?le named When
using the - password mentioned above, this file contained the complete
CIDNE databases for Afghanistan (91,911 reports) and Iraq (39l,883 reports). It also contained
a, ?le describing the contents and stating, ?It?s already been sanitized of any source
identifying information You might need to sit on this information, perhaps 90-180 days, to
?gure out how best to release such a large amount of data, and to protect source. This is possibly
one of the more signi?cant documents of our time, removing the fog of war, and revealing the
true nature of 2 1st century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.?

The evidence showed that PFC Manning was at his aunt?s residence on or about 26 January 10.65.
The evidgice also showed that WikiLeaks released 74,778 reports from the CIDNE-Afghanistan
database. -

The evidence showed that between 1 January 2010 and 7 January 2010, there were 372
connections from the server containing the CIDNE-Afghanistan database and PFC Manning?s
secondary SIPRNET computer, resulting in the transfer of 256.76 MB of data to PFC Manning?s
secondary SIPRNET computer.? The evidence showed that the ?last modi?ed? date for the
CIDNE-Afghanistan ?le contained in the yata.tar.bz2.nc ?le mentioned above was 8 January

PFC Manning?s so Card Foremic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 1-2, 9.

PFC Manning?s so Card Forensic Report, Bates 00125319-31, at 7.

CIDNE Files Forensic Report, Bates 11: 000543 12-17, at 5; Testimony of ?(ClDNE-Afghanistan
database released in July 2010).

?7 Centaur Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00046567-76, at 1.

18

. . 28815

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

2010.? The entirety ofthe CIDNE-Afghanistan database so downloaded was located during the
forensic examination of PFC Marming?s SD card.?

While there was no digital forensic evidence from PFC Manning?s personal computer directly
indicating that the CIDNE-Afghanistan database was uploaded to WikiLeaks, the forensic
examination did ?nd evidence in Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the WikiLeaks
upload webpage, including a webpage containing a link to
upload documents to WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah
records gsee discussion of Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiLealcs
website. Moreover, PFC Manning?s chats with a person using the
user name, aliased as Nathaniel Frank from 22 February 2010 to
25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to 24 May 2010
discussed uploading material to WikiLeaks.7' These facts, taken together, provide circumstantial
evidence that PFC Manning uploaded the CIDNE-Afghanistan database to WikiLeaks.

PFC Manning?s comments in the ?read me? document quoted above indicate that he knew the
database would be released and that the information contained in the reports, by ?removing the
fog of war? concerning actions in which U.S. military forces were involved, could be used to the
injury of the United States. His statement in that document that the recipient needed to ?sit on
the information .. . to protect source? indicates that he knew WilciLeaks was not entitled to
receive this information. While PFC Manning in his duties as an intelligence analyst deployed to
Iraq had reason to use the database every day, he had no need to access the CIDNE-
Afghanistan database." 1

The evidence showed that there were more than twenty of these documents? and that they were
properly classi?ed and remain classi?ed.?

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Manning's conduct in providing
the database to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 7 of Additional Charge ll.

Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 3 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 641):

Law

PFC Manning's so Card Forensic Report, Bates 001253 19-3 1, at 9-10.

Centaur Logs Forensic Report, Bates 00046567-76, at 7.

7? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-78.
7' PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

72 Testimony of

7? Bates at 00377345377911.

Classi?cation Review, Bates 00376879-902.

. . 28816

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 8 March 2010, the
accused voluntarily, intentionally and knowingly stole, purloincd, or converted a thing of value,
to wit a United States Southern Command database containing more than 700 records belonging
to the United States government another;

(2) that the thing of value belonged to the United States and had a value in excess of One
Thousand Dollars

(3) that the accused did so with intent to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the thing of
value so taken;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 641 exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

The evidence showed that a user of PFC Manning?s primary and secondary SIPRNET computers
searched for retention of interrogation videos, initially on 28 November 2009, and during the
month of March 2010 conducted over 700 searches using wget commands (which are used to
download ?les from a web server) pertaining to Guantanamo Bay detainees. The forensic
examiner downloaded the same documents using the same program, and veri?ed that those
documents were the same documents on the WikiLeaks website by comparing them.? The
forensic examiner also found four complete JTF Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments on PFC
Manning?s primary SIPRN ET computer under PFC Manning?s user pro?le.? Moreover, in his
chats with Mr. Lamo, PFC Manning admitted providing these documents to WikiLeaks in the
following statements: ?oh, the JTF GTMO Assange has those too;? and, after Lamo
said he rad those papers and asked if Assange had ?[a]nything else interesting on his table?,
PFC Manning said, ?idk don?t know] I only know what I provide him.?7

The evidence showed there was no work related reason for PFC Manning to search for
Guantanamo or Guantanamo detainee assessments. 78

The evidence showed that the terms or keywords ?Guantanamo? or were searched for
from PFC Marming?s primary and secondary SIPRNET computers a total of 17 times.? The

75 Tstimony 0
7? Tstimony
77 Lamo Chat, lO Ex. l9(D), at 44.

7' Testimony of Testimony of

Intelink Log Files Forensic Report, Bates 003751 16-129, at 9.

20



. . 28817

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

evidence also showed that the wget command was used 793 times to download documents
pertaining to Guantanamo detainees from PFC Mam1ing?s primary SIPRNET computer.?

The evidence showed that on 8 March 2010, in an online chat with
aliased to Nathaniel Frank at the time but later aliased to Julian
Assange (editor of WikiLeaks), 1 PFC Manning made statements including: ?anyway, irn
throwing everythingl got on JTF GTMO at you should take a while to get up tho

summary/history/health conditions/reasons for retainin or transfer of nearly every detainee . . . I
have a that organizes the info as much as possible. 2

Additionally, the forensic examination of PFC Manning?s personal computer found evidence in
Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the WikiLea.ks upload webpage,
including a webpage containing a link to upload documents to
WikiI.eaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah records (see discussion
of Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiLeaks website.? These facts, taken
together, support the conclusion that PFC Manning uploaded the Southern Command database to
Wikibeaks.

The evidence showed that between 24 April 201 and 21 June 2011 WikiLeaks released 765

detainee assessment briefs, ?documents pertaining to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.?

PFC Manning?s comments in his chats with Mr. Lamo about why he released documents to
WikiLeaks indicate that that he converted this database another in
that he wanted to makethis information public and thus deprive its owner, the United States, of
its use or bene?t.? PFC Manning had no need to access Guantanamo detainee assessments for
his job,? and he had no authorization to take this database from its owner and thus his taking it
constituted stealing it

While there was no direct evidence provided of the value of the Southern Command database,
there was evidence provided that the valuation of the Net-Centric Diplomacy database was over
$4 million.? There was also evidence provided that the value of the information WikiLeaks
possessed was 12 million pounds, or between $15-20 million.? This circumstantial evidence
supports a conclusion that the value of the Southern Command database was over $1,000.

Intelink Log Files Forensic Report, Bates 00375116-129, at 12.

The evidence showed that a person using the user name was aliased as Nathaniel
Frank from 22 Februa.ry 2010 to 25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to
24 May 2010. PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

?2 PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 23.

'3 PFC Marming?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-78.

Testimony

For example, PFC Manning stated, in reference to the State Department Cables, that ?it was forwarded to WL . ..
and god knows what happens now hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms I want people to see
the regardless of who they because without information, you cannot make infonned decisions as a

ublic.? 10 Ex. l9(D), at 33.
Testimony of CPT Lirn.
NCD Valuation Documents, Bates 00410556-60.


21

. . 28818

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 641 exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in stealing the
database and converting WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order
and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 8 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 9 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following five elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 8 March
2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of information
relating to the national defense, to wit: more than three classi?ed records from a United States
Southern Command database;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injtuy of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

The evidence showed that a user of PFC Manning?s primary and secondary SIPRN ET computers
searched for retention of interrogation videos, and during the month of November conducted
over 700 searches using wget commands (which are used to download ?les from a web server)
pertaining to Guantanamo Bay detainee suspects. The forensic examiner downloaded the same
documents using the same program, and veri?ed that those documents were the same documents
on the WikiLeaks website by comparing them.? The forensic examiner also found four
complete JTF Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments on PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET
computer under PFC Manning?s user pro?le.? Moreover, in his chats with Mr. Lamo, PFC
Manning admitted providing these documents to WikiLeaks in the following statements: ?oh, the
IT GTMO Assange has those too;? and, after [amo said he read those papers and
asked if Assange had ?[a]nything else interesting on his table?, PFC Manning said, ?idk don?t
know] I only know what I provide him.?9' -

8? Testimony 0
9? Testimony .
Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. 19(0), at 44.

22

. . 28819

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed there was no work related reason for PFC Manning to search for
Guantanamo or Guantanamo detainee assessments.?

The evidence showed that the terms or keywords ?Guantanamo? or were searched for
from PFC Manning?s primary and secondary SIPRNET computers a total of 17 times.? The
evidence also showed that the wget command was used 793 times to download documents
pertaining to Guantanamo detainees from PFC Manning?s primary SIPRN ET computer.?

The evidence showed that on 8 March 2010, in an online chat with
aliased to Nathaniel Frank at the time but later aliased to Julian
Assange (editor of WikiLeaks), 5 PFC Manning made statements including: ?anyway, im
throwing everything I got on JTF GTMO at you should take a while to get up tho
summary/history/health conditions/reasons for retaininghor transfer of nearly every detainee I
have a that organizes the info as much as possible.?

Additionally, the forensic examination of PFC Manning?s personal computer found evidence in
Unallocated Clusters of multiple references to the WikiLeaks upload webpage,
including a webpage containing a link to upload documents to
WikiLeaks, and also references indicating a possible upload of the Farah records (see discussion
of Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 10, below) to the WikiLeaks website.? These facts, taken
together, support the conclusion that PFC Manning uploaded the Southern Command database to

WikiLeaks. .

The evidence showed that between 24 April 2011 and 21 June 2011 WikiLeaks released 765
detainee assessment briefs, documents pertaining to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.?

PFC Manning?s comments in his chats with the person using the pressassociation screen name,
later aliased as Julian Assange, indicate that he had reason to believe the inf omiation he provided
concerning JTF GTMO detention memos could be used to the injury of the United States. In
those chats, PFC Manning asked: ?how valuable are TF GTMO detention memos containing
summaries, background info, capture info, etc.? and received the response, ?quite valuable to the
lawyers of these guys who are trying to get them out, where those memos suggest their
innocence/bad proceedure.?9? PFC Manning had no need to access Guantanamo detainee
assessments for his and he had no authorization to provide these records to WikiLeaks,
who was not authorized to receive it.

92 Testimony o_ testimony of

9? lntelink Log Files Forensic Report, Bates 00375116429, at 9.

lntelink Log Files Forensic Report, Bates 00375116-129, at 12.

9? The evidence showed tint a person using the user name was aliased as Nathaniel
Frank from 22 Febmary 2010 to 25 March 2010, and as Julian Assange (editor of WikiLeaks) from 17 May 2010 to

24 May 2010. PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 20-32, 76.

9? PFC Mam1ing?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 23.
9? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-67, 77-73.

9' Testimony of SA Bettenoourt.
9? PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 22.

Testimony of
23

. . 28820

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that there were more than three of these records"" and that they were
properly classi?ed and remain classi?ed. '02

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Mamiingis conduct in providing
these records to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 9 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 10 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 April
2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of information
relating to the national defense, to wit: more than ?ve classi?ed records relating to a military
operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009;

(2) that the accused had-reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered; or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was "of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces

Facts

The evidence showed that a user of PFC Manning?s user account on his primary SIPRNET
computer downloaded 135 ?les from a centcom.smil.mil server on 10 April 2010; shortly
thereafter, after these ?les were viewed, the farah.zip ?le was viewed on 10 April 2010 on PFC
Manning?s primary SIPRNET

The evidenceshowed that a CD created on 11 April 2010 at 9:18 am containing a ?le named
?farah.zip? was accessed on PFC Manning?s personal computer. '04

Bates 00378123?140.

Classi?cation Review, Bates 00378646-49. -

'03 PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-l 10, at 51-52.
PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 49.

24

. . 28821

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence from Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s personal computer indicated that
seven ?les with names like ?farahpartl .rar? had existed in a arah? folder on the desktop of that
computer. The evidence also showed that at least four of these ?les had been uploaded to
Wikibeaks after having been using the program, as they had the .nc ?le
extension added (?farah.partl an indicator of the use of that program.?
Additionally, the examination of Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s personal computer
revealed that classi?ed documents relating to the operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan, on or
about 4 May 2009 that were found on the centcom.smil.mil server and also on PFC Manning?s
primary SIPRNET computer existed on his personal computer.?

The evidence showed that in a chat with Mr. Lamo, PFC Manning stated, in response to Lamo?s
question ?what do you consider the highlights? immediately following PFC Manning?s statement
that he only knew what he provided to M.r. Assange, ?The Gharani airstrike videos and full
report, Iraq war event log, the ?Gitmo Papers,? and State Department cable In the
context of his discussion earlier in those chats concerning the State Department cables where he .
said, ?it was forwarded to WL . .. and god knows what happens now . .. hopefully worldwide
discussion, debates, and PFC Manning had reason to believe that the information in
these documents could be used to the injury of the United States. PFC Marming had no need to
access information concerning Afghanistan for his job,l?9 and he had no authorization to provide
these documents to WikiLeaks, which was not authorized to receive it

The evidence showed that there were more than ?ve of these records? 1? and that they were
properly classi?ed and remain classi?ed.?

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in providing
these records to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 10 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 11 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1
November 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 65-68.

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 54-58.

Lamo Chat, 10 Exhibit at 44-45.

Iamo Chat, 10 Ex. at 33.

Testimony of (stating PFC Manning had no need to access the E-Afghanntan database for his

Job)

Bates 00377425493.
Classi?cation Review, Bates 00376879-902.

25

. . 28822

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

information relating to the national defense, to wit: a ?le named PAX.zip? containing a
video named PAX.wmv?;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. sectit-(e) exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces

Facts

On 8 January 2010, WikiLeaks tweeted that they had a video of the Gharani airstrike video that
was and asked for supercomputer time (presumably to it). '2 In his chats
with Mr. I.amo, PFC Manning acknowledged that Assange had this video in an
format ?they also caught wind that he [Assange] had a of the Gharani airsuike in
Afghanistan, which he has, but hasn?t yet the production team was actually
working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really he?s got the whole
15-6 for that incident .. . so it wont just be video with no context .. . but its not nearly as
it was an awful incident, but nothing like the baghdad one the investigating
o?icers le? the material unprotected, sitting in a director on a centcom.smil.n1il .. . server but
they did zip up the ?les, aes-256, with an excellent password. . . so afaik [as far as I know] it
hasn?t been broken yet.?' '3

Additionally, as mentioned above, PFC Manning stated that the ?highlights? of what he provided
to Mr. Assange included ?the Gharani airstrike videos and full report.?' 5

The evidence also showed that a computer owned by a Mr. Jason Katz, a former employee of the
Department of Energy, contained a ?le named BE.zip, and within that file was an
password-protected ?le named BE 22 PAX.wmv. The password the forensic examiners obtained
from CENTCOM to open the ?le by the same name on the centcom.smil.mil server also opened
the ?le on Mr. Katz?s computer, and the ?les appeared to be the same. The ?le was placed on
Mr. Katz?s computer on 15 December 2009 and Mr. Katz had installed a password cracking

program and was trying to the f1le."5

This evidence, particularly PFC Marming?s statements as to where the ?le was located and his
knowledge that the files had been zipped ?with an excellent password,? together with the
evidence indicating that PFC Manning had uploaded the farah.zip ?les, circurnstantially

"2 Testimony of_t; Bates 11004105915-97.
Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. at 1o11.

lamo Chat. 10 Exhibit at 44.45.

"5 Testimony of

. . 28823

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

indicates that PFC Manning provided the BE 22 PAX.wmv ?le to WikiLeaks and that ?le was
the one that was placed on Mr. Katz?s computer.

The evidence showed that in the context of his chats with Mr. Lamo concerning the State
Department cables where he said, ?it was forwarded to WL . . . and god knows what happens now
. . . hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and refonns,?m? PFC Manning had reason to
believe that the information in this video could be used to the injury of the United States. PFC
Manning had no need to access information concerning Afghanistan for his job,?7 and he had no
authorization to provide these documents to WikiLeaks, which was not authorized to receive it.

The evidence showed that this video was properly classi?ed and remains classi?ed.? '8

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Ma.nning?s conduct in providing
these records to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 1 1 of Additional Charge 11.

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 12 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 641):

Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March
2010 and on or about 4 May 2010, the accused voluntarily, intentionally and knowingly stole,
purloined, or converted a thing of value, to wit: the Department of State Net-Centric Diplomacy
database containing more 250,000 records belonging to the United States government another;

(2) that the thing of value belonged to the United States and had a value in excess of One
Thousand Dollars

(3) that the accused did so with intent to deprive the owner of the use or bene?t of the thing of
value so taken;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 641 exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. l9(D), at 33.
"7 Testimony of - (stating PFC Manning had no need to access the CIDNE-Afghanistan database for his

job)
Classi?cation Review, Bates

27

0 28824

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Facts

The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET computer contained, under his
user pro?le, a ?le named ??les.zip? in the ?bloop? folder that had over 10,000 Department of
State cables in web page fomiat, and that over 4,000 of these cables were A
CD accessed on PFC Manning?s personal computer containing ?les.zip was burned on 4 May
10'? The evidence showed that another document in the ?bloop? folder, ?backup.xlsx,? was a
spreadsheet with cables published in March, Aprilthis spreadsheet
including cables published in March and April 2010 started with a cable with number 251,288.

The evidence showed that PFC Mamling?s primary SIPRNET computer had a version of wget
(software used to download ?les ?om a server) that was the same version found in the
Department of State log ?les, the Intelink log ?les, and that was downloaded on a NIPRNET
computer by the bradley.manning user pro?lem A user of PF Manning?s user pro?le on that
NIPRNET computer did Google searches for WikiLeaks and wget.exe on 3 May 2010 and
downloaded wget to that pro?le. A user of PFC Mamling?s user pro?le then transferred wget
from the NIPRNET to SIPRNET on 4 May 2010, under PFC Manning?s user

The evidence showed that on 20 August 20] 1, WikiLeaks released 251,287 Department of State
cables in unredacted form and made theln available on the Intemetm While the evidence was
that WilciLeaks did not release the cables in folder,l25 the forensic examination found
thousands of State Department cables in unallocated space on PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET
computer, ranging in classi?cation from unclassi?ed to secret; many were complete, but many
others were not.? Additionally, the forensic examination of PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET
computer revealed thata deleted and partially overwritten ?le named ?c:\Lost

iJe\backup\farah.zip? was originally created on 10 April 2010 and contained 582 Department of
State Cables, over 250 of which were classi?ed.m The evidence showed the Department of
State cables were in .csv format, a way of moving ?les ?om one database to another, and were
Base64 encoded. 123 Analysis of PFC Manning?s secondary SIPRNET computer and his personal
computer also showed many Departlnent of State cables that had been converted to Base64 and
stored in .csv formatm Speci?cally, approximately 1 13,000 complete Department of State
cables converted to Base64 were found in a deleted .csv ?le in Unallocated Clusters on PFC

"9 Testimony ot_; PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-I10,
at 31.

'20 Testimony 0

PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 002] 1037-110, at 31; spreadsheet, at
Bates 00296982; Testimony

'22 PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 1037-! 10, at 37.



"3 Testimony
Testimony :.Tcstimony
'25 Testimony 0 also testi?ed there was a problem with ?les.zip when it was created, and if

a person using WinZip tried to open it, it would not open because it was a corrupted ?le, and one would need special -
tools to open the ?les in ?les.zip. Based on that testimony, it appears that WikiLeaks did not release the cables in
?leszip because they could not open them.

Testimony of

'27 PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 1037- ll 0, at 34-36.

Testimony of SA Shaver.

'19 PFC Marlning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 1037-! 10, at 36.

28

. . 28825

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Manning?s secondary SIPRNET computer,?3? and evidence of Department of State cables
published before March 2010 were found in Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s personal
computer, including data appearing to have a .csv ?le structure listing Department of State cables
with numbers preceding 251,287 in a format similar to the cables found on PFC Manning?s
primary SIPRNET Computetm Additionally, examination of Department of State cable
message record numbers released by WikiLeaks identi?ed 251,298 individual message record
numbers; examination of PFC Manning?s personal computer and his primary and secondary
SIPRNET computers showed that they contained 83% of all the message record numbers
released to WikiLeal
This evidence, taken together, leads to a conclusion that the 251,287 ?les released by WikiLeaks
were provided to WikiLeaks by PFC Manning.

The evidence showed that in his chats with Mr. [amo concerning the State Department cables,
PFC Manning said, ?it was forwarded to WL and god knows what happens now hopefully
worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms I want people to see the regardless of who
they because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a which
indicates that that he converted this database another in that he
wanted to make this information public and thus deprive its owner, the United States, of its use
or bene?t While there was evidence that PFC Manning had the authority to access diplomatic
cables for his job,'34 he had no authorization to take this database from its owner and thus his
taking it constituted stealing it.

The evidgice showed that the valuation of the Net-Centric Diplomacy database was over $4
million.? .

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 641 exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in stealing the
database and converting Wil
. and discipline and was service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 12 of.Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge II, Speci?cation 13 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1)):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following six elements:

"0 PFC Manning?s Secondary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199494-507, at 1, 12-14.
PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 51-54.

52 Files Forensic Report, Bates 00054320-34, at 14.

'33 Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. at 33.

'34 Testimony of CPT Lim (statinghe gave the link through email to access diplomatic cables).
'35 NCD Valuation Documents, Bates 00410556-60.

29

. . 28826

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March
2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused knowingly exceeded authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer,

(2) that the accused obtained information that has been determined by the United Stats
government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure
for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: more than seventy-?ve classi?ed
United States Department of State cables;

(3) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he obtained could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(4) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(5) that 18 U.S.C. section l030(a)(1) exists; and

(6) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and 'disc'6pline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces. '3

Facts

The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s primary computer contained, under his
user pro?le, a ?le named ??les.zip?T in the ?bloop? folder that had over 10,000 Department of
State cables in web page format, and that over 4,000 of these cables were classi?edm A
CD accessed on PFC Manning?s personal computer containing ?les.zip was burned on 4 May
10.38 The evidence showed that another document in the ?bloop? folder, ?baclcup.xlsx,? was a
spreadsheet with cables published in March, April, and May 2010.'39 The tab in this spreadsheet
including cables published in March and April 2010 started with a cable with number 251,288.
The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET computer had a version of wget
(software used to download ?les from a server) that was the same version found in the
Department of State log ?les, the lntelink log ?les, and that was downloaded on a NIPRNET
computer by a user of PFC Manning?s user A user of PFC Manning?s user pro?le on
that NIPRNET computer did Google searches for WikiLeaks and wget.exe on 3 May 10 and
downloaded wget to that pro?le. A user of PFC Manning?s user profile then transferred wget
from the NIPRNET to SIPRNET on 4 May 2010, under PFC Manning?s_user pro?le.?

These elements are a tailored version of Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 6.18. 1030A.

137 Testimony of_. PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 l037-l I0,
at 31.

Testimony 0
PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 1037-1 10, at 31; spreadsheet, at

Bates 00296982; Testimony of
PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-I 10, at 37.

Testimony

30

. . 28827

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that on 20 August 2011, WikiLeaks released 251,287 Department of State
cables in unredacted form and made them available on the Internet.? While the evidence was
that WikiLeaks did not release the cables in the ?les.zip folder,?3 the forensic examination fotmd
thousands of State Department cables in unallocated space on PFC Manning?s primary SIPRN ET
computer, ranging? in classi?cation from unclassi?ed to secret; many were complete, but many
others were not.? Additionally, the forensic examination of PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET
computer revealed that a deleted and partially overwritten ?le named ?c:\Lost
was originally created on 10 April 2010 and contained 582 Department of
State Cables, over 250 of which were classi?ed.? The evidence showed the Department of
State cables were in .csv format, a way of moving ?les from one database to another, and were
Base64 encoded.? Analysis of PFC Manning?s secondary SIPRNET computer and his personal
computer also showed many Department of State cables that had been converted to Base64 and
stored in .csv forrnatm Speci?cally, approximately 113,000 complete Department of State
cables converted to Base64 were found in a deleted .csv ?le in Unallocated Clusters on PFC
Marming?s secondary SIPRN ET computer,? and evidence of Department of State cables
published before March 2010 were found in Unallocated Clusters on PFC Manning?s personal
computer, including data appearing to have a .csv ?le structure listing Department of State cables
with numbers preceding 251,287 in a format similar to the cables found on PFC Manning?s
primary SIPRNET Computer.? Additionally, examination of Department of State cable
message record numbers released by WikiLeaks identi?ed 251,298 individual message record
numbers; examination of PFC Mam1ing?s personal computer and his primary and secondary
SIPRNET computers showed that they contained 83% of all the message record numbers
released to WikiLeaks.?5?

This evidence, taken together, leads to a conclusion that the 251,287 ?les released by WikiLeaks
were provided to WikiLeaks by PFC Manning

The evidence showed that in his chats with Mr. Lamo concerning the State Department cables,
PFC Manning said, ?it was forwarded to WL . .. and god knows what happens now hopefully
worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms I want people to see the regardless of who
they because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public,??'
which indicates that that he had reason to believe that the information he obtained could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

"2 Testimony of Testimony 0

Testimony 0 also tcsti?ed there was a problem with ?les.zip when it was created, and if
a person using WinZip tried to open it, it would not open because it was a corrupted ?le, and one would need special
tools to open the ?les in frles.zip. Based on that testimony, it appears that WikiLeaks did not release the cables in
?|es.zip because they could not open them.

Testimony

"5 PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0021 1037-1 10, at 34-36.

Testimony

'47 PFC Manning?s Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-I10, at 36.

PFC Manning?s Secondary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199494-507, at 1, 12-14.

PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 51-54.

Files Forensic Report, Bates 00054320-34, at 14.

Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. 190)), at 33.

31

. . 28828

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

While there was evidence that PFC Manning had the authority to access diplomatic cables for his
job,'52'the context of that evidence was that access was authorized for the to do their job.
The evidence also showed that before logging on to his primary and secondary SIPRNET
computers, PFC Manning had to click on a warning banner, the first sentence of which
read, ?You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) that is provided for
USG?authorized use only.?l53 Accordingly, accessing diplomatic cables in order to provide them

- to a person not entitled to receive it exceeded authorized access. PFC Manning had no

authorization to transfer this information to WikiLeaks, which was not entitled to receive it.

The evidence showed that these cables were properly classi?ed and remain classi?ed. 154

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. l030(a)(l) exists and that PFC Manning?s conduct in
providing these classi?ed cables to.WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and
was service discrediting.

Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 14 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. l030(a)(l)):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following six elements:

(I) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15
February 2010 and on or about 18 February 2010, the accused knowingly exceeded authorized
access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer,

(2) that the accused obtained information that has been determined by the United States
government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosme
for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: a classi?ed United States Department
of State cable titled ?Reykjavik-13?;

(3) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he obtained could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(4) that the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(5) that 18 U.S.C. section l030(a)(l) exists; and

(6) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

'52 Testimony Tstating he gave the link through email to access diplomatic cables).
"3 Testimony 0 IO Ex. 1 at 1 (Bates 00376856).
Classi?cation Review, Bates 00376903-53.

32

. . 23329

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Facts

The evidence showed that the keyword ?Iceland? was searched for a total of fourteen times ?'om
both of PFC Manning?s primary and secondary SIPRN ET computers!? The ?rst search for
Iceland was on 9 January 2010 and came from PFC Manning?s pro?le.? The evidence also
showed that PFC Manning accessed a CD created on 15 February 2010 at 6:21 am containing the
?le, ?lOReykjavikl 3.txt? on his personal computenm The evidence also showed that
WikiLeaks released Reykjavik-13 on 18 February 2010.158 Additionally, the evidence showed
that when Mr. Lamo asked for ?bona ?des? during their chats, during the discussion of the State
Cables, PFC Manning stated, ?this one was a test; Classi?ed cable ?om US Embassy Reykjavik
on lcesave dated 13 Jan 2010 .. the result of that one was that the icelandic ambassador to the US
was recalled, and ?red .. . that?s just one This evidence, taken together, leads to a
conclusion that the Reykjavik-13 cable was provided to WikiLeaks by PFC Marming.

The evidence showed that in his chats with Mr. Lamo concerning the State Department cables,
PFC Manning said, ?Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going
to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and ?nds an entire repository of
classi?ed foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public theres so it
affects everybody on everywhere there?s a US there?s a diplomatic scandal that
will be revealed. .. Iceland, the Vatican, Spain, Brazil, Madagascar, if its a country, and its
recognized by the US as a country, its got dirt on it . . . its open worldwide anarchy
in CSV fom1at.. and ?it was forwarded to WL and god knows what happens now
hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms I want people to see the truth. ..
regardless of who they because without information, you cannot make informed decisions
as a which indicates that that he had reason to believe that the information he obtained
could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

While there was evidence that PFC Manning had the authority to access diplomatic cables for his
the context of that evidence was that access was authorized for the to do their job.
The evidence also showed that before logging on to his primary and secondary SIPRN ET
computers, PFC Manning had to click on a warning banner, the ?rst sentence of which
read, ?You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) that is provided for
USG-authorized use Accordingly, accessing diplomatic cables in order to provide them
to a person not entitled to receive it exceeded authorized access. PFC Manning had no
authorization to transfer this information to WikiLeaks, which was not entitled to receive it.

lntelink Logs Forensic Report, Bates 003751 1(?129, at 3.

Testimony of

'57 PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 49.

Testimony of PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at
Attachment (Carved_l55659_l

Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. 19(0), at 9.

Lamo Chat, to Ex. 19(0), at 3.

Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. 19(0), at 33.

'62 Testimony of (stating he gave the link through email to access diplomatic cables).

Testimony of 10 Ex. 1 at 1 (Bates 00376856).

33



. . 28830

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that this cable was properly classi?ed and remains classi?ed?

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)( 1) exists and that PFC Mam1ing?s conduct in
providing this classi?ed cable to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was
service discrediting.

Additional Charge 11, Speci?cation 15 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 793(e)):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:
(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15
February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010, the accused had unauthorized possession of

information relating to the national defense, to wit: a classi?ed record produced by a United
States rrny intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008;

(2) that the accused had reason to believe that the information he possessed could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(3) that the accused will?rlly communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information to a
person not entitled to receive it;

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 793(e) exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

The evidence showed that ?between [the document at issue] was
accessed only 12 times; 4 of the 12 accesses during that period were attributed to IP addresses
assigned to PFC Manning?s SIPRNET computers.?165

The evidence showed that the classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence

. organization copied from the SIPRNET contained the same content as the document that was

posted to Wikileaks on 15 March 2010.156 The evidence showed that in achat with
(aliased at the time to Nathaniel Frank but later to Julian
Assange), the accused discussed this report, stating: article has LTC Packnett allegedly

Classi?cation Review, Bates 00376903-53.
Army Intelligence Forensic Report, Bates 0046452-66, at 1.
Army intelligence Forensic Report, Bates 0046452-66, at 5-7 (the date of the document at issue is contained in

that Report); Testimony

34

. . 28831

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning
con?rming the authenticity of the 2008 report posted on The Early Bird the same dag?
of that chat, 18 March 2010, had an article from the New York Times discussing that report.?

The contents of the document at issue indicate that PFC Manning had reason to believe that the
information in this document could be used to the injury of the United States. PFC Manning had
no need to access information concerning WikiLeaks for his and he had no authorization
to provide this document to WikiLeaks, which was not authorized to receive it

The evidence showed that this document was properly classi?ed and remains

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 793(e) exists and that PFC Marming?s conduct in providing
this document to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was service
discrediting

Ithus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 15 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge Speci?cation 16 (Art. 134, 18 U.S.C. 641):

Law

In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following ?ve elements:

(1) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May

2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused voluntarily, intentionally and knowingly stole,
purloined, or converted a thing of value, to wit: the United States Forces Iraq Microsoft

"Outlook/Sharepoint Exchange Server global address list belonging to the United States

government another;
(2) that the thing of value belonged to the United States and had a value in excess of One
Thousand Dollars

(3) that the accused did so with intent to deprive the owner of the use or bene?t of the thing of
value so taken:

(4) that 18 U.S.C. section 641 exists; and

(5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to? the prejudice of good order
and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Facts

PFC Manning Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 124283-362, at 31; Army Intelligence Forensic
Report, Bates 0046452-66, at 10-] l.

I0 Ex. mp), p. 20-21.

'69 Testimony of

Classi?cation Review, Bates 00410623-34.

. 28832

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that on 7 May 2010, WikiLeaks tweeted a request seeking as many .mil
addresses as possiblem The evidence showed that the Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer to
which PFC Manning had access contained a large text ?le named ?blah.txt? appearing to be an
extract of an Exchange global address list in the peter.bigelow' user account, and that based on

the analysis of PFC Manning?s personal computer and primary SIPRNET computer, ?blah?
appeared to be a ?le name that PFC Manning commonly used.?2 The evidence showed that the
?le creation dates for the ?les related to the global address list on the Supply Annex NIPRNET
computer were 13 May and 22 May 10.173 The evidence also showed that the temporary intemet
?les of SSG Peter Bi gelow?s user account contained searches for how to obtain a global address
list from Microsoft Outlook.?4

The evidence showed that the Supply Annex NIPRNET computer did not require CAC logon, so
the forensic analysis was unable to determine whether SSG Bigelow created the global access list
?les or if PFC Manning used his accountm However, the recycle bin for SSG Bigelow?s
account contained documents related to PFC Manning, such as a copy of his Article 15,
counseling statements, and other documents,?6 and the temporary internet ?les on SSG

Bi gelow?s account included an arnazon.com checkout page indicating that the item purchased
would be sent to PFC Manning at an address in Potomac, Maryland, and included evidence of
Google searches for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,?7 and the Google search page login user
was PFC Manning?s G-mail account,?8 all of which indicates that PFC Manning was using SSG
Bigelow?s account. .

The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s personal computer contained, in unallocated clusters,
a text fragment showing intent to ?acquire and ex?ltrate Global Address List from United States
Forces Iraq (U SF-I) Microsoft Outlook Sharepoint Exchange Server,? and also contained an
extracted portion of an Exchange global address list, which led the examiner to conclude ?it
seems likely PFC MANNING completed the ?task? identi?ed above.??9

The global address list would be helpful for the enemy to possess in that it would enable the
enemy to engage in ?spearfishing,? a targeted attempt to gain information from an unsuspecting
source by masquerading as someone the source trusts; speci?c information such as knowledge of
full names and emails facilitates spear?shing because it is more likely to make the targeted

source believe -the spear?sher is legitimate. 0

PFC Manning?s searching for the global address list and how to ex?ltrate it shortly after
WikiLe_aks tweeted asking .for as many .mil address as possible indicates that that he converted
the global address list another in that he wanted to make this

1" Bates oo41o594?95.

"2 Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556?90, at 11.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 13.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 29-32.

'75 Supply Annex Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 12.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 0019-9556-90, at 17.

"7 Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 21-22, 27-29.
"3 Testimony of SA Williamson.

"9 PFC Manning's Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 64-65.

Testimony of SA Bettencourt.

36

. . 28833

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

infomration public by giving it to WikiLealuse or bene?tm PFC Manning had no authorization to take the global address list from its
owner and thus his taking it constituted stealing it.

While there was no direct evidence provided of the value of the global address list, there was
evidence rovided that the valuation of the Net-Centric Diplomacy database was over $4
million.? There was also evidence provided that the value of the information WikiLeaks
possessed was 12 million pounds, or between $15-20 million.l33 This circumstantial evidence
supports a conclusion that the value of the global address list was over $1,000.

The evidence showed that 18 U.S.C. 641 exists and that PFC Marming?s conduct in stealing the
global address list and converting WikiLeaks was prejudicial to
good order and discipline and service discrediting.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Marming committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 16 of Additional Charge II.

Additional Charge Speci?cation 1 (Art. 92, UCMJ):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following three elements:

(1) that there was in existence a certain lawful general regulation in the following terms:
paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, which provides: ?the
following activities are speci?cally prohibited by any authorized user on a Government provided
IS or connection: Attempts to strain, test, circumvent, or bypass network or IS security
mechanisms, or to perform network or keystroke monitoring RCERTS, Red Team, or other
official activities, operating in their official capacities only, may be exempted from this
requirement?; .

(2) that the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and
(3) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1
November 2009 and on or about 8 March 2010, the accused violated this lawful general

regulation by attempting to bypass network or information system security mechanisms.

acts

For example, PFC Manning stated, in reference to the State Department Cables, that ?it was forwarded to
and god knows what happens now hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms I want people to see
the regardless of who they because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a

ublic." 10 Ex. l9(D), at 33.

3? NCD Valuation Documents, Bates 004l0556-60.
"9 Testimony of

37

. . 28834

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Examination of PFC Manning?s secondary SIPRNET computer revealed a text string that he had
provided to (aliased at the time to Nathaniel Frank but later to
Julian Assange) in a deleted chat session found on his personal computer in that chat which
occurred on 8 March 2010, PFC Manning asked, ?any good at lm has cracking,? provided the
text string, and said ?i had to hexadtunp a SAM ?le, since i don?t have the system

The evidence also showed that PFC Manning attempted to obtain the password of the FTPUSER
account on his secondary SIPRNET com uter, which could have been used to attempt to hide his
true identity while using that computer.? 5 Given the extent of his conduct described in this
report, it is reasonable to conclude that PFC Manning attempted to ?nd a way to hide his activity
while engaging in that conduct.

The evidence showed the regulation at issue existed and PFC Manning had a duty to obey it.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation I of Additional Charge

Additional Charge Speci?cation 2 (Art. 92, UCMJ):
law
In order to prove this o?ense, the government must establish the following three elements:

(1) that there was in existence a certain law?il general regulation in the following terms:
paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, which provides: ?the
following activities are speci?cally prohibited by any authorized user on a Government provided
IS or connection; . .. Modi?cation of the IS or software, use of it in any manner other than its
intended purpose, or adding user-con?gurable or unauthorized so?ware such as, but not limited
to, commercial instant messaging, commercial Internet chat, collaborative enviromnents, or peer-
to?peer client applications. These applications create exploitable vulnerabilities and circumvent
normal means of securing and monitoring network activity and provide a vector for the
introduction of malicious code, remote access, network intrusions or the ex?ltration of protected
data?;

(2) that the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and

(3) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11
February 2010 and on or about 3 April 2010, the accused violated this lawful general regulation
by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network Computer.
Facts -

'84 PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00124283-362, at 2.5 (the forensic examiner noted
that ?the terminology hash cracking? and ?hexadumping a SAM ?le? are techniques used for gaining
unauthorized access to a Windows-based computer by breaking the login password?); PFC Manning?s Secondary
SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199494-"507, at 9.

18? PFC Manning's Secondary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199494-507, at 9-10.

38

. . 28835

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

The evidence showed that the wget command was used to download documents ing to
Guantanamo Bay detainees from PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET computer.? 86 In order for
wget to have been used, it must have been installed.

The evidence showed that wget was not authorized softwarem

The evidence showed the regulation at issue existed and PFC Manning had a duty to obey it.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds existto believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 2 of Additional Charge

Additional Charge Speci?cation 3 (Art. 92, UCMJ):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following three elements:

(1) that there was in existence a certain lawful general regulation in the following terms:
paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, which provides: ?the
following activities are speci?cally prohibited by any authorized user on a Government provided
IS or connection: Modi?cation of the IS or software, use of it in any manner other than its
intended purpose, or adding user-con?gurable or unauthorized software such as, but not limited
to commercial instant messaging, commercial Internet chat, collaborative environments, or
peer-to-peer client applications. These applications create exploitable vulnerabilities and
circumvent normal means of securing and monitoring network activity and provide a vector for
the introduction of malicious code, remote access, network intrusions or the ex?ltration of
protected data?;

(2) that the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and

(3) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 4 May 2010, the
accused violated this law?rl general regulation by adding unauthorized software to a Secret
Internet Protocol Router Network Computer.

Facts

The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s primary SIPRNET computer had a version of wget
(software used to download ?les from a server) that was the same version found in the
Department of State log ?les, the Intelink log ?les, and that was downloaded by the
bradleymanning user pro?le on a NIPRNET computenm A user of PFC Manning?s user pro?le
on that NIPRN ET computer did Google searches for Wikileaks and wget.exe on 3 May 10 and

Intelink Logs Forensic Report, Bates 003751 16-129, at 12 (this document includes examples of dates of such

use of wget)
"7 Testimony 0
PFC Manning's Primary SIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00211037-110, at 37.

39

. . 28836

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

downloaded wget to that pro?le. A user of PFC Manning?s user pro?le then transferred wget
?om the NIPRNET to SIPRNET on 4 May 2010, under PFC Manning?s user pro?le.l89

The evidence showed that wget was not authorized softwarem
The evidence showed the regulation at issue existed and PFC Manning had a duty to obey it.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 3 of Additional Charge

Additional Charge Speci?cation 4 (Art. 92, UCMJ):
Law
In order to prove this offense, the government must establish the following three elements:

(1) that there was in existence a certain lawful general regulation in the following terms:
paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, which provides: ?the
following activities are speci?cally prohibited by any authorized user on a Government provided
IS or connection: Modi?cation of the or software, use of it in any manner other than its
intended purpose, or adding user-con?gurable or unauthorized software such as, but not limited
to commercial instant messaging, commercial Internet chat, collaborative environments, or
peer-to-peer client applications. These applications create exploitable vulnerabilities and
circumvent normal means of securing and monitoring network activity and provide a vector for
the introduction of malicious code, remote access, network intrusions or the ex?ltration of
protected data?;

(2) that the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and

(3) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May
2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused violated this lawful general regulation by using
an infonnation system in a manner other than its intended purpose.

Facts

The evidence showed that on 7 May 2010, WikiLeaks tweeted a request seeking as many .mil
addresses as The evidence showed that the Supply Annex NIPRN ET Computer to
which PFC Manning had access contained a large text file named ?blah.txt? appearing to be-an
extract of an Exchange global address list in the peter.bigelow user account, and that based on
the analysis of PFC Manning?s personal computer and primary SIPRNET computer, ?blah?
appeared to be a ?le name that PFC Manning commonly_used.192 The evidence showed that the
tile creation dates for the ?les related to the global address list on the Supply Annex NIPRNET

"9 Testimony of
Testimony of
Bates 00410594-95.
'92 Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 11.

40






. . 28837

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

computer were 13 May and 22 May 2010. '93 The evidence also showed that the temporary
inter-net ?les of SSG Bigelow?s user account contained searches for how to obtain a global

address list from Microsoft Outlook.'94

The evidence showed that the Supply Annex NIPRNET computer did not require CAC logon, so
the forensic analysis was unable to determine whether SSG Bigelow created the global access list
?les or if PFC Manning used his account.'95 However, the recycle bin for SSG Bige1ow?s
account contained documents related to PFC Manning, such as a copy of his Article 15,
counseling statements, and other documents,'% and the temporary intemet ?les on SSG
Bigelow?s account included an amazoncom checkout page indicating that the item purchased
would be sent to PFC Manning at an address in Potomac, Maryland, and included evidence of
Google searches for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,'97 and the Google search page login user
was PFC Manning?s G-mail account,198 all of which indicates that PFC Manning was using SSG

Bigelow?s account.

The evidence showed that PFC Manning?s personal computer contained, in unallocated clusters,
a text ?agrnent showing intent to ?acquire and ex?ltrate Global Address List ?'om United Stats
Forces - Iraq (USF-I) Microsoft Outlook Sharepoint Exchange Server,? and also contained an
extracted portion of an Exchange global address list, which led the examiner to conclude ?it
seems likely PFC MANNING completed the ?task? identi?ed above.??99

PFC Manning?s searching for the global address list and how to ex?ltrate it shortly after
WikiLeaks tweeted asking for as many mil address as possible indicates that that he used the

Supply Annex NIPRNET computer for a other than its intended purpose by obtaining the global
access list.

The evidence showed the regulation at issue existed and PFC Manning had a duty to obey it.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Marming committed the o?'ense
alleged in Speci?cation 4 of Additional Charge

Additional Charge Speci?cation 5 (Art. 92, UCMJ):
Law
In order to prove this o?ense, the government must establish the following three elements:

(1) that there was in existence a certain lawful general regulation in the following terms:
paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 380-5, dated 29 September 2000, which provides, in relevant

'93 Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 13.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 29-32.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 12.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 17.

Supply Annex NIPRNET Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00199556-90, at 21-22, 27-29.
Testimony

'99 PFC Manning?s Personal Computer Forensic Report, Bates 00l24283?362, at 64-65.

4]

- one Speci?cation alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. section 641, one Speci?cation alleging

. . 28838

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

part: ?Classi?ed information that is not under_the personal control and observation of an
authorized person, is to be guarded or stored in a locked security container, vault, room, or area,
pursuant to the level of classi?cation and this regulation by one or more of the following
methods: -SECRET information will be stored in the samemanner as prescribed for TOP
SECRET [in a GSA?approved security container with one of the listed supplemental controls or
in a vault or security room] in a GSA?approved security container without supplemental
controls CONFIDENTIAL information will be stored in the same manner as prescribed for
TOP. SECRET and SECRET information except that supplemental controls are not required?;

(2) that the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and

(3) that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions between on
or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused violated this law?il
general regulation by wrongfully storing classi?ed information.

Facts

As outlined in this report, the evidence showed that throughout, PFC Manning brought CDs with
classi?ed information on them and accessed them on his personal computer, and showed that his
personal computer contained classified information. There was no evidence that the personal
computer containing classi?ed information was stored in an approved manner as required by the
regulationzoo

The evidence showed the regulation atissue existed and PFC Manning had a duty to obey it.

I thus conclude that reasonable grounds exist to believe that PFC Manning committed the offense
alleged in Speci?cation 5 of Additional Charge

II. Analysis of Matters Raised by the Accused
Overcharging by the Government

The defense argued that Additional Charge I and its Speci?cation, Speci?cation 1 of Additional
Charge II, and all ?ve Speci?cations of Additional Charge should be dismissed. The defense
also argued that the remaining Speci?cations of Additional Charge II should be consolidated into

violations of 18 U.S.C. section 793(e), and one Speci?cation alleging violations of 18 U.S.C.
section 1030(a)(1). If the charged offenses were either dismissed or consolidated as sought by
the defense, PFC Manning would face a maximum penalty of 30 years.

As outlined above, there are reasonable grounds to believe that PFC Manning committed the
offenses alleged in Additional Charge I and its Speci?cation and in Additional Charge II,
Speci?cation 1. These are serious charges, but so too is the offense conduct they allege.

20? Note that 1 do not believe that PFC Manning?s storage of the CD marked 12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE
30 GC, with a sticker attached, in his quarters constitutes a violation of this regulation as there was no
evidence that the video contained on that CD was in fact classi?ed.

42

. . 28839

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Anned Forces recently found that an Article 134 offense
alleging wrongfully providing information about the U.S. military to persons the accused thought
were members of Al-Qaida was not multiplicious with attempted violations of Article 104,
including attempting to give intelligence to the enemy. US. v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378, 384-85
(C.A.A.F. 2010). Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to recommend that these charges be
dismissed. 2

With respect to the remaining Speci?cations of Additional Charge II, charged under Article 134
as 5 violations of 18 U.S.C. section 641, 8 violations of 18 U.S.C. 793(e), and 2 violations of 18
U.S.C. 103 (all also including charging the relevant conduct as prejudicial to good order
and discipline and service discrediting), each speci?cation charges a separate and distinct
criminal act occurring at different times or involving different information. As Anderson stated,
for multiplicity analysis ?the applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes
a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there
are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other
does not.? Anderson, 68 M.J. at 385 (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304
(1932)).

A review of the elements of the speci?cations in Additional Charge II alleging violations of 18
U.S.C. sections 793(e), 641, and 103 indicates that each of these statutes requires ?proof
of a fact which the others do not.? For example, the section 793 offenses require proof that
the accused had unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, while
the section 103 offenses require proof that the accused exceeded authorized access on a
SIPRNET computer and also obtained information that has been determined by the United States
government to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense
or foreign relations. Accordingly, even though these offenses have two elements in common
(having reason to believe that the information could be used to the injury of the United States or
to the advantage of any foreign nation, and willfully communicating the information to a person
not entitled to receive it), the o?enses are not multiplicious. Similarly, the section 641 oifenses
are not multiplicious with the section 793(e) and section 103 1) offenses because the section
641 elements require proof of different facts than do the elements of the other offenses.

As to whether any of the Speci?cations 2-16 of Additional Charge II constitute an unreasonable
multiplication of charges, the Speci?cations allege separate criminal transactions involving
different time periods and different information. For example, one of the two ?Speci?cations
alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. section l030(a)(l) (Speci?cation 13) alleges conduct between
on or about 28 Mar 10 and on or about 27 May 10 involving more than 75 classi?ed Department
of State cables, while the other (Speci?cation 14) alleges conduct between on or about involving one particular Department of State cable. An analysis of the other
Speci?cations of Additional Charge II charging violations of the same statute leads to the same
conclusion.?

Note that in those cases where the dates of the Speci?cations in Additional Charge ll overlap (18 USC 793
violations: Speci?cations 2 and 3; Speci?cations 5 and 7; Speci?cations 2, 3, and 9; Speci?cations 9 and 10;
Speci?cations 2, 9 and 15; and 18 USC 641 violations: Specifications 4 and 6), the information that is the subject of
the charged offense is separate and distinct, indicating that the criminal act charged in each speci?cation is separate
and distinct.

43



. . 28840

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

Anderson cites the ?ve pan test used to determine whether there is unreasonable multiplication
of charges - omitting the ?rst factor, which simply asks whether the accused objected at trial, the
test asks, ?Is each charge and speci?cation aimed at separate criminal acts? . .. Does
the number of charges and speci?cations misrepresent or exaggerate the . .. [accused?s]
criminality? Does the number of charges and speci?cations unfairly increase the
[accused?s] punitive exposure? . . . [and] Is there any evidence of prosecutorial overreaching or
abuse in the drafting of the charges?? Anderson, 68 M.J. at 386 (emphasis in original; quoting

. US. v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334, 338 (C.A.A.F. 2001)). As outlined above, here each charge and

speci?cation is aimed at a separate criminal act, and thus I do not believe the number
of charges and speci?cations misrepresents or exaggerates PFC Manning?s criminality.

As to whether the number of charges and speci?cations unfairly increases his punitive exposure,
the Anderson court?s reasoning is instructive: ?[Anderson?s] punitive exposure was not
increased, because a conviction on any one of the Articles 80, UCMJ, offenses had a maximum
punishment of life con?nement; and the Government could easily have broken up the
speci?cations as drafted into multiple different speci?cations based on speci?c contacts, e-mails,
Internet postings, etc.? Id Given the maximum penalty under Additional Charge I and its
Speci?cation, PFC Manning?s punitive exposure is similarly not unfairly increased here.

Finally, there was no evidence of prosecutorial abuse or overreach in the drafting of the charges.
As a result, I do not believe the charges and speci?cations constitute an unreasonable
multiplication of charges.

As to the Speci?cations of Additional Charge the evidence showed that it was common for
soldiers to lay music and games and to watch movies on computers in the SCIF at FOB
Hammer.? There was also evidence that it was not uncommon to add software to those
computers, such as Chat.?2?3 However, the evidence also showed that there was a
mission-related reason for the addition of MIRC Chat, as used it to chat with the
aviation community concerning their work,? and even for listenin to music, as it helped reduce
stress and helped the perform their duties more e?ectively. ?5 In contrast, there was no
evidence showing there was a mission-related reason to add the software wget to these
computers, nor was there evidence showing there was a mission-related reason for PFC
Manning?s other conduct alleged in these Speci?cations. Moreover, whether or not other
software such as MIRC Chat was added to the computers, or whether or not games, music, or
movies was played on the computers, the basis for these charges is not that PFC Manning added
such other software or played games, music, or movies on these computers. Quite the contrary

Testimony of (saw soldiers listen to music in the SCIF, it was common for them to transfer music
from the SIPRNET to another network, no one ever told her that music on the SIPRNET wa a violation of
information assurance security procedures, and soldiers would watch movies and play games on their workstations);
Testimony of_(they were told music was authorized inthe SCIF and there was music and also games
on the shared drive on the SIPRNET terminals; movies were allowed, but only on the unclassi?ed computers).

Testimony of SGT Madaras (MIRC chat was added to the computers once they got to Iraq); Testimony of Mr.
Milliman (sometimes he would see software programs installed on the computers without his knowledge, but that
was not common).

Testimony of? Testimony of Testimony Chat was authorized
to be installed soldiers were not supposed to install it themselves but they could have done it if they wanted to).
Testimony 0- (music tolerated so Soldiers could be more productive).

44

. . 28841

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

the basis for these charges is that PFC Manning attempted to bypass computer security
mechanisms, added unauthorized software, misused an information system, and wrongfully
stored classi?ed material as part of his efforts to provide information to WikiLeaks. Thus, the
evidence of other potential regulatory violations in the SCIF at FOB Hammer - much of which
appears to have been authorized, condoned, or at least had a mission-related purpose - does not
rise to the level of a potential defense against these Speci?cations.

Rather, this evidence may serve as extenuating or mitigating evidence; in that case, however, the
severity of the offense conduct is such that it would not indicate that disposition of the
Speci?cations by anything other than referral to a general court-martial is appropriate. This is
because this evidence does not indicate that, should PFC Manning be convicted of these
Speci?cations, a sentence at or below the jurisdictional limits of a lesser level of court-martial
would be appropriate, nor does it indicate that another disposition of these Speci?cations would
be appropriate.

Death Penalty Unwarranted

With respect to Additional Charge I, the defense noted that the government has stated that they
will not seek the death penalty in this case. Should there be any question on this issue, I
recommend against seeking the death penalty in this case as that penalty appears unwarranted
given the facts and circumstances of the charged offenses.

The Command?s Failures Made It Possible for PFC Manning?s Conduct to Occur

There were numerous failures on the pan of the command that could have prevented PFC
Manning from committing the charged offenses involving classi?ed information and information
available on SIPRN ET. Most egregiously, the command took no action whatsoever to review
whether PFC Manning?s access to classi?ed information should be suspended or revoked after
he made statements, before the deployment even occurred, to the effect that the American ?ag
was meaningless to him and he had no loyalty to this country.? But there were other examples
such as physical outbursts where PFC Manning?s behavior was such that it should have
prompted review of his access to classi?ed information.2?7 There was evidence that had the
command been aware of these issues, PFC Manning would have been removed from the
While PFC Manning received regular behavioral health services, it does not appear any mental
health provider made a definitive recommendation that his access to classified information be
rescinded until 28 May 10.209 Admittedly, the evidence surrounding the global address list
showed that PFC Manning continued to obtain information in order to provide it to WikiLeaks
even after losing his access to classi?ed information, which indicates that removing PFC
Manning?s access to classi?ed information earlier would not have entirely prevented his offense
conduct. Nevertheless, the evidence also showed that, had the command taken steps earlier to
review PFC Manning?s suitability for continued access to classi?ed information, the command

Testimony of ?in defense-requested closed session.

See, for exampleBates 00013362-67 (MFR: dated 21 Dec 09, 26 Apr 09 [appears
mis?dated], and 8 May 10 by describing Manning?s erratic behavior).

Testimony of

"910 Ex 2l(D), at Ex. (PFC Manning?s mental health records), at Bates 00014147-48.

45

. . 28842

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

could have limited PFC Manning?s opportunity to obtain classi?ed information and information

available on SIPRNET.

The oommand?s failures in this regard, however, do not negate PFC Manning?s intent or
knowledge in engaging in the charged conduct. Whether or not the command?s failures could be
considered extenuating or mitigating for purposes of determining an appropriate sentence should
this case be referred to trial and should PFC Manning be convicted of any offenses, the severity
of the charged conduct is such that this information does not bear on whether PFC Manning
should face trial by general court-martial, trial by a lesser level of court?martial, or whether other
disposition of the charges is appropriate. Simply put, this information does not indicate that the

?disposition of these charges should be less than by referral to general court-martial. This is

appropriate.

because this evidence does not indicate that, if PFC Manning were convicted of the offenses, a
sentence at or below the jurisdictional limits of a lesser level of court-martial would be
appropriate should he be convicted, nor does it indicate that other disposition of the charges is

PFC Manning?s Behavioral Health Issues/Gender Identity Disorder Should Be Considered

The record is replete with information concerning PFC Manning?s behavioral health treatment,
including for his gender identity disordenm The evidence also showed that PFC Manning told
then-MSG Adkins about his gender identity issues by einaiif? that PFC Manning had repeatedly
searched for information, on the Internet concerning gender identity disorder and had information
concerning separation from the military for such disorder and conceming transgender persons in
the military,? that he used an online identity named breanna.e.manning to communicate on the
and that he cross?dressed as a female when he was on leave in late an-early Feb

10.

There was, however, no evidence that PFC Manning?s behavioral health issues, including his
gender identity disorder, prevented him from forming the requisite knowledge and intent for any
of the charged offenses. Moreover, behavioral health evaluations prepared on 22 and 28 May 10
stated that PFC Manning ?had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the
proceedings? and ?was mentally responsible.?215

As to whether evidence of PFC Manning?s behavioral health issues, although not rising to the
level of a defense, could be considered extenuating and mitigating evidence, the severity of the
charged offenses is such that this evidence would not indicate that disposition of these charges
other than by referral to general court?martial is appropriate. This is because this evidence does
not indicate that, if PFC Manning were convicted of the offenses, a sentence at or below the
jurisdictional limits of a lesser level of court?martial would be appropriate, nor does it indicate
that other disposition of the charges is appropriateEx. 2l(D), Ex. H.

2? Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. at 40-41Bates 00014133?39, 0001414748.

46



28843

Continuation? Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

PFC Manning Faced a Hostile Work Environment

The evidence indicated that PFC Manning perceived that the SCIF at FOB Hammer had a hostile
work environment against gays.216

As to whether this evidence could be considered extenuating and mitigating evidence, the
severity of the charged offenses is such that this evidence would not indicate that disposition of
these charges other than by referral to general court-martial is appropriate. This is because this
evidence does not indicate that, if PFC Manning were convicted of the offenses, a sentence at or
below the jurisdictional limits of a lesser level of court-martial would be appropriate, nor does it
indicate that other disposition of the charges is appropriate.

Comparatively Little Harm Was Caused by the Leaks

The defense argued that the charged information is ?out and open? in the public and ?the sky has
not fallen? as a result, and thus questioned whether the determinations in the classi?cation
review documents as to the harm likely to be caused by the release of the charged information
are valid.

The evidence showed, however, that the information PFC Manning provided to WikiLeaks has
been found in the possession of the enemy.? 7 The evidence thus does not support a conclusion
that little harm was caused by the leaks.

PFC Manning Had an Idealistic Motive for His Actions

The defense argued that PFC Manning was young, idealistic, and had a strong moral compass,
indicating that he had an idealistic motive for his offenses.

The evidence showed that PFC Manning may have believed that his conduct was motivated, at
least in part, by idealism. For example, in his chats with Mr. Lamo, after explaining how
weaknesses in protecting the information at issue helped make his actions possible (?it was a
massive data facilitated by numerous both physically, technically, and
culturally.. . perfect example of how not to do INF OSEC . .. listened and lip-synced to Lady
Gaga?s Telephone while ex?ltrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history
pretty simple, and unglamorous weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak
counter?intelligence, inattentive signal a perfect storm?), PFC Manning gave a
window into his motivation: ?its sad i mean, what if i were someone more malicious i

""10 Ex. Ex. J.

2? As outlined above, the evidence showed that enemies of the United States possessed the information provided to
WikiLeaks by PFC Manning. For example, the video named ?l2 Jul 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 20 GC
Anyone.avi? is contained in the recmiting video. produced by Al?Qaida?s media aim (Bates 00408202-236) and is
described as ?footage published by the WikiLeaks website,? which clearly indicates that the enemy obtained this
video from Wil-ciLeaks. That video also speci?cally references the leak of a State Department cable, which indicates
they obtained the cable from WikiLeaks, and also references WikiLeaks documents describing communications by
leaders in Islamic countries with the United States, which also indicates they are referring to State Department
cables they obtainedfrom WikiLeaks.

47

. . 28844

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

could have sold to russia or china, and made bank?? and in response to Mr. Lamo?s question as
to why he didn?t sell this information, PFC Manning stated, ?because it?s public data it
belongs in the public domain information should be free because another state would just
take advantage of the infonnation. . . try and get some edge if its out in the it should be
a public good.??2 18 A

However, assuming that PFC Manning had an idealistic motive for his actions, such motive
would not negate the requisite knowledge andintent for the charged offenses. Moreover, even if
the nature of his motive could be considered extenuating and mitigating evidence should this
case be referred to trial and should he be convicted of ?any offenses, I do not believe this evidence
would indicate that any disposition at this stage of the proceedings less than referral to trial by
general court-martial would be appropriate.

Defense Objections During the Hearing

1. At the outset of the hearing, the defense objected to my acting as the Investigating Officer in
this case and asked that I recuse myself?? I consulted with my legal advisor who advised me as
to the standard of R.C.M. 902(a) that recusal is required if my impartiality may reasonably be
questioned. My legal advisor also said that the test is ?any conduct that would lead a reasonable
man knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that . [my] impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.? I do not believe a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances would be led
to the conclusion that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and thus denied the
defense?s recusal request, making the following essential ?ndings of fact:

a. As a civilian, I am employed by the Department of Justice as a Deputy Chief in the
Criminal Division?s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. My section does not handle cases
involving conduct of which PFC Manning is accused.

b. I was not aware of the speci?cs of investigation into the WikiLeaks matter
before reviewing materials in my role of as investigating officer.

c. sent emails to counsel concerning this matter from my usdoj. gov email account.

d. I stated the reasons for my denial of the defense request to produce the DOJ ?le in this
case in my written determinations as to defense requested evidence.

e. While I am employed as a civilian by the Department of Justice that is investigating
this matter, no aspect of my work in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section is
involved with or otherwise relates to the allegations against PFC Manning.

f. I made written determinations as to defense-requested witnesses in writing based on
my determinations as to whether the expected testimony was necessary to make an informed
recommendation as to the truth of the charges, the form of the charges, and the disposition.of the

Lamo Chat, 10 Ex. 19(0), at 33.
"910 Ex.

48

. . 28845

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. V. PFC Bradley E. Manning

charges, and also determined whether witnesses were reasonably available. I also considered
whether the expected testimony was cumulative to the testimony of other witnesses.

g. In addition, a?er my legal advisor called me on 15 December 2011 to discuss R.C.M.
40S(f)(l 1) and 405(a)(l to ensure that I was properly considering them, I reconsidered my
earlier determination as to three defense requested witnesses. My legal advisor made no
recommendations as to my determinations on defense requested witnesses.

h. My determination as to the defense?s closure request was made after consulting my
legal advisor and providing his advice to the parties. That determination was consistent with the
legal advice I received. I provided the reasons for that determination in writing, applying R.C.M.
806(b)(2). (Subsequently, I granted the def ense?s closure request in partm)

i. My determination as to my ability to consider statements under penalty of perjury
under 28 U.S.C. 1746 was made after consulting with my legal advisor and after providing his
advice and cases and legislative history he provided me to the parties, and my determination was
consistent with my legal advisor?s advice. I provided that determination in writing to counsel via
a 141418 December email. I did limited research into the matter before seeking my legal
advisor?s advice.

j. I conclude that a reasonable person knowing all the above facts would not conclude
that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

2. During the testimony of SA Graham, the defense objected to my admonishing the government
that, with respect to evidence that the defense objected to based on lack of authentication, I
would only consider authenticated evidence and I then asked the government if there were any
documents they wanted me to consider that they would need SA Graham to authenticate before
letting her the phone. The defense objected that by making these comments I went beyond
my role as IO and was telling the government how to perfect their case. In making these
comments, I simply was trying to make the proceeding more ef?cient by ensuring I wouldn?t
have to call this witness again. She is in Hawaii and we had a hard time getting her on the
phone.

3. During the testimony of SA Mander, the defense objected to my denial of their request that
the investigative ?les of the FBI and the State Department be produced. I referred the defense to
my written determinations as to defense-requested evidence and noted that the defense can raise
this issue at the appropriate time should this case be referred to trial.

4. During the testimony of CPT Lim, the defense objected to the witness stating that the
accused?s conduct was service-discrediting and prejudicial to good order and discipline.

5. Before the taking of classi?ed testimony, the defense objected to the govemment?s providing
late notice of their intent to introduce classi?ed evidence and testimony and objected to the
taking of classi?ed testimony and my consideration of classi?ed evidence based on this late

23? See 10 Ex. 49.
~49

.

Continuation Sheet, DD Form 457, U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

notice. The defense requested that I append reasons for denying their request to the report of
investigation The main reason I denied the defense?s request is that the convening authority?s

1 1 special instructions requiring 14 days? notice of the intent to disclose classi?ed information

applies only to the defense, not to the government I also noted that there was no evidence the
government was trying to engage in trial by ambush, and that the defense had been in possession
of the underlying information since 8 November 2011.

6. During SPC Baker?s testimony, the defense objected to my allowing the government to ask
the witness about the accused?s statements about his feelings about the military. I overruled the
objection.

7. During Mr. Johnson?s testimony, the defense objected to the government putting up a
screenshot of a chat allegedly between the accused and Mr. Lamo showing the accused?s name
rather than the online identity ?bradass87.? I sustained that objection.

8. During Mr. Lamo?s testimony, the defense objected to consideration of the alleged chats
between the accused and Mr. Lamo on the grounds that they are privileged under M.R.E. 503.

. The parties submitted written briefs on this issuem I overruled the defense objection and my

written determination of this issue is attachedm

9. On the morning of 21 December, the defense objected to continuing the hearing until
Thursday morning, 22 December, for arguments because the defense was ready to argue at 1500
on 21 December. I denied the objection because at a conference on 20 December, the parties
agreed to; break early on 21 December and to present argument Thursday morning, 22 December,
and the government relied on that agreement in planning its preparation.

10. Additionally, the defense made various objections throughout the testimony to the
government?s questions. Those objections are contained in the transcript of the hearing.

22? 10 Exs. 14, 15.
22210 Ex. 50.

50

28847

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Endosure 60
lOOctober 2012

28848

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
150TH JUDGE ADVOCATE GENEFIAL DETACHMENT (LSO)
MG ALBERT C. LIEBER USAR CENTER
6901 TELEGFIAPH ROAD
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22310-3320
REPLY TO
ATTENTIONOF

11 January 2012

AFRC-MJVA
MEMORANDUM FOR US v. Manning Article 32(b) Participants
SUBJECT: Excludable Delay

1. The Article 32 hearing in this case concluded on 22 December 2011. On 23 December 2011,
I reviewed evidence. Between 24 December 2011 and 2 January 2012 I did not work on this
investigation. Of these ten days, six (24-26 December 2011 and 31 December - 2 January 12)
were federal holidays or weekend days. 1 worked on this investigation on 3-6 January 2012 and
again from 9-11 January 2012, but not on 7-8 January 2012, which were weekend days.
2. The period between 24 December 2011 and 2 January 2012, and between 7-8 January 2012, is
excludable delay under R.C.M. 707(c).
3. POC for this memorandum is the undersigned.

PAUL R. ALMANZA
LTC, JA, USAR
Investigating Officer

28849

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Endosure61
lOOctober 2012

28850

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

IMND-MHH-ZA

[(p

l\

MEMORANDUM FOR LTC Paul Almanza, 150th Judge Advocate General Detachment, Legal
Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber, USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road, Alexandria,
VA 22310
SUBJECT: Special Instmctions for Investigation under Article 32, UCMJ
1. You are directed to resume the investigation of the enclosed charges and any other related
matters conceming PFC Bradley Manning, xxx-xx-9504. Headquarters and Headquarters
Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA, 22211. This
is your primary duty until the investigation is completed.
2. On 4 August 2010,1 appointed you to investigate the original charges, dated 5 July 2010, and
any other related matters conceming the accused. On 18 March 2011,1 dismissed the original
charges and directed you to investigate the additional charges preferred against PFC Manning,
dated 1 March 2011, and any other related matters concerning the accused.
3. The accused is entitled to qualified legal counsel as a matter of right, unless he expressly
waives this right. The accused is represented by Mr. David Coombs, civilian defense counsel,
and muldple members of the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (TDS). Trial counsel from the
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA), Military District ofWashington (MDW), will
represent the United States. The trial counsel and the defense counsel each play an adversarial
role in the proceedings and you must avoid talking to either party about the merits of the case
outside of settings where all parties have the opportunity to be heard.
4. You will conduct your investigation in accordance with Article 32, UCMJ, and Rule for
Courts-Martial (RCM) 405. You will also use DA Pamphlet 27-17 as a procedural guide in
conducting your investigation.
5. The accused is charged with Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence, a violation of Article
104, UCMJ, as well as multiple violations of Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ relating to downloading
and transmitting various classified documents, photographs, and videos from Secret Internet
Protocol Router Network databases. You will use applicable portions of Military Rule of
Evidence (MRE) 505 as your procedural guide when dassified information is used during the
investigation, subject to the following instructions:
a. The accused is required to comply witii the notice provisions of MRE 505(h), and the
below special instmctions.

28851

IMNDMHHZA
SUBJECT: Specid Instmctions for Investigation under Article 32, UCMJ

(1) If the accused intends todisclose or to cause the disclosure of classified information in
any manner, or requests classified information not previously produced in discoyery,the defense
counsel must provide written notice no later than fourteen days before fhe scheduled date of the
Article 32 hearing. This request will be routed through you and the trial counsel fo fhe
undersigned, buf only if you determine that the requested information is relevant to the
investigafion,notcumulatiye,andrequesfedinatiraelymanner
(2) Af my direction, the trial counsel will attempt to obtain the requested classified
informafion on behalf of the defense or request authority for the defenseto use the classified
information in their possession at fhe Artide 32 investigation. If the OCA does not agree to
produce the classified information and/or agree to its use during the Artide 32, then the material
is not "reasonably available" underRCM 405(g)(2).
(3) lAWMRE 505, that decision may not be challenged until refenal of the case toa
courtmartial, but you will includeasfafement of the reasons for your determination in fhe record
of investigation and note any objection by the accused.
(4) AIldassifiedinformationu,sedduringyourinyestigationissubjecttomyProtectiye
Order for Classified Information, datedlTSepferaber 2010.
b. Article 32 investigations are open to fhe public and you will ensure the Article 32 is kept
open to tbe public whenever possible. If either party intends todisclose or introduce dassified
informafion in an openfomm during the Article 32, you will conductaclosurc hearing as
outlined in RCM 806(b)(2) before dosing fhe proceeding and excluding the pubhc. Toassistin
your detemiination under RCM 806(b)(2), you will require both parties to submit in advancea
proposed plan for the introduction of classified inforraation during the proceeding, induding
subject areas or lines of questioning that may elicit classified responses during fhe testimony of
witnesses. You will review the potentially classified subiect raatter areas in advance to
understand how and why the subject area could involveaclassified matter and develop closure
procedures in consultation with your security officer.
c. You will haveasecurity officer assigned to you for the duration of the proceeding, up to
and induding fhe completion of your findings and recommendations. The security officerwill
assist you whenever questions arise as tothe classification of particular documents, proper
handling or storage of classified information, or subject areas that may involve classified matters.
You will consult your security officer when determining whether or not to close the proceeding
fo the public toensure that properprocedures are followed and classified information is not
inadvertently disclosed inapublicfomm The security officer will be present during the entire
proceeding and should be prepared to assist you if any testiraony,inquiry,discussion of
evidence, or documentary evidence could result in the disclosure of classified information ina
setting not approved for disclosure.
6. You will schedule the time and date ofthe Artide 32 hearing within seven days ofreceiving
this memorandum. However, you will not convene fhe Artide 32 investigation any sooner than
thirty days from the date of this memorandum. The Article 32 will take place in the Port Meade,

28852

IMNDMHHZA
SUBJECT: Special Instmctions for Investigation under Article 32, UCMJ
Maryland courtroom, and thirty days ofleadtimeis requfred to execute the OPLAN to ensure
proper security for fhe accused and otherparticipanfs, establish fhe special infrastmcture forthe
hearings, and prepare to have the capability to conduct closed hearings.
7. You will complete your investigation no later than sixty days fiom fhe date of this
memorandum. The completed report will includeasumraarized transcript of fhe Artide 32
investigation. Pursuantto RCM 707(c)(1), you may approve any reasonable delay ofthe Artide
32 investigation; however, you are not authorized to grantadday that would prevent you from
completing your investigation within sixty calendar days of the date of fhis memorandum.
Requests for delay beyond this time must be submitted to me for approval. All requests for
delays must be in writing and will be either approved or disapproved in writing.
8. Contact the Chief, Administrative Law Division, OSJA, MDW tocoordinate with your legd
advisor. Consult your legal advisor before the hearing and throughout the Article 32 process for
advice as to procedure, guidance oflaw applicable to the case, and proper completion ofthe
report TheOSJA,MDW will provideadministratiyesupportforthisinvestigationContadthe
ChtefParalegal to coordinate administrative support.

^ ^ ^ ^

2Encls
1. AppointmentMemo,4Aug 10
2. Additional Charges Directiye,18MarlI
CE:(wo/end)
TrialCounsd
Defense Counsel

CARLRCOEEMAN,JR
COL,AV
Commanding

28853

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PEC,U.S.Army,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Endosure 62
lOOctober 2012

28854

l =-

r:

»
>
•o

fM

o
fM

l/l

«

3

C
3

cn
3

<

J

tl

o
rH
O
rM

O
fN

_>»



(0

s

8Z -EZ/S

»/9-OE/S

3

H • 8 6nv

T;

• SI 6ov

BE -

Gny

b da;

1

28855

-?ill

2.. 38. 2

tn:
_wm?;mm? .
.. .. . Emu SEN .2_3uo





-I In -. n.





0 28856

gt?-ans?
in '1 3 i .2 -323: 2 2: 3
inc-3.2-7'I-L sq-1-ozurr :1-nu 51-emu 9:-an-5 udv-Lznw o-saw ez-"-sm-an-4 rt-sun ax-men at-cum uw-mun

28857

ll
, -=s»
»
i;
i

1;
j

*

o
o

fSI

fM
0)

VI

c
3

*•
3
Ui
3

- K 6nv

( da; .

Snv

<

i::

O
fM

>*

o

(0

fM

s

3

2(nr-9funf

6-EHV

91 - Ot

tl-ilini

OE-Kinf

aWlE M

28858

»-==5
i

-=s=

f*

-==«

L-

h-

1

--=S5

»'
I t

1-1

o

rsi

o

k,

«

fM

u

J3

W

o

E
0)

u

4->

u

O

0)
H • 6/Ot

tr - 91/01

BI - U/Ol

f f l l - (K/Ol

Q

E 3=0 -

AON

S=

15

l:
i

i^-

ll
i

r-i
O
(N

&.

U
Si

E
w
a
a

10

o
(N

u

«
.O

E

u
>
o

z

5 ION - 0£ PO

9e-or«'N

£»aLr«*(

28859

I!

fM
rH
O
CM

ns
3
&_

J3
Ql

l~-

o
BI - n qad

i l - 61 qBj

t J"H -

q»j

N

2
U
a:
m

N

c

O

T3
3

"O
0)

ir

•D
_2
o
X
0)

^
m
Q.

n:

o
Q.

2
CO

s
_ro
u

(0

3
C
(0

l l - SI uBf

BZ - Z Z m

bqaj-6;uef

ro
§
o
c
3

O

o
ro
^
0)

^

3

C/3

Q.

••tr
ro
Q.
w
.9
0)
ro

(D
_c

Q

fM

CO

•D

to
O

o

CC

o
t
ro

Q.

fSl
rH

o

CO

0
"TO

Q

28860

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
V.

Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack ofSpeedy Trial
Enclosure 63
lOOctober 2012

28861

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Receipt of Referred Charge Sheet
I acknowledge receipt of the charges referred against me, to a General Court-Martial, by
Major General Michael S. Lindngton, dated 3 Febmary 2012.

B ^ B L E Y E. MANNiNCT
PFC, U.S. Army
Accused

DATE:

03

f£E

^^10

28862

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
V.

Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Endosure 64
lOOctober 2012

28863

l3January^20Il
MEMORANOLI^lTHRUSfaffJudgeAdvocate, Officeofthe StaffJudgeAdvocafe,USArtny
Military District ofWashington. Fort LesleyLMcNair.WashingtonD.C.30219
FOR Commander. US Army Garrison, Joint Base MyerHendersonHalL Fort Myer,Virginia
22211
SUBJECT: Request fbr ReleasefromConfinement UnderR.C.M. 305(g)
1 Purpose. Pursuantto fhe provisionsofRulefbrCourfs-Martial(R.C.M.)305(g), fhe defense
requests that you direct the release ofPFC Bradley Manningfrompretrial confinemenL This
request is based upon the fad that tiie confinement conditions curtentiy being endured by PEC
Manning are morerigorousthan necessary to guarantee his presence at trial.
2. Background Facts. PEC Manning arrived atthe Quantico Brig on 29 July 2010. Upon his
arrivaL he w ^ placed in Maximum (MAX) custody and under suidde watch. On6August
2010, CapLWilliamllocter.tiie Ibrensic psychiatrist fbr the Brig, recommended that PFC
Maraiing be moved from suidde watch to Prevention of1tiiurv (P01) watch, (^er the course of
the fbllowingvveeks, Capt. Hocter met with PFC Manning onafrequent basts. Due to PFC
Manning^spositive responseto treatment, on 27August 2010, Capt.Hocter recommended that
he be taken offof POI watch and tliaf his confinement classification be changedfromMA^fo
Medium Custody In(MDl),
3. Over the course of the f^dlowing three months, CapL Hocter consistently recommended PFC
Manning be taken off ofPOl watch, fhe only exception to this was on 10Oecember2010when
he recommended that he remain under POI watch for one week. The fbllowing week. Capt,
Hocter once again recommended that PEC Manning be removed from POI watch. Despite CapL
Hocfer'sconsistentreconiniendafions,PFC Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX
custody.
4. Under PFC Manning'scustody dassification and the POI watch, be is being held in solitary^
confinemenL Eor 23 hours per day,PFC Manning sits in his celLThe guards check on him
every five minutes by asking him ifhe is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some
affirmative manner. AtnighL if the guards cannot see PFC Manning dearly.because he basa
blanket over his head or is curled up towards tiie walk they will wake him in order toensure heis
okay. He receives each ofhis meals in his cell He is not allowed to haveapillow or sheets. He
is not allowed to have any personal ifeni^ in his celL He is only allowed to have one book or one
magazine at any given time to read in his celLThe book or magazine is taken away from him at
file end ofthe day before he goes fo sleep. He is prevented from exercising in his cell. Ifhe
attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other fbmrofexercise he w ill be forced to stop. He
receives one hourofexerciseoutsideofbis cell daily. The gu^irds take him to an empty room
and only allow bim to walk, PFC Manning normallyjusf walksfigureeights in the room for the
entire hour, Iffre indicates that he no long feels like walking, he is immediately retumed fo his
celL When PFC l^^anning goes to sleep, he is required to .strip down fohisboxer shorts and
surtender his clotiungfo the guards. His clothing istitenretumed to htm the next morning.

28864

SUBJECT: RequestforReleasefromConfinemenf Under R.CM,305(g)

5. Thedefense has raised its objection to these confinement conditions on multiple occasions
withtii^Quantico confinement facility and tiie Staff Judge Advocafe's(SJA) Office. (^n5
.lanuary" 2011,the defensefiledafbrmalcomplaint with thecommander of the Quantico Brig,
SeeErtdosurel, Ontiiesame day,PFC ^^anning alsofiledafbrmalcomplainttiiroughfhe
confinement grievance process. Both complaints requested that the confinement facility remove
PFC ManningfromPreventionoflnjury (POl)wafch and that hisclassification level be reduced
from MAX to MDL The confinement facility did not respond to either complainL
6. Law. Articlel3safeguards against unlawfiil pretrial punishnienf and embodies the precept
that an accused is presumed iruiocent until proven guilty. Articlel 3providesfbat:
No person, while being held Ibr friaL may be subjected fo punishment or penalty other
than arrest or confinement Lipon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or
confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the cfrcumstances required fo
insure his presence, buf he may be subjected fo minor punishment during that period for
infractions of discipline.
Military courts have consistently asserted Articlel3protecfton broadly to protect soldiers
awaiting trial. Illegal pretrial punishment can take many forms. Tbe most common examples
are unreasonable or harassing restraint that creates an appearance fbat the soldier is guilty and ,
onerous pretrial confinement conditions. Artide 13 provides that pretrial confinement should
not be "morerigorous than the circumstancesrequire1oinsure"fbesoldier'spresenceaf courts
"Conditions that are sufficiently egregious may giverisetoapermissive inference that an
accused is being punished B'L^^^f^^^^^c^^^,^v^i^^^,61MJ.225,22^^^^
^^.^o^/^^f^^^^)^^^^.^vC^^i^^^^,62M.J.41l(C.A.A.F.2006). Arbitrary or purposeless
conditions also can be considered to raise an inference ofpunishmenL ^^Bt^,6IM.J.at 22^^-28
(d^^^i^^L^^^^^^:^^^^^i^^v../^B^i^^.28MJ.214,21^
7. In orderto addressan issue of unlawful pretrial punishment due to the onerous nature of
pretrial confinement, tbe commander is authorised to orderthe removal ofthe soldier from
pretrial confine^i^nt RCM3(^^(^),L^^^B^^.^r^B^.^v,^/^^/r^^i,27MJ^4()(AC^

8. ArgumenL Oncethe Govemment had decided todetainasolider in pretrial confinement
pending triaL it obviously is entitled to employ devices to effectuate this decision. However, tbe
Government may not place conditions on thai confinement that are so excessive or onerous as to
give rise to an inlerence that the soldier is being illegally punished priorto trial. In the instant
case, the mental health care official relied upon by tbe confinement facility tomake
detenninafions about an inmate'sconfinemenf assignment fo special quarters, has consistently
recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. Inexplicably , his
recomraendationshavebeenignored
9 The fact that CapL Hocter bas consistently recommendedadowngrade in PFC Manning's
confinement dassification and assignment comes as no surprise given tiie fact PFC Manning has
beeti^model inmate. Af no lime has he b^endisrespedfttk violent or noncomplianL PFC

28865

SUBJECT; Request for Release from Confinement Ubder R.CM. 305(g)

Manning does not exhibit any ofthe criteria established for M.AX custody under Navy
Instmction 1640.9C. Given the consistent recommendations of CapL Hocter and PFC
Manning's mode] behavior, it is unclear why. other than for the purpose of pmiishmenL he is still
being held in M.AX custody and under POI watch.
10. As the commander for PFC Manning, you have ilie authority to address this issue by
ordering PFC Manning to be removed from pretrial confinement. At thetimePFC Mannir^ was
ordered into confinement, the military magistrate determined tiiat "tiie conditions on liberty
which are necessary to safeguard Soldiers and national security are tantamount to Confinement/'
See Enclosure 2, He therefore determined that there was "no way. short ofconfinement, to
ensure PFC Manning is denied access to a computer which ite could use to release classified
information or to ensure the safety of Soldiers around him." See Enclosure 2. In this case, tiie
militar)' magistrate did not seriously consider other options under R.C.M. 304. One such option
could be arrest. Arrest is ihe restraint of a soldier by ordering him to remain within specified
limits, A soldier under arrest could be required to have escorts, required to sign in on a frequent
basis, and to wear an ankle bracelet.
11. Seven months after the initial pretrial confinement determination, the Government now has
the benefit ofadditional infonnation conceming the need for ongoing pretrial confinement of
PFC Manning. First, the Government's investigation undoubtedly can establish that thexe is no
longer ariskPFC Manning could use a computer to release classified information. NexL the
mental evaluation by Capt. Hocter indicates that PFC Manning is no long ariskof self harm or
to harm to others. Lastly. PFC Manning has demonstrated by his model behavior while in
confinement that he can follow orders concerning his behavior. Thus, it is clear that the concems
raised at the time pretrial confinement, was authorized are no longer applicable.
12. Conclusion. Due to the nature of the onerous conditions of PFC Manning's confinement,
the indifTenmce shown by the Quanico Brig to remedy fhis situation, and PFC Mamiing's model
behavior, the defense requests that you order his removal from pretrial confinement. The
defense further requests lhat you consider lesser fonns of resuaint under R.C.M. 304.
13. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail af
coombsfiSamiycourtmartlaldefense.com.

Ends
1. Quantico Brig MFR
2. Military" Magistrate's Review

DAVIDECOOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28866

05 Jan 11
MEMORANDUM
From: David E. Coombs
To:
CW04 James Averhart
Via:
S t a f f Judge Advocate, O f f i c e of the S t a f f Judge Advocate, US
Army M i l i t a r y D i s t r i c t of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair
Subj:

CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MANNING

Ref:

(a) SECNAVINST 1649.9C

1. This memorandum i s w r i t t e n t o request t h a t you remove PFC Bradley
Manning from Prevention of I n j u r y (POI) watch and reduce h i s
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n l e v e l from Maximum (MAX) t o a t l e a s t Medium Custody I n
(MDI).
2. A servicemember i s e n t i t l e d , both by s t a t u t e and the Eighth
Amendment, t o p r o t e c t i o n against c r u e l and unusual punishment.
See
United States v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354, 368 (CMA 1983); A r t i c l e 55,
Uniform Code of M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 855. As such.
Secretary of the Navy I n s t r u c t i o n (SECNAVINST) 1649.9C d e t a i l s the
proper procedures and safeguards f o r proper c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of inmates,
e v a l u a t i o n of inmates and the l i m i t e d use of s p e c i a l q u a r t e r s . I n the
c u r r e n t case, PFC Manning does not f i t i n any of the c r i t e r i a f o r
p r e t r i a l maximum-custody confinement as set f o r t h i n PP 4202, 4205,
of SECNAVINST 1649.9C (Jan. 3, 2006).
3. PFC Manning a r r i v e d at the Quantico B r i g on 29 July 2010. He was
placed i n MAX and under s u i c i d e watch. On 6 August 2010, Capt. W i l l i a m
Hocter, the f o r e n s i c p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r the B r i g , recommended t h a t PFC
Manning be moved from s u i c i d e watch t o POI. Over the course o f the
f o l l o w i n g weeks, Capt. Hocter met w i t h PFC Manning on a frequent basis.
PFC Manning responded f a v o r a b l y t o the treatment of Capt. Hocter. Due
to PFC Manning's improvement, on 27 August 2010, Capt. Hocter
recommended t h a t PFC Manning be taken o f f of POI watch and t h a t h i s
confinement c l a s s i f i c a t i o n be changed from MAX t o MDI.
4. Over the course of the f o l l o w i n g three months, Capt. Hocter
c o n s i s t e n t l y recommended PFC Manning be taken o f f of POI watch, and
t h a t h i s confinement c l a s s i f i c a t i o n be reduced from MAX t o MDI.
The
only exception t o t h i s was on 10 December 2010 when he recommended t h a t
PFC Manning remain under POI watch f o r one week. The f o l l o w i n g week,
Capt. Hocter once again recommended t h a t PFC Manning be removed from
POI watch. Despite Capt. Hocter's c o n s i s t e n t recommendations, PFC
Manning has remained on POI watch and i n MAX custody.
5. Capt. Hocter's recommendation comes as no s u r p r i s e given the f a c t
PFC Manning has been a model inmate. At no time has he been
d i s r e s p e c t f u l , v i o l e n t or noncompliant. PFC Manning does not e x h i b i t
any of the c r i t e r i a normally e s t a b l i s h e d f o r MAX custody under the Navy
I n s t r u c t i o n . Given the c o n s i s t e n t recommendation of Capt. Hocter and
PFC Manning's model behavior, i t i s unclear why he i s s t i l l held i n MAX
custody and under POI watch.

28867

Subj:

CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MANNING

6. Under SECNAVINST 1649.9C, 1201 ^^discipline i s t o be administered on
a c o r r e c t i v e r a t h e r than a p u n i t i v e b a s i s . " A d d i t i o n a l l y SECNAVINST
1649.9C, 7202.2.i states ^^no persons, w h i l e being held f o r t r i a l may be
subjected t o punishment or p e n a l t y other than a r r e s t or confinement,
nor s h a l l the a r r e s t or confinement imposed upon them be any more
rigorous than the circumstances r e q u i r e . " PFC Manning's confinement
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and h i s POI watch are i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of t h i s mandate.
7. I n order t o ensure a servicemember i s not a r b i t r a r i l y maintained i n
s o l i t a r y confinement f o r prolonged periods of time, SECNAVINST 1649.9C,
4204 requires a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Assignment (C^A) board t o e s t a b l i s h
an i n d i v i d u a l inmate's custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n using ^^objective
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n B r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures." I t i s unclear what the
C^A Board recommended t o you or the basis f o r i t s recommendation.
However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t you have thus f a r made the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o
keep PFC Manning i n MAX custody and under POI watch.
8. I f you decide t o deny t h i s request and maintain PFC Manning under
his c u r r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and assignment, I request t h a t you i n d i c a t e
your basis f o r such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n w r i t i n g and serve i t upon the
defense i n a t i m e l y manner. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n order t o assess the
reasonableness o f your determination, the defense requests t h a t you
release t o U.S. Army t r i a l counsel, CPT Ashden Fein, the f o l l o w i n g
information:
a. DD 2710, Inmate Background Summary f o r PFC Manning
b. DD 2715-2, Inmate Summary Data f o r PFC Manning
c. DD 2719, any Continuation Sheet f o r PFC Manning
d. Any other assessment of PFC Manning by a b r i g mental h e a l t h
p r o f e s s i o n a l , guard, counselor or case manager
e. Any assessment o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n by you or a member o f your
s t a f f concerning PFC Manning
f. Any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n you r e l y upon t o make the
determination o f PFC Manning's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and confinement status
9. The p o i n t of contact f o r t h i s memorandum i s the undersigned a t
(401) ^44-300^ or by e-mail a t coombs^armycourtmartialdefense.com.

D. E. Coombs
LTC, USAR
C i v i l i a n Defense Counsel

28868

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ
APO AE 09344

lEPLYTO
.TTENTION OF:

AETV-THH

30 May 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade
Combat Team, lOtii Mountain Division, COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE 09308
SUBJECT: Military Magistrate's Condusions re: Pre-trial Confinement Review for PFC
Bradley E. Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, lOtii
Mountain Division, COS Hammer,fraqAPO 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 coramiited it,
and to determine whether continued pretrial confinement is warranted because it is foreseeable
that the confinee will engage in serious criminal misconduct and whether less severe forms of
resuraint 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
determined that continued pretrial confinement is warranted. In making this determination, I
arrived atthe 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 Maiming committed the offenses.
c. 1 do believe that PEC Manning will engage in serious criminal misconduct ifreleased.
d. Lastly, there is evidence that lesser forms of restraint are inadequate.
3. Significant Factual Findings:
a. PFC Manning has a history of documented mental instability and increasingly violent .:•
outbursts beginning 18 December 2009.
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 yeUed 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 andflippeda table

28869

tow^ard the two supervisors counseling him, •^fhe command took the bolt from his weapon,
placed him on tw^etity-fbur hour quartersw-atcb^ and directedapsychiafric evaluation.
d. On 30 December 2009,PFC Manning sbovedachair and yelled duringacounsding
session fbr losing fhe key to his room.
e. On8May 2010^ PFC Manning stmckafemale Soldier in the face withaclosed fist. SPC
.lihrleahShoraanwasatherdeskconductingasearchonacomputer. PFC Manning became
agitated at SPC Shoman'sactions because he bad afready performed the search. After pacing
back and forth behind SPC Shonian,sw"inging his arms, PFC Manning struck her in the jaw with
adosedfist PFCManningwasagainrefenedtoBehavioralHealtii
f. On 22 May2010, CPT EdanCritchfield,apsychiafrisLperfonnedaBehav^oral Health
Evaluation (BHE) on PFC Maraiingfindinghe had an occupational problem and adiustnient
disorderwitbmixed disturbance of emotions and conducL CPT Critchfield reported PFC
Manning hada"moderate"riskofselfhartn,AWOL, and harm to others and recommended that
the command remove fhe bolt from his weapon.
g. On27May2010, CID was notified that PFC Manning is suspected of unlaw^lly
obtaining and releasing sensitive data, including TS-SCI and CABLE deai"ance documents. This
w^as reported byardiable non-govemment intelligence agency,
h. On24 May 2010,areliable confidential infbmiant provided the agency with credible
information that PFC Manning illegally disseminated dassified infbrmation to several
individuals over fhe intemeL
L On27 May 2010,CID executedavalid search wananL seizing several items, including one
personal computer,one hard drive from the SIPR computer ofSPCSheriWalsh, on digital
camera, two SIPR computers known to be used by RFC Manning, andacompact disc with
"Secret"markings and labeled"I2 Jul 07 Chopper Reuters." Thedisc was discovered ina
United States Postal Service mailing box, prepared to be shipped.
j . After assaulting his co-worker, PFC Manning was assigned toaposition without SIPR
access. PEC Mamiing approached another Soldier about using her SIPR computer to scan and
print documents labeled "Secret". PFC Manning told the Soldier he was acting at fhe direction
ofhis NCOIC. He requested that the Soldier delete the emails and empty tbe "Deleted Items"
boxfromhercomputer PFC Manning'sNCOlChadnoknowledgeoftiiePFC Manning's
request to scan and print Secret documents.
k. During fhe investigation, PFC Manning was placed under supervision and requfred an
escort; his access to computers and other electronic devices was revoked. With liis escorts
present, PFC Manning managed to handapiece of paperwith his email address and password to
another Soldierandaskedherfocheckhis email for him.
4. Analysts;

2

28870

a. Probable cause, lhave accepted the Govemraenfsposition thattiiereis probable cause to
believe thatacrime bas been con^itiedand that PFC Manning committed the crime. It is my
belief that fl"ie Govemment takes these charges seriously and intends to refer this matter toa
General Court Martial (GCM), based on die evidence tiiat is cunently available. Furthermore, at
least one ofthe charges carriesamaximum punishment that can only berenderedataGCM.
b. Propensitytocommitaserious offense. Ibeliev^e PFC Manning will engage in
additional seriousmisconduct if released. PFC Manningposesaphysical threat to those around
him andathreat to national interests He has an increasing propensity fbr violence and recently
stmckafemale co-worker wifhaclosed fist. On22 May 2010he was characterized bya
psychiatrist asa"moderate" risk to others. AfterasubsequentEHE,dafed28 May 2010, PFC
Manningwas evaluated to bea"bigh"risktobimself and others. Additionally.PFC Manning
remainsathreat to national interests ifreleased. PFCManning indicated he collected
declassified materials fbr overayear. It is unknow"n how much infbrmationhe collected or how
die infomiation is stored. It is highly likelythatifPFC Manning is released he witi continue to
commit physical acts ofviolence or leakadditional classified infbrmation to the detriment of
national interests
c. Lesser forms of restraint. The conditions on liberty which are necessar^'tosafeguai^d
Soldiers and national security are tantamount to confinemenL PEC Manning must be confined
under law^. Hisbistoryofviolenfbehaviorand the BHE resultsindicate PFC Manning presenfsa
"higfr'risk ofliarmtng others. T^ere is no w^ay.short of confinemenL to ensure EEC Manning is
denied access toacoraputerwhich he could use to release dassified infbrmation orto ensure the
safety ofSoldiers around him.
5. Acopy of all documents thatlconsidered is attached tothe original of this memorandum.and
maybeinspectedintheofficeoftiieundersigiied
6. The Govemment counsel has advised that the anticipated level of disposition isaGeneral
Court-MartiaL
7. The confinee and the govemment were notified by me ofmy decision and its basis on 30 May
2010

I^EVIN^
CPT,JA
Military Magistrate

28871

Exhibits
A - 72 Hour Commander's Review (CPT Freeburg)
B - Confinement Order (29 May 10)
C - Confinement Checklist (29 May 10)
D - SA Graham's Supporting Affidavit
E - Article 15: PFC Mannfrig (24 May 10)
F - DA Form 4856 (17 May 10)
G - Statement: SPC ShowTnan (8 Mav 10)
H - Statement: SPC Shimm (8 May 10)
I - Statement: PFC Bales (8 May 10)
J - Statement: SSG Taua (8 May 10)
K - MFR: SPC Schwab (29 May 10)
L - MFR: MSG Adkins(21 Dec 09)
M - MFR: MSG Adkins (26 Apr 10)
N - MFR: MSO Adkins (8 May 10)
O - DA Fonn 5248-R (9 May 10)
P-ERB: PEC Manning
Q - BHE (22 May 10)
R-BHE(28 May 10)
S - P I C Rights Advisement (29 May 10)

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 28872

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 65

10 October 2012



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

REPLV TO
ATTENTION OF

IMND-MI-II-I-ZA 20 January 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia

SUBJECT: Request for Release of Documents Related to Con?nement Status - PFC Bradley
Manning

1. I request the following documents in support my review of PFC Manning?s con?nement
classi?cation:

a. DD Form 2710, Inmate Background Summary for PFC Manning.

b. DD Form 2715-2, Inmate Summary Data for PFC Manning.

c. DD Form 2719, any Continuation sheet for PFC Manning.

d. Documents and notes created by the classi?cation review board process for PFC Manning. 1

e. All assessments of PFC Manning by a brig mental health professional, guard, counselor, or
case manager. .

f. Any additional information relied on to determine PFC Manning?s classi?cation or
con?nement status.

g. Any disciplinary records related to PFC Manning?s con?nement.

2. These documents are necessary for me to conduct a review of PFC Manning?s pre-trial
con?nement status under R.C.M. 305(g). This is a continuing request; please provide any
documents that meet the above criteria to the below point of contact.

3. The point of contact for this memorandum is CPT John Haberland, Trial Counsel, by email at

CARL R. COFFMAN
COL, AV
Commanding

28874

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of SpeedyTrial
Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

Endosure 66
lOOctober 2012

28875

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

IMND-MHH-ZA

21 January 201

MEMORANDUM FOR David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUBJECT: Response to Request for Release from Confinement under R.C.M. 305(g)

1. General. I reviewed your enclosed request under R.C.M. 305(g) that I direct the release of
PFC Bradley Manning fiom pretrial confinement. Your request is denied. I believe that
confinement is necessary because of the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the
likelihood that PFC Manning can and will comniit fiit"tlier serious criminal misconduct, and the
inadequacy of less severe forms of restraint.
2. Probable Cause as to Offenses Committed. I have probable cause to believe that PFC
Manning conmiitted the following charged offenses: four specifications of Article 92, UCMJ,
and eight specifications of Article 134, UCMJ, Clause 3.
3. Necessity for ConfinemenL
a. Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses Charged. PFC Manning faces multiple
charges related to his alleged disclosure of dassified information to persons not entitled to
receive that infomiation. Under R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B), serious criminal misconduct includes
offenses which pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States. I believe the
disclosure of classified information poses a serious tlixeat to the national security of the United
States. As such, PFC Manning's charged offenses amount to serious misconduct and he wairanfs
pretrial confinement.
b. Further Serious Criminal MisconducL Shortly after CID opened an investigation, PFC
Manning was placed under supervision by his rmit and required an escort. He was denied access
to computers and other electronic devices. Despite the presence ofhis escoits, PFC Manning
managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to another Soldier in his
unit and asked her fo check his email for him. 1 believe it is likely that PFC Manning will
commit fiirther serious misconduct if he is released from pretrial confinement.
c. Less Severe Forms of Restraint are Inadequate. I reviewed the other options available
to llie under R.C.M. 304 and 1 find them inadequate. Although it is unlikely that PFC Manning
would have personal access to classified information systems if released from confinement, that
does not obviate the risk that he could further release previously acquired classified infonnation.
4. Prevention o f l n j u r y (POI) Status. You additionally requested me to reconsider PFC
Manning's POI status and I will address those concerns in a sepaiate memorandum or action.

28876

IMNDMFIH-ZA
SUB.IECT: Response to Request for Release ftoniConfinetiietit under R.C.M. 305(g)
5. Conclusion. There is probable cause to believe that PFC Manning committed serious
ctiniinal misconducL which posesatliteat to the national security oftiie United States. Ibelieve
he vvill likely coiiiniiffuttiier serious ciiiiiitial misconduct ifreleased fiotiiconfitienieiiL Because
offlie national security concerns in this case, less severe fbtiiisofiesfiaiiif ate inadequate. PFC
Manning will remain in pretrial coiifiiieiiieiit until eoraplefion of fhe pending eout f-niai fial
action.

Encl
as

•^fUt^
CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

28877

13January^2011
MEMOILANOl^THRUSfaffJudgeAdyocate,OffieeoftbeSfaffTudgeAdvocafe,USA^^
Military District ofW^asbington, Fort LesleyJ.McNair,W^ashingfonD.C.30219
FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base MyerHendersot^HalL Fort Myer,Yirginia
22211
SUBJECT: Request lbr ReleasefromConfinement Under R.C.M. 305(g)
1. Purpose. Pursuant fo fhe provisionsofRuIe fbrCourts-Martial (R.CM.)305(g), fhe defense
requeststhafyoudfredtliereleaseofPFCBradleyMaimingfromprefrialconfinemenLThis
requestisbasedupontiief^tfhattiiecot^finemenfconditionscurtentiybeingend^^^
Manning are morerigorousthan necessary to guarantee his presence at trid.
2. Background Facts. PECManmngart^iyedatfhe0^^titicoBrigon29July2010. Uponhis
arrival,be vvas placed in Maximum(MA^)ciistodyand under suicide watch. On6August
2010, CapLWilliam Hocter, the fbrensic psychiatrist for fhe Brig, recommended that PEC
Manning be moved from suicide watch to Prevention oflnjury (POI) watch Overthe course of
the fbllowing weeks, CapL Uoctermefw-ithPEC Manning ortafrequent basis. Due to PFC
Mauning'spositiveresponse to treatmenL on27 August 2010. CapL Hoderrecommeiided that
he be taken offof EOl watch and tiiaf his confinement dassification be changedfromMA^ to
MediuraCusfodyln(MOl).
3. Overthe courseofthe Ibllowingtiireemonths, CapLHocter consisfentlyrecommendeti
Manning be taken off ofPOl watch. The only exception to this was on 10Oecember2010when
he recommendedthathe remain under POI watch for one week. Tbe Ibllowing week, CapL
Hoderonceagainrecommended that PEC Manning beremoved from POI watch. Despite Ca^L
Hoctersconsisfent recommendations, PFC Mamting has remained on POI watchand in MA^
custody,^
4. Under PFC Manning^scusfody classification and the POI watch, be is being held insolttaiy^
con^finement. For 23 hours per day,PFC Manning sits in his celL Tbe guards check on htm
every five minutes by asking him ifhe is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some
aftirmatiyetnanner. AfnighLif the guards cannotsee PFC Maiming dearly,because hebas^
blanket over his head or is curledup towards fhe vvall,fhey will ^ k e him in ordei^toensureheis
okay. He receives eachofhis meals in his celL He is not allowed to haveapillow or sbeefs.He
is not allowed to have any personal items in his celL He is only allowed fohaveone book or one
magazine at any giventimeto read in his celL The book or magazine is taken away from him at
fhe end ofthe day before he goes fo sleeps He is prevented from exercising in his celL Ifhe
attempts fo do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other fbrmofexercise be will be forced fo stop. He
receives one hour ofexerdse outside ofhis cell daily. The guards take him to an empty room
and only allovy him to walk. PFC Manning noimallyjustvyalksfigureeightsin the room forthe
entire hotir, Ifheindicafes that he no long feels like walking,be is inimediafely retumed to bis
celL Wben PFC Manning goes to sleep, he is required to strip dowTifo his boxer shorts and
surtender his clothing totheguards. Hisclothitig istiienretumedfohim thenext morning.

28878

SUBJECT: Request fbr Releasefi^mCon^nemenf Under R.C.M. 305(g)

5. The defense has raised its objection to these confinement conditions on multiple occasions
w^itbtiie(quantico confinemetit lacility ^nd tiie Staffjudge Advocate^s(SJA)Ofiice.On5
January" 2011,the defensefiledafbtmalcomplaint with thecommander of the quantico Brig.
SeeErtdosurel, On the sameday,PFC Manning also filedafbrmd complainttiu:oughthe
confinement grievance process. Both complaints requested that the confinement facility rentove
PFC Manning from Prevention oflnjury (POl)watch and fhathisclassification level be reduced
fromMA^toMDL Theconfinemenffadlify did not respond to either complainL
Law. Articlel3saleguards against unlavv^l pretrial putushnienfand embodies theprecept
that anaccusedispresLimedinnocent until proven guilty. Ariidel3providestbat:
Noperson,whilebeingheldIbrlriaLmaybesubjededfopunisbmentorpenaltyother
than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall fhe arrest or
confinement imposed upon him be any morerigoroustbanthecfrcumstancesrequired fo
insure his presence, but he may be sul:^ected to minor punishment during that period Ibr
infractions of discipline.
Militaty" courts have consistently assertedArtideI3profection broadly to protect soldiers
awaiting trial. Illegal pretrial punishment can take many fomis. The most common examples
are unr^^isonable or harassing restraint that creates an appearance that the soldier is guilty and
onerous pretrial confinement conditions. Artidel3proyides that pretrial confinement should
not be'morerigorousthan tbe circumstances require to insttTe"fbesoldier'spresenee at court.
"Conditions that are sufficientiy egregious may giverisetoapermissive inference that an
accused is beiiigptinisbed
"^/^^^e^^/^^^.^y^i^i^,61M^^^
^^.^c^(^^f^^^^^^^^^.^v.C^c^i^^^^,62M.J,411(C.A.A.F.2006). Arbitrary or purposeless
conditions also can be considered to raise an inference ofpunishmenL ^^^^,61 M.J.at 22^^-28
(d^^^,^L^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^.^.28ML21^^
7. In orderto address an issueof unlawful pretrial punisliment due to fhe onerous natureof
pretrial confinemenL the commander is authorized to order fhe removal ofthe soldier from
pretria1confinemenLRCM 305(^),l^^^^^^^^f^^c.i^y^/i^/^^^,27
8. .ArgumenL Once the Govemment had decided to detainasolider in pretrid confinement
pending trial, it obviously isentitled to employ devicestoel^tuatethisdedsion. However, tbe
Goyemment may not place conditions on that confinement that are so excessive or onerous as to
give rise to an inference that the soldier is being illegally punished priorto tiiaL In the instant
case,thementalhealthcareofficialrelieduponbytheconfioementfacilitytomake
deferniinafions about an inmate'sconlinemenfassigriment to special quartern, has co^^^^
reconiincnded that FFC Manning be removed from POI vvatdi. Inexpltcably.his
reconunendations have been ignored.
9. The fact that CapL Hoder has consistently recommendedadowngrade in PFC Manning's
cotifinement classification and assignment comes as no sui^rise given the fact I^FCMatuung has
beeo^foodelintn^Ie, Alftotimehashebeet^disrespeelluLviolenlortfoncompli^LEEC

28879

SUBJECT: Request for Release from Confinement Under R.C.M. 305(g)

Manning does not exhibit any of the criteria established for M.AX custody under Navy
Inswuction 1640.9C. Given the consistent recommendations of CapL Hocter and PFC
Manning's model behavior, it is unclear why. other than for the purpose of punislimenL he is still
being held in MAX custody and under POI watch.
10. As the commander for PFC Manning, you have the authority to address this issue by
ordering PFC Manning to be removed from pretrial confinement. At the time PFC Manning vvas
ordered into confinement, the military magistrate determined tiiat "the conditions on liberty
which are necessary to safeguard Soldiers and national security are tantamount to confinement,"
See Enclosure 2. He therefore determined that there was "no way. short of confinemenL 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 aroimd him." See Enclosure 2. In this case, the
military magistrate did not seriously consider other options under R.C.M. 304. One such option
could be arrest. Arrest is the restraint ofa soldier by ordering him to remain within specified
limits. A soldier imder anest could be required to have escorts, required to sign in on a frequent
basis, and to wear an ankle bracelet.
11. Seven months aftertiieinitial pretrial confinement determination, the Govemment now has
tiie benefit of additional information conceming the need for ongoing pretrial confinement of
PFC Manning. First, the Govemment's investigation undoubtedly can establish thatthere is no
longer ariskPFC Manning could use a computer to release classified infomiation. NexL the
mental evaluation by Capt. Hocter indicates tiiat PFC Manning is no long ariskof self harm or
to harm to others. Lastly, PFC Manning has demonstrated by his model behavior while in
confinement that he can follow orders conceming his behavior. Thus, it is clear that the concems
raised at the time pretrial confinement vvas authorized are no longer applicable.
12. Conclusion. Due to the nature of the onerous conditions of PFC Manning's confinement,
the indifference shown by the Quanico Brig to remedy this situation, and PFC Manning's model
behavior, the defense requests that you order his removalfrompretrial confinement. The
defensefiirtherrequests that you consider lesser forms of resuaint under R.C.M. 304,
13. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at
coombs@armycourtmartialdefensc.com.

Ends
1. Quantico Brig MFR
2. Militarv Maaistiate's Review

bC-XVID E, COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28880

^

05 Jan 11
MEMORANDUM
From: David E. Coombs
To:
CW04 James Averhart
Via:
S t a f f Judge Advocate, O f f i c e of the S t a f f Judge Advocate, US
Army M i l i t a r y D i s t r i c t of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair
Subj.

CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MAI^NING

Ref:

(a) SECNAVINST 1649.9C

1. This memorandum i s w r i t t e n t o request t h a t you remove PFC Bradley
Manning from Prevention of I n j u r y (POI) watch and reduce h i s
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n l e v e l from Maximum (MAX) t o at l e a s t Medium Custody I n
(MDI).
2. A servicemember i s e n t i t l e d , both by s t a t u t e and the Eighth
Amendment, t o p r o t e c t i o n against c r u e l and unusual punishment. ^ee
I7r^;^te^^t^te.2 ^.
16 M.J. 354, 368 (CMA 1983)^ A r t i c l e 55,
Uniform Code of M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. ^ 855. As such.
Secretary of the Navy I n s t r u c t i o n (SECNAVINST) 1649.9C d e t a i l s the
proper procedures and safeguards f o r proper c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of inmates,
e v a l u a t i o n of inmates and the l i m i t e d use of s p e c i a l q u a r t e r s . I n the
c u r r e n t case, PFC Manning does not f i t i n any of the c r i t e r i a f o r
p r e t r i a l maximum-custody confinement as set f o r t h i n PP 4202, 4205,
of SECNAVINST 1649.9C (Jan. 3, 2006).
3. PFC Manning a r r i v e d ^ t the i^uantico B r i g on 29 July 2010. He was
placed i n MAX and under s u i c i d e watch. On 6 August 2010, Capt. W i l l i a m
Hocter, the f o r e n s i c p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r the B r i g , recommended t h a t PFC
Manning be moved from suicide watch t o POI. Over the course of the
f o l l o w i n g weeks, Capt. Hocter met w i t h PFC Manning on a frequent basis.
PFC Manning responded favorably t o the treatment of Capt. Hocter. Due
t o PFC Manning's improvement, on 27 August 2010, Capt. Hocter
recommended t h a t PFC Manning be taken o f f of POI watch and t h a t h i s
confinement c l a s s i f i c a t i o n be changed from MAX t o MDI.
4. Over the course of the f o l l o w i n g three months, Capt. Hocter
c o n s i s t e n t l y recommended PFC Manning be taken o f f of POI "^atch, and
t h a t h i s confinement c l a s s i f i c a t i o n be reduced from MAX t o MOI.
The
only exception t o t h i s was on 10 December 2010 when he recommended t h a t
PFC Manning remain under POI watch f o r one week. The f o l l o w i n g week,
Capt. Hocter once again recommended t h a t PFC Manning be removed from
POI watch. Despite Capt. Hocter's c o n s i s t e n t recommendations, PFC
Manning has remained on POI watch and i n MAX custody.
5. Capt. Hocter's recommendation comes as no s u r p r i s e given the f a c t
PFC Manning has been a model inmate. At no time has he been
d i s r e s p e c t f u l , v i o l e n t or noncompliant. PFC Manning does not e x h i b i t
any of the c r i t e r i a normally e s t a b l i s h e d f o r MAX custody under the Navy
I n s t r u c t i o n . Given the c o n s i s t e n t recommendation of Capt. Hocter and
PFC Manning's model behavior, i t i s unclear why he i s s t i l l held i n MAX
custody and under POI watch.

28881

Subj:

CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MANNIt^G

6. Under SECNAVINST 1649.9C, 1201 ^^discipline i s t o be administered on
a c o r r e c t i v e r a t h e r than a p u n i t i v e b a s i s . " A d d i t i o n a l l y SECNAVINST
1649.9C, 7202.2.i states ^^no persons, w h i l e being held f o r t r i a l may be
subjected t o punishment or p e n a l t y other than a r r e s t or confinement,
nor s h a l l the a r r e s t or confinement imposed upon them be any more
r i g o r o u s than the circumstances r e q u i r e . " PFC Manning's confinement
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and h i s POI watch are i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of t h i s mandate.
7. I n order t o ensure a servicemember i s not a r b i t r a r i l y maintained i n
s o l i t a r y confinement f o r prolonged periods o f time, SECNAVINST 1649.9C,
4204 r e q u i r e s a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Assignment (C^A) board t o e s t a b l i s h
an i n d i v i d u a l inmate's custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n using ^^objective
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n B r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures." I t i s unclear what the
C^A Board recommended t o you or the basis f o r i t s recommendation.
However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t you have thus f a r made the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o
keep PFC Manning i n MAX custody and under POI watch.
8. I f you decide t o deny t h i s request and maintain PFC Manning under
his c u r r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and assignment, I request t h a t you i n d i c a t e
your basis f o r such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n w r i t i n g and serve i t upon the
defense i n a t i m e l y manner. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n order t o assess the
reasonableness of your determination, the defense requests t h a t you
release t o U.S. Army t r i a l counsel, CPT Ashden Fein, the f o l l o w i n g
information:
a. DD 2710, Inmate Background Summary f o r PFC Manning
b. DD 2715-2, Inmate Summary Data f o r PFC Manning
c. DD 2719, any Continuation Sheet f o r PFC Manning
d. Any other assessment o f PFC Manning by a b r i g mental h e a l t h
p r o f e s s i o n a l , guard, counselor or case manager
e. Any assessment or d e t e r m i n a t i o n by you or a member o f your
s t a f f concerning PFC Manning
f. Any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n you r e l y upon t o make the
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f PFC Manning's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and confinement status
9. The p o i n t o f contact f o r t h i s memorandum i s the undersigned a t
(401) 744-3007 or by e-mail a t coombs^armycourtmartialdefense.com.

D. E. Coombs
LTC, USAR
C i v i l i a n Defense Counsel

28882

DEPARTMENT OFTHEARMY
UNITEDSTATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMPLIBERTY.IRAO
APOAE 09344

lEPLYTO
TTENTIONOF:

AETV THH

30 May 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Corapany,2d Brigade
CombatTeam, lOtiiMountainDivisiOn, COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE09308
SUBJECT: MilitaryMagistrate'sCondusion^re: Pre-trial Confinement Review fbr PFC
BradleyE. Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Corapany,2d Brigade CombatTeam,10tii
Mountain Division, COS Hammer, Iraq APOAE 09308
1. Scope: The scope ofthis legal review is limited to whethertiiereis probable cause to believe
that an offi^nse triable by courts martial has been committed and that the confinee committed it,
and todetermine whether continued pretrial confinement is wananted because it is foreseeable
thatthe confinee witi engage in serious criminal misconduct and whether less severe forms of
restraint are adequate. Foreseeability that the confinee will not appearfbr trial was notin
questionasbotiipartiesagreedhewasnoflikelytoabsenthimself
2. Conclusion: lhave reviewedtiieCommand'sdecision to confine PEC Maniung, andlhave
determined that continued pretrial confinement is warranted. In making this determination,!
arrived at the fbllowing conclusions:
a •JTiere is snfficient evidence to believe fbat offi^nsestiiable by court^-martidha^^
committed.
b. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that PFC Manning cornmitted the offenses.
c. Ido believe that PFC Manning will engage in serious criminal misconduct if released,
d Lastly.fhere is evidence that lesser forms ofrestraint are inadequate.
3. Significant Factual Findings:
a. PFC Manning hasahistory of documentedmental instability and increasingly violent,
outbursts beginningl8December 2009.
b. AroundJune2009,PFCManning was counseled for missing formation. In response, he
clenched hisfists,his neck and eyes bulged, and his face contorted. Heyellednumeronstimes
befbre collecting himself
c. PFC Manning was counseled on three separate occasions betweenl8December 2009 and
20 Oecember 2009 fbr lateness. During fhe third counseling, he yelled and fiippedatable

28883

toward the two supervisors counseling him. ^fhecommandtookthe boltfrombis weapon,
placed him on twenty-four hour quarterswatdt,and directedapsychiafric evaluation,
d. On 30 December 2009,PFC Manning sbovedachair and yelled duringacounsding
session for losing the key to his room.
e. On8May 2010, PEC Manning stmckafemale Soldier in the face withadosedfisL SPC
Jihrleah Shoman was at ber desk conductingasearchonacomputer. PFC Maiming became
agitatedatSPCShoman'sactionsbecausehebadalreadyperfonnedthesearch Afterpaeing
backandforthbehindSPCShoman,sv^inginghisamis,PFCManningstruckherinthejaw^witii
aclosedfist. PFC Manning was again refened to Behavioral Health.
f On22 May 2010, CPT EdanCritchfield,apsychiatrisLperfonnedaBehavioral Health
Evaluation (BHE) on PFC Manning finding he had an occupational problem and adjustment
disorder withmixed disturbance ofemotions and conducL CRT Critchfield reported PFC
Manning hada"raoderate"riskof sdfhami,AWOL, and harm to others and recommended that
the command remove the bolt frora his weapon.
g. On27 May 2010, CID was notified that PFC Manning is suspected ofunlawfully
obtainingandreleasingsensitivedata,indudingTS-SCIandCABLEdearancedocumenfs
was reported byardiable non-govemment intelligence agency,

This

h. On24 May 2010,areliable confidential informant provided the agency wiih credible
information that PFC Manning illegally disseminated dassified infonnation to several
individualsover the intemeL
L On 27 May 2010,CID executedavalid search wanant, seizing several items, including one
personal computer, one hard drive from the SIPR computer ofSPCSheriWalsh,ondigital
camera, two SIPR computersknowntobeusedby PFC Manning,andacompaddiscwith
"Secret" markings and labeled"12Jtil 07 Chopper Reuters." The disc was discovered ina
United States Postal Service mailing box, prepared to be shipped.
j . After assaulting his co-worker, PFC Manning w^as assigned toaposition without SIPR
access. PEC Maraiing approached another Soldier about using her SITR computerto scan and
print documents labeled "Secret". PFC Manning told the Soldier he wasacting at the direction
ofhis NCOIC. He requested that the Soldier delete the emails and empty the "Deleted Items"
boxfromhercomputer. PFC Mannitig'sNCOlC had no l^iowledge of the PFC Manning's
request to scan and print Secret documents.
k. Duringtheinvesfigation, PFC Manning was placed under superv^ision and required an
escort: his access to computers and other electronic devices wasrevoked. With liisescorts
presenL PFC Manning managed to handapiece of paperwith his email address and password to
anotiier Soldier and asked her to checkhis email for him.
4. Analysis:

28884

a Probable cause.lhave accepted the Govemment'sposition that there is probable cause fo
believe thatacrime bas beeticoiiimitiedandfhat PFC Mattningcommitied tbe ctime.lt is ti^^
belief that tlie Govemment takes these charges seriously and intends to refertiiismattertoa
General Court Martial (GCM), based ontiieevidence that is cunentiy available Furthermore, at
least one of the charges carriesamaximum punishment that can only be rendered ataGCM.
b. Propensitytocommitaserious offense. Ibeliev^eRFC Manning will engage in
additional serious misconduct ifreleased. PFC Manningposesaphysical threat fo those around
him andathreat fo national interests. He has an increasing propensity fbrviolence and recently
stmckafemale co-w^orkerwithaclosed fist. On 22 May 2010he was characterized bya
psychiatrist asa"moderate" risk to others. AfterasubsequentBHE,dated28 May 2010, PFC
Manningwas evaluated to bea"high"riskto himself and others. Additionally,PFC Manning
remainsathreat to national interests ifreleased. PFC Marming indicated he collected
declassified materials fbr overayear. It is unknow"nhow much information he collected or how^
the information is sfored^ It is highly likdytiiatifPFC Mantling is released he witi continueto
cotnrnit physical acts ofviolence or leak additional classified infbrmation to the detriment of
national interests.
c Lesser forms of restrainL The conditions on libertywhich are necessary to safeguard
Soldiers andnational security are tantamount to confinemenL PEC Manning must be confined
under law His history of violent behavior and the BHE results indicate PFC Manning presenfsa
^^gh"riskofhamiingothers^Tiereisnoway,shortofconfinement,toensurePFCManningis
denied access toacoraputerwhich he could use to release dassified infbrmation orto ensure the
safety ofSoldiers around him.
5. Acopy of all documents thatlconsidered is attached to the original of fhis memorandum, and
may be inspected in the oftice ofthe undersigned.
6 The Govemment counsel has advised thatthe anticipated level of dispositionisaGeneral
Court-MartiaL
7. The confinee and the govemment w^ere notified by me ofmy decision and its basis on 30 May
2010.

I^EVIN
CPT,JA
MilitaryMagistrate

28885

Exhibits
A - 72 Hour Commander's Review (CPT Freeburg)
8 - Confinement Order (29 May 10)
C - Confinement Checklist (29 May 10)
D - S.A Graham's Supporting Affidavit
E - .Article 15: PFC Mamiing (24 May 10)
F - DA Form 4856 (17 May 10)
G - Statement: SPC Showman (8 May 10)
H - Statement: SPC Shimm (8 May 10)
I - Statement: PFC Bales (8 May 10)
J - Statement: SSG Taua (8 May 10)
K MFR: SPC Schwab (29 May 10)
L - MFR: MSG Adkins(21 Dec 09)
.VI - MFR: MSG Adkins (26 Apr 10)
N - MI-R: MSG Adkins (8 May 10)
O - DA Fonn 5248-R (9 Mav 10)
P - ERB: PFC Manning
Q - BHE (22 May 10)
R-BHE (28 MaylO)
S - PTC Rights Advisement (29 May 10)

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 28886

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 67

10 October 2012



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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF


no


21:!
I '3




MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Review of Con?nement under Rule for Courts-Martial 30S(g) - US. v. PFC

Bradley Manning

1. General. I received the additional charges and speci?cations preferred against PFC Manning
on 1 March 201. and hereby dismiss, without prejudice, the charges and speci?cations preferred

against PFC Manning on 5 July 2010. I believe that continued con?nement is necessary because

of the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the likelihood that PFC Manning can
and will commit further serious criminal misconduct, and the inadequacy of less severe forms of
restrairit.

2. Prob?le Cguse as to Offenses Committed. I have probable cause to believe that PFC
Manning committed the following charged offenses: one speci?cation of Article 104, Unifonn
Code of Military Justice sixteen speci?cations of Article 134, and ?ve
speci?cations of Article 92, UCMJ. The alleged criminal misconduct, which served as the basis
for placing PFC Manning in pretrial con?nement on 29 May 2010 and my review under RCM
305( dated 21 January 201 1, remains the basis for pretrial con?nement for the additional
charges and speci?cations preferred on 1 March 2011. Although the written form of the
additional charges and speci?cations are different than the original charges, the substantive
misconduct is the same for many of the original charges and speci?cations and the subsequent
additional charges and speci?cations.

3. Necessitv for Con?nement.

a. Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses Charged. PFC Manning has been charged
with giving intelligence to the enemy, in violation of Article 104, UCMJ, as well as multiple
charges related to his alleged disclosure of classi?ed information to persons not entitled to
receive that information. Under RCM serious criminal misconduct includes
offenses which pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States. I believe giving
intelligence or classi?ed information to the enemy or to other individuals without proper
authority poses a serious threat to the national security of the United States. As such, PFC
Manning?s charged offenses amount to serious misconduct and he warrants pretrial con?nement.

b. Further Serious Criminal Misconduct. Shortly after CID opened an investigation, PFC
Manning was placed under supervision by his unit and required an escort. He was denied access
to computers and other electronic devices. Despite the presence of his escorts, PFC Manning
managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to another Soldier in his



0 0 28888



SUBJECT: Review of Pretrial Con?nement under Rule for Courts-Martial 305(g) - US. v. PFC
Bradlev Manning! -

unit and asked her to check his email for him. I believe it is likely that PFC Manning will
commit further serious misconduct if he is released from pretrial con?nement.

c. Less Severe Forms of Restraint are Inadequate. I reviewed the other options available
to me under RCM 304 and I find them inadequate. Although it is unlikely that PFC Manning
would have personal access to classi?ed information systems if released from con?nement, that
does not obviate the risk that he could further release previously acquired classi?ed information.

4. Conclusion. After reviewing the additional charges and speci?cations, I believe continued
pretrial confinement is appropriate in this case. Speci?cally, there is probable cause to believe
that PFC Manning committed serious criminal misconduct which poses a threat to the national
security of the United States.- I believe he will likely commit further serious crimin_al misconduct
if released from confinement. Because ofthe national security concerns in this case, less severe
forms of restraint are inadequate. PFC lvlanning will remain in pretrial confinement until

completion ofthe pending court?martial action.

5 Encls CARL R. JR.
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10? COL, AV

2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar ll Commanding

3. PTC Order, 29 May 10

4. Magistrate Review, 30 May 10

5. RCM 305(g) Review, 21 Jan 11

CF: (wo/encls)
1-Defense Counsel
Quantico Brig



. . 28889
CHARGE SHEET
i. PERSONAL DATA
1. NAME or Aceuseo (Last, First. MI) 2 ssu 3. GRADE on RANK 4. PAY GRADE
MANNING, Bradley E. - PFC 13-3
5. UNIT OR ORGANIZATION s_ cuaagm sgm/[cg
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, I0tIi Mountain 3- DATE 5- TERM
Division (Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. APO AE
09303 - 4
7. PAY PER MONTH a NATURE or RESTRAINT or Accuses" 9. oA'rEisi IMPOSED
a. BASIC b. SEAIFOREIGN DUTV c. TOTAL
$100.00 $1913.20 Pre?Trial Con?nement 29 MAY IO

SPECIFICATION I: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US. Army, did, between on 3
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010.
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Parau
by wrongfully introd i

ll. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
10. CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92

Ol?




Contingency --

SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on

I9 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency?
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Par 6 .
by wrongfully introdu

computer, a non?secure information system.

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingenev -
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Parav
by wrongfully introdu



ure information system.

I classi?ed Unit

ICFOSO

ed States

ft Office PoviierPoi

In. 5

Department of State cables onto his

. (SEE CONTINUATION SIIEET)











a l01'1 Hammer, Iraq,

. 1- rmy Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,
,1 ?re video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or

. 2007, onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.



t%

5 tion Hammer, Iraq,
Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,



ion Hammer, Iraq,
Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,
nt presentation onto his personal computer,

Ill. PREFERRAL

11a. NAME OF ACCUSER (Last, First. MI)



D. GRADE

C. OF ACCUSEFI

I-IHC, 2d BCT, I0th MTN Div (LI)

e.
705

AFFIDAVIT: Before me, the undersigned. authorized by law to administer oaths in cases of this character, personally appeared the
above named accuser this day of July, 2010. and signed the foregoing charges and speci?cations under oath that he is a person
subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he either has personal knowledge ofor has investigated the matters set forth
therein and that the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

iypea Name Ilicer

I0th MTN Div (LI)

Organization of Ol?cer

Trial Counsel



Official Capacity to Administer Oath
(See R. C. M. 307(b) must be a commissioned officer;

DD FORM 458, MAY 2000

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.





12.

00 30 LU . 2010. the accused was informed ofthe charges against him and of the name(s) of the accuserts) known to
me (See ROM. 308 (See R. C. M. 308 If noti?cation cannot be made.)

HHC, 2d BCT, tom MTN Div (LI)
yped Name 0 Immediate ommander Organization of Immedrate Commander





yr! IIJ.
RECEIPT BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY
13
The sworn charges were received at hours, 1 yr 2010 HQ 7d BSTB 2d BCT
3

Desrgnatron of Command or

COS Hammer, Iraq, APO 09308

Offrcer Exercising Summary Court Martial Junsdicrion (See 403)

FOR THE 1

cg Commanding
ype Name of rcer Capacity of Officer Signing



Srgnature
V. SERVICE OF CHARGES
14a. DESIGNATION OF COMMAND OF CONVENING AUTHORITY b. PLACE DATE
Referred for mat to the court-martial convened by
20 subject to the following instructionszz
By of
Command or Order
Typed Name or Orfrcer Off.-ma! Capacity of Officer
Grade
Signature
15.
On 20 . I (caused to be) served a copy hereof on above named accused.
Typed Name of Tnat Counsel - Grade or Rank of Trial Counsel
Signature

1 - When an appropriate commander signs personally, inappiicable words are stricken.

2 See C. M. 601(9) conceminginsrruc.-lions. II none. so stare.

DD FORM 458 MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION as OBSOLETE.



- video to be communicat



CONTINUATION SHEET, DA FORM 453, Bradley E-
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 1 th ountain Division

(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. APO AE 09308

Item 10 (Cont'd):

Wait

I






SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did.
on or about I9 November 2009 and on or about 3 April 2010. a ntmgency Operating
Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful rr - anon, to wit: Paragraph Anny
Regulation 25~2 0 er 2007, by wrongfully adding unauthorized so?ware to a Secret
net rotocol Router network computer.



CI-IARGE II: VIOLATIOINI OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134 ?3
tw?l

SPECFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army. did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. between on or about 19 Nove .. and on or
about 5 April 2010, have unauthorized possession of photogra 3 rig to the national
defense. to wit: a classified video ofa military 0 1 med at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or
about 12 July 2007, and did willfully ntcate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the

ivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, in
violation Code Section 793(6), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and

rip me in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.






about 5 April 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Int rotocol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been determine United States
Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: ssi?ed video of a military operation
filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or ab July 2007, and did willfully communicate,
deliver and transmit the video, or the video to be communicated, delivered and transmitted,
to a person not entitled eive it, with reason to believe that such information could be used

to the injury of rnited States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of I 8 U.S.

Code l030(a)(l), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the
ed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 201 on or





to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(SEE CONTINUATION SIIEET 2)

- July2007, in violation 0



CONTINUATION SHEET 2, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley E..
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09308

Item l0 (Cont?d):



about 24 May 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret In et Protocol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been determine United States
Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of foreign relations. to wit: than 50 classified United States
Department of State cables. and did willf communicate, deliver and transmit the cables, or
cause the cables to be communic . d.elivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to
receive them, with reaso elieve that such information could be used to the injury ofthe
United States 0 advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of I 8 US. Code Section
30(' such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and
mg of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 Nove
about 5 April 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access 0 ret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information fr nited States Department of Defense,
to wit: a classified video ofa militarv on ?lmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12
. . Code Section l030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to
cipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the









good order




orces.
SPECIFICATION 6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at lms??li
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 13 and on or

about 19 February 2010, intentionally exceed his authoriz on a Secret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain info om the United States Department of State, to
wit: a classified cable titled I 13," in violation of 18 US. Code Section l030(a)(2),
such conduc rejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a
to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, betwee out 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentionallv authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router network co obtain information from the United States
Department of State, to wit: an 150,000 diplomatic cables, in violation of 18 U.S. Code
Section 103 uc conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed

es and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.








(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 3)

0 0 28893

CONTINUATION 3, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain ivision
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq, APO AE 09308

Item 10 (Cont?d):

I

SPECIFICATION 8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq, on divers occasions, betwee out 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentionallv - IS authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router network co obtain information from the United States
Department of Defense, to ssilied Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation, in
violation of . ode Section I030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and
I up me in the armed forces and being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.







(END OF CHARGES)



28894

CHARGE SHEET
I. PERSONAL DATA
1- NAME OF ACCUSED (Last MI) 2. SSN 3. GRADE on RANK 4. PAY GRADE
MANNING, Bradley}? - PFC 13-3
5 UNIT OR ORGANIZATION 5_ CURRENT senvice

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain 75??

(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraqyears
7. PAY PER MONTH s. nmme or-' RESTRAINT or ACCUSED 9. oA1'E(s) mposeo
a BASIC n. SEAIFOREIGNDUTY TOTAL
$1813.20 $100.00 ?$1913.20 Pre-Trial Confinement 29 MAY 10
u. AND sp?cificmous

10. CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92

I: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about
I9 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 20lO, at or near Contingency Operating Station I-Izunmcr, Iraq,
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,
by wrongfully introducing a classi?ed video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or
about 12 July 2007. onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq,
violate a lawful general regulation. to wit: Paragaph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,
by wrongfully introducing more than 50 classilied United States Department of State cables onto his
personal computer,'a non-secure information system.

3: In that Private First Class Bradley F.. Manning, .S. Army, did, between on or about
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq,
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,
by wrong?illy introducing a classified Mieroso? Office PowerPoint presentation onto his personal computer,
a non-secure information system.

(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET)

__zn-uj

Ill. RRAI.
b.

1 18. NAME OF (Last. First?. MI) GRADE c. ORGANIZATION OF ACCUSER

Matthew W. 0-3 2d BCT, 10th MTN Div (LI)

6. SI A 0. DATE
2a/ad 7&5?
AFFIDAVIT: Before me, the undersigned. authorized by law to administer oaths in cases of this character. personally appeared the
above named accuser this day ofluly. 20l0, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications under oath int he is a person

subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that be either has personal knowledge of or has investigated the matters set forth
therein and that the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

CHRISTOPHER D. GOREN 2d BCT, l0th MTN Div (LI)
Typed Name or omcar . Orvanizwon of or}?
7 Trial Counsel


(See RCM.



I
1/



DD FORH 458, MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

. . 28895

12.
On 2010, the accused was infonned of the charges against him and of the name(s) of the accuser(s) knowh to
me (See R. C. M. 308 (See R. C. M. 308 if notification cannot be made.)
MATTHEW W. FREEBURG HHC, 2d BCT, 10th MTN Div (LI)
Typed Name of Immediate Comma: der Organization of immediate Commander
0-3
. . Gra

Signature?
RECEIPT BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY
13.
The sworn charges were received at hours. 20 HQ ad BSTB, 2d BCT
I

Designation of Command or

COS Iraq, APO AE 09308

Exercising Summary Court-Martial Jurisdidion (See R. CM. 403).

FOR THE
PAU R. WA Commanding
Typed Name of Officer Offcia! Capacity of Officer Signing
0-5
Grade
Signature
. V. SERVICE OF CHARGES
14a. DESIGNATION OF COMMAND OF CONVENING AUTHORITY b. PLACE -3. DATE
Referred for trial to the court-martial oonvened by
. 3? subject to the following instructionscz
By of
Command or Order
Typed Name oro?cer O?iciai
. Grade
Signature
15.
on .20
Typed Name of Trial Counsei Grade or Rank of Trial Counsel
Signature

FOOTNOTES: 1 Man an appropriate sign._s personally. inapplicable words are stricken.

2 See R.C.M. 601(e) concoming instructions. Ifnone. so state.

no FORM 45:; (BACK), MAY pnevzous EDITION Is



.

CONTINUATION SH DA FORM 45 8, MANNING, Bradley l3., 445-98-9504,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, l0th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry?), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09303

Item I0 (Cont?d):

4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between
on or about I9 November 2009 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 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by wrongfully adding unauthorized software to a Secret
lntemet Protocol Router network computer.

CIIARGE II: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134

I: In that Private First Class 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 5 April 20 I 0, have unauthorized possession of photographs relating to the national
defense, to wit: a classi?ed video ofa military operation ?lmed 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 communicated, delivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, in
violation of 18 .S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the anncd forces.

SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley H. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or
about 5 April 20 I 0, 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 Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: a classi?ed video of a military operation
?lmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, 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 of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S.
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.

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station I-Iarnmer, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 2010 and on or
about I9 February 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

Govemment pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of foreign relations, to "wit: a classi?ed United States Department of State
cable titled ?Reykjavik 13,? and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the cable, or
cause the 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 18 U.S. 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.

(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 2)

. . 28897

CONTINUATION SHEET 3, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley Ii, 445-98-9504,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry). Contingency Operating Station I lammer, Iraq, APO Ali 09303

Item 10

8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, between on or about 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 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 classi?ed Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation, in
violation of 18 U.S. Code Section I030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the armed forces and being ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(END OF CIIARGES)

0 9 28898

ONTINUATION SHEET 2, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley 15., 445-918-9504,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq, APO ME 09308

Item 10 (Cont?d):

SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or
about 24 May 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret lntemet Protocol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been detennined by the United States
Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons offoreign relations, to wit: more than 50 classi?ed 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, 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 18 U.S. Code Section
l030(a)(l), 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.

5: In that Private First Class Bradley I3. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 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 classi?ed video of a military operation ?lmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12
July 2007, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 103 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.

SPECIFICATION 6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Harmner, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 2010 and on or
about 19 February 2010, 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: a classi?ed cable titled ?Reykjavik 13,? in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section lO30(a)(2),
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.

SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Anny, did, at or near
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, between on or about 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, 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 150,000 diplomatic cables, in violation of 18 U.S. Code
Section lO30(a)(2), 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.

(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 3)

- 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



. 28899

Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Speedy Trial
Enclosure 68

10 October 2012



.

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST

MANNING. Bradley E., PFC

us. Army.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company.
Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer. VA 2221

DATED: 29 October 2010



1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of
Evidence. Manual for United States, 2008. Article 46,
Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, and other applicable law, request for
discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of United States
v. Bradley E. Manning.

a. A copy of any handwritten. typed or recorded statements by the accused or
any other potential witness in connection with the investigation of this case
made to representatives of the government to include summaries of
conversations with representatives of the government. which were not
attached as allied papers at the time the charges were preferred.

b. The-contents of all statements, oral or written, made by the accused that
are relevant to the case. known to the trial counsel, and within control of the
armed forces. The defense specifically requests that any statement made by
the accused that the trial counsel intends to introduce into evidence be
reduced to writing and disclosed to the defense. The defense needs these
statements in written form in order to prepare motions to suppress under
The defense also requests any derivative evidence be
disclosed to the defense M.R.E. "?Speci?cally, defense
requests the complete Instant Message chat log and any emails allegedly sent

between PFC Manning and Mr. Adrian A. Lamo.

c. Disclosure of all evidence seized from the person or property of the
accused, whether believed to be owned by the accused or anyone else, that the
prosecution intends to offer into evidence against the accused at trial.
*Speci?cal|y. defense requests the results of any examination of computers
allegedly used or owned by PFC Manning. and for the government to make
the hard drives from these computers accessible to the defense computer
forensic expert Mr. Eric Lakes ofCyber Agents lnc., 128 Southland Drive.
Lexington, Kentucky?. 40503.



Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

d. Copies of all medical and mental reports relating to the accused.
*Specifically, the defense requests copies of any behavioral health
assessments of PFC Manning both before, during, and after the deployment to
lraq.

e. Any known evidence tending to diminish credibility of any witness
including, but not limited to, prior convictions under M.R.E. 609, evidence of
other character, conduct, or bias bearing on witness credibility under M.R.E.
608. Speci?cally, the defense requests the name and contact information for
any law enforcement agent working with Mr. Adrian A. Lamo. See Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Um'redS!ares v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
The defense also requests any other evidence in the possession of the
government favorable to the accused, or tends to negate the guilt of the
accused of any offense charged, or reduce the punishment for any offense
charged.

f. The names and contact information for all government investigators who
have participated or are presently participating in the investigation of the
case.

g. Any evidence ofother crimes, wrongs, or acts which the prosecution seeks
to introduce for any purpose whatsoever. See M.R.E. -104(b).

h. All personal or business notes, memorandurns. and writings prepared by
investigators in said case which are not furnished pursuant to any other
provisions ofthis request.

i. The military status of all witnesses. Where applicable. the defense requests
the date of separation from the Army, and the discharge provisions used to
effect such discharge iffor otherthan completion ofthe obligated term of
service. Pursuant to M.R.E. 301(c)(2), disclosure is requested of any
immunity or leniency pertaining to witnesses or potential witnesses.

j. The Tactical Sensitive Compartment lnformation (T-SCIF) accreditation
packet for FOB Hammer. The SOP for the at FOB Hammer. The
name and contact information for the security manager at the T-SCIF at FOB
Hammer. A copy ofthe Security Classification Guide (SCG) for the
at FOB Hammer. PFC Manning?s training records related to his MOS. Any?
documentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security.
A list of any refresher training or in-country training PFC Manning has
received on infonnation security. I

k. Any evidence of prior Article 15 action, civilian or military convictions,
and adverse administrative actions relating to any of the government's

I

. . 28902

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

witnesses, defense witnesses, or the accused. Any evidence that the
govemment intends to use for impeachment purposes ofthe accused. or any
other witness. This includes any character evidence the government intends
to introduce at trial under M.R.E. 404.

l. A list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call during the Article 32
along with their addresses and phone numbers and copies of all prior written
statements.

m. Copies of all business and official records which the prosecution intends
to introduce either during the Article 32 or at trial.

n. A list of all exhibits the govemment plans to utilize at the Article 32 or at
trial.

o. Any evidence. testimony. or witnesses the government intends to use at
the Article 32 or at trial that have been obtained through grants ofimmunity,
or any other concessions being granted to a witness, the content of such
testimony or evidence. and the terms of any such grants ofimmunity or
concessions.

p. .All documents, memoranda. or records of conversations pertaining to this
case, whether prepared by investigators, commanders, convening authority or
any other person. The request in this paragraph includes but is not limited to:

A compete copy ofthe CID file(s) (including but not limited to the so-
called "right" and "left side") interviews, notes, and Agent Activity
Summaries or any other files maintained by a law enforcement agency at Fort
Myer. Fort Drum, Contingency Operating Station Hammer. or any other
installation that participated in the investigation ofthis case.

(2) A complete copy of any other documents or ?les pertaining to the
above named individual.

(3) A complete copy of any emails or memorandums relating to the
preferral of charges in this case or to the level ofcourt-martial.

q. Any writings used to refresh the memory of any government witness. IAW
M.R.E. 612.

r. Copies ofthe report concerning the polygraph examinations administered
to any person related to this case. This includes copies ofstatements taken
after the polygraph exam.

. . 28903

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

5. A copy of any Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) request and any
response or internal discussions ofany such FOIA request that is related to
the classi?ed video charged in Speci?cation 1, Chargel and Specification],
2, and of Charge ll.

2. The defense requests that the govemment informs the defense counsel ifit
does not intend to Comply with any speci?c provision ofthis request.

3. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

-1. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 29
October 2010.


4
DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

. . 28904

UNITED sures
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E.. PFC

U.S. Army. -

Headquarters and Headquarters ompany, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer, VA 2221 I

DATED: 15 November 2010



1. In accordance with the Rules for ourts-Martial and the Military Rules of
Evidence, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008. Article 46.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other applicable law, request for
supplemental discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The defense requests that the govemment respond to each item listed in its
29 October 2010 discovery request and the following additional discovery:

a. The names and contact information for all govemment investigators who
have participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the
case. previously requested on 29 October 2010. Specifically. the names of
the investigators and an inventory of the items seized from the home of Ms.
Debra Van 1492 Selworthy Road, Potomac, MD 20854 on 2
November 2010. Additionally, a list ofitems seized from Mr. David House
and a copy of all reports or analysis of the items seized by the Department of
Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or any other
government agency on 3 November 2010. Finally, a copy of all field
interviews and reports conducted by the FBI or any other governmental
organization involving .witnesses from Boston. Massachusetts or any other
city from'24 May 2010 to the present involved in this case.

b. The entire counseling packet for PFC Manning. Specifically, any
counseling or assessments done of PFC Manning by his chain of command,
MSG Paul Adkins. CPT Casey Martin. SSG Peter Bigelow, CPT Matthew
Freeburg, or ISO Mark Woodwonh.

c. All Behavioral Health Assessments (BHA) or mental evaluations of PFC
Manning, previously requested by the defense on 29 October 2010. The
defense requests any assessment by CAPT Kenneth J. lverson, CAPT Bruce
Balfour, CAPT William Hocter. CPT Eden Critchiield, CPT Dale Hill or any
other individual who has evaluated or commented on PFC Manning?s mental
State at any time. Specifically. the defense requests the 22 May and 28 May

. . 28905

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

2010 BI-IA, and all assessments for POI recommendations to the Quantico
Con?nement Facility.

d. Any and all documents or emails considered by CPT Kevin Ley as the
military magistrate to support his search and seizure authorizations.

e. Recorded video footage of when PFC Manning collapsed in con?nement
as referenced at 000095 and any other recorded audio or video footage of
PFC Manning while in con?nement either in Iraq, Kuwait, or the United
States.

f. Network logs for all computers searched by CPT Thomas Cherepl-co or any
other government employee or investigator as referenced at 000186-87.

g. The application. Security and System Network logs obtained from PFC
Blake Dudley as referenced at 0000187.

h. The results of SA Calder Robertson and SA David Shaver?s
analysis of any computers analyzed in this case as well as copies of any
investigative notes or assessments by Computer Crimes Investigative Unit
(CCIU). Additionally, the names ofall individuals from the CCIU or any
other government agency that have performed or are performing any
computer forensic analysis in this case.

i. All documentation or information provided by the government to LTC
Craig Merutka. Speci?cally, copies of the chat logs referenced at 000455 and
copies ofthe CCIU reports referenced at 000463.

j. The results of inquiry/investigation and all discussions and assessments

done in compliance with Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5210.50,
DOD Directive 5200.l Chapter 10, DOD Instruction
5240.4, and Executive Order 13526. Speci?cally, the defense requests the

answers to the following required investigative determinations by the above

Directives, Instruction, and Executive Order: When, where, and how

did the incident occur? What persons, situations, or conditions caused or

contributed to the incident? What classi?ed information was compromised?

If a compromise occurred, what speci?c classi?ed information and/or

material was involved? If classi?ed information is alleged to have been lost,

what steps were taken to locate the material? In what specific media article

or program did the classi?ed information appear? To what extent was the

compromised information disseminated? Was the information properly

classi?ed? Was the information oflicially released? Are there any leads to

be investigated that might lead to identi?cation of the person(s) responsible

for the compromise?

l\J



28906

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

k. The defense also requests copies of any noti?cation to the Original
Classi?cation Authorities (OCA), the contact information for the OCAS, and
the required answers by Directive that states when noti?ed of the
compromise of classi?ed information or material, the original classi?cation
authority for that information or material shall: Verify the classi?cation and
duration of classi?cation initially assigned to the information; Reevaluate the
classi?cation of the information to determine whether the classi?cation
should be continued or changed; and complete a damage assessment in
accordance with Instruction and Directive. The veri?cation,
reevaluation and damage assessment process is required by DOD Directive to
be completed as soon as possible following noti?cation of a compromise.

3. The defense requests that the government informs the defense counsel if it
does not intend to comply with any speci?c provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 15
November 2010.



Civilian Defense Counsel

28907

UNITED STATES
DISCOVERY
REQUEST

MANNING. Bradley E.. PFC

U.S. Army.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison. Joint Base .Vl_ver-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer. VA 2221

DATED: 8 December 2010



l. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence.
Manual for Courts-Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46. Uniform Code ofi\lilitary
Justice. and other applicable law. request for supplemental discovery is hereby made for
the charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its 29 October
and l5 November 2010 discovery requests and the following additional discovery:

a) The names and contact information for all govemment investigators who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation ofthe case. previously
requested on 29 October and 15 November 2010. Speci?cally. contact information for
SA Hyung Kim from the Department ofDefense and SA Richard Bowen from the Army
Computer Crimes Unit and an inventory ofthe items seized from the home of Mr. Paul
Francia at 601 Hazelwood Terrace, Rochester. New York M609.

b) All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of State regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks as referenced by Assistant Secretary ofState for
Public Affairs P.J. Crowley. Additionally. any specific damage assessment by the
Department of State regarding the disclosures ofthe diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.
Any assessment, report. e?mail. or document by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton regarding the disclosures of diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. Any report. e-mail.
or document discussing the need for the State Department to disconnect access to its tiles
from the govemment's classi?ed network.

c) All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of Defense regarding
the information obtained by and the results ofany joint investigation with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (F Bl) as referenced by Secretary of Defense Robert M.
Gates. Additionally, any specific damage assessment by the Department ofDefense
regarding the disclosure ofclassified documents and videos. the subject ofthis case. by
WikiLeaks.

28908

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

cl) Any and all documentation related to the Department oflustice investigation into the
alleged leaks by WikiLeaks as referenced by Attorney General ofthe United States Eric
H. Holder.

e) Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama?s order for an
investigation and a government wide?review of how agencies safeguard sensitive
information. Additionally, any and all documents related to the steps the administration
is considering regarding these leaks and the nature of the criminal investigation underway
into how the documents were made public as referenced by Robert Gibbs. the White
House spokesman.

1) Any assessment given, or discussions concerning, the Wikileaks disclosures by any
member ofthe government to President Obama. Any e-mail, report, assessment,
directive. or discussion by President Obama to the Department of Defense. Department of
State or Department of Justice.

g) Any and all documents relating to the Government Task Force created to review the
various WikiLeaks releases for potentially damaging information prior to the actual
releases. This Task Force apparently had over 120 members reviewing the documents
that were either released or pending release to determine the possible harm to national
security.

h) The results ofany investigation or review by Mr. Russell Travers who has been
appointed by President Obama to head an interagency committee assigned to assess the
damage caused WikiLeaks exposures and to organize efforts to tighten security measures
in government agencies.

i) Any and all documentation related to the Pentagon's review on the policy and
technological shortfalls that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures as referenced by Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman.

j) Any and all documentation related to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
investigation of Wikileaks announced by CIA Director Leon Panetta and any internal or
external memorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manning
or the nature ofthe Office of Security?s investigation into these matters.

k) Any and all documentation relating to the govemment?s position oftaking a hard line
on unauthorized leaks of information, as demonstrated by the prosecutions ofa former
National Security Agency official, a Federal Bureau oflnvestigation linguist, and a State
Department contractor and referenced by CIA Director Leon Panetta. Additionally, any
and all meniorandums. e-mails. or other references by Congressmen. Senators, or
government officials concerning the disposition ofthis case or the need to punish PFC
Bradley Manning.

28909

Defense Discovery Request - Bradley E. Manning

1) Any and all documentation. e-mails, or reports given to the Summary Court-Martial
Convening Authority, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, or the Staff Judge
Advocate concerning the disposition of PFC Bradley Manning?s case or the nature ofthe
charges or possible charges against PFC Manning. Speci?cally, any attempt to in?uence
the independent discretion of anyone involved in the military justice process.

rm) Any and all documents or observation notes by employees ofthe Quantico

confinement facility relating to PFC Bradley Manning.

n) The results ofthe 15-6 investigation into the govemmenfs improper release of
classi?ed information to the defense. Whether the 15-6 investigating officer looked into
the following additional potential spillage:

i. The disc allegedly found in PFC Mannings Room indicated the contents were
SECRET. A photo ofthe disk can be found at 000293. Was the title on the disk
classi?ed or not?

ii. The photos ofthe T-SCIF show a map in the background that was partially
exposed (000301 and 000302).

The snapshots of the computer screens in the T-SCIF were exposed. Was there
classi?ed information being viewed on the screen?? (000305 and 000306).

iv. The snapshots ofthe computers had documentation on the table appear to show
classi?ed information. (000333, 000334, and 000335).

v. Was the investigating of?cer made aware ofthe govemment disclosure ofthe
original five discs to the military defense counsel??

3. The defense requests that the government inform the defense counsel if it does not
intend to comply with any speci?c provision ofthis request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by e?mail on 8 December 2010.

X, I
Ix
[Davin BS

Civilian Defense Counsel

28910

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST

MANNING. Bradley E.. PFC

U.S. Army,

Headquarters an ea quarters Company. US.
Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer. VA 22211





l)







I

DATED: 10 January 201 I

1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence.
Manual for Courts-Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46, Uniform Code of Military

Justice. and other applicable law. request for supplemental discovery is hereby made for
the charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its previous
discovery requests on 29 October, l5 November, and 8 December 2010 and to also
respond to the following additional discovery:

Any information relating to 18 U.S.C. 2703td) order or any search warrant by the
government of witter, acebook. Googie or any other social media site. Any metadata,
MD5 hash marks or other unique identifying information obtained from the 2703td) order
or search warrant.

b) lite results and all supporting documents for the investigation conducted by LTG
Robert Caslen Jr. The report is directed by the Secretary of the Army John Mc?ugh and
is supposed to be completed by 1 February 2011. it will address hon PFC Bradley
Manning was selected for his job. how he was trained. whether his superiors missed
warning signs that he was downloading documents that he did not need to read and how
PFC Manning allegedly released the documents.

ct Results of any inquiry and testimony taken by House of Representative oversight
committee led by Representative Darrell lssa. The committee is due to look into
Wikileaks. the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder. and the investigation of PFC
Bradley Manning.

d) A copy of all Agents investigation Reports maintained under CID Regulation 195-]
not previously provided to the defense. A copy of all agent notes. other governmental

investigative reports. and sworn statements.

3. The defense requests that the government inform the defense counsel if it does not
intend to comply with any specific provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

28911

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 10 January 201}.



ID EDWARD .
Civilian Defense Counsel





28912

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST

MANNING. Bradley E.. PFC

U.S. Arm)?. -4

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer. VA 22211

DATED: 16 February 201

~ov' h?r -5:

I. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence,
Manual for Courts-Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46. Uniform Code of Military
Justice. and other applicable law, request for supplemental discovery is hereby made for
the charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its previous
discovery requests on October. 15 November, 8 December 2010, and I0 January 201l
and to also respond to the following additional discovery:

a) The defense team has learned that a number of soldiers at Fort Drum have received a
imposed flag as a result ofinvestigations into the alleged leak by PFC Manning.
The defense requests the names of the soldiers who have been flagged. the nature for why
they were ?agged, who imposed the flag. and any other derogatory information relating to
this case to include. but not limited to: any reprimand (oral or written), UCMJ action, or
administrative separation actions.

b) The defense team has leamed that Army CID has audio surveillance of the first
visitation booth immediately adjacent to the control room where we meet with PFC
Manning. This appears to be the booth where attomey-client visits take place. The
defense requests a copy of any and all audio or video tapes of PFC Manning at any time
whether they be from in person visits or from telephonic conversations.

A copy of the latest CID investigation report and all Agents Investigation Reports
maintained under CID Regulation I95-I not previously provided to the defense.
Additionally. a copy ofall agent notes. other govemmental investigative reports. and
swom statements.

d) A roster of all individuals assigned to HIIC. 2BCT, Division, speci?cally
any soldier assigned in the S2 Section The defense requests full name. rank,
email and phone contact information for each individual.

e) Access to all classi?ed infonnation that the govemment intends to use in this case.
To include any damage assessment or information review conducted by any
govemmental agency or at the direction of a govemmental agency.

28913

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

3. The defense requests that the government inform the defense counsel if it does not
intend to comply with any speci?c provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 16 February 201 1.

o'_7wir> EDWARD COOMBS

Civilian Defense Counsel

28914

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST

V.

U.S. Army
Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S.

Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,

Fort Myer, VA 22211


I


MANNING, Bradley E., PFC .3


DATED: 13 May 2011
.

1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence,
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of -Military
Justice. and other applicable law, request for supplemental discovery is hereby made for
the charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The defense requests that the government continue with its obligation to provide
discovery in response to each item listed in its previous discovery requests on 29 October
2010,15 November 2010, 8 December 2010, 10 January 2011. and 16 February 20ll and
to also respond to the below requested discovery.

3. The defense requests that the government produce any and all documents (sworn or
signed statements, photographs, emails tangible items (books, papers, and
reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original Classi?cation Authority
(OCA) determinations, etc..) conducted by the United States Army, the Department of
Defense. the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). The trial counsel, upon defense request, has an
affirmative obligation to seek out requested evidence that is in the possession of the
government even if that evidence is not already in the immediate possession of the trial
counsel. United States v. Williams, 50 MJ. 436, 441 (C .A.A.F . 1999); United States v.
Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032, 1036 Cir. 1989); United States v. Brooks. 966 F.2d 1500, 1503
(1992) (the government is considered to have possession of information that is in the
control of agencies that are ?closely aligned with the prosecution?).

4. The defense requests any Brady material in the government?s possession. Braay v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (holding that due process requires the government to turn
over exculpatory evidence in its possession). The defense also requests any
material in the government?s possession. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957)
(holding that, in a criminal prosecution. the government may not withhold documents
relied upon by government witnesses, even where disclosure of those documents might
damage national security matters). Speci?cally, the defense requests copies of all
statements, oral or written. by any witnesses. The defense also requests any evidence in

28915

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

the government?s possession that contradicts or is inconsistent with the government?s
theory of the case.

5. The defense requests that the government inform the defense counsel if it does not
intend to comply with any speci?c provision of this request.

6. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

7. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 13 May 2011.



DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28916

UNITED TATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E..

US. Amiy.
Headquarters an ea quarters Company. US.

Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-llenderson Hall.
Fort Myer, VA 2221 1

DATED: 13 October 201



I. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts?Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46. Uniform Code of Military Justice. and other
applicable law. request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

a. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action. all supporting documentation. and any
rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
Caslen Jr. or any other govemmental investigation. with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed infonnation in this
case. The request includes. but is not limited to. the following individuals: COL. David M.
Miller, COL Paul R. Walter. Brian D. Kerns, LTC Rodney Gar?eld. LTC Randolph
Wardle, MAJ Eric Davis. MAJ Eric Graham. MAJ Jason A. Morrow. MAJ Clifford D. Clausen.
MAJ Elijah A Dreher. PT Matthew W. Freeburg. ISG Eric I-I. Usbeck. CPT Thomas M.
Cherepko, CPT Steven J. Lim. PT Barclay D. Keay, CPT Casey Martin, 1LT Tanya M.-Gaag.
1LT Elizabeth A. Fields. CW2 Joshua D. Ehresman, W2 Chad Eastep, CW2 Alfred Lyons,
W01 Kyle J. Balonek. SFC Paul D. Adkins, SSG Lawrence W. Mitchell. SPC Daniel W.
Padgett. and PFC Jirleah W. Showman

b. An inspection of all seized governmental computers from the Tactical Sensitive

Information Facility (T-SCIF) and Tactical Operations Center (TOC) of
Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC). 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), l0
Mountain Division. Forward Operating Base (FOB) Hammer. Iraq for the presence of any and all
unauthorized computer programs to include. but not limited to: mlRC? a full featured Internet
Relay? Chat client for Windows that can be used to communicate. share. play or work with others
on IRC networks): get (a web crawler program designed for robustness over slow or unstable
network connections); GEOTRANS (an application program which allows a user to easily
convert geographic coordinates among a wide variety of coordinate systems. map projections
and datums); and Grid Extractor (a binary executable capable of extracting MGRS grids from
multiple free text documents and importing them into a Micro.sol?t Excel spreadsheet).

c. The defense requests any Brady material in the govemment?s possession. Brady v. Maryland.
373 U.S. 83 (1963) (holding that due process requires the government to turn over exculpatory
evidence in its possession). The defense also requests any material in the govemmenfs

28917

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradiey E. Manning

possession. in United States". 353 US. 657 (1957) (holding that. in a criminal
prosecution. the government may not withhold documents relied upon by government witnesses.
even where disclosure of those documents might damage national security matters). The defense
speci?cally requests the following information:

i) White House: any report or recommendation conceming the alleged leaks in this case by
Mr. Russell Travers. National Security Staffs Senior Advisor for Information Access and
Security Policy. Mr. Travers was tasked to lead a comprehensive effort to review the alleged
leaks in this case. Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama?s order for
an investigation and a government wide-review of how agencies safeguard sensitive information.
Additionally. any and all documents related to the steps the administration is considering
regarding these leaks and the nature of the criminal investigation underway into how the
documents were made public as referenced by former White House Press Secretary Robert
Gibbs. Any assessment given. or discussions concerning. the Wikileaks disclosures by any
member of the government to President Obama. Any e?mail. report. assessment. directive. or
discussion by President Obama to the Department of Defense. Department of State or
Department of Justice:

ii) President?s Intelligence Advisory Board: any report or recommendation concerning the
alleged leaks in this case by Chainnan Chuck Hagel or any other member of the Intelligence
Advisory Board:

Central Intelligence Agency: any report. damage assessment or recommendation by the
Wikileaks Task Force or any other CIA member concerning the alleged leaks in this case. Any
internal or external memorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks. PFC Bradley
Manning or the nature of tl1e Office of Securitys investigation into these matters:

iv) Department of Defense: All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department
of Defense regarding the information obtained. by Wikileaks and the results of any joint
investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as referenced by Fonner Secretary
of Defense Robert M. Gates. Additionally. any speci?c damage assessment by the Department
of Defense regarding the disclosure of classified documents and videos, the subject of this case.
by WikiLeaks. Speci?cally, any report by the Information Review Task Force (IRTF) that was
responsible for leading a comprehensive Department of Defense review ofclassi?ed documents
obtained by the Wikileaks website and any other associated materials;

v) Department oflusticez Any and all documentation related to the Department of Justice
investigation into the alleged leaks by ikilieaks as referenced by Attorney General of the
United States "Eric H. Holder:

vi) Department of State: Any and all documentation relating to a review of the alleged leaks
in this case and any specific damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the
disclosure ofdiplomatic cables. the subject ofthis case, by WikiLeaks;



28918

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

vii) Of?ce of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI): Any and all documentation
relating to any review or damage assessment conducted by ODNI or in cooperation with any
other government agency;

Other Govemment Intelligence Agencies: Any and all documents relating to any task
force or other governmental intelligence agency review of the various alleged leaks in this case
to include. but not limited to. any damage assessment based upon the alleged leaks or any
corrective action taken by the United States Government due to the alleged leaks: AND

ix) House of Representatives: Results of any inquiry and testimony taken by House of
Representative oversight committee led by Representative Darrell Issa. The committee
discussed the actions of Wikileaks. the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder. and the
investigation of PFC Bradley Manning.

d. The defense requests a copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report. According to Department of
Defense 5 l05.21-M-l. once an SCI Security Official determines that a security violation
has occurred. the SCI Security Official must report the violation within 72 hours of discovery to
the appropriate Senior Of?cials of the Intelligence Community (SOIC) or Senior Intelligence
Officer (S10).

e. The defense requests a copy ofthe Damage Assessment ofCompromiscd Information that is
required to be submitted to the Special Security Officer (SSO) under 5105.21-M-l once an
SCI Security Of?cial determines that a security violation has occurred. The damage assessment
is supposed to contain the date of the assessment; the name and office symbol conducting the
assessment; subject/title, date. number. originator and original classification of document;
whether the document can be declassified or downgraded. either in whole or in part; justi?cation
for classi?cation (the speci?c statements in the document which are classified. the basis for
classi?cation. and a complete bibliography of all classi?ed source materials used in preparation
of the document); whether the classi?ed information identi?ed is accurate; whether the classi?ed
information identi?ed was the subject of any official release; and whether the infonnation
identi?ed as classi?ed can be edited for the purpose of prosecution.

f. The defense requests a copy of the ?nal security violation investigation report submitted to the
SSO Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under The report is used to
assess intent. location ofthe incident. risk ofcompromise, sensitivity of information. and
mitigating factors in arriving at a ?nal analysis of the incident.

g. A copy of all SCI security management and self?inspection reports for the of HHC,
2nd BCT, 10 Mountain Division, FOB Hammer. Iraq.

2. The defense requests that the government informs the defense counsel if it does not intend to
comply with any speci?c provision of this request.

3. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

28919

Defense DisCover}- Request -- Bradley Manning

4. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 13 October 201 1.



Civilian Defense Counsel

28920

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

US. Army,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Anny Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 15 November 2011

1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other
applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The Defense requests that the Government respond to each item listed in its previous
discovery requests and to also respond to the following additional discovery:

a) Whether any NIPR or SIPR computer within the 2d BCT T-SCIF or Supply Annex required
an end-user to have their ID CAC Card in the computer;

b) The required log-in procedure for use of the HP laptop, touch smart TS2, serial number
CNF8492K3

c) All NIPR and SIPR logs for any computer within the 2d BCT T-SCIF from 1 November 2009
to 27 May 2010;

d) An EnCase forensic image of any computer seized by the government and all other
information relied upon by the government to claim information leaked to Wikileaks was
obtained by any terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda or Hizb-L Islami Gulbuddin

e) A current curriculum vitae for each forensic expert who has worked on this case for the
government;

0 Any classification review and damage assessment for documents related to Speci?cation 8
and 9 of Charge 11;

g) Any classi?cation review and damage assessment for the document related to Speci?cation
15 of Charge 11.

3. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing if it does not intend to
comply with any specific provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.



Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 15 November 2011.



DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28921

28922

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

us. Amy, 3

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 2221 1

DATED: 16 November 201 1



I. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other
applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The Defense requests that the Government respond to each item listed in its previous
discovery requests and to also respond to the following additional discovery:

a) An EnCase forensic image of any computer seized by the government and all other
infonnation relied upon by the government to claim infonnation alleged to have been disclosed
in this case was in the possession of an unauthorized individual in December of 2009 (according
to the Government, this individual was a representative of WikiLeaks);

b) Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive or
any other governmental agency;

3. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing if it does not intend to
comply with any specific provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 16 November 201l.


DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28923

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
REQUEST



MANNING. Bradley F.., PFC

U.S. Amiy,
Headquarters an ea quarters Company, U.S.

Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
F011 Myer. VA 2221

DATED: 20 January 2012



I . In accordance with the Rules for Courts?Manial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States. 2008. Article 46. Unifonn Code of Military Justice. and other
applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Marming.

2. The Defense requests that the Government respond to each item listed in its previous
discovery requests of 29 October 2010, 15 November 2010. 8 December 2010. 10 January 2011,
19 January 2011.16-February 20ll,13 May 2011, l3 October 2011,15 November 201 1. and 16
November 201 and to also respond to the following additional discovery:

a) Complete contact infonnation for Mr. Robert E. Betz. USCYBERCOM Chief
Classification Advisory Officer;

b) Complete contact infonnation for Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy. Under Secretary of State for
Management;

c) Complete contact information for Mr. Robert Roland:

d) Complete contact information for the individual that completed the Classi?cation Review
for the item charged in Speci?cation l5 of Charge II. The Defense also requests a copy of the
Classi?cation Review for the item charged in Specification 15 ofCharge ll.

3. The Defense requests that the respond to the following additional questions
regarding previously requested discovery:

a) Does the Government possess any report. damage assessment or recommendation by the
WikiLeaks Task Force or any other CIA member concerning the alleged leaks in this case?? if
yes. please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no. please
indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items:

b) Docs the Government possess any report. damage assessment. or recommendation as a
result of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or any other
govemmental agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case?? if yes. please indicate why these

28924

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items?.

c) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Information Review Task Force (IRTF) concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please
indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no. please indicate why the
Government has failed to secure these items;

d) Does the Government possess any report. damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of Justice concerning the alleged leaks in this case? lfyes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items;

e) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of State concerning the alleged leaks in this case?? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items:

Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment. or recommendation by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes,
please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate
why the Government has failed to secure these items;

g) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment. or recommendation by the
Defense Intelligence Agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes. please indicate
why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the
Government has failed to secure these items;

h) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive concerning the alleged leaks in this case?
If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please
indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

4. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing if it does not intend to

comply with any speci?c provision of this request.
5. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

6. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 20 January 2012.

1/
fr?

QM/vio EDWARD coomns
Civilian Defense Counsel

l-J

28925

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST
MANNING, Bradle E., PFC

U.S. Army,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 26 June 2012



1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other
applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The Defense requests that the Government provide the following information:

a) The memorandum from the Government Counsel to HQDA requesting the preservation
and production of records relating to the court martial case of U.S. v. PFC Manning.

b) Pursuant to the Court?s Order, the Government produce any Department of Defense ?le
pertaining to PFC Manning IAW R.C.M. 70l(a)(2) and 70l(a)(6).

3. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing if it does not intend to
comply with any speci?c provision of this request.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 26 June 2012.

DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28926

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

U.S. Anny,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fon Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 9 July 2012



1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other
applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of
United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. The Defense requests that the Government provide a copy of the video referenced in Bates
Number 00042936. According to LCPL .E. Miller, the Quantico Brig recorded an incident
where the guards had to assist in freeing PFC Manning from the suicide smock that he was
wearing.

3. Previously, the Defense requested copies of all audio and video footage of PFC Manning
while in con?nement. See Defense Discovery Request dated 15 November 2010, para.
The Defense alerted the Government that its request was a continuing request. Id. at para. 4.
The Defense requests that the Government ensure that it has produced all audio and video of
PFC Marming while in con?nement.

4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 9 July 2012.

DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

28927

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE DISCOVERY
v. REQUEST

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

US. mmy
Headquarters an ea quarters Company, U.S.

Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 1 August 2012



1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial 70l(a)(2), 70l(a)(6) and the Military Rules
of Evidence, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, and other applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged
offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.

2. PFC Manning was held at Marine Corps Base Quantico from 29 July 2010 to 20 April 2011.
During this time, he was held in Maximum Custody (MAX) and under Prevention of Injury
(POI) watch.

3. On 8 December 2010, the Defense made a discovery request for all documentation from
Quantico pertaining to PFC Manning. The Government provided extensive documentation
related to PFC Manning?s con?nement at Quantico in October of 201 1. The Defense believed
that this was the full extent of the information the Government had from Quantico.

4. On 26 August 2012, the Government produced 84 emails from valious individuals. The
Government indicated that these emails were ?obviously" material to the preparation of the
defense for the Article 13 purposes. MAJ Fein indicated that the Government received these
emails from Quantico approximately 6 months ago. However, the Government did not begin
reviewing the emails until 25 July 2012.

5. On 31 August 2012, CPT Joe Morrow, by e-mail, informed the Defense that the Government
had ?made a generalized request for Quantico to gather and preserve documents and information
pertaining to PFC Manning?s confinement.? CPT Morrow stated that ?they responded by

providing documents and information pertaining to his con?nement. and included some emails.?

6. The Defense requests that the Government provide the following discovery:
a) The memorandum/e-mail/document from the Government to Quantico requesting that
they preservation and produce documents and information pertaining to PFC Manning?s

con?nement;

b) The names of the individuals who the Government sent the Quantico preservation request
to and the date which the Government made its request;



28928

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

C)

All documentation provided by these individuals in response to the Govemment?s
request, the date this information was provided, and the individuals who provided the
requested information; and

Any other e-mails or documentation that the Government is aware of and has not
previously provided to the Defense dealing with PFC Manning?s con?nement conditions
while at Quantico.

7. The Defense also requests any e-mails or documentation relating to PFC Manning or PFC
Manning?s con?nement conditions from or to the following speci?cally listed individuals:

8)

b)

c)

d)

J)

LtGen. George J. l, Commanding General, 3300 Russell
Road Building: 3300 Floor: 2 Room, Quarters 1 /Command Suite, Quantico, VA 22l34.

Col. Christopher Miner, Staff Judge A
Russell Road Building 3300 Floor 2, Room 227, Quantico, VA 22134

Col. Royal Mortenson, I, Chief of Staff, 3300 Russell Road
Building: 3300 Floor: 2 Room: 224, Quantico, VA 22134. -

COL Carl R. Coffman Jr., 205 Lee Avenue, Joint Base


Myer-Henderson Hall, Virginia 22211. -

Col. Daniel J. Choike, 1, Base Commander, 3250 Catlin Ave.,
Building 3250, Floor 2, RoomCube Suite, Quantico, VA 22134.

Col. Mark M. Kauzlarich,?l, Chief of Staff, 3250 Catlin Ave.,
Building 3250, Floor B, Room 28, Quantico. VA 22134

CIDR Han Bui,?l, Building IA Floor 2, Room 9, Norfolk, VA

23511 -
Capt. Mary wean.

LtCol. Christopher M. Greer, Staff Judie Advocate,

Building: l0l9, Floor: 1, Room: SJA, Quantico, VA 22134

LtCol. Amy R. Ebitz, ?Executive Of?cer, 2043 Baranett Ave,
Quantico, VA 2213-.

CPT John Haberland il, Regimental Judge Advocate,20l
Jackson Ave, Fort Myer, VA 22003. 1

Abel Galaviz, Building Pentagon, Floor 4, Room/Cube
4A324, Washington D.C.,



28929

Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning

m) CW04 James T. Ave

N)

0)

pl

9)

rhart l, S-3 Officer, 2043 Baranett Ave,
Quantico, VA 22134 A
CWO2 Denise Barnes, Brig Executive Of?ccr, Camp Hansen
Bldg: Floor 1, Room 107, PFO, AP

Brian R. Papakie, Brig Supervisor, 3247 Elrod Ave
Building: 3247 Floor 1, Room 110, Quantico, VA 22134

Craig M. Blenis, l. Sergeant Instructor, 2189 Elrod Ave

Building 5001, Floor 1, Room 1, Quantico, VA 22134
William R. Fuller

PSC 561, Building 608, Floor, 1
Room/Cube 211, FPO, AP. .



8. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing as soon as possible if it
does not intend to comply with any specific provision of this request. The Defense will need
timely notice of the Govemment?s intent to not comply in order to immediately file a motion to
compel discovery. Timely notice by the Government will avoid the need for an additional delay
for the Article 13 motion.

9. It is understood that this is a continuing request.

10. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on I August 2012.

DAVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel



28930
UNCLASSIFIEDHFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY or wasmusrou
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEV J. CNNR. DC 2n319~5n13

REPLY TO
ATTENTDN OF

ANJA CL 13 September 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery of CIA Information, dated 19 July20l 2
llnil?d?jal?x, PFC Bradle ALI1_ngg

I . The below responses tothe defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.
a. Discovery Request, paragraph 1.

RESPONSE: The United States will produce this information in accordance with its
obligations under Rule for Courts-Martial 70l(a)(6) and Brady v. Maryland.

b. Discovery Request, paragraph 2.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the information duiing trial.

c. Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the information during trial.

d. Disoovery Request, paragraph 4.
RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The

defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the information during trial.

e. Discovery Request, paragraph 5.

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY





28931
UNCLASSIFIEDHFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery of CIA Information, dated 19 July 2012
PFC Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the information during trial.

f. Discovery Request, paragraph 6.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the infonnation during trial.

g. Discovery Request, paragaph 7.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The Court previously approved
the summary which listed the component?s name. Additionally, with respect to the information
referenced on page 4, a different component reviewed the information and provided input to the
task force.

h. Discovery Request, paragraph 8.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The requested information is
aggravating in nature and the United States will not use the information duringtrial.

i. Discovery Request, paragraph 9.

RESPONSE: Absent the assessment identi?ed in the notice provided to the Court on 12
July 2012, there are no other assessments or follow-on reports. The United States understands its
continuing obligation to provide discovery.

3. The point of contact is the undersigned.

1/ iv


:i if


ASHDEN FEIN
MAJ, JA
Trial Counsel

2

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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



28932

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

Enclosure 69

10 October 2012



28933

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



V.
"?-1rLs Di .



REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF






ANJA-CL . 12 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request forlDiscovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradlev
Manning -

1. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.

a. A copy of any handwritten, typed or recorded statements by the Accused or any other
potential witness in connection with the investigation of this case made to representatives of the.
government to include summaries of conversations with representatives of the government,
which were not attached as allied papers at the time the charges were preferred. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

b. The contents of all statements, oral or written, made by the Accused that are relevant to
the case, known to the trial counsel, and within control of the armed forces. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

c. Any statement made by the Accused that the trial counsel intends to introduce into
evidence, reduced into writing and disclosed. M.R.E. See Discovery Request,
paragraph -

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

d. Any derivative evidence of the Accused?s statements. M.R.E. Speci?cally,
the complete Instant Message chat log and any emails allegedly sent between the Accused and
Mr. Adrian A. Lamo. See Discovery Request, paragraph



28934

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradley
Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

e. Disclosure of all evidence seized from the person or property of the Accused, whether
believed to be owned by the Accused or anyone else that the prosecution intends to offer into
evidence against the Accused at trial. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

f. The results of any examination of computers allegedly used or owned by PFC Manning.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

g. Copies of all medical and mental reports relating to the Accused. Speci?cally, the
defense requests copies of any behavioral health assessments of PFC Manning both before,
during, and after the deployment to Iraq. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

h. Any known evidence tending to diminish the credibility of any witness including, but not
limited to, prior convictions under M.R.E. 609, or evidence of other character, conduct, or bias
bearing on witness credibility under M.R.E. 608. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

i. The name and contact information for any law enforcement agent working with Mr.
Adrian A. Lamo. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S.
97 (1976). See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

j. Any other evidence in the possession of the government favorable to the Accused,
tending to negate the guilt of the Accused of any offense charged, or reduce the punishment for
any offense charged. See Discovery Request, paragraph



28935

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and

understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

k. The names and contact information for all government investigators ?who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and

understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

1. Any evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts which the prosecution seeks to introduce
for any purpose whatsoever. M.R.E. 404(b). See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

In. All personal or business notes, memorandums, and writings prepared by investigators in
the case whichare not furnished pursuant to any other provisions of this request. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

n. The military status of all witnesses. Where applicable, the defense requests the date of
separation from the Army, and the discharge provisions used to effect such discharge if for other
than completion of the obligated term of service. M.R.E 301(c)(2). See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

0. The Tactical Sensitive Compartment Information (T-SCIF) accreditation packet for FOB
Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The A
United States will make a determination whether to provide the information if and when it
becomes aware of such recordsFOB Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).





28936

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradley
Manning

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
United States will make a determination whether to provide the information if and when it
becomes aware of such records.

q. The name and contact information for the security manager at the T-SCIF at FOB
Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: Elizabeth Fields was the Special Security Representative (SSR). The
United States understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

r. A copy of the security classification guide for the Tactical Sensitive Compartment
Information at FOB Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

s. PFC Manning's training records related to his MOS. See Discovery Request, paragraph
10).
RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

t. Any documentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security. See
Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

u. A list of any refresher training or in-country training PFC Manning received on
information security. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

v. Any evidence of prior Article 15 action, civilian or military convictions, and adverse
administrative actions relating to any of the govemment's witnesses, defense witnesses, or the
Accused. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.



28937

ANJ

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradlev
Mannina

w. Any evidence that the government intends to use for impeachment purposes of the
Accused, or any other witness. This includes any character evidence the government intends to
introduce at trial under M.R.E. 404. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

x. A list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call during the Article 32 along with
their addresses and phone numbers and copies of all prior written statements. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide this information in a separate. document
prior to the Article 32 investigation.

y. Copies of all business and official records which the prosecution intends to introduce
either during the Article 32 or at trial. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide this information in a separate document
prior to the Article 32 investigation.

2. A list of all exhibits the government plans to utilize at the Article 32 or at trial. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide this information in a separate document
prior to the Article 32 investigation.

aa. Any evidence, testimony, or witnesses the government intends to use at the Article 3.2 or
at trial that have been obtained through grants of immunity, or any other concessions being
granted to a witness, the content of such testimony or evidence, and the terms of any such grants
of immunity or concessions. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will disclose such evidence, testimony, or witnesses if
and when immunity or leniency is granted to a witness.

bb. All documents, memoranda, or records of conversations pertaining to this case, whether
prepared by investigators, commanders, convening authority or any other person. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.



28938

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. PFC Bradley
Manning

cc. A complete copy of the CID f1le(s) (including but not limited to the so called "right" and
"left side?) interviews, notes, and Agent Activity Summaries or any other files maintained by a
law enforcement agency at Fort Myer, Fort Drum, Contingency Operating Station Hammer, or
any other installation that participated in the investigation of this case. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

dd. A complete copy of any other documents or ?les pertaining to the above named
individual. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

ee. A complete copy of any emails or memorandums relating to the preferral of charges in
this case or to the level of court-martial. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

ff. Any writings used to refresh the memory of any government witness. MRE 612. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
United States will make a determination whether to provide the information if and when it
becomes aware of such records.

gg. Copies of the report concerning the polygraph examinations administered to any person
related to this case. This includes copies of statements taken after the polygraph exam. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
United States will make a determination whether to provide the information if and when it
becomes aware of such records.

hh. A copy of any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and any response or internal
discussions of any such OIA request that is related to? the classified video charged in
Specification 1, Charge I and Specification 1, 2, and 5 of Charge II. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

28939

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 U.S v. Bradley
Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this infonnation and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.
3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent
that it is required by the defense request and applicable law. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns at





a/ 1/
ASHDEN rem

CPT, JA
Trial Counsel





28940

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

REPLY 1'0
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 12 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 1 November 2010 - U.S v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

1. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.
All damage assessments conducted by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs).

RESPONSE: The United States is not currently in possession of this information, and will
make a determination whether to provide the information when it becomes available.

3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent
that it is required by the defense request and applicable law. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns

"3


SHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



_28941

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



REPLV TO
ATTENTION OF


0" 7?


l2 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning



l. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.

a. The names and contact information for all government investigators who have
participated or who areipresently participating in the investigation of the case. Speci?cally, the
names of the investigators and an inventory of the items seized from the home of Ms. Debra Van
1492 Selworthy Road, Potomac, MD 20854 on 2 November 2010. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

b. A list of items seized from Mr. David House and a copy of all reports or analysis of the
items seized by the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
any other government agency on 3 November 2010. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

c. A copy of all ?eld interviews and reports conducted by the FBI or any other
governmental organization involving witnesses from Boston, Massachusetts or any other city
from 24 May 2010 to the present involved in this case. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

28942

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

d. The entire counseling packet for PFC Manning. Speci?cally, any counseling or
assessments done of PFC Manning by his chain of command, MSG Paul Adkins, CPT Casey
Martin, SSG Peter Bigelow, CPT Matthew reeburg, or ISG Mark Woodworth. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

e. All Behavioral Health Assessments (BHA) or mental evaluations of PFC Manning,
previously requested by the defense on 29 October 2010. The defense requests any assessment
by CAPT Kenneth J. lverson, CAPT Bruce Balfour, CAPT William Hocter, CPT Eden
Critchfield, CPT Dale Hill or any other individual who has evaluated or commented on PFC
Manning?s mental state at any time. Specifically, the defense requests the 22 May and 28 May
2010 BHA. See Discovery Request, paragraph -

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

f. All assessments for POI recommendations to the Quantico Confinement Facility. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

g. Any and all documents or emails considered by CPT Kevin Ley as the military magistrate
to support his search and seizure authorizations. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

h. Recorded video footage of when PFC Manning collapsed in confinement as referenced at
000095. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The video footage does not exist. See Sworn Statement, MA2 Jonathan
Kemper, dated 19 February 201 l.

i. Any other recorded audio or video footage of PFC Manning while in confinement in Iraq,
Kuwait, or the United States. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court-martial.

28943

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

j. Network logs for all computers searched by PT Thomas Cherepko or any other
government employee or investigator as referenced at 000186-87. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will provide the information when it becomes available.

k. The application. Security and System Network logs obtained from PFC Blake Dudley as
referenced at 0000187. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

1. The results of SA Calder L. Robertson and SA David S. Shaver?s analysis of any
computers analyzed in this case. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classified information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

m. Copies of any investigative notes or assessments by Computer Crimes Investigative Unit
(CCIU). See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

n. Names of all individuals from the CCIU or any other government agency that have
performed or are performing any computer forensic analysis in this case. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

0. All documentation or information provided by the government to LTC Craig Merutka.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

p. Copies of the chat logs referenced at 000455. See Discovery Request, paragraph

DJ

28944

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

q. Copies of the CCIU reports referenced at 000463. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

r. The results of inquiry/investigation and all discussions and assessments done in
compliance with Department of Defense Directive 5210.50; Directive 5200.},
Chapter l0; DOD DOD Instruction 5240.4; and Executive Order 13526.
Speci?cally, the defense requests the answers to the following required investigative
determinations by the above Directives, Instruction, and Executive Order: When, where,
and how did the incident occur? What persons, situations, or conditions caused or contributed to
the incident? What classi?ed information was compromised? If a compromise occurred, what
speci?c classi?ed infomiation and/or material was involved? If classi?ed information is alleged
to have been lost, what steps were taken to locate the material? In what speci?c media article or
program did the classi?ed information appear? To what extent was the compromised
information disseminated? Was the information properly classi?ed? Was the information
of?cially released? Are there any leads to be investigated that might lead to identi?cation of the
person(s) responsible for the compromise? See Discovery Request, paragraph 20

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

s. The defense also requests copies of any notification to the OriginalClassi?cation
Authorities (OCA), the contact information for the OCAs, and the required answers by
Directive that states when notified of the compromise of classi?ed information or material, the
original classification authority for that information or material shall: Verify the classi?cation
and duration of classi?cation initially assigned to the information; Reevaluate the classi?cation
of the information to determine whether the classi?cation should be continued or changed; and
complete a damage assessment in accordance with Instruction and Directive. The
veri?cation, reevaluation, and damage assessment process is required by Directive to be
completed as soon as possible following noti?cation of a compromise. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed infomiation and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

28945

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 15 November 20lO U.S v. PFC

Bradley; Manninu

3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent
that it is required by the defense request and applicable law. Please feel free to contact me if you

have any questions or concerns at




ASHDEN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel





28946

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 12 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradlev Manning:

1. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.
a. The names and contact information for all government investigators who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case, previously

requested on 29 October and 15 November 2010. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

b. Contact information for SA Hyung Kim from the Department of Defense and SA Richard
Bowen from the Army Computer Crimes Unit. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court-martial.

c. An inventory of the items seized from the home of Mr. Paul Francia at 601 Hazelwood
Terrace, Rochester, New York 14609. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court?martial.

d. All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of State regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks as referenced by Assistant Secretary of State for Public
Affairs P.J. Crowley. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The

defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this

request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

28947

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

e. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the disclosures of
the diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

f. Any assessment, report, e-mail, or document by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton regarding the disclosures of diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

g. Any report, e-mail or document discussing the need for the State Department to
disconnect access to its files from the govemment?s classified network. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obli gates the United States to provide the requested
information.

h. All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of Defense regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classi?ed information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

i. Results of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as
referenced by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

j. Any specific damage assessment by the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure
of classified documents and videos, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks. See Defense Request,
paragraph



28948

ANJ A-C

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

k. Any and all documentation related to the Department of Justice investigation into the
alleged leaks by Wikileaks as referenced by Attorney General of the United States Eric H.
Holder. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

1. Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama's order for an

investigation and a government wide-review of how agencies safeguard sensitive information.

See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

rn. Any and all documents related to the steps the administration is considering regarding
these leaks and the nature of the criminal investigation underway into how the documents were
made public as referenced by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

n. Any assessment given, or discussions concerning, the Wikileaks disclosures by any
member of the government to President Obama. Any e-mail, report, assessment, directive, or
discussion by President Obama to the Department of Defense, Department of State or
Department of Justice. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

28949

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

0. Any and all documents relating to the Government Task Force created to review the
various Wikileaks releases for potentially damaging information prior to the actual releases. This
Task Force apparently had over 120 members reviewing the documents that were either released
or pending release to determine the possible harm to national security. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classified information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

p. The results of any investigation or review by Mr. Russell Travers who has been
appointed by President Obama to head an interagency committee assigned to assess the damage
caused by Wikileaks exposures and to organize efforts to tighten security measures in
government agencies. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

q. Any and all documentation related to the Pentagon's review on the policy and
technological shortfalls that led to the Wikileaks disclosures as referenced by Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

r. Any and all documentation related to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation
of Wikileaks announced by CIA Director Leon Panetta and any internal or external
mcmorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manning or the nature of
the Office of Security's investigation into these matters. See Defense Request, paragraph 20).

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The_United States will reconsider_this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

5. Any and all documentation relating to the governments position of taking a hard line on
unauthorized leaks of information, as demonstrated by the prosecutions of a former National
Security Agency official, a Federal Bureau of Investigation linguist, and a State Department
contractor and referenced by CIA Director Leon Panetta. See Defense Request, paragraph



28950


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC
Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

t. Any and all memorandums, e?mails, or other references by Congressmen, Senators, or
government officials concerning the disposition of this case or the need to punish PFC Bradley
Manning. See Defense Request, paragraph 200.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information. -

u. Any and all documentation, e?mails, or reports given to the Summary Court-Martial
Convening Authority, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, or the Staff Judge
Advocate concerning the disposition of PFC Bradley Manning's case or the nature of the charges
or possible charges against PFC Manning. Specifically, any attempt to in?uence the independent
discretion of anyone involved in the military justice process. See Defense Request, paragraph



RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The

?defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this

request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

v. Any and all documents or observation notes by employees of the Quantico confinement
facility relating to PFC Bradley Manning. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

w. The results of the 15-6 investigation into the govemment?s improper release of classi?ed
information to the defense. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

28951

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 U.S v. PFC

Bradley Manning

3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent
that it is required by the defense request and applicable law. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns at


-v
LI.

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



28952

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

REPLY TO
OF

ANJA-CL 12 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 10 January 201 1 U.S v. PFC Bradley

Manning

1. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.

a. -Any information relating to 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) order or any search warrant by the
government of Twitter, acebook, Google or any other social media site. Any metadata, D5
hash marks or other unique identifying information obtained from the 2703(d) order or search
warrant. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The United States will reconsider this
request when provided with an authority that obligates the United States to provide the requested
information.

b. The results and all supporting documents for the investigation conducted by LTG Robert
Caslen Jr. The report is directed by the Secretary of the Army John McHugh and is supposed to
be completed by -1 February 201 1. It will address how PFC Bradley Manning was selected for
his job, how he was trained, whether his superiors missed warning signs that he was
downloading documents that he did not need to read and how PFC Manning allegedly released
the documents. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court?martial.

c. The results of any inquiry and testimony taken by House of Representative oversight
committee led by Representative Darrell Issa. The committee is due to look into Wikileaks, the
actions of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the investigation of PFC Bradley Manning. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally

28953

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 10 January 201 1 LES v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

accessible by the dcfensc. The United States will make a determination whether to provide the
information if and when it becomes aware of such records.

d. A copy of all Agents Investigation Reports maintained under CID Regulation 195-l not
previously provided to the defense. A copy of all agent notes, other governmental Investigative
reports and swom statements. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent
that it is required by the defense request and applicable law. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns at


ASHDEN FEIN

CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



28954

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

12 April 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 16 February 201 1 U.S v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

1. The responses provided in this discovery request account for the ongoing national security
concerns of this case and the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and responds under the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders. The United States acknowledges its requirements
under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

2. Discovery Response.

a. The defense requests the names of the Soldiers who have been flagged, the nature for
why they were flagged, who imposed the flag, and any other derogatory information relating to
this case to include, but not limited to: any reprimand (oral or written), UCMJ action,or
administrative separation actions. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court-martial.

b. The defense requests a copy of any and all audio or video tapes of PFC Manning at any
time whether they be from in person visits or from telephonic conversations. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This request is denied at this time. The defense is invited to renew its
request, if this case is referred to a court-martial.

c. A copy of the latest CID investigation report and all Agents Investigation Reports
maintained under CID Regulation 195-1 not previously provided to the defense. Additionally, a
copy of all agent notes, other governmental investigative reports, and sworn statements. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided a portion of this information and
understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this request.

d. A roster of all individuals assigned to HHC, ZBCT, 10th Mountain Division, speci?cally
any Soldier assigned in the S2 Section of 2BCT. The defense requests full name, rank, email and
phone Contact information for each individual. See Discovery Request, paragraph





28955

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 16 February 201 U.S v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

possession and understands its continuing obligation to provide information responsive to this
request.

e. Access to all classified information that the government intends to use in this case. To
include any damage assessment or information review conducted by any governmental agency or
at the direction of a governmental agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States does not presently have the authority to disclose this
classified information and will make a determination whether to provide the information if and
when it becomes available.

3. The United States acknowledges a continuing obligation to provide discovery to the extent

that it is required by the defense re nest and a licable law. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns -


k/

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



28956

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 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. A copy of any handwritten, typed or recorded statements by the accused or any other
potential witness in connection with the investigation of this case made to representatives of the
government to include summaries of conversations with representatives of the government,
which were not attached as allied papers at the time the charges were preferred. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and that the United States has authority to disclose. If information previously
provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and
an adequate basis for its request.

b. The contents of all statements, oral or written, made by the accused that are relevant to
the case, known to the trial counsel, and within control of the armed forces. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and that the United States has authority to disclose. If information previously
provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and
an adequate basis for its request.

c. Any statement made by the accused that the trial counsel intends to introduce into
evidence, reduced into writing and disclosed. M.R.E. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. lf information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.



28957

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 20lO United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

d. Any derivative evidence of the accused?s statements. .R.E. Speci?cally,
the complete Instant Message chat log and any emails allegedly sent between the Accused and
Mr. Adrian A. Lamo. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

e. Disclosure of all evidence seized from the person or property of the accused, whether
believed to be owned by the accused or anyone else that the prosecution intends to offer into
evidence against the accused at trial. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

f. The results of any examination of computers allegedly used or owned by PFC Manning.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices, including hard drives,
examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and a basis for its request.

g. Copies of all medical and mental reports relating to the accused. Specifically, the defense
requests copies of any behavioral health assessments of PFC Manning both before, during, and
after the deployment to Iraq. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

h. Any known evidence tending to diminish the credibility of any witness including, but not
limited to, prior convictions under M.R.E. 609, or evidence of other character, conduct, or bias
bearing on witness credibility under M.R.E. 608. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

i. The name and contact information for any law enforcement agent working with Mr.
Adrian A. Lamo. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S.
97 (1976). See Discovery Request, paragraph



28958

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including the name and contact information of any CID agent working with Mr. Lamo. If
information previously provided is not responsive. the defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and a basis for its request.

I j. Any other evidence in the possession of the government favorable to the accused, tending
to negate the guilt of the accused of any offense charged, or reduce the punishment for any
offense charged. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under Brady and R.C.M.
70l(a)(6) and will comply with those requirements if the United States becomes aware of any
such material.

lc. The names and contact infonnation for all government investigators who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

possession. The defense is invited to contac? at:

for additional information.

1. Any evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts which the prosecution seeks to introduce
for any purpose whatsoever. M.R.E. 404(b). See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

m. All personal or business notes, memorandums, and writings prepared by investigators in
the case which are not furnished pursuant to any other provisions of this request. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

n. The military status of all witnesses. Where applicable, the defense requests the date of
separation from the Army, and the discharge provisions used to effect such discharge if for other
than completion of the obligated term of service, including any immunity or leniency pertaining
to any witness or potential witness. .R.E 301(c)(2). See Discovery Request, paragraph



28959

ANJA-CL A
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

0. The Tactical Sensitive Compartment Information accreditation packet for FOB
Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its requestFOB Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

q. The name and contact information for the security manager at the T-SCIF at FOB
Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph 10).

RESPONSE: 1LT Elizabeth Fields and SFC Paul Adkins were the Special Security
Representatives (SSR).

r. A copy of the security classi?cation guide for the Tactical Sensitive Compartment
Information at FOB Hammer. See Discovery Request, paragraph IQ).

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

s. PFC Manning's training records related to his MOS. See Discovery Request, paragraph

IQ).

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If informationpreviously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

t. Any documentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. if information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

u. A list of any refresher training or in-country training PFC Manning received on
information security. See Discovery Request, paragraph



28960

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive. the defense is invited to renew

its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

v. Any evidence of prior Article 15 action, civilian or military convictions, and adverse
administrative actions relating to any of the government's witnesses, defense witnesses, or the
accused. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including multiple Article 15-6 investigations and the list of persons who were flagged. If
information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and a basis for its request.

w. Any evidence that me government intends to use for impeachment purposes of the
accused, or any other witness. This includes any character evidence the government intends to
introduce at trial under MRE. 404. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

it. A list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call during the Article 32 along with
their addresses and phone numbers and copies of all prior written statements. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

2 RESPONSE: The Article 32 commenced on 22 December 201 1 and the Investigating
Officer's recommendation was made on 12 January 2012.

y. Copies of all business and official records which the prosecution intends to introduce
either during the Article 32 or at trial. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The Article 32 commenced on 22 December 2011 and the Investigating
Officer's recommendation was made on 12 January 2012. The United States will provide this
information for the court?martial pursuant to the schedule outlined by the military judge.

2. A list of all exhibits the government plans to utilize at the Article 32 or at trial. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The Article 32 commenced on 22 December 2011 and the Investigating
Of?cer?s recommendation was made on 12 January 2012. The United States will provide this
information for the court?martial pursuant to the schedule outlined by the military judge.



28961

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.

PFC Bradley Manning

aa. Any evidence, testimony. or witnesses the government intends to use at the Article 32 or
at trial that have been obtained through grants of immunity, or any other concessions being
granted to a witness, the content of such testimony or evidence, and the terms of any such grants
of immunity or concessions. See Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

bb. All documents, memoranda, or records of conversations pertaining to this case, whether
prepared by investigators, commanders, convening authority or any other person. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

cc. A complete copy of the CH) file(s) (including but not limited to the so called "right" and
"left side") interviews, notes, and Agent Activity Summaries or any other files maintained by a
law enforcement agency at Fort Myer. Fort Drum, Contingency Operating Station Hammer, or
any other installation that participated in the investigation of this case. See Discovery Request,

paragraph l(p)(l

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive. the defense is invited to review
any remaining information, including Agent?s Activity Summary reports and related materials, at

CCIU- a?3 for this information-

dd. A complete copy of any other documents or files pertaining to the above named
individual. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including the entire CID case file. lf information previously provided is not responsive, the
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and a basis for its request.

ee. A complete copy of any emails or memorandums relating to the preferral of charges in
this case or to the level of court-martial. See Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under R.C.M. 70! and
will comply with this requirement as soon as practicable. If information the United States
provides under R.C.M. 70l(a)( l) is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.



28962

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 29 October 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Mannin?

ff. Any writings used to refresh the memory of any government witness. MRE 612. See
Discovery Request, paragraph 1

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

gg. Copies of the report concerning the polygraph examinations administered to any person
related to this case. This includes copies of statements taken after the polygraph exam. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

hh. A copy of any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and any response or internal
discussions of any such FOIA request that is related to the classi?ed video charged in
Speci?cation 1, Charge 1 and Speci?cation 1, 2, and 5 of Charge II. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The United
States is unaware of any information in this request that is relevant and necessary to the charges
in this case that require disclosure. The defense is invited to renew its request with more
speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.




.
ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA

Trial Counsel

28963

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. AFIMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FOFIT LESLEY J. MCNAIFL DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 1 November 2010 United States v.

PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below response to the defense discovery request accounts for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with

the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.
All damage assessments conducted by Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAs).

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3

February 2012.
3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Mar1ial, and relevant case law.

I
LJ
ASHDEN FEIN

CPT, I A
Trial Counsel



28964

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

REPLY TO
AWENTDN OF

ANJA-CL . 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 United States v.
BEQ Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. The names and contact information for all government investigators who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case. Speci?cally, the
names of the investigators and an inventory of the items seized from the home of Ms. Debra Van
1492 Selworthy Road, Potomac. MD 20854 on 2 November 20l0. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

The defense? inviled 3? ?l
- additional infonnation.

b. A list of items seized from Mr. David House and a copy of all reports or analysis of the
items seized by the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
any other government agency on 3 November 2010. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

c. A copy of all field interviews and reports. conducted by the FBI or any other
governmental organization involving witnesses from Boston, Massachusetts or any other city
from 24 May 2010 to the present involved in this case. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

28965

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning .

d. The entire counseling packet for PFC Manning. Speci?cally, any counseling or
assessments done of PFC Manning by his chain of command, MSG Paul Adkins, CPT Casey
Martin, SSG Peter Bigelow, CPT Matthew Freeburg, or ISG Mark Woodworth. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

e. All Behavioral Health Assessments (BHA) or mental evaluations of PFC Manning,
previously requested by the defense on 29 October 2010. The defense requests any assessment
by CAPT Kenneth J. Iverson, CAPT Bruce Balfour, CAPT William Hocter, CPT Eden
Critch?eld, CPT Dale Hill or any other individual who has evaluated or commented on PFC
Manning's mental state at any time. Speci?cally, the defense requests the 22 May and 28 May
2010 BHA. See Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

f. All assessments for POI recommendations to the Quantico Con?nement Facility. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

g. Any and all documents or emails considered by CPT Kevin Ley as the military magistrate
to support his search and seizure authorizations. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

h. Recorded video footage of when PFC Manning collapsed in con?nement as referenced at
000095. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: This video footage does not exist. See BATES 0001 1639 (Sworn
Statement, MA2 onathan Kemper, dated 19 February 201 1).

i. Any other recorded audio or video footage of PFC Manning while in con?nement in Iraq,
Kuwait, or the United States. See Discovery Request, paragraph



28966

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, IS November 2010 - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

j. Network logs for all computers searched by PT Thomas Cherepko or any other
government employee or investigator as referenced at 000186-87. See Discovery Request.
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

k. The application, Security and System Network logs obtained from PFC Blake Dodley as
referenced at 0000 I 87. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. lf information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

I. The results of SA Calder L. Robertson Ill and SA David S. Shaver's analysis of any
computers analyzed in this case. See Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. lf information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

m. Copies of any investigative notes or assessments by Computer Crimes Investigative Unit
(CCIU). See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. if information previously provided is not responsive. the defense is invited to review
any remaining information, including Agent?s Activity Summary reports and related materials, at

CCIU. Contact SAC- at for this infomtation.

n. Names of all individuals from the CCIU or any other government agency that have
performed or are performing any computer forensic analysis in this case. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

The defense is invited to ?al?

for additional information.

o. All documentation or information provided by the government to LTC Craig Merutka.
See Discovery Request, paragraph



28967


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

p. Copies of the chat logs referenced at 000455. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew

I its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

q. Copies of the CCIU reports referenced at 000463. See Discovery Request, paragraph
.

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

r. The results of inquiry/investigation and all discussions and assessments done in
compliance with Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5210.50; Directive 5200.1,
Chapter 10; S-5 In2struction 5240.4; and Executive Order 13526.
Speci?cally, the defense requests the answers to the following required investigative
determinations by the above DOD Directives, Instruction, and Executive Order: When, where,
and how did the incident occur?? What persons, situations, or conditions caused or contributed to
the incident? What classi?ed information was compromised?? If a compromise occurred, what
speci?c classi?ed information andlor material was involved? Ifclassi?ed information is alleged
to have been lost, what steps were taken to locate the material? In what specific media article or
program did the classi?ed information appear?? To what extent was the compromised
information disseminated? Was the information properly classified? Was the information
officially released? Are there any leads to be investigated that might lead to identi?cation of the
person(s) responsible for the compromise? See Discovery Request, paragraph 20).

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

s. The defense also requests copies of any noti?cation to the Original Classi?cation
Authorities (OCA), the contact information for the OCAS, and the required answers by DOD
Directive that states when notified of the compromise of classi?ed information or material, the
original classi?cation authority for that information or material shall: Verify the classi?cation
and duration of classi?cation initially assigned to the information; Reevaluate the classi?cation
of the information to determine whether the classi?cation should be continued or changed; and
complete a damage assessment in accordance with Instruction and Directive. The
veri?cation, reevaluation, and damage assessment process is required by Directive to be

28968



SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning.

completed as soon as possible following noti?cation of a compromise. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?MartiaJ, and relevant case law.







ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel





28969

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigationts). and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. The names and contact information for all government investigators who have
participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case, previously
requested on 29 October and 15 November 20l0. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. The defense is invited to contact ?at
additional information.

b. Contact information for SA Hyung Kim from the Department of Defense and SA Richard
Bowen from the Army Computer Crimes Unit. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

possession. The defense is invited to contact? at

for additional information.

c. An inventory of the items seized from the home of Mr. Paul Francia at 60l Hazelwood
Terrace, Rochester, New York 14609. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

d. All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of State regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks as referenced by Assistant Secretary of State for Public
Affairs PJ. Crowley. See Defense Request, paragraph



28970


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 8 December 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

e. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the disclosures of
the diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

f. Any assessment, report, e?mail, or document by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton regarding the disclosures of diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

g. Any report, e-mail or document discussing the need for the State Department to
disconnect access to its ?les from the govemment?s classi?ed network. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of Defense regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all forensic results, law enforcement
investigative reports, and administrative investigations by the Department of Defense. If
information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

i. Results of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as
referenced by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

28971


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

j. Any-speci?c damage assessment by the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure
of classified documents and videos, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

k. Any and all documentation related to the Department of Justice investigation into the
alleged leaks by Wikileaks as referenced by Attorney General of the United States Eric H.

Holder. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including all grand jury information from the Eastern District of Virginia that is in its possession
and that the United States has authority to disclose. If information previously provided is not
responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis
for its request.

1. Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama's order for an
investigation and a government wide?review of how agencies safeguard sensitive information.
See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information. -

m. Any and all documents related to the steps the administration is considering regarding
these leaks and the nature of the criminal investigation underway into how the documents were
made public as referenced by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. See Defense Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including all ?les of Department of Defense law enforcement and other investigations that the
United States is aware of. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is
invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

n. Any assessment given, or discussions concerning, the Wikileaks disclosures by any
member of the government to President Obama. Any e-mail, report, assessment, directive, or
discussion by President Obama to the Department of Defense, Department of State or
Department of Justice. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally





28972


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

accessible by the defense. The defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and
an adequate basis for its request.

0. Any and all documents relating to the Government Task Force created to review the
various Wikileaks releases for potentially damaging information prior to the actual releases. This
Task Force apparently had over 120 members reviewing the documents that were either released
or pending release to determine the possible harm to national security. See Defense Request,

paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

p. The results of any investigation or review by Mr. Russell Travers who has been
appointed by President Obama to head an interagency committee assigned to assess the damage?
caused by Wikileaks exposures and to organize efforts to tighten security measures in
government agencies. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

q. Any and all documentation related to the Pentagon's review on the policy and
technological shortfalls that led to the Wikileaks disclosures. as referenced by Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

r. Any and all documentation related to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation
of Wikileaks announced by CIA Director Leon Panetta and any internal or external
memorandurns addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manning or the nature of
the Office of Security's investigation into these matters. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.



28973

-
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

s. Any and all documentation relating to the government's position of taking a hard line on
unauthorized leaks of information, as demonstrated by the prosecutions of a former National
Security Agency official, a Federal Bureau of Investigation linguist, and a State Department
contractor and referenced by CIA Director Leon'Panetta. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

t. Any and all memorandums, e?mails, or other references by Congressmen, Senators, or
government of?cials concerning the disposition of this case or the need to punish PFC Bradley
Manning. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally
accessible by the defense. The defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and
an adequate basis for its request.

u. Any and all documentation, e?mails, or reports given to the Summary Court-Martial
Convening Authority, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, or the Staff Judge
Advocate concerning the disposition of PFC Bradley Manning's case or the nature of the charges
or possible charges against PFC Manning. Speci?cally, any attempt to influence the independent
discretion of anyone involved in the military justice process. See Defense Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

v. Any and all documents or observation notes by employees of the Quantico confinement
facility relating to PFC Bradley Manning. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including progress reports, visitation documents, and command visits. If information previously
provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and a
basis for its request-

w. The results of the 15-6 investigation into the government's improper release of classified
information to the defense. See Defense Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.



28974


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 8 December 2010 United States v.

PFC Bradlev Manning

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martia.l, and relevant case law.

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



28975

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FOFIT LESLEY J. MCNAJFI, oc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 10 January 201 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. Any information relating to 18 U.S.C. order or any search warrant by the
government of Twitter, Facebook, Google or any other social media site. Any metadata, MDS
hash marks or other unique identifying information obtained from the 2703(d) order or search
warrant. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including applications for an order under 18 U.S.C. 2703 and search warrants. See BATES
00036691 -00036739, 00375638?00375676. If information previously provided is not
responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis
for its request.

b. The results and all supporting documents for the investigation conducted by LTG Robert
Caslen Jr. The report is directed by the Secretary of the Army John McHugh and is supposed to
be completed by 1 February 201 1. It will address how PFC Bradley Manning was selected for
his job, how he was trained, whether his superiors missed warning signs that he was
downloading documents that he did not need to read and how PFC Manning allegedly released
the documents. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

c. The results of any inquiry and testimony taken by House of Representative oversight
committee led by Representative Darrell_Issa. The committee is due to look into Wikileaks, the
actions of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the investigation of PFC Bradley Manning. See
Discovery Request, paragraph





28976

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 10 January 20] United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has no knowledge of any such records, outside publicly
made statements through press conferences or media organizations. equally accessible by the
defense. If infonnation previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its
request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

d. A copy of all Agents Investigation Repons maintained under CID Regulation 195-1 not
previously provided to the defense. A copy of all agent notes, other governmental Investigative
reports and sworn statements. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to review

any remaining i fo t? clud' Agent's Activity Summary reports and related materials, at
CCIU. Contact for this information.

3. The United States understands its continuin discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.



I



A
Trial Counsel







28977

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 16 February 20] United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. The defense requests the names of the Soldiers who have been ?agged, the nature for
why they were ?agged. who imposed the flag, and any other derogatory information relating to
this case to include. but not limited to: any reprimand (oral or written), UCMJ action, or
administrative separation actions. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. See BATES 00015863. If information previously provided is not responsive. the
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

b. The defense requests a copy of any and all audio or video tapes of PFC Manning at any
time whether they be from in person visits or from telephonic conversations. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

c. A copy of the latest CID investigation report and all Agents Investigation Reports
maintained under Regulation 195-l not previously provided to the defense. Additionally, a
copy of all agent notes, other governmental investigative reports, and sworn statements. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to review
any remaining information, including Agent?s Activity Summary reports and related materials, at
CCIU. Contact? at information.

28978

ANJ .
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 16 February 2011 - United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

d. A roster of all individuals assigned to HHC, ZBCT, 10th Division, speci?cally any
soldier assigned in the S2 Section of ZBCT. The defense requests full name, rank, email and
phone contact information for each individual. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

e. Access to all classi?ed information that the government intends to use in this case. To
include any damage assessment or information review conducted by any governmental agency or
at the direction of a governmental agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.



I
3'

1
I



FEIN
CPT, A

Trial Counsel

Ix)



28979

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

FIEPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 May 201 United States v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders-

2. Discovery Response.

a. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the United StatesArrny. See
Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

b. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Defense.
See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

c. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OC A) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Justice.
See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012. A

d. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the National Security
Agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.



28980


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 May 201 1 United States v. PFC

Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

e. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Defense Intelligence
Agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

f. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Homeland
Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

g. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Central Intelligence
Agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

h. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

i. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security. See Discovery Request, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.





28981

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 May 201 United States v. PFC

Bradley Manning

j. Any Brady material in the govemment?s possession. See Discovery Request, paragraph
4.

RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under Brady and will
comply with this requirement if the United States becomes aware of any Brady material.

Any Jencks material in the govemment?s possession, speci?cally copies of all statements,
oral or written by any witness. See Discovery Request, paragraph 4.

RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under Jencks and will
comply with this requirement, if applicable.

1. Any evidence in the government?s possession that contradicts or is inconsistent with the
government?s theory of the case. See Discovery Request, paragraph 4.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.




ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel



28982

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

REPLY TO
EKTION OF

27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 20] United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15~6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including COL Miller. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

b. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including COL Walter. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

c. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including LTC Kerns. See Discovery Request, paragraph





28983

ANJ A-CL -
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 201 1 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Mannino



RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for-its request.

d. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation. with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including LTC Gar?eld. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

e. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen r. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including LTC Wardle. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. if information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including MAJ Davis. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

g. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including MAJ Graham. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.



28984

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 13 October 201 1 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

h. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including MAJ Morrow. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

i. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including MAJ Clausen. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

j. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other govemmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed infonnation in this
case, including MAJ Dreher. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

k. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other govemmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including CPT Freeburg. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

1. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the



28985

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 2011 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case. including Usbeck. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

In. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including CPT Cherepko. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

n. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including CPT Lim. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

0. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including CPT Keay. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

p. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including CPT Martin. See Discovery Request, paragraph



28986

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 2011 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

q. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including 1LT Gaab. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request. A

r. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including ILT Fields. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

s. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including CW2 Ehresman. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

t. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including CW2 Eastep. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provi_ded is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.



28987


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 201 United States v.
PFC Bradley Marming

u. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including CW2 Lyons. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

v. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including W01 Balonek. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive. the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

w. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including SFC Adkins. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

it. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classi?ed information in this
case, including SSG Mitchell. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

y. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the



28988


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 201 I United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including SPC Padgett. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

z. A copy of any adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and
any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by LTG Robert
L. Caslen Jr. or any other governmental investigation, with regards to any individual that was the
subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this
case, including PFC Showman. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

aa. An inspection of all seized governmental computers from the Tactical Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (T-SCIF) of Headquarters and Headquarters Company
(HHC), 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 10 Mountain Division, Forward Operating Base
(FOB) Hammer, Iraq for the presence of any and all unauthorized computer programs. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices, including hard drives,
examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and a basis for its request.

bb. An inspection of all seized governmental computers from the Tactical Operations Center

of Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT),

10 Mountain Division, Forward Operating Base (FOB) Hammer, Iraq for the presence of any and
all unauthorized computer programs. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices, including hard drives,
examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
speci?city and a basis for its request.

cc. Any Brady material in the govemment?s possession. See Discovery Request, paragraph





28989


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 201 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under Brady and will

comply with this requirement if the United States becomes aware of any Brady material.

dd. Any Jencks material in the govemment?s possession. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States understands its obligations under Jencks and will
comply with this requirement, if applicable.

ee. Any report or recommendation concerning the alleged leaks in this case by Mr. Russell
Travers, National Security Staff?s Senior Advisor for Infonnation Access and Security Policy.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: _The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request- The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

ff. Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama?s order for an
investigation and a government wide-review of how agencies safeguard sensitive information.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider

this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United

States to provide the requested information.

gg. Any and all documents related to the steps the administration is considering regarding
these leaks and the nature of the criminal investigation underway into how the documents were
made public as referenced by former White House-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including all files of Department of Defense law enforcement and other investigations that the
United States is aware of. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is
invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

hh. Any assessment given, or discussions concerning, the Wikileaks disclosures by any
member of the government to President Obama. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally



28990

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 201 1 United States v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

accessible by the defense. The defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and
an adequate basis for its request.

ii. Any email, report, assessment, directive, or discussion by President Obama to the
Department of Defense, Department of State or Department of Justice. See Discovery Request,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally
accessible by the defense. The defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and
an adequate basis for its request.

jj. Any report or recommendation concerning the alleged leaks in this case by Chairman
Chuck Hagel or any other member of the Intelligence Advisory Board. See Discovery Request,
paragraph I

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records,
outside publicly made statements through press conferences or media organizations. equally
accessible by the defense. The defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and
an adequate basis for its request.

l-ck. Any report, damage assessment or recommendation by the Wikileaks Task Force or any
other CIA member concerning the alleged leaks in this case. Any internal or external
memorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manning or the nature of
the Office of Security?s investigation into these matters. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

ll. All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of Defense regarding the
information obtained by Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession, including multiple Army Regulation 15-6 investigations conducted by the
Department of Defense. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is
invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

mm. The results of any joint investigation with the FBI as referenced by Former Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider



28991


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 2011 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested information.

nn. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure
of classified documents and videos, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks, speci?cally any report
by the IRTF that was responsible for leading a comprehensive DOD review of classi?ed
documents obtained by the Wilcileaks website and any other associated materials. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

oo. Any and all documentation related to the Department of Justice investigation into the
alleged leaks by Wikileaks as referenced by Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder.
See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including all grand jury information from the Eastern District of Virginia that is in its possession
and that the United States has authority to disclose. If information previously provided is not
responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis
for its request.

pp. Any and all documentation relating to a review of the alleged leaks in this case by the
Department of State regarding the disclosure of diplomatic cables, the subject of this case, by
Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

qq. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the disclosure of
diplomatic cables, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, paragraph



RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this-request no later than 3
February 2012.

rr. Any and all documentation relating to any review or damage assessment conducted by
ODNI or in cooperation with any other government agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph
vii).

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

10



28992


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 13 October 2011 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

ss. Any and all documents relating to any task force or other governmental intelligence
agency review of the various alleged leaks in this case to include any damage assessment based
upon the alleged leaks. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

It. Any and all documents relating to any task force or other governmental intelligence
agency review of the various allegedleaks in this case to include any corrective action taken by
the USG due to the alleged leaks. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
this request when provided with an adequate basis and an authority that obligates the United
States to provide the requested infomtation.

uu. Results or any inquiry and testimony taken by House of Representative oversight
committee led by Representative Darrell Issa, which discussed the action of Wikileaks, Attorney
General Eric Holder, and the investigation of PFC Manning. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States has no knowledge of any such records, outside publicly
made statements through press conferences or media organizations, equally accessible by the
defense. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its
request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

vv. Copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report, as required under DOD 5 See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

ww. Copy of the Damage Assessment of Compromised Information, as required under DOD
5 l05.2l?M?l. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

xx. Copy of the ?nal security violation investigation report submitted to the SSO, as required
under DOD See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.



28993

ANJ A-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 13 October 201 1 United States v.

PFC Bradley Manning

yy. Copy of all SCI security management and self-inspection reports for the T-SCIF of HHC,
2nd BCT, 10 Mountain Division, FOB Hammer, Iraq. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States presently has no knowledge of any such records. The
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.



ya.
3'

ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, A

Trial Counsel





28994

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

FIEPLV T0
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. l5 November 20] United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. Whether any NIPR or SIPR computer within 2d BCT or Supply Annex required
an end?user to have their ID CAC Card in the computer. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

b. The required log-in procedure for use of the HP laptop, touch smart TS2, serial number
CNF 8492K3S. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew
its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

c. All NIPR and SIPR logs for any computer within the 2d BCT from 1 November
2009 to 27 May 2010. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices. including hard drives,
examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and a basis for its request.

d. An EnCase forensic image of any computer seized by the government. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request,
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices, including hard drives,



28995


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 15 November 201 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and a basis for its request.

e. All other information relied upon by the government to claim information leaked to
Wikileaks was obtained by any terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda or HIG. See Discovery
Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession and that the United States has authority to disclose. The defense is invited to renew
its request with more speci?city and a basis for its request

f. A current curriculum vitae for each forensic expert who has worked on this case for the
government. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its

possession. The defense is invited to contact at?

for additional information.

g. Any classi?cation review for documents related to Speci?cation 8 of Charge ll. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. See BATES 00378646. If information previously provided is not responsive. the
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

h. Any classi?cation review for documents related to Specification 9 of Charge ll. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. See BATES 00378646. If information previously provided is not responsive, the
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

i. Any damage assessment for documents related to Specification 8 of Charge ll. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

j. Any damage assessment for documents related to Speci?cation 9 of Charge 11. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.





28996


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 15 November 201 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

k. Any classi?cation review for the document related to Speci?cation 15 of Charge II. See
Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all matters requested that are in its
possession. See BATES 00378148.? If information previously provided is not responsive, the
defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

1. Any damage assessment for the document related to Specification 15 of Charge II. See
Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.



FEIN
CPT. A
Trial Counsel





28997

ENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY WLITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
21 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 16 November 201 1 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with
the limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

1 2. Discovery Response.

a. An EnCase forensic image of any computer seized by the government and all other
information relied upon by the government to claim information alleged to have been disclosed
in this case was in the possession of an unauthorized individual (representative of Wikileaks) in
December of 2009. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has provided matters responsive to this request.
including an Encase forensic image of all electronic storage devices, including hard drives,
examined by law enforcement that were included in the forensic reports. If information
previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and a basis for its request.

b. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of DIA. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

c. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

d. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of any government agency. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

28998



SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery. 16 November 201 1 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

3. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.

/we
A


1

Ks ENREIN
CPTJA
Trial Counsel



28999

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



27 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 20 January 2012 United States v. PFC
Bradiev Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. Complete contact information for Mr. Robert E. Betz, USCYBERCOM Chief
Classification Advisory Officer. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide any basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request with
more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

b. Complete contact information for Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for
Management. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide any basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request with
more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

c. Complete contact information for Mr. Robert Roland. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide any basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request with
more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

C1. Complete contact information for the individual that completed the Classification Review
for the item charged in Speci?cation 15 of Charge II. The Defense also requests a copy of the
Classi?cation Review for the item charged in Specification 15 of Charge II. See Discovery
Request, paragraph



29000

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 20 January 2012 United States v. PFC

Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested contact information. The
defense has failed to provide any basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

3. Response to Defense Questions.

a. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment or recommendation bythe
WikiLeaks Task Force or any other CIA member concerning the alleged leaks? in this case? If yes,
please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why
the Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

b. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation as a
result of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or any other
governmental agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Govemment has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 20l2.

c. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Information Review Task Force (IRTF) concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please
indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the
Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

d. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of Justice concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

e. Does the ?Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of State concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph



29001


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery, 20 January 2012 United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

f. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes,
please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate
why the Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request. paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012. .

g. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Defense Intelligence Agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate
why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the
Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

h. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If
yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please
indicate why the Govemment has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States will provide a response to this request no later than 3
February 2012.

4. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial, and relevant case law.


I


ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, A
Trial Counsel





29002

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

ANJA-CL 31 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs. Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The below responses to the defense discovery request account for the ongoing national
security concerns of this case, the ongoing law enforcement investigation(s), and comply with the
limitations of applicable Executive Orders.

2. Discovery Response.

a. All damage assessments conducted by Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAS). See
Discovery Request, 1 November 2010.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

b. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the disclosures of
the diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, 8 December 2010, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request

?with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

c. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure of
classi?ed documents and videos, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, 8
December 2010, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

d. Access to all classi?ed information that the government intends to use in this case. To
include any damage assessment or information review conducted by any govemmental agency or
at the direction of a governmental agency. See Discovery Request, 16 February 2011, paragraph


RESPONSE: The United States has provided defense access to all classi?ed information
it intends to use in this case and will continue to this request.



29003


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

e. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the United States Army. See
Discovery Request, 13 May 2011, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States has provided three Army Regulation 15-6 investigations
and the CID case file. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited
to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

f. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Defense.
See Discovery Request, 13 May 2011, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States has provided three Army. Regulation 15-6 investigations
and the CID case file. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is invited
to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

g. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Justice. See
Discovery Request, 13 May 201 1, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States has provided all grand jury information that is in its
possession and that the United States has authority to disclose. If information previously provided
is not responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more specificity and an adequate
basis for its request.

h. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers. etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the National Security Agency.
See Discovery Request, 13 May 2011, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

1. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Defense Intelligence
Agency. See Discovery Request, 13 May 2011, paragraph 3. -

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

2

29004

.
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

j. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Department of Homeland
Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis. See Discovery Request, 13 May 201], paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

k. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Central Intelligence
Agency. See Discovery Request, 13 May 201], paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States provided two classi?cation reviews. See BATES
and 00410623-00410634. If infonnation previously provided is not
responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis
for its request.

1. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classi?cation Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. See Discovery Request, 13 May 2011, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

m. Any and all documents (sworn or signed statements, photographs, emails, etc.), tangible
items (books, papers, etc.), and reports (investigative summaries, damage assessments, Original
Classification Authority (OCA) determinations, etc.) conducted by the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security. See Discovery Request, 13 May 201 1, paragraph 3.

RESPONSE: The United States provided the Memorandum of Interview reports. See
BATES 00408089-00408156. If information previously provided is not responsive, the defense is
invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

n. Any report, damage assessment or recommendation by the Wikileaks Task Force or any
other CIA member concemin the alleged leaks in this case. Any internal or external
memorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manning or the nature of
the Of?ce of Security?s investigation into these matters. See Discovery Request, 13 October 201],
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States provided two classi?cation reviews. See BATES
00378148-00378175 and 00410623-00410634. If information previously provided is not

3



29005

ANJ A-C
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

responsive, the defense is invited to renew its request with more speci?city and an adequate basis
for its request.

o. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure of
classi?ed documents and videos, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks, speci?cally any report by
the IRTF that was responsible for leading a comprehensive DOD review of classi?ed documents
obtained by the Wikileaks website and any other associated materials. See Discovery Request, 13
October 201 1, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

p. Any speci?c damage assessment by the Department of State regarding the disclosure of
diplomatic cables, the subject of this case, by Wikileaks. See Discovery Request, 13 October
2011, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

q. Any and all documentation relating to any review or damage assessment conducted by
ODNI or in cooperation with any other government agency. See Discovery Request, 13 October
2011, paragraph l(c)(vii).

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

r. Any and all documents relating to any task force or other governmental intelligence agency
review of the various alleged leaks in this case to include any damage assessment based upon the
alleged leaks. See Discovery Request, 13 October 2011, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information- The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

s. Any damage assessment for documents related to Speci?cation 8 of Charge 11. See
Discovery Request, 15 November 201 1, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

t. Any damage assessment for documents related to Speci?cation 9 of Charge 11. See
Discovery Request, 15 November 201 1, paragraph

4 .



29006

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. Thedefense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

u. Any damage assessment for the document related to Specification 15 of Charge II. See
Discovery Request, 15 November 2011, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

v. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of DIA. See Discovery Request, 16 November 201 1, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information- The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

w. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive. See Discovery Request, 16 November
201 1, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

it. Any damage assessment or review completed in this case either by or with the assistance
of any government agency. See Discovery Request, 16 November 2011, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The defense
has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The defense is invited to renew its request
with more speci?city and an adequate basis for its request.

3. Response to Defense Questions.

a. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment or recommendation by the
Wilplease indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why
the Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012,

paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States produced the requested information that is in its
possession and that it has authority to disclose, including two classi?cation reviews. See BATES
00378148-00378175 and 00410623-00410634. If information previously provided is not



29007

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

responsive, the United States will reconsider a renewed defense request with more specificity and
an adequate basis.

b. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation as a
result of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or any other
govemmental agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its_request. The United States will reconsider
a renewed defense request with more specificity and an adequate basis.

c. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Information Review Task Force (IRTF) concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please
indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the
Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
a renewed defense request with more specificity and an adequate basis.

d. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of Justice concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States has no knowledge of any report, damage assessment or
recommendation by the Department of Justice, speci?cally main justice, that is discoverable and
that concerns the alleged leaks in this case. The United States will reconsider a renewed defense
request with more specificity and an adequate basis.

e. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Department of State concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these
items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has
failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States produced the requested information that is in its
possession and that it has authority to disclose, including a classification review. See BATES
If information previously provided is not responsive, the United States
will reconsider a renewed defense request with more speci?city and an adequate basis.

f. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the

Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes,
please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense; If no, please indicate

6



29008


SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request for Discovery United States v. PFC Bradley

Manning

why the Government has failed to secure these items. See Dis_covery Request, 20 January 2012,
paragraph

RESPONSE: _The United States produced the requested information that is in its
possession and that it has authority to disclose, including a classification review. See BATES
00410761-00410770. If information previously provided is not responsive, the United States
will reconsider a renewed defense request with more speci?city and an adequate basis.

g. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Defense Intelligence Agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate
why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the

Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20 January 2012,
paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested infonnation. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
a renewed defense request with more speci?city and an adequate basis.

h. Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive concerning the alleged leaks in this case?? If
yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please
indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items. See Discovery Request, 20
January 2012, paragraph

RESPONSE: The United States will not provide the requested information. The
defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for its request. The United States will reconsider
a renewed defense request with more specificity and an adequate basis.

4. The United States understands its continuing discovery obligation and acknowledges its
requirements under Article 46, UCMJ, the Rules for Courts?Martial, and relevant case law.


.4

r?
FE
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

I
I
2

29009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Response
v.
to Defense Discovery Request
Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

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

3 July 2012



The prosecution hereby responds to the Defense Discovery Request dated 26 June 2012
as follows:

1. The prosecution did not submit a request speci?cally to Headquarters, Department of
the Army (HQDA) to search and preserve its records relating to the accused. Defense
Discovery Request, para. The prosecution submitted a request to the Department of
Defense (DOD), to include I-IQDA. The prosecution will produce the request no later than
6 July 2012. -

2. There is no ?le pertaining to PFC Manning,? outside the information which has
already been, and will continue to be, provided to the defense, to include but not limited to the
prosecution's own file, law enforcement investigative ?les, military intelligence investigative
?les, and administrative investigations. _S_ee Defense Discovery Request, para. If the
defense is aware of any speci?c ?le, the defense is invited to submit a discovery request
with reasonable speci?city for what materials are sought. at 5. The prosecution will
continue its review of all records responsive to the prosecution?s above request and produce
those records consistent with the Court?s Rulings. ?e_e AE see also Ruling: Defense
Motion Clari?cation of Ruling Motion to Compel Discovery 2, 25 June 2012.

?as

J. HUNTER WHYTE
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

I certify that I served or caused to be served a true copy of the above on Mr. David
Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 3 July 2012.

J. wnvre
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

29010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Response
v.
to Defense Discovery Request
Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

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

14 August 2012



The prosecution hereby responds to the Defense Discovery Request dated 1 August 2012 as
follows:

1. The memorandum/e?mail/document from the Government to Marine Corps Base Quantico
(hereinafter "Quantico") requesting that they preserve and produce documents and information
pertaining to PFC Manning?s con?nement.

RESPONSE: On 8 March 2012, the prosecution provided this document as part of its
Response to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery. SE Enclosure 1 to Appellate Exhibit (AE)
XVI.

2. The names of the individuals who the Govemment sent the Quantico preservation request to
and the date which the Government made its request;

RESPONSE: On 8 March 2012, the prosecution provided this document as part of its
Response to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery. This document was sent through
LtCol Christopher Greer, Staff Judge Advocate, Quantico to Co] Daniel Choike, Commander,
Quantico.

3. All documentation provided by these individuals in response to the Govemment?s request, the
date this information was provided, and the individuals who provided the requested information.

RESPONSE:

a. In August 2011, the prosecution began receiving documentation responsive to its
preservation request and continued to work with Quantico to identify additional information. On
20 December 201 1, LtCol Greer, con?rmed that ?all relevant electronic correspondence,
electronic files and hard copy documentary evidence regarding the con?nement of [the accused]
in the possession of [Quantico] official have been provided.? Enclosure March 2012, the prosecution provided the defense LtCol Greer?s statement as part of its
Response to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery. See

b. In August 201 1, the prosecution started producing information it received from Quantico
in response to the prosecution's preservation order, and by 6 December 2011, the prosecution

29011

produced to the defense all documentation, except two documents.' On 25 July 2012, and in
preparation for the defense Article 13 motion, the United States started reviewing emails it
received from Quantico, pursuant to the preservation request, for potential impeachment
evidence or RCM 914/Jencks material. The United States identified eighty-four emails that were
obviously material to the preparation of the defense, because they fell into these four categories:
I) statements by Brig officials describing their classi?cation decisions, including the factors
weighed; (2) statements discussing chain of command directives/orders regarding the accused's
confinement; (3) statements describing the conditions of the accused's confinement, including
descriptions of the accused; or (4) pursuant to the Court's prior Ruling, statements involving
investigation, damage assessment, or mitigation measures. gag AE CXLVII. The United States
produced these emails on 26 July 2012. The defense has failed to provide an adequate basis for
production of the remaining emails. The defense is invited to renew its request with more
specificity and an adequate basis for its request.

4. Any other e-mails or documentation that the Government is aware of and has not previously
provided to the Defense dealing with PFC Manning's confinement conditions while at Quantico.

RESPONSE: Absent what is listed above in response to paragraph 3, below in paragraph 5,
and prosecution work product, the prosecution is not aware of any other e-mails or
documentation dealing with the accused?s confinement conditions while at Quantico.

5. The prosecution contacted, or attempted to contact, the below individuals for any e-mails or
documentation relating to the accused or the accused?s confinement conditions. The prosecution
responds to the defense?s request as follows:

a. LtGen George J. LtGen is unaware of any emails or documentation related
to the accused or the accused's con?nement conditions. LtGen is searching any retained
records and the prosecution will notify the defense if any such material is found.

b. Col Christopher Miner. Col Miner is currently deployed to Afghanistan and is also on
leave. The prosecution brie?y spoke with Col Miner who stated he will review his ?les
when he returns to Afghanistan. The prosecution will notify the defense if any such material is
found.

c. Col Royal Mortenson. Col Mortenson does not have any emails or documentation related
to the accused or the accused's confinement conditions.

d. COL Carl R. Coffman Jr. COL Coffman does not have any emails or documentation
related to the accused or the accused's confinement conditions. Outside what has already been
produced or provided to the defense, the prosecution will disclose any additional memoranda

On 13-14 August 2012. the prosecution reviewed its database and identi?ed two documents that were not
previously produced to the defense. The first document (BATES if: 00576678-00576684) is a seven?page
document which contains information previously produce-l to the defense; however the cover memorandum and
public affairs pages were not produced. The second docu tent (BATES 00506676-00506677) is a two-page
purchase request for a wireless telephone headset, purchas :d for the accused's use.

2

29012

. signed by the COL Coffman related to the accused's pretrial con?nement no later than 17 August

2012.

e. Col Daniel J. Choike." Col Choike does not have any emails or documentation related to
the accused or the accused's con?nement conditions, in addition to the what he provided LtCol
Greer pursuant to the prosecution's preservation request.

f. Col Mark M. Kauzlarich. Col Kauzlarich does not have any emails or documentation
related to the accused or the accused's confinement conditions. Pursuant to the prosecution's
preservation request, Col Kauzlarich provided all emails or documentation to LtCol Greer.

g. CDR Han Bui. CDR Bui does not have any emails or documentation related to the
accused or the accused's con?nement conditions. According to CDR Bui, any notes would have
been annotated in the accused's medical records, which have already been produced to the
defense.

h. CAPT Mary Neill. CAPT Neill does not have any emails or documentation related to the
accused or the accused's con?nement conditions. Pursuant to the prosecution's preservation
request, CAPT Neill provided all emails or documentation to LtCol Greer.

i. LtCol Christopher M. Greer. LtCol Greer does not have any emails or documentation
related to the accused or the accused's con?nement conditions. Pursuant to the prosecution's
preservation request, LtCol Greer provided all emails or documentation to the prosecution.

j. LtCol Amy R. Ebitz. LtCol Ebitz is currently assigned OCONUS and is currently on
Temporary Duty without means of communication. The prosecution has been unable to
correspond with LtCol Ebitz and will notify the defense if any such material is found.

k. CPT John Haberland. CPT Haberland was a member of the prosecution team until he was
designated as the legal subject matter expert for external public affairs in August 201 1. Any
emails prior to that time are work product, including his emails concerning Quantico. Since
then, CPT Haberland?s role has been limited solely to public relations, not the prosecution of the
accused.

1. CWO5 Abel Galaviz. CWO5 Galaviz does have documentation, including his own report,
emails, status reports, and noti?cations.

In. CWO4 James T. Averhart. CWO4 Averhart does not have any emails or documentation
related to the accused or the accused's con?nement conditions. Pursuant to the prosecution's
preservation request, CWO4 Averhart provided all emails or documentation to LtCol Greer.

n. CWO2 Denise Barnes. CWO2 Barnes does not have any emails or documentation related
to the accused or the accused's con?nement conditions, in addition to the what she provided
LtCol Greer pursuant to the prosecution's preservation request.

29013

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