Title: Volume FOIA 102

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 32998

Volume 102 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 ?surrimarizeo? 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

32999

ANSWER: (U) The prosecution submitted its Prudential Search Request to encompass
the entire department-to include the Oepartment ofthe Army. The OoO facilitated the
prosecution'srequest to the Department of the Army. Additionally.HQDAtookpartin
the planning process fbr the prosecution to submit its request through DoD.
306.

Was thereaprohibition against you contacting HQDA directly?

ANSWER:(U)No.OTJAGis part ofHQDA; therefore, the prosecution did directly
contact HQDA.
307. In July 2011. you had other emails with HQDA. Why did you not submit the memo to
HQDAdirectiy7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution had knowledge that the DoO would be facilitating the
prosecution'srequest through the appropriate channels, to include the Department of the
Army. HQDA agreed that the request should be sent through DoD.
308. Did DOD act asamiddleman in obtaining other discovery7 (not including DOD
discovery itself). If so,what other discovery did DOD act asamiddleman fbr7
ANSWER: (U)No. The prosecution only conesponded with DoD for DoD discovery.
309. How did you keep track of what DOD was doing and what it"owed" you in terms of
discoyery7
ANSWER:(U) The prosecution coordinated with the OGC at DoD,andiftheofftce
directed the prosecution to other offtces within DoD. we coordinated directly with them,
such as the Joint Staff As the prosecution coordinated with each subordinate
organization it kept track ofwhat infbrmation was being gathered and when it was being
made available for the prosecution.
310.

What was the suspense date on the original HQDAmemorandum?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution'sinitial Prudential Search Request to DoD includeda
suspense date o f l August 2011.

311. When the suspense date came and wenL did you follow up with HQDA7DOD7 Any
other entity7
ANSWER: (U)Yes. The prosecution sent multiple emails and had many phone calls
with OGC.DoD to determine the status ofthe requesL and coordinated directly with
subordinate organizations to obtain the information at the direction of OGC. DoD.
312.

On what date did DOO teti you that ati responsive material had been compiled?

55

33000

ANSWER; (U)On40ctober 2011.the prosecution retrieved the Joint Staff ftles
responsive to the Prudential Search RequesL On 27April 2012. the prosecution retrieved
the Army G2ftlesresponsive to the Prudential Search RequesL OnllMay 2012. the
prosecution retrieved the Headquarters Department ofthe Armyftlesresponsive to the
Prudential Search RequesL
313. Did OOD provide an accounting ofwhat information they were giving you7 Ifso. in
whatform7
ANSWER; (U) The organizations provided ati responsive material on compact discs.
314.

When did you ftnish reviewing ati this "responsive material"7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecutionftnishedreviewing ati responsive material to the
Prudential Search Request onlOJuly 2012.

315.

On what date did you become aware that you did not receive any response ftom HDQA7
ANSWER: (U)5January2012. Once ati the initial material was received from DoD in
the Fati. the prosecution started preparing for the defense briefs ofthe prosecution'scase
and the Article 32. After the completion ofthe Article 32.it started reviewing the
information and identifted that HQDAinformation was not contained within the DoD
responsive materiaL

316.

What did you do in reference to the missing HQDA documents at that point? When7
ANSWER;(U)0n5January 2012. the prosecution contacted OGC. DoD.

317. You claim that on5January 2012. you contacted DOD who "advised the prosecution to
contact HQDA directly to speed up the process." Isthattrue7
ANSWER: (U)Yes.
318.

Did you contact HQOA directiy atthatpoint?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution contacted Criminal Law Division. OTJAG. onIO
January 2012.

319. You claim OnlOJanuary 2012to have "emailed Criminal Law Division. Offtce of the
Judge Advocate GeneraL United States Army (hereinafter "OTJAG") to request an update, and
was infbrmed that OTJAGneeded to contact 0 0 0 OGC for the inquiry." Why did you emati
Criminal Law Division after being told on5January 2012 to go to HQOA directly7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution followed the exact instructions it was given, and
contacted the HQOAlegalrepresentatives^OTJAG.

56

33001

320. Why did you continue to involve OTJAGin the process fbr the next several months
instead ofworking with HQDA directly7
ANSWER: (U)OTJAGis the legal representative ofHeadquarters. Department ofthe
Army.therefore. the prosecution did coordinate directly with HQDA.
321.

When did the revised HQDAmemorandum get sent out (i.e.the second time)7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution did not know ofthe existence ofthe HQDA
memorandum untti the defense provided it to the Court and the prosecution.

322.

Was this an identical copy oftheftrstHQDA memorandum?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution was not privy to the tasking memoranda within HQDA.

323.

Did the original HQDAmemorandum ftom 29 July 2011include the following language7
DOD OGC is requesting that HQDAsearch for and preserve any documents with
material pertaining to: any type ofinvestigation; working groups; resources
provided to aid in rectifying an alleged compromise ofgovemment infbrmation
damage assessments ofthe alleged compromise; or the consideration ofany
remedial measures in response to the alleged activities ofPFC Manning and
Wikileaks.
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution was not privy to the tasking memoranda within HQOA.

324. If yes. why does this language not appear in any other preseryation request submitted,
e.g.. to the FBL Department ofState. ONCIX. etc7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution was not privy to the tasking memoranda within HQDA.
325.

If no.why was this new language included in the second HQDAmemorandum7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution was not privy to the tasking memoranda within HQOA.

326. When did HQDAreceive ati responsive documentation to the second HQDA
memorandum7
ANSWER: (U)On23April2012.OTJAGnotiftedthe prosecution thatithadstarted
receiving responsive infbrmation.
327.

When did HQOAprovide the responsive documentation to you?
ANSWER: (U) OnllMay 2012.the prosecution received ati responsive information.

328.

When did you review the HQOAinformation7 Please provide speciftc dates.
57

33002

ANSWER; (U) From 30 June 2012tolJuly 2012.the prosecution completed its review
ofrecords responsive to the DoD Pmdential Search RequesL including Joint Staffand
Headquarters. Department ofthe Army.materiaL
329.

How many responsive documents did HQOAprovide you with7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution received approximately 17.000 pages of documents
ftom the Department ofthe Army. Additionally.the prosecution received approximately
37.000 pages of documents from DoD(excluding HQDA).

330.

When did you request authority to disclose the HQOA documents to the Defense7
ANSWER: (U) On 28 June 2012. the prosecution met with representatives ftom HQDA
and the Joint Staff to discuss streamliningaprocess fbr approvals of any documents
being disclosed to the defense under the Court'sorder. Afterftnishingthe review.the
prosecution submitted ati the discoverable documents for approval on5July2012.

331.

When did HQDAapprove of that request7
ANSWER: (U) The Army G2approyeddisclosureofHQDA.DoD.JointStaff
USCENTCOM, USSOUTHCOM.andother DoD infonnationon30 July 2012

332.

When were ati the HQDA documents produced to the Oefense7
ANSWER: (U) Unlike other organizations. HQOAapproved disclosure without any
requirements to ftle MRE 505(g) motions; therefore, the prosecution delivered the
discoverable material on2August 2012.along with material ftom OoD. the Joint Staff.
USCENTCOM. USSOUTHCOM.andDlA(BATES#: 00449943 00479483).

333. Please explain this entry in your Chronology; "30-Jun-11Thu Prosecution reviews
HQDArecords responsive to prudential search request to DoD but not TS-SCI records
responsive to the pmdential search requesL"
ANSWER: (U) From 30 June 2012tolJuly 2012.the prosecution completed its review
ofrecords responsive to the DoD Prudential Search Request that were unclassifted or
classifted at the SECRET leveL The prosecution reviewed approximately 13.000
documents. The prosecution reviewed ati TSSCl records responsive to the request onlO
July 2012
Other Closely Aliened Agencies and Prudential Search Requests
334. Please providealist of every agency that you senta"prudential search request" to and
when. In this lisL please provide the original suspense date fbr the agency to respond. Donot
include the 63 agencies that were contacted for the ONCIX damage assessmenL

58

33003

335. From documentation already provided, it appears that these search requests were sent no
earlier than May 2011. one year after the accused was placed in pretrial conftnemenL Why did
you wait one year before sending out pmdential search requests7
ANSWER: (U) It did not makes sense to send the requests at an earlier time. From May
2010untti May 2011,WikiLeaks continued to release compromised information which
led to additional charges being preferred andabroader investigation into the accused's
misconducL The prosecution understood the importance ofpreserving any discoverable
material as soon as possible and, in consultation with the Department ofJustice, began
preparingaPmdential Search Request to capture this intenL
336.

Could relevant infbrmation have been destroyed in this one year?
ANSWER: (U) Not likely. The material sought by the defense in discovery requests,
and by the prosecution in its Prudential Search Requests, did not exist in May 2010. The
disclosures were ongoing and the investigations were ongoing. The Prudential Search
Requests were designed to preserve any infbrmation created befbre trial so that the
prosecution could conduct Brady reviews and reviews of potentially discoverable
material relating to the accused and WikiLeaks.

337.

Toyour knowledge.was relevant infonnation destroyed in this one year7
ANSWER: (U) No

338. IfnoL then please explain the following; "Furthermore, please take steps to preserve
materials related to PFC Manning and/or WikiLeaks from any routine data destruction
practices."
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution included this language because the accused's
misconduct took place inadeployed setting where commands tend to adopt routine data
destruction practices and the prosecution was not aware at the time ofwhat each
organization'sroutine practices included.

59

33004

339. Do any ofthe agencies that you contacted have "routine data destruction practices"7 If
so.whichones7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution is not aware of any routine data destruction practices
exercised with any information pertaining to this case.
340. Could the documents pertaining to the Department ofState'sreporting to Congress have
been destroyed pursuant to routine data destruction practices7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution is not aware of any routine data destruction practices
exercised with any information pertaining to this case at the DepartmenL
341. Were there any agencies/organizations that you contacted to provide discovery.but that
you did not submitaprudential search request to7 Ifyes. please list ati agencies, the date you
contacted them, how you contacted them, the date they produced infbrmation, the date you
reviewed information, and the date you disclosed that infbrmation to the Defense.
ANSWER: (U) The only agencies/organizations that the prosecution contacted to
provide discoyery,but that it did not submitaPrudential Search Request to, are those
organizations contacted by ONCIX not previously identifted as having been sent sucha
requesL
342. Do you think that your prudential search requests are synonymous witharequest fbr
Brady material? In other words, are these the same as your Brady requests7
ANSWER: (U) The Prudential Search Requests were broader in scope thanarequest fbr
Brady materiaL Any Brady material would necessarily be responsive to the Pmdential
Search RequesL
343. IfnoL please provide dates when you sendarequest for Brady to each agency. Also,
please provideacopy of your Brady requesL
ANSWER: (U)Notappticable
344. If these pmdential search requests are your request fbr Brady.did you mention the word
"Brady"or R.C.M.701(a)(6) in the prudential search requests^
ANSWER: (U)No Seeaboye#133and342
345.

IfnoL whynot7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecutors inacriminal case are best suited to gauge whether
information qualiftes as Brady.especially regarding potentially exculpatory information.
Brady determinations under Williams are made by the prosecution and not other
organizations.

60

33005

346. What part ofthe prudential search requests refers to Brady7 Please identify speciftc
language.
ANSWER: (U) The request fbr "any information held by [the respectivejagency, which
concems or references [the accused] and/or WikiLeaks." The request speciftcally sought
"any infonnation directly conceming [the accused] including but not limited to any
documents that discuss damage or harm caused by[the accused] and WikiLeaks[.]"
347.

Please explain how this speciftc language asks fbr Brady material.
ANSWER: (U) The request is broader than what is required under Brady. Any Brady
material would necessarily be responsive to the Prudential Search RequesL

348. You ask in your search request that the agencies preserve and produce documents that
"discuss damage or harm caused by PFC Manning." Did you ever ask fbr documents which
discussalack ofharm or damage caused by PFC Manning7
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution requested any documents that discussed damage or
harm. The request was not limited solely to documents showing actual harm. Instead,
the request includes documents showing actual damage or harm and documents showing
lack ofdamage or harm. Further, the request asked organizations to err on the side of
preserving materiaL Again, the prosecution'srequest necessarily includes any Brady
material because the request includes any documents relating to the accused and/or
WikiLeaks. Also, ati requests were submitted after extensive discussions with each
organization that included explaining that damage or harm included lackther ofor
minimal levels ofharm.
349. In your preseryation requests, you refened to PFC Manning'sArticle 46 rights. Why did
you not refer to Brady7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution referenced Article 46. UCMJ. the Rules fbr CourtsMartiaL and applicable case law. Article 46. UCMJ. serves as the basis fbr broad
discovery in the militaryjustice system. See above responses for why the requests
included Bradymaterial(#342 348)
350. You state in your search requesL"This request is designed to allow the prosecutors to
assess the totality ofinformation available and held as records by other government agencies."
You do not state that the request is designed to provide Brady discover to the Defense (in fact
you state,"It is not intended to, nor should it be interpreted as, ascribing any legal relevance,
including whether such information may be provided in discovery to the information requested.).
Were these search requests designed to compile evidence fbr your case-in-chief?
ANSWER; (U) These requests were designed to encompassabroadspectmm of
information, including that which is discoverable under Brady and other rules of
discovery. The main purpose was to understand what type ofBrady infbrmation exists
within the United States GovemmenL
61

33006

351. In your search request you ask for"certain information, detailed below, which directly
implicates the evidence in the above-referenced case." What does this mean7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution'srequest was t^o-fold: ftrsL to preserve any records
relating to the accused and/or WikiLeaks; and second, to preserve any records relating to
the evidence in thiscase. The prosecution requested any records relating to the evidence
in this case because such records may be discoverable, even though those records may
not readily be related to the accused and/or WikiLeaks(e.g.,IP addresses).
352. Did you ever speciftcally ask any agency for documents or evidence which reasonably
tends to negate guih, reduce guih, or reduce punishment7 lfso.howdidyouasktheseagencies7
Please providealist of agencies, and how and when the communication took place.
ANSWER: (U)Seeabove#342 350
353. Theftrstreference to Brady in your chronology is after you submitted your pmdential
search requests ("9Jun-llThu PTAand Brady research/memo"). Why did you wait over one
year to research Brady7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution did not wait over one year to research Brady. The
prosecution started researching its Brady obligations within 30 days ofreceiving the case
ftom Iraq. The prosecution researched speciftc discovery issues as they arose throughout
the pretrial process. The speciftc entry referenced above related to whether the accused
may waive discovery as part ofapretrialagreemenL
354.

Why did you send out preservation requests without researching Brady7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution did not send out preservation requests without
researching Brady. The prosecution researched discovery issues, to include Brady.weti
before it sent out the Prudential Search Requests.

355. After your May 2011(orthereabouts)pmdential search requesL did you ever follow-up
with the agencies to ask why you had not received any responsive doeumentation7 Please
providealist of agencies, the dates you contacted them, and the substance ofthe
communications. Ifin writing, please provide documentation.

62

33007

356. Did any ofthe agencies meet the original suspense dates7 Ifyes,please provide details
and dates.
ANSWER: (U) No
357. For those agencies that did not meet the original suspense dates, did you contact them7 If
yes,when7 Please providealist of each agency.when the communication took place, and what
the substance ofthe communication entailed. Ifin writing, please provide documentation.
ANSWER; (U)Seeaboye #355
358. Why did you send out the exact same search request to DIA on 25 March 2012andl4
June 20127
ANSWER: (U) The requests dated 25 May 2011andl4June2011were not identicaL
The request dated 25 May 2011requested that the organizations preserve records
responsive to the prudential search requesL as weti as any other records discovered that
may not be responsive. Many organizations were confused how to answer the ftrst
requesL In consultation with the Department ofJustice.the prosecution redeftned its
request on 14June2011to include those records relating to the accused and/or
WikiLeaks.
359. How many other duplicative search requests did you send out7 Please list each agency
and the dates that the duplicative search requests were sent ouL

360.

Why did you keep sending the same requests to these agencies?
ANSWER; (U)Seeaboye#358 and359

361. Other than these duplicative requests, did you ever contact the agencies to inquire as to
the progress in collecting the requested information? Ifyes. please provide details. In particular.

63

33008

please provide the list of agencies you contacted.when you contacted them.what the discussion
entailed. Please provide documentary evidence to this effecL
ANSWER: (U)Seeaboye#355
362. Did you ever ask any agency how they were collecting the responsive information7 If
yes. explain and provide documentation.
ANSWER: (U) The prosecutionftequentlyinquired aboutthe status ofits Prudential
Search Requests, to include the steps taken by the organizations to gather records
responsive to the requesL
363. Did you ever ask any agency how many people they had asked to collect this
information? Ifyes. explain and provide documentation.
ANSWER: (U) No
364. Did you ever ask for updates on when you should expect the discovery7 Ifyes. explain
and provide documentation.
ANSWER: (U) The prosecutionftequentlyinquired about the status ofits Prudential
Search Requests, to include whaL if any.progress was being made. Ati documentation, if
any.that the prosecution has authority to provide or witi reference during the motions
hearing has been provided to the defense.
365. Did you ever communicate with any agency about PFC Manning'sright toaspeedy trial7
Ifyes. explain and provide documentation.
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution preparedamemorandum for each ofthe organizations
that explained the right toaspeedy trial in the military justice system. Ati
documentation, if any.that the prosecution has authority to provideor witi reference
during the motions hearing has been provided to the defense.
366. Did any agency provide you with an explanation as to what was taking so long to collect
thedocuments7 Ifyes. explain.
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution frequently inquired about the status ofits Prudential
Search Requests, to include the steps taken by the organizations to gather records
responsive to the request and whaL if any.progress was being made.
367. Did you ever attempt to gather thisinformation for disclosure priorto the Article 32
hearing?
ANSWER: (U) Pre-referraL the prosecution submitted its Prudential Search Requests to
ati govemment organizations for which it hadagood faith basis may have records or
infbrmation relating to the accused and/or WikiLeaks. The prosecution submitted these
64

33009

requests pre-refenaL so that any discoverable material that did not requireamilitary
judge to regulate may be disclosed to the defense as soon as possible.
368. Was any evidence ftom any prudential search request produced to the Defense prior to
the Article 32 hearing7
ANSWER: (U) No
369. When did each agency provide you with responsive documents7 Please providealist of
agencies and dates where the agency had provided ati responsive documents fbr your review.

370.

How many responsive documents did each agency provide to you7

^ The prosecution conducted a cursoryreviewofthe F61 records on 27 April 2011. The prosecution was given
access to all FOI records on 25 August 2011.
^ On27 April 2011. tiie Army 02 olfice provided approximately 1341 documents responsive to the request. On 3
October 2011. the foint Staffprovided approximately 9476 documents responsive to the rei^uest. On 11 May 2012,
HQDA provided approximately 1462 documentsresponsiveto the request.
^ Many ofthe above organizations discovered additionalrecordsresponsiveto the prosecutions request based on
subser^uent developments. The prosecutionreviewedthose records as soon as they became available.

65

33010

371.

How many total manpower hours per agency did it take to collect the documents7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not know the answer to this question.

372. When did you review ati the documents from each agency7 Please providealist of
agencies and dates where you ftrst reviewed ati documents and dates where you ftnished
reviewing ati documents.

373. How many total hours did it take you to review documents from each agency7 Please
break it down by agency.

66

33011

374. When did you disclose all the responsive documents to the Defense7 Please break it
down by agency(and use the date on which the last agency document was produced to the
Defense).
ANSWER: (U) The defense is in possession ofthe referenced material that answers this
question.
375. Do you have any document to an extemal agency ftom prior to the Court'smling on 23
March 2012that explains the conect view ofBrady and asks the agency for Brady discovery. I f
so. please provide that documenL
ANSWER: (U) See aboveft^rexplanationofPrudentialSearch Requests(#133 134).
Prior to 23 March 2012. the prosecution submitted multipleftlingswith the Court
explaining Brady.
376. After the Court'smling on 23 March 2012 did you contact closely aligned agencies to
speciftcally ask for evidence that reasonably tends to reduce punishment7 Ifso, please provide
documentation.
ANSWER: (U) Weti before referraL the prosecution submitted Prudential Search
Requests to ati closely aligned agencies. This request included any material that
reasonably tends to reduce punishmenL
/^^^^^/^^^/^//b^^/^^^^^c^^//y
377.

When did youftrstleam that the DHS was working onadamage assessment?
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution ftrst leamed that the Department ofHomeland Security
was preparingadamage assessment on190ctober 2011.

378.

When did the DHS complete the damage assessment7
ANSWER; (U)Tothe best ofthe prosecution'sknowledge, the damage assessment was
completed on21 March 2011.

379.

What is the date on the DHS damage assessment7
ANSWER: (U)21March2011

380.

When were you authorized to view the DHS damage assessment7
ANSWER: (U)19October201L

381.

When did youftrstview the DHS damage assessment?
ANSWER; (U)19October201L
67

33012

382.

How long did it take you to review the DHS damage assessment7
ANSWER; (U)Approximately4hours.

383. When was theftrsttime you revealed the existence ofthe DHS damage assessment to the
Defense7TotheCourt7
ANSWER: (U) As the defense outlined in its Addendum #2 to Oefense Motion to
Compel Discovery #2,datedl8June 2012. the prosecution orally notifted the defense on
8June 2012 afteramotions hearing. The prosecution did not notify the Court ofits
existence because the documents were disclosed to the defense in their entirety onl3
June 2012. Based on the Court'semails with the parties, it appears the Court became
aware ofits existence through the defense'sftlingonl8June 2012,after the assessment
was fully disclosed to the defense.
384. Why did you wait untti that date to reveal the existence ofthe DHS damage assessment to
the Defense and the Court?
ANSWER: (U) The damage assessment is classifted; thus, approval ftom the equity
holder is necessary before disclosure to the defense. Furthermore, the prosecution was
coordinating with the Department ofHomeland Security fbr any records responsive to the
prosecution'sPmdential Search RequesL
385. After the Court'sruling o n l l M a y 2012 denying your request for reconsideration ofthe
Department ofState damage assessmenL did you have contact with the DHS7 lfso.when7
What was the substance ofthese communications7
ANSWER: (U)No. The prosecution did not discuss the Court'sruling datedllMay
2012 with the Department ofHomeland Security. The prosecution contacted the
Department ofHomeland Security onl6May2012to discuss the Court'sruling dated 23
March 2012and to obtain authority to disclose their assessment without redactions or
substitutions,which OHS approved on7June2012and the prosecution immediately
disclosed its existence on8June 2012, and produced the document in discovery on 13
June 2012.
In the aftermath ofthe Court'sruling o n l l M a y 2012, you reached out to various organizations;
I4-May-I2 Mon Email with Export-Import Bank ofUS to inquire about any discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon Email witb FMC to inquire aboutany discoverable m^tcr^i^l
14-May-12Mon Emailwith MMC to inquire aboutanydiscoverable material
14-May-12Mon Email witb OPI to inquire about any discoverable material
I4-May-12 Mon Email witb SSA to inquire about any discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon Email witb SSS to inquire aboutany discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon Phone call witb Export-Import Bank ofUS to inquire aboutany discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon Phone call witb FCA to inc^uire aboutany discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon Phone call with FMC to inquire about any discoverable material
I4-May-12Mon Phone call witb MMC to inquire about any discoverable material

68

33013

14-M^y-12MonPbonc call witb OPI to inquire about any discoverable material
14-May-12 Mon I^boncc^ll witb SBA to inquire aboutany discoverable material
17-May-I2Tbu Email witb ODNI to inquire aboutanydiscoverable material witbNCPC
17-May-12Tbu Email with ODNI to ini^uirc about any discoverable material witb NCTC

386. Why did you wait untti mid-May 2012 (two years after PFC Manning was arrested) to
reach out to these organizations7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution did not wait to reach out to these organizations, nor
were these communications pursuant to the Court'sruling o n l l M a y 2012. Rather, they
were part ofthe continuing effort to obtain infbrmation ftom the agencies that started in
February 2012.
387. Was the need to reach out to these agencies tied to the Court'sl1May2012mling7
Explain.
ANSWER: (U)No. The prosecution boreadiscovery obligation to search fbr any
individual assessment ftom the above organizations.
388.

Did you submitaprudential search requestto DHS? Ifyes.when7
ANSWER: (U)Yes.on25 October 2011

389. If you did not submitaprudential search requesL did you otherwise askOHS to produce
responsive documentation7
ANSWER: (U)Notapplicable
390.

Did you receive discoverable infbrmation from DHS7When7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution received records in response to its Pmdential Search
Request on 27 January 2012.

391.

When did you review that discoverable information7
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution completed its review ofthose records provided in
response to its Prudential Search Request on 26 July 2012.

392.

How many total manpower hours didtitake you to review that information7
ANSWER: (U) Approximately 75 hours

393.

When did you produce that information to the Defense?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution disclosed the DHS information to the defense on 14
September 2012.except for one document which was the subject ofaMRE 505(g)
motion. The Court authorized redactions for this one document on 28 September 2012.
69

33014

and the single documenLwith redactions applied.was produced to the defense on 26
October 2012
7^77^ D^^^^^^,^.^^,^,^^^^/
394.

When did youftrstleam ofthe existence ofthe IRTF damage assessment?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution ftrst leamed about the Infbrmation ReviewTaskForce
in August of2010but did not know they were creatingadamage or impact StatemenL
The prosecution ftrst leamed ofthe existence of the damage assessment on or aboutl
October 2011through discussions with DIA.

395.

When was the IRTF damage assessment completed7
ANSWER: (U)Tothe best of the prosecution'sknowledge. the damage assessment was
completed on 29 July 2011.

396. What is the date on the IRTF damage assessment7 [Ifthis infbrmation is classifted, please
provide an explanation and documentation to this effect].
ANSWER: (U) The date that is printed on the front ofthe assessment is 29 July 2011.
which has been available to the defense fbr inspection since6June2012after the Court
approved redactions under MRE 505(g)(2)on the record on6June 2012.
397.

When did youftrstrequest to view the IRTF damage assessment7
ANSWER:(U)On25 May 201Las part ofthe Prudential Search RequesL which would
have included the documenL and the prosecution speciftcally requested to review the
damage assessment on40ctober 2011.

398.

When did the CIA approve ofyour request to view the IRTF damage assessment7
ANSWER; (U) CIA was not involved in the request to view the documenL but rather
OIA. OIA approved the request on50ctober 2011.

399.

When did youftrstreceive the IRTF damage assessment7
ANSWER: (U)5October201L

400.

When did you review the IRTF damage assessment7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution started reviewing the document on50ctober 2011.

401.

How many total hours did it take you to review the IRTF damage assessment?
ANSWER: (U)Approximately4hours.
70

33015

402.

How many pages was the IRTF damage assessment7
ANSWER: (U) 121 pages, which has been available to the defense fbr inspection since
6June 2012 after the Court approved redactions under MRE 505(g)(2)on the record on6
June 2012.

403.

When was the IRTF damage assessment produced to the Defense?
ANSWER: (U) The assessment has been available to the defense fbr inspection since6
June 2012 after the Court approved redactions under MRE 505(g)(2)on the record on6
June 2012.

C^G^#/^^c^^^/^o//oi^C^^7^^^^^^^,^.^^,^,^^^^/
404. When were youftrstinformed that the 0GA#1 was working onasecond follow-on
report?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "0GA#1 Second Follow-On Damage Assessment."because the CIA
created the fbllow-on damage assessmenL^ As outlined in the govemment'snotice ftling
on 12 July 2012.the prosecution "leamed onllJuly2012that the CLA had drafted
another report analyzing the impact on the WikiLeaks disclosures onadiscrete matter."
405.

How did you leam ofthis? Please provide documentation.
ANSWER: (U)Duringaphone conversation with Agency counseL the prosecution was
infbrmed about the report.

406.

When did the 0GA#1 begin the second follow-on report?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "OGA#lSecondFollow-On Damage Assessment."because the CIA
created the follow-on damage assessmenL The prosecution does not know when the CLA
started the follow-on report.

407.

When did the OGA#lcomplete second follow-on report7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "0GA#1 Second Follow-On Damage Assessment."because the CIA
created the follow on damage assessmenL The prosecution does not know when the CIA

71

33016

completed the followon report; however the date ofthe report is the likely completion
date.
408. What is the date on the 0GA#1 second follow-on report? [Ifthis information is
classifted. please provide an explanation and documentation to this effect].
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "OGA#lSecondFollow-On Damage AssessmenL"because the CIA
created the follow-on damage assessmenLThe prosecution does not know the date the
CIA completed the follow-on report.
409.

When did you request to view the 0GA#1 second follow-on report?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "OGA#lSecondFollow-On Damage Assessment."because the CIA
created the followon damage assessmenLThe prosecution requested to review the CIA's
follow-on report onllJuly 2012.

410.

When were you given approval to view the 0GA#1 second follow-on report7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "OGA#lSecond Follow-On Damage Assessment."because the CIA
created the followon damage assessmenL The CIA gave the prosecution approval o n l l
July 2012

411.

When did you view the 0GA#1 second follow on report?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "0GA#1 Second FollowOn Damage Assessment,"because the CIA
created the follow-on damage assessmenL The prosecution reviewed the CIA report on
13 July 2012

412.

How many pages was the 0GA#1 second follow-on report?
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "0GA#1 Second FollowOn Damage Assessment,"because the CIA
created the follow-on damage assessmenL The prosecution does not have the authority to
disclose the length of the ClA'sreport.

413.

How long in total did it take you to review the 0GA#1 second follow-on report7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution does not understand this question and subsequent
questions about "OGA#lSecondFollowOn Damage Assessment,"because the CIA
created the follow-on damage assessmenLThe prosecution does not have the authority to
disclose the length of the ClA'sreport.

72

33017

414. When did you disclose the existence ofthe 0GA#1 second follow-on report to the Court
andtheDefense7
ANSWER: (U)Seeabove#404.
415. OnllApril 2012,you indicate the "Prosecution reviews two versions of OGAl damage
assessmenL" Was one of the two damage assessments the OGA#l"follow-onreport"7
ANSWER: (U) No

416.

IfnoL why were there two damage assessments7
ANSWER: (U)Seeaboye#415

417.

Have you disclosed both damage assessments to the Court and the Defense7
ANSWER: (U)Seeaboye#415.

G^^^^,/^^7^,^//^^^
418. You indicate that on 29 September 2010,"DOJ informed prosecution that judge signed
order disclosing grand jury matters to prosecution." Does that mean you were authorized to view
the grandjury testimony on that date7
ANSWER: (U)Yes.
419.

IfnoL why not7
ANSWER: (U)Notapplicable

420. IfnoL on what date were you authorized to view the grandjury testimony7 Who
authorized this7
ANSWER: (U)Notapplicable
421.

When did you request to view the grandjury testimony7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution had multiple conversations with the United States
Attomey'sOffice for the Eastem District ofVirginia (EDVA)about viewing the grand
jury testimony in January and Febmary 2012. On 14February 2012.the prosecution

73

33018

formally requested to review the testimony. The Department ofJustice authorized the
prosecution to review the transcripts of grand jury testimony on 12 April 2012.
422.

When did you receive the grandjury testimony7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution reviewed the grand jury testimony at EOVAon 12 April
2012and never received copies, except the ftnal redacted versions produced to the
defense.

423. When did you review the grandjury testimony7 Please provide the date that you started
reviewing the testimony and the date youftnishedreviewing the grandjury testimony.
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution reviewed the grand jury testimony on 12 April 2012 and
the ftnal redacted versions on21 May 2012.
424.

How many total manpower hours did it take to review the grand jury testimony7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution estimates it took approximately3hours to review the
grandjury testimony.

425.

When did you produce the grandjury testimony to the Defense?
ANSWER; (U) Based on the Court'sruling on 25 April 2012, the prosecution delivered
the relevant portions ofthe grand jury testimonyto the defense on21May2012(BATES
#: 00447667-00447817)

Ouantico Emails
426.

When did you request that Quantico preserve ati emails related to PFC Manning7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution never requested that Quantico preserve ati its emails
relating to the accused. On 28 April 2011. the prosecution requested the Commander.
Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ) to "take any and ati reasonable and necessary
stepstopreserveanyinforniationheldbyyourcommandwhieheoneemsorreferences
PFCManning"

427.

When did you begin receiving emails ftom Quantico7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution ftrst received emails on or about2June2011and
continued to receive emails throughout the summer and fati along with other
documentation.

42^^.

When did you receive the last emati ftom Quantico?
ANSWER: (U)Onorabout5December2011

74

33019

429. You indicate that on2June2011you "Picked up Quantico MCB Discovery docs" at
Quantico. Were these emails in the "discovery docs" that you picked up7
ANSWER: (U) Some ofthe emails were contained within the information.
430.

When did you begin reviewing emails ftom Quantico7
ANSWER: (U)25 July 2012

431. Did any member ofthe prosecution team see. open, or look at any ofthe emails prior to
two days befbre you informed the Defense oftheir existence7
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution did not review the emails fbr discovery purposes untti
25 July 2012. It is likely thatastaff member of the prosecution team saw. opened, or
looked at some ofthe emails during the discovery in-processing.
432. Where were the emails between the time you received the last emati ftom Quantico and
the time you began reviewing the emails7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution stored the emati digitally.
433. Why did you wait untti2days before the Defense ftling to review the emails ftom
Quantico7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution began reviewing those emails in preparation for the
Article 13 motion. On 25 July 2012.the prosecution began prioritizing its review ofthe
emails fbr Giglio/Jencks material based on potential witnesses.
434. Did you know.based on communication with people at Quantico Brig or otherwise, that
the emails contained unfavorable information for the Goyemment7
ANSWER: (U) No
435. Did you know prior to reviewing the emails that LtGen.Flynn was involved in
confinement decisions at Quantico7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution has never been aware that LtGenFlynn was involved in
conftnement decisions at Quantico. but rather his involvement was as the senior
commander on MCBQ and he exercised his command supervision over the MCBQ
Ganison Commander.
436. Is it your honest beliefthat the Defense did not want emails from Quantico pertaining to
PFCManning7
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution responds to discovery requests and relies on the defense
to provide speciftc requests. The defense requested documents and not emails. Once the
75

33020

prosecution reviewed the infbrmation as part ofits Giglio/Jencks review and determined
that it was discoverable for other reasons, the prosecution produced the information.
437.

Ooyou believe that emails are "documents" within the meaning ofR.C.M.701(a)(2)7
ANSWER: (U)No. The defense previously differentiated between "documents" and
"emails";thus. the prosecution read the defense request to include only documents.

438. After the Defense infbrmed the Court and Govemment that it was planning on mailing
out attachments earlier than its offtcial ftling. why did you not alert the Defense to the existence
ofthe emails7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution notifted the defense ofdiscoverable emails as soon as it
became aware oftheir existence. The prosecution notifted the defense ofthe
discoverable emails befbre the ftling date ofthe Article13 motion and did not open the
defense'sattachments to the Article 13 motion untti after the RCM 802 conference where
the defense notifted the Court that it stiti intended to move fbrward with the motion as
ftled; otherwise, the prosecution would not have reviewed the documents.
439. In the emati accompanying the original batch of84 emails. MAJ Fein stated that these
emails were "obviously material to the preparation ofthe defense." The Oefense asked the
question;"Are there emails you have which are material to the preparation of the defense, but
noLobyiouslymaterial7" Two prosecutors responded something to the effecL"No^we have
given you everything that is material to the preparation ofthe defense." Several weeks later, you
disclosed another 600 emails as being material to the preparation ofthe defense. Why did these
prosecutors teti the Defense that you had disclosed everything that was material to the
preparation ofthe defense7
ANSWER: (U) On 26 July 2012. the prosecution disclosed the emails that were
obviously material to the preparation ofthe defense fbr Article 13purposes. Afterthe
Mr. Coombs submitted the same question twice to the prosecution via emaiL both CPT
Overgaard and CPT Morrow responded that the prosecution disclosed the infbrmation
that was material to the preparation ofthe defense. At the point ofthe initial disclosure,
the prosecution was not on notice of what the defense considered material except that
which was obvious. As stated intheprosecution'sresponsetothe Defense Motion to
Compel Number 3.dated 23 August 2012.the prosecution only became aware ofwhat
infbrmation was also material to the preparation ofdefense, outside ofthat which was
obvious onl7August 2012,when the defenseftnallyprovided speciftcity in its motion to
compeL In both the8December2010prerefenal discovery request andlAugust 2012
post-refenal discovery requesL the defense did not provide any speciftcity to inform the
prosecution, but rather asked for ati information or ati emails.
440. On3August 2012.afterthe Defense had ftled its Article 13motion. you have the
fbllowing entry "Emati with CID to obtain Articlel3evidence." Why did you wait untti over
two years into the case to emati CIO about obtaining Articlel3evidence7

76

33021

ANSWER: (U) In preparation forthe Article 13motion. the prosecution requested that
CID searchthe evidence locker fbraparticular piece ofevidence. Tbeevidence
requested was not in the possession ofany known govemment organization and the
prosecution requested CID'sassistance. It was not known to the prosecution that this
evidence was needed untti after the defenseftledits motion and made its allegations
againsttheUSMC.
441.

When did you receive this infbrmation7
ANSWER: (U) The prosecution received information about and pictures ofthe nooses
the accused created while in conftnement on or aboutl7September 2012 andl60ctober
2012

442. Is this the evidence you disclosed to the Defense on 25 October 2012. months afterthe
Defense had ftled its Article 13motion7
ANSWER: (U) This evidence about the nooses was disclosed after the defenseftledits
Articlel3 motion because the prosecution was not aware that the defense would ignore
the fact that the accused was suicidal and made multiple suicidal ideations while in
pretrial conftnemenL Therefore, only after the defense'sftling, was the prosecution on
notice that the defense would contest the accused'smental health as part ofthe Article 13
motion.
Miscellaneous Issues
443. For ati agencies not speciftcally mentioned, please provide: a)date of prudential search
request or any othertype of discovery request;b)date agency provided responsive
documentation;c)date you reviewed responsive documentation; and d) date you produced
responsive documentation.
ANSWER: (U) Absent what is listed above and below.the prosecution submitted
preseryation requests based on the defense'spreservation request for any hard drives that
were in the 2/lOMTNTOCandSClF.On21 September 2011^morethan one year
after the accused'sunit redeployed back to Fort Dmm, NewYork^the Oefense
requested that the United States preserve these hard drives. With assistance of supply
and logistics experts who had deployed to Iraq, the prosecution identifted four commands
or agencies that may possess hard drives responsive to this request and promptly
submittedaRequest to Locate and Preserve Evidence to each command or agency on6
October 2011. Those entities included: (l)2d Brigade CombatTeam.lOth Mountain
Division (2/10MTN);(2)the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI); (3) Third Army.
United States Army Central (ARCENT); and(4) the Computer Crime Investigative UniL
USAnnyCriminallnvestigativeCommand(CCIU) On 13 Oecember 201L2/10MTN
preservedl81hard drives. On 20 October 2011.the ARCENT Commander confirmed
that the "command does not have possession of anyTheater Provided Equipment hard
drives responsive to [the United States'] request,"which would account for any
equipment which did not redeploywith the uniL Similarly.around70ctober 2011.the
77

33022

FBI conftrmed it had no hard drives responsive to the United States'requesL outside
those collected by Army Criminal Investigation Command(ClD). CID had already
preserved any hard drives by collecting them as evidence.
444. The Secretary of the ArmyAR 15-6 investigation was completed onl4February 2011
and disclosed to the defense on 30 June 2011,136 days later. Similarly.the United States
Forces-Iraq (USF-1) AR 15-6 investigation was completed onl6June 2010; the documents were
not produced to the Defense untti 12May 2011.262 days later. Finally.the United States
Division-Center (USD-C) AR380-5 investigation was completed on 16June 2010. but not
disclosed to the Defense untti9Febmary 2011.238 days later. Whywasthereatimelagin
disclosing these documents to the Defense7
ANSWER; (U) The accusedwasnottransfened from USDC.lraqto MDW untti 28
July 2010. The prosecution was not aware ofany administrative investigations
completed in Iraq and relating to the accused'smisconduct untti earlyFatiof2010. Once
the prosecution became aware ofthe administrative investigations completed in Iraq^
speciftcally the USF-1 and USD-C investigations^the prosecution began immediately
coordinating with those respective commands in order to compile the entire investigation,
including ati witness statements, attachments, and enclosures. In September 2010and
after coordination with the Iraq prosecution, the MDW prosecution leamed ofthe USD-C
AR380-5 investigation. After coordinating with the Iraq prosecution, the MDW
prosecution receivedacomplete digital copy by 30 November 2010. After reviewing the
investigation, the prosecution delivered it9Febmary2011(BATES#: 0000063300000771)
(U)Onl6December2010and based onaSecretary ofDefense directive, the Secretary
of the Army appointedLTG Caslen the investigating offtcer for the Secretary ofthe
Army 15-6 ("SecArmyl5-6"). The report was completed onl4Febmary2011and
forwarded to HQDA. At the end ofDecember 2010. the SecArmyl5-6 investigating
team met with the prosecutors to discuss infbrmation associated with the case and the
scope oftheir investigation. Oncetheprosecutionleamedthel56wascompleted.it
submittedarequest foracopyofthel5-6 in order to start reviewing it for discoverable
materiaL Onl5March 2011.the prosecution submittedarequest to HQDA to review the
information and received approval and the information on21March 2011. Between21
March 2011and 30 May 2011. the prosecution reviewed the SecArmy15-6 to determine
what infonnation is discoverable, and whether any ofthe infbrmation contained within
the hundreds offtles was classifted or missing. On 30 May 2011the prosecution
submittedarequest to disclose the entire SecArmy 15-6 to defense. Onl7June2011,
HQDA forwarded OSD'sapproval to the prosecution fbr the prosecution to disclose the
SecArmy 15-6. subject toaprotective order. On 22 June 2011.the SPCMCA issueda
protective order fbr the SecArmyl5-6.and the prosecution emailed the defense team the
protective order. On 12July2011and based on having received the signed
acknowledgments ftom the primary defense counsel and legal administrator for the
SecArmy 15-6 materiaL the prosecution sent this unclassifted but protected information
tothedefense(BATES#: 00013162 00020152)

78

33023

(U) In late December 2010and during the meeting with the SecArmyl56investigators.
the prosecution leamed of the United States Forces^lraq(USF-l)15-6 investigation and
receivedacopy from the SecArmyl5-6 investigators. On 29 December 2010. the
prosecution requested an unclassifted version from USF-1 for discovery purposes because
it appeared there was very tittle classifted infbrmation contained throughout the report.
After many emails to the fbrward deployed forces, the prosecution received the
declassifted investigation on 23 Aprti 2011fromUSF-L The prosecution delivered the
inyestigationonl6May2011(BATES#: 00012721 00012903)
445. There are dozens (if not hundreds)of references to^developed discovery tracking system'
in the spring and summer of2011. How long did it take to developasystem to track discoyery7
Why was the system developed more than one year after the accused was placed in pretrial
conftnement7
ANSWER: (U) On the chronology,there are less than 40 entries referring to developing
adiscovery tracking system occuning in June of2011. Based on conversations with
multiple govemment organizations and the potential results ofthe Prudential Search
Requests, the prosecution fbund it necessary to acquire and developasystem to ingest
infbrmation, review information, track not only the substantial amount of documents it
would need to review for discoverable infbrmation, but also what would be disclosed to
thedefense. In late May 2011,the prosecution receivedalegal administrator to assist
with processing discovery.and also to assist with coordinating to provide the defense
with its own legal administrator forthe same purpose. The prosecution dedicatedalegal
administrator to creating this system that was unique to the militaryjustice system.
Perfecting the system required signiftcant manpower, resources, and time including
dedicatingaparalegal to the same task. The system was developed once the prosecution
could accurately predict the amount ofinformation it would have to review. The amount
totaled more than 1.000.000 pages and entailed the discovery disclosure of more than
520.000 pages. Prior tolJuly 2011.the prosecution produced and tracked discovery by
hand and produced approximately 21.000 pages in discovery.
446. If you were prepared to anaign the accused in February 2011. why were you not prepared
to disclose relevant documents and/or claimaprivilege at that time?
ANSWER: (U)TheGCMCAreferredthecaseon3February2012.Onthatday.the
prosecution was prepared to anaign the accused. As oftoday.no organization within the
Executive Branch has claimed the privilege for classifted information; rather the majority
of organizations have approved the release of discoverable information, even if classifted.
to the defense-including over 400.000 pages in classifted discovery. By3Febmary
2012. the prosecution had not received ati records responsive to its Prudential Search
Requests. Further.many government organizations did not authorize the prosecution to
disclose any classifted documents untti post referraL so that the Court could regulate
classifted discovery. Finally.many organizations were aware thaL unttiacase is refened
to court-martiaLaSoldier is not tried and there are no formal discovery obligations; thus,
classifted information could be further protected and not disclosed unless required by
law.
79

33024

447. As of the date of arraignmenL had you asked any agency whether it would claima
privilege over classifted infonnation7 Please explain.
ANSWER: (U) Since the veryftrstconversations with each organization in the Fati of
2010. the prosecution continuously educated the organizations about the militaryjustice
system and the ability fbr the US Army to control the distribution ofclassifted
infbrmation. including to the defense, despite the accused beingacharged leaker of
classifted infbrmation. The prosecution had conversations with the relevant govemment
organizations about MRE 505 and the steps it would take to protect classifted
information, as evidenced in the litany ofrequests provided to the defense and Court.
These conversations and subsequent requests, allowed the prosecution to obtain the
approval to disclose the super-majority ofclassifted information and not have to invoke
the privilege on the organization'sbehalf It was only foraverysmati portion of
classifted documents that the prosecution had to submit MRE 505(g) motions to redact or
substitute infbrmation fbr classifted information, but none ofthe requests to date included
invoking the classifted infbrmation privilege.
448. As ofthe date ofthe Article 32 hearing, had you provided any Brady discovery to the
Defense7 Ifyes. please identify with speciftcity.
ANSWER: (U) As ofl60ecember 2011,the prosecution disclosed to the defense
approximately 400.000 pages in discovery.which included different forms ofBrady
infbrmation.
449. On numerous occasions, you asked for an additional45-60 days to determine whether
you would ask for redactions and substitutions or determine whether the agency would claima
privilege. Why did these communications not take place in the 20 months prior to anaignment?
ANSWER: (U) Many ofthe documents sought by the defense^infacL practically ati
the documents sought by the defense^did not exist in July 2010. Thus, any coordination
with an organization regarding redactions.substitutions, or the invocation ofaprivilege
prior to the existence ofthe documents would be fmitless. Furthermore, organizations
would not have started the processofreviewing documents fbr redactions and
substitutions, or decided whether to invokeaprivilege, untti the prosecution had
complete clarity regarding what documents or infbrmation the Court determined were
discoverable in the ftrst instance.
450. As ofDecember 2011(the date of the Article 32 hearing).which damage assessments
had you: a) requested to review; andb)actuallyreviewed7
ANSWER: (U) Prior to the date ofthe Article 32 hearing, the prosecution submitted
Pmdential Search Requests to the organizations listed in #334. Theprosecution
submitted speciftc requests to review damage assessments to the organizations listed in
#267. The prosecution reviewed the IRTF.FBLand OHS damage assessments prior to

80

33025

the Article 32, but that review was not fbr the purpose of speciftcally identifying
discoverable infbrmation.
451. Why were no damage assessmentsproduced to the Oefense in advance ofthe Article 32
hearing7
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution did not have authority to disclose any damage
assessments to the defense befbre the Article 32 investigation.
452. On 12 May 2012. yourChronologyhasthe following entry;"ATF OGC Stated thatthe
documents received via JWICS were not the damage assessments requested and elaborated on
the prosecution's request to locate the conect documents; replied that they witi double check
tbeirSIPRarchives." How many organizations needed to check their archives in order to
retrieve responsive information7Please specify which organizations.
ANSWER; (U) The prosecution is unaware of any organizations other than theATF
OGC
453. How many organizations indicated that they may have deleted certainftlespertaining to
the search request? Please specify which organizations.
ANSWER; (U)None
454. The Defense asked for documentsftomthe President'slntelligence Advisory Board in
October 2011. When did youftrstrequest to reviewftlesftomthe President'slntelligence
Advisory Board7 When did you actually review any responsive documents? When did you
produce PlAB documents to the Defense?
ANSWER; (U) On 22 May 2012. the prosecution contacted White House to obtain any
information produced by multiple organizations, including the President'slntelligence
Advisory Board (PlAB). Prior to directly contacting the White House, the prosecution
attempted to work through other govemment organizations to obtain the contact
information ofPlAB attomeys but was ultimately told that the prosecution had to
coordinate through the White House. The prosecutionreviewed the individual
assessment on or about25 July 2012. The prosecution delivered the PlAB infbrmation
on3August2012(BATES#: 00505083)
(U)lhereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correcL Executed this
19th day ofNovember 2012.

ASHDENFEIN
MALJA
TrialCounscl
81

33026

Appellate Exhibit 40^
pipages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

33027

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE MOTION TO

v. COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF WITNESSES FOR MERITS
AND SENTENCING

MANNING, Bradley 13., PFC

US Army, -

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 23 November 2012



RELIEF SOUGHT

1. PFC Bradley E. Marming, by and through counsel, pursuant to applicable case law and Rule
for Courts Martial (R.C.M.) 703(b)(l) and and R.C.M. 906(b)(7) requests this Court to
compel production of the below listed witnesses for merits and for sentencing.

BACKGROUND

2. The Defense submitted its witness list for merits and sentencing on 15 October 2012. See
Appellate Exhibit 344. The Defense provided a synopsis of the expected testimony for each
witness suf?cient to show relevance and necessity. R.C.M. R.C.M. l00l(e). On
12 November 2012, the Defense submitted its witness list in the event of a sentencing only case
and provided a synopsis of the expected testimony under R.C.M. 100 1

3. On 16 November 2012, the trial counsel provided its response to the Defense?s witness list.
The trial counsel contends that production of several of the Defense requested witnesses is not
required under R.C.M. 703. The trial counsel denied several witnesses under different bases.
See Prosecution Response to Defense Witness List, dated 16 November 2012. The denial of the
Defense requested witnesses can be broken down into the following groups:

a) Merit Witnesses under R.C.M. 703(b)( 1): The trial counsel denied the following
witnesses as not being relevant and necessary on a matter in issue on the merits:

1) Mr. Zachary Antolak;

2) Colonel (Retired) Morris Davis;
3) Professor Yochai Benkler; and
4) Mr. Daniel Cindrich.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT

OF PAGES



33028

b) Merits and Sentencing Witnesses under R.C.M. 703(d): The trial counsel denied the
following witness under the basis that the Defense was required to follow the procedures
of R.C.M. 703(d) in order to have production of the requested witness:

1) Mr. Cassius Hall;
2) Mr. Charles Ganiel; and
3) Ms. Lillian Smith.

c) Sentencing Witnesses under R.C.M. l00l(e): The trial counsel denied the following
witnesses under the basis of R.C.M. l00l(e):

l) Ambassador Peter Galbraith; and
2) COL Dick Larry.

(1) Additional Witnesses in the event of a sentencing case only: The trial counsel denied the
following additional witnesses under the basis of R.C.M. 703(d) and R.C.M. l00l(e):

1) Mr. Cassius Hall;

2) Colonel (Retired) Morris Davis;
3) Mr. Zachary Antolak;

4) Mr. Charles Ganiel;

5) Professor Yochai Benkler;

6) Mr. Daniel Cindrich.

ARGUMENT

A. The Government is Acting in Bad Faith in Contesting the Relevance and Necessity
of the Defense Requested Witnesses

4. The Government is once again using R.C.M. as a sword for its own advocacy by
denying numerous facially relevant witnesses. This conduct is not anything new for the
Government. The Court need only look to the now pending Article 13 litigation to see how the
Government has chosen to act in regards to its power under R.C.M. In that litigation,
the Government contested the relevance and necessity of many of its own witnesses that were
also listed by the Defense. Once the Defense withdrew its request for these witnesses, the
Government, in short order, noti?ed the Court that it would bring the vast majority of the
witnesses it was initially opposing under R.C.M.

5. Sadly, the Government also choosing to use R.C.M. and R.C.M. 100l(e) in the instant
case as a sword to deny Defense requested witnesses. The Defense believes that the witnesses
on its merits list are relevant and necessary for obvious reasons. Additionally, the witnesses on
the Defense?s sentencing list clearly meet the R.C.M. 100l(e) standard. As such, the Defense
requests that the Court compel production of each requested witness.

33029

B. The Defense Requested Witnesses are Relevant and Necessary Under R.C.M. 703
and Required Under R.C.M. l00l(e)

6. R.C.M. 703 provides that ?[t]he prosecution and defense and the court-martial shall have
equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and evidence, including the bene?t of compulsory
process.? This rule is based on Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) and
implements the accused?s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. The Defense is
entitled to production of any witness whose testimony on a matter in issue on the merits that
would be relevant and necessary. R.C.M. 703(b)(1). Necessary means the evidence is not
cumulative and would contribute to a party?s presentation of the case in some positive

way on a matter in issue. R.C.M. 703(b)(1) discussion.

7. The synopsis provided by the Defense for each of its requested witnesses on the merits more
than satis?es R.C.M. 703(b)(1). The Government appears to be attempting to use a denial of the
Defense requested witnesses along with its motion in limine, dated 16 November 2012, to argue
that the Defense witnesses are not relevant in the merits phase. Instead of replying in detail to
this assertion, something the Defense will do in its response motion to the Government?s motion
in limine, it is suffice to say that motive evidence may be relevant where it is circumstantial
evidence of intent. United States v. Diaz, 69 M.J. 127, 134 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (holding that
?motive evidence may be relevant where it is circumstantial evidence of intent. .

8. The Government should realize the clear relevance of Mr. Antolak, Colonel Davis, Professor
Benkler and Mr. Daniel Cindrich. Instead, the Government has, in bad faith, denied each
witness. The Defense will address each witness in turn:

a) Mr. Zachary Antolak: The Government has essentially made the Defense?s argument of
relevance for Mr. Antolak when it argued for admissibility of PFC Manning?s alleged
disloyal statement to Ms. Showman. Instead of redrafting an argument, the Defense will
quote the Govemment?s own theory back to it. The Government argued that the
statement to Ms. Showman was ?relevant to the Accused?s state of mind.? See Appellate
Exhibit 250 at page 4-5. The Government went on to assert that the ?evidence is being
offered to show that the Accused made a statement that he had no particular loyalty to the
country whose information it was his job to safeguard. The statement is evidence of the
Accused?s intent for the charged misconduct because it makes it more likely that the
Accused did not care if the enemy had access to the information that was posted on the
Internet.? Id. Finally, the Government asserted that the alleged statement to Ms.
Showman was ?circumstantial evidence that the Accused knowingly gave intelligence to
the enemy in support of Charge 1, Speci?cation 1; that the Accused wrongfully and
wantonly caused the information to be published on the intemet with knowledge that it
would be accessible to the enemy in support of Charge II, Speci?cation 1; that the
Accused?s conduct was will?il in support of Charge II, Speci?cations 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, and 15; and that the Accused stole, purloined, or knowingly converted a thing of
value to the United States in support of Charge II, Speci?cations 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16.?

The Government should not be surprised when the Defense now argues that the
conversation Mr. Antolak will testify about, which happened before the deployment and

b)

33030

around the same time as the alleged statements to Ms. Showman, are circumstantial
evidence of intent. See Diaz, 69 M.J. at 134. Mr. Antolak will testify to the following:

1) PFC Manning stated he was hoping to apply what he was learning in his current
position as an analyst to provide more information to the of?cers above him and to his
commanders;

2) PFC Manning stated that he was hoping that the information he provided to his
of?cers and commanders would help save lives;

3) PFC Manning stated that he was more concerned about making sure that everyone

- soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals - would get home to their
families safely;

4) PFC Manning stated that he felt a great responsibility and duty to people;

5) PFC Manning stated that he believed in what the Army tries to make itself out to
be: a diverse place full of people defending the male, female, black, white,
gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, Asian, old or young;

6) PFC Manning stated that it didn?t matter to him what a person?s background was
since we all wear the same green uniform;

7) PFC Manning stated that he sometimes wished that everything was black and
white like the media and politicians present it. That you could easily see that he is the
bad guy and this other person was the good guy. Instead, PFC Manning stated that it
was all shades of blurry grey;

8) PFC Manning stated that he constantly had foreign affairs on his mind, and that
one of the bad parts of his job was having to think of bad stuff; and

9) PFC Manning stated that he wanted to pursue a career in politics after going to
college.

The conversation that PFC Manning had with Mr. Antolak prior to the deployment is
relevant to establish PFC Manning?s then existing state of mind. This evidence is
circumstantial evidence of PFC Manning?s intent and relevant to prove that the he did not
knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy as alleged in The Speci?cation of Charge 1;
that PFC Manning did not wrongfully and wantonly caused the information to be
published on the internet with knowledge that it would be accessible to the enemy as
alleged in Speci?cation of Charge that PFC Manning?s subjective lack of a belief
that disclosure of the documents that he believed were already in the public forum could
be to the injury of the U.S. or benefit of a foreign country was objectively reasonable and
that did not have the requisite mens rea as alleged in Speci?cations Charge 11; and that PFC Manning did not steal, purloin, or knowingly
convert a thing of value of the United States as alleged in Speci?cations Charge 11. Additionally, Mr. Antolak?s testimony is relevant to rebut the testimony
that the Government will elicit from Ms. ihrleah Showman.

Colonel (Retired) Morris Davis: The Government asserts Colonel Davis? testimony is
not relevant and necessary on a matter in issue on the merits. The Government intends to
call Mr. Jeffery Motes and RADML David Woods to testify regarding the classi?cation
and value of the charged information in Speci?cations 8 and 9 of Charge 11. These
witnesses will also be used to attempt to prove the information could be used to the injury

33031

of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. Just as the Government
will offer evidence to attempt to prove its case, the Defense should be free to prove the
opposite. Colonel Davis will be used to show that the subjective lack of a belief by PFC
Manning that disclosure of these documents already in the public forum could be to the
injury of the United States or bene?t of a foreign country was objectively reasonable.
Because the detainee assessment briefs could not be used to the injury of the United
States or to the bene?t of a foreign country, PFC Manning lacked the required mens rea
to commit the charged offenses. If the Defense is permitted to establish that the evidence
was, in fact, not a danger to national security, an accused could not logically have the
?reason to know? mens rea required under Speci?cations 9 of Charge 11. Additionally, if
the information was already in the public forum it would be relevant to disprove that PFC
Manning stole, purloined, or knowingly converted a thing of value of the United States as
alleged in Speci?cations 8 of Charge 11.

Mr. Daniel Cindrich: The Government has listed 128 witnesses for its merits and
sentencing case. Many of these witnesses will be used to attempt to establish PFC
Manning had a reason to believe the information charged could be used to the injury of
the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation in Speci?cations Charge II or that PFC Manning stole, purloined, or knowingly
converted a thing of value to the United States in support of Speci?cations Charge 11. Mr. Cindrich?s testimony will be used to show that the subjective
lack of a belief by PFC Manning that disclosure of these documents already in the public
forum could be to the injury of the United States or bene?t of a foreign country was
objectively reasonable. Because the charged information could not be used to the injury
of the United States or to the bene?t of a foreign country, PFC Manning lacked the
required mens rea to commit the charged offenses. If the Defense is permitted to
establish that the evidence was, in fact, not a danger to national security, an accused
could not logically have the ?reason to know? mens rea required under Charge II. Additionally, if the information was already in the public
forum it would be relevant to disprove that PFC Manning stole, purloined, or knowingly
converted a thing of value of the United States as alleged in Speci?cations Charge 11. Mr. Cindrich in an intelligence analyst. He will testify as an expert and
as a person with direct knowledge that since the charged leaks, the Center for Army
Lessons Learned (CALL), U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas has not had any direct or indirect tasking to collect, analyze, or disseminate
lessons learned on the WikiLeaks incidents or the information publicly disclosed in this
case. Mr. Cindrich will testify that one of his responsibilities is to put out rapid adaption
information to the ?eld. Mr. Cindrich will testify that rapid adaption is a process
whereby information is analyzed and disseminated in a timely manner relative to the
criticality of actions required for soldiers and leaders to adapt that information to current
operations and (doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership and
education, personnel, and facilities) development. Mr. Cindrich will testify that rapid
adaption is a process that is designed to save soldier?s lives and improve the effectiveness
and/or ef?ciency of Army operations. The fact that CALL has not been requested to
collect, analyze, or disseminate lessons learned on the WikiLeaks incidents or the
information publicly disclosed in this case is circumstantial evidence that the Defense

d)

33032

will use to show that the subjective lack of a belief by PFC Manning that disclosure of
these charged documents already in the public forum could be to the injury of the United 3
States or bene?t of a foreign country was objectively reasonable. Because the charged
information could not be used to the injury of the United States or to the bene?t of a
foreign country, PFC Manning lacked the required mens rea. If the Defense is permitted
to establish that the evidence was, in fact, not a danger to national security, PFC Manning
could not logically have the ?reason to know? mens rea required under Speci?cations Charge II Speci?cations 9 of Charge II. Additionally,
since CALL was not requested to take any action in response to information publicly
disclosed, this is circumstantial evidence that the information was already in the public
forum and it would be relevant to disprove that PFC Manning stole, purloined, or
knowingly converted a thing of value of the United States as alleged in Speci?cations Charge II.

Professor Yochai Benkler: The Government will be presenting evidence regarding the
Speci?cation of Charge 1, Speci?cations 1 and 15 of Charge II. The Government will be
attempting to prove that PFC Manning knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy in
support of the Speci?cation of Charge that PFC Manning wrongfully and wantonly
caused the information to be published on the internet with knowledge that it would be
accessible to the enemy in of Speci?cation of Charge and that PFC
Manning had a reason to believe the information charged could be used to the injury of
the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation in support of Speci?cation 15
of Charge II. Just as the Government will offer evidence to attempt to prove its case, the
Defense should be free to prove the opposite. Professor Benkler will testify as an expert
witness concerning the history of the WikiLeaks organization and how it was viewed
prior to the charged leaks. Professor Benkler will testify that at the time PFC Marming
would have given information to WikiLeaks, that WikiLeaks was viewed as a journalistic
organization with an impressive history of exposing fraud and corruption within
governments and corporations. Professor Benkler will testify about an article that he
wrote in 2011 entitled Free Irresponsible Press: WikiLeaks and the Battle Over the
Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate.? See 46 L. Rev. 311, 2011. As part of
that article, Professor Benkler reviewed the publicly available copy of the document
charged in Speci?cation 15 of Charge II. Professor Benkler?s article cites and
extensively references the document charged in Speci?cation 15 of Charge II. Professor
Benkler will testify about how the U.S. Government overstated and overreacted to the
leaked documents and WikiLeaks. Professor Benkler will also testify how the traditional
media played a role in perpetuating the overstated and overheated public response by
government actors, both administrative of?cials and elected representatives. Professor
Benkler will testify that the Government?s overreaction resulted in WikiLeaks being
viewed as a security threat as opposed to a legitimate journalistic endeavor. Finally,
Professor Benkler will testify that WikiLeaks is in fact a journalistic endeavor, no
different for legally pertinent purposes than the New York Times, the Washington Post,
or a wide range of smaller journalistic publications. Professor Benkler?s testimony is
circumstantial evidence of PFC Manning?s intent and is relevant to prove that the he did
not knowingly give intelligence to the enemy as alleged in the Speci?cation of Charge I
when he supplied the information to a legitimate journalistic organization; that PFC



33033

Manning did not wrongfully and wantonly caused the information to be published on the
internet with knowledge that it would be accessible to the enemy as alleged in
Speci?cation 1 of Charge II when he supplied the information to a legitimate journalistic
organization; and that PFC Manning?s subjective lack of a belief that disclosure of the
documents that he believed were already in the public forum could be to the injury of the
U.S. or bene?t of a foreign country was objectively reasonable and thus did not have the
requisite mens rea as alleged in Speci?cation 15 of Charge 11. If permitted to present his
law review article?, and discuss his analysis of the document charged in Speci?cation 15
of Charge II. Professor Benkler?s testimony will show that the information in the
document was in the public forum, and an example of the Government simply over-
classifying information and subsequently exaggerating the signi?cance of its release.

9. On sentencing, the Defense is entitled to the production of any witness whose testimony is
required under R.C.M. 100l(e). Under R.C.M. 1001(e), the Defense is required to provide a
synopsis of the expected testimony to demonstrate why personal appearance is necessary under
the standards set forth in the rule. Personal appearance is required only if all of the below

are satis?ed:

The testimony is necessary for consideration of a matter of substantial signi?cance to
a determination of an appropriate sentence;

The weight or credibility of the testimony is of substantial signi?cance to the
determination of an appropriate sentence;

The other party refuses to enter into a stipulation of fact;

Other forms of evidence (depositions, interrogatories, former testimony, testimony by
remote means) would not be suf?cient in the determination of an appropriate sentence;
and

The signi?cance of the personal appearance to the determination of an appropriate
sentence, when balanced against the practical dif?culties of producing the witness,
favors production.

Id. In this instance, the synopsis provided by the Defense for Ambassador Peter Galbraith and
COL Dick Larry clearly demonstrates why personal appearance is necessary for both witnesses.

10. The Government intends to call nine witnesses from the Department of State to offer
evidence in its sentencing case. See Appellate Exhibit CLXII. The fact that the Government
could, in good conscience, deny the Defense Ambassador Galbraith is startling. Ambassador
Galbraith?s testimony is clearly mitigating evidence. Ambassador Galbraith will testify to the
following:

The Government is yet to respond to the Defense?s request whether Professor Benkler?s law review article is
considered classified or to be a spillage. The Defense renews its request for the Government to respond to this
request.

33034

1) He does not believe that the SIPDIS cables contained our country?s closely held secrets;

2) The SIPDIS cables were the type of cables were available to anyone with SIPRNET
access a potential audience of over a million people;

3) The SIPDIS cables were written for a relatively wide distribution, and thus were included
into a database available to anyone with SIPRNET access;

4) No prudent diplomat would include genuinely sensitive material in a SIPDIS cable;

5) The SIPDIS cables often reported on widely known issues and events and many dealt
with routine administrative matters;

6) While a SIPDIS cable appears to be signed by an Ambassador and addressed to the
Secretary of State, the cables were rarely drafted by an Ambassador, usually not cleared
by an Ambassador if they dealt with routine administrative matters, and almost never
read by the Secretary of State.

7) That much of what would be in a SIPDIS cable could also be found in the newspapers of
the relevant country or in other open source reporting.

8) That Ambassadors would use more restrictive channels (such as NODIS, EXDIS,
LIMDIS, and intelligence channels) for discussion of truly sensitive material.

9) That no responsible ambassador would use a channel with such broad distribution for
matters?be it intelligence, military, or policy recommendations?where the leak of the
information could seriously damage the interests of the United States.

10) That it would be irresponsible to cite speci?c interlocutors in a SIPDIS cable where the
person could be harmed by the leak of her or his name;

11)That he was and still is very concerned about the propensity of some in the U.S.
Government to leak classi?ed information. While he was Ambassador, someone on
Capitol Hill leaked a report containing sensitive intelligence that compromised an
ongoing intelligence operation in Croatia and put at risk embassy personnel. Ambassador
Galbraith pushed hard for the investigation and punishment of those responsible. While
Ambassador Galbraith will testify that he strongly disapproves of what PFC Manning
allegedly did, he will also testify that there is no comparison in the sensitivity and
importance of the material allegedly released by PFC Manning and real intelligence leaks
where there has often been no investigation or only limited punishment; and

12) That in his experience, many?-if not most?state department cables are over classi?ed
and that a secret classi?cation does not mean the information is genuinely secret.

11. The Government is also denying the production of COL Dick Larry. The Govemment?s
denial of COL Larry is perplexing considering its intent to call Mr. James McCarl. Mr. McCarl
is part of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization (J IEDDO), Army
Pentagon, Washington DC. He will be called to testify about how some of the charged
information could have potentially given away counter-IED measures. COL Larry, part of the
Army? G3 at HQDA will be used to rebut Mr. McCarl?s testimony. COL Larry will testify as
follows:

1) That his of?ce is the Army?s representative to the Joint Intelligence Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) Organization. COL Larry will testify that his organization has the
following sub-tasks: (I) publish and maintain the Army CID OPSEC manual, (2) sustain
funding for theater operations, (3) manage Army EOD, (4) Army staff lead for weapons

33035

technical knowledge, and (5) represent the Army at the War?ghter Senior Integration
Group;

2) That his organization uses intelligence information gathered from Army G2, DIA, unit
operation/intelligence summaries, and any intelligence gathered by Provincial
Reconstruction Teams;

3) That intelligence gleaned from the charged SIGACTS would be limited by two general
problems (1) there is limited information in a SIGACT (could be just a picture with the 5
W5 (who, what, where, when, and why) and (2) the information contained in the report
may well be inaccurate;

4) That other factors weigh heavily in the enemy?s ability to be successful with IEDs. COL
Larry will testify those factors include the availability of material, the ability to
communicate from bomb-makers down to the bomb-emplacers, the IED countermeasures
used locally by BLUEFOR, and the consequent measures used by the IED to defeat the
Countermeasures;

5) That the enemy can immediately make changes based on the operational environment,
and that the threat is constantly adapting its techniques; and

6) That his organization has to think three moves ahead of the threat, and has to constantly
examine how the actions on the ground impact our response. As such, COL Larry will
testify that what may have been true two years, two months, or even two weeks ago may
not be true today. COL Larry will testify that he does not view the charged SIGACTS as
providing sensitive counter IED measures to the enemy.

12. Ambassador Galbraith and COL Larry clearly meet the requirements of R.C.M. 1001(e). As
such, this Court should compel the presence of both requested witnesses.

C. The Defense Requested Witness Denied by the Trial Counsel Under R.C.M. 703(d).

13. The Govemment?s denial of Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel, and Ms. Smith appears to be based upon
the belief that the Defense would need to request their appointment as an expert witness under
R.C.M. 703(d). The Defense is not required to request the appointment of these individuals as
expert witnesses for the Defense. Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel, and Ms. Smith are each government
employees. The discussion to R.C.M. 703(d) clearly states that ?This subsection does not apply
to person who are government employees or under contract to the Government to provide
services which would otherwise fall within this subsection.? Discussion to R.C.M. 703(d) at
A21-3 7.

14. The production and employment of expert witnesses is governed by R.C.M. 703(d) when
that employment is at the expense of the Government. The rule clearly requires compliance with
its procedures only if the Defense or the Government is seeking to have an expert witness
produced to have the convening authority cover the expense of the witnesses. If the Defense
or the Government is wanting the convening authority to cover the costs of the expert witness,
then the counsel must:

Submit a request to the convening authority to authorize employment and ?x
compensation before employment; and

33036

Provide notice to the other party.

Id. In situations where the employment of the expert is at the expense of the convening
authority, the Defense or Government must include a complete statement of reasons why the
expert is necessary, and an estimate of costs. Id. United States v. Ndanyi, 45 M.J. 315 (C.A.A.F.
1996). If the convening authority denies the request, the Defense or Government can raise the
issue with the military judge. R.C.M. 703(d). The military judge will then determine whether
the testimony of the expert is relevant and necessary. Ndanyi, 45 M.J. at 319. If the military
judge determines the testimony of the expert is relevant and necessary, and it is a Defense
request for an expert, she will determine whether the Government has provided or will provide
an adequate substitute. R.C.M. 703(d).

15. The entire process under R.C.M. 703(d) does not apply in situations where the convening
authority is not being asked to cover the expense of the witness. This is clearly why the rule
speci?cally excludes from its application witnesses ?who are government employees or under
contract to the Government to provide services which would otherwise fall within this
subsection.? Discussion to R.C.M. 703(d) at A21-37. In such situations, there is no expense to
the convening authority and Article 46 of the UCMJ would entitled the Defense equal access to
the government witness.

16. Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel and Ms. Smith are no different from any other government employee
that the Defense is calling as a witness. Under M.R.E. 702, an expert witness is someone who
possesses particular knowledge, skill, experience, training or education and can offer

scienti?c, technical, or other specialized knowledge testimony that will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. M.R.E 702. Every witness listed on the
Defense?s witness list could be quali?ed as an expert witness. Speci?cally, Mr. Milliman, Mr.
Cindrich, CPT Lim or CPT Cherepko, to name a few, are quali?ed as experts in their respective
?elds. Would the Government seriously suggest that R.C.M. 703(d) requires the Defense to
request the convening authority to appoint each of these witnesses as experts for the Defense?
The answer to that question is ?no? and the same is true in the case with Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel
and Ms. Smith.

17. The Government may have become con?lsed due to the fact that Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel and
Ms. Smith were each appointed as expert assistants. As the Court is aware, an expert assistant is
someone detailed to the defense team to assist the accused and defense counsel during the
investigative stage of the trial process, although expert assistance can be requested for any stage.
Expert assistants, once appointed, are a part of the defense team. As such, the communications
between the expert and the defense counsel or the expert and the accused are privileged under
M.R.E. 502. United States v. Turner, 28 M.J. 487 (C.M.A. 1989). However, once the defense
lists the expert as a witness, the Government is free to contact and interview the witness. United
States v. Langston, 32 M.J. 894 (A.F.C.M.R 1991).

18. The Government appears to be taking the category of ?expert assistants,? and lumping it
with the topic of expert witness analysis that is found in R.C.M .703(d). A careful look at the
rule reveals that R.C.M. 703(d) does not discuss expert assistants. In reality, the analysis for
expert assistance requests is much more similar to the analysis of discovery issues than
production issues. In any event, just because a government employee can be quali?ed as an

10

33037

expert witness, or at one point has been appointed to the Defense as an expert assistant, does not
mean that the requirements of R.C.M. 703(d) must be satis?ed. R.C.M. 703(d) is a rule that is
limited to those situations, and only those situations, where the Defense or Government is
requesting appointment of an expert witness at the expense of the convening authority. As such,
the Government?s denial of Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel and Ms. Smith under R.C.M. 703(d) is without
merit. The Court should compel the production of Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel and Ms. Smith.

D. The Defense Requested Witness Denied by the Trial Counsel in the Event of a
Sentencing Only Case Under R.C.M. 703(d) and R.C.M. 1001(e).

19. In the event of a sentencing only case, the Government has denied the following requested
witnesses: Mr. Cassius Hall; Colonel (Retired) Morris Davis; Mr. Zachary Antolak; Mr. Charles
Ganiel; Professor Yochai Benkler; and Mr. Daniel Cindrich. The argument for the production of
each of the additional Defense requested witnesses in the event of a sentencing only case is the
same as previously stated above and need not be repeated here. Each requested witness clearly
meets the requirements of R.C.M. 1001(e). As such, this Court should compel the presence of
the Defense requested witnesses.

CONCLUSION

20. Based upon the above, the Defense requests this Court to compel production of the Defense
requested witnesses for merits and for sentencing.

Respectfully submitted,



DA ID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

ll

33038

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
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

)

) RULING: Prosecution Request
) for Leave unril 19 November 2012
) to File Government Interrogatories
)
)
)

) 20 November 2012

On 16 November 2012 at 2345 the Government requested leave ofthe Court until 19 November 2012 to
file its response to Defense Interrogatories. Defense opposed and requested the Court to consider the
filing as an untimely filing for Article 10 purposes. On 19 November 2012, the Government filed a
classified reply and a redacted unclassified reply. The Government also filed the response to Defense
Interrogatories on 19 November 2012. The Court has considered all thefilingsby tbe parties.
The Government request for leave of Court until 19 November 2012 is GRANTED. The Court will
consider the timing and reasons for the Government request for leave of court for the Article 10 sjjeedy
trial motion.

DENISE R.
COL, JA
Chief Judge, 1** Judicial Circuit

APPELLATE EXHIBIT Hoi
PAGEREJErENCED;
PAGE OF

33039

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

DRAFT

INSTRUCTIONS:
v.


MANNING, Bradley E., PFC
U.S. Army,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company,
U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer- DATED: 26 November 2012

Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211

The Government and Defense have proposed instructions for the elements and de?nitions
for the charged offenses. The Court has considered the proposals of both parties and has arrived
at the following dra? instructions. Some of the proposed instructions are standard instructions
from the Department of the Army Pamphlet, 27-9, Military Judge?s Benchbook with portions of
the instructions in brackets. Bracketed portions will be instructed upon if raised by the evidence.
These dra? instructions may be modi?ed by the Court as necessary from the presentation of the
evidence. Affirmative defense, evidentiary, and procedural instructions will be drafted as
appropriate during the trial.

CHARGE I: Aiding the Enemy

In the speci?cation of Charge I, the accused is charged with the offense of Aiding the Enemy by
Giving Intelligence to the Enemy, in violation of Article 104, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the
accused guilty of this offense, you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond
reasonable doubt:

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 Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, and an entity speci?ed in Bates Number 00410660 through 00410664 (classi?ed

entity);

(2) That the accused did so by indirect means, to wit: transmitting certain intelligence,
speci?ed in a separate classi?ed document to the enemy through the WikiLeaks website;

(3) That al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Bates Number 00410660 through
00410664 (classi?ed entity) was an enemy; 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 33040

?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). (?Enemy? is not restricted
to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of
the govemment and the citizens of the other.)

?Indirect means? means that the accused knowingly gave the intelligence to the enemy through a
party, an intermediary, or in some other indirect way.

?Knowingly? requires actual knowledge by the accused that by giving the intelligence to the
party or intermediary or in some other indirect way, that he was actually giving intelligence to
the enemy through this indirect means. This offense requires that the accused had a general evil
intent in that the accused had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the
United States. ?Knowingly? means to act voluntarily or deliberately. A person cannot violate
Article 104 by committing an act inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently that has the effect of
aiding the enemy.

The Court declines to give the instructions requested by the Defense regarding actual knowledge
and indirect means because they add-a speci?c intent element to Article 104 (Giving Intelligence
to the Enemy) that is not required by the statute. The Court?s ?general evil intent? and
knowledge that the accused was dealing with the enemy language is taken from US. v. Olson, 20
C.M.R. 461 (C.M.A. 1955) and US. v. Batchelor, 22 C.M.R 44 (C.M.A. 1956).

The Court reserves its decision on whether to instruct on mistake of fact as requested by the
Defense until the close of the evidence to determine whether a mistake of fact defense is raised
by the evidence.

CHARGE ll, Specification I: Wrongfully and Wantonly Causing Publication of
Intelligence Belonging to the United States on the Internet Knowing the
Intelligence is Accessible to the Enemy to the Prejudice of Good Order and
Discipline in the Armed Forces or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces

In speci?cation 1 of Charge II, the accused is charged with the offense of Wrongfully and
Wantonly Causing Publication of Intelligence Belonging to the United States on the Internet
Knowing the Intelligence is Accessible to the Enemy to the Prejudice of Good Order and
Discipline and Being of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed Forces, in violation of
Article 134, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the accused guilty of this offense, you must be convinced by
legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt:

(I) That at or near Contingency Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November
2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, the accused wrongfully and Wantonly caused to be published
on the internet, intelligence belonging to the United States Government, having knowledge that
Intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy; and;



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

The de?nitions of ?intelligence? and ?enemy? I read for you for the speci?cation of Charge I
also applies to this offense. Would any member like me to repeat those definitions to you?

?Wrongful? means without legal justification or excuse.

?Wanton? includes ?recklessness? but may connote willfulness, or a disregard of probable
consequences and thus describes a more aggravated offense. ?Reckless? conduct is conduct that
exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission
involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is
whether under all the circumstances, the accused?s conduct was of that heedless nature that made
it actually or imminently dangerous to others.

?Knowledge? requires that accused acted with actually knowledge that intelligence published on
the internet was accessible to the enemy. You may not ?nd the accused guilty of this offense if
you find that the accused should have known, but did not actually know this fact. Knowledge,
like any other fact, may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the" accused?s training,
experience, and military occupational specialty.

. ?Caused to be published? means the action of the accused was a proximate cause of the

publication even if it is not the only cause, as long as it is a direct or contributing cause that plays
a material role, meaning an important role, in bringing about the publication. An act is not a
proximate cause if some other unforeseeable, independent, intervening event, which did not
involve the accused?s conduct, was the only cause that played any important part in bringing
about the publication.

?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.

With respect to ?prejudice to good order and discipline,? the law recognizes that almost any

irregular or improper act on the part of a service member could be regarded as prejudicial in
some indirect or remote sense; however, only those acts in which the prejudice is reasonably
direct and palpable is punishable under this Article.

With respect to ?service discrediting,? the law recognizes that almost any irregular or improper
act on the part of a service member could be regarded as service discrediting in some indirect or
remote sense; however, only those acts which would have a tendency to bring the service into
disrepute or which tend to lower it in public esteem are punishable under this Article.

Under some circumstances, the accused?s conduct may not be prejudicial to good order and
discipline but, nonetheless, may be service discrediting, as I have explained those terms to you.
Likewise, depending on the circumstances, the accused?s conduct can be prejudicial to good
order and discipline but not be service discrediting.



33042

Findings:

The Court ?nds that a de?nition of ?caused to be published? will be helpful to the members.
The ?caused to be instruction? stated above is taken from the proximate cause
instruction currently in ith5?" Military Judge?s Benchbook at 5-19. The proposed Defense
instruction adds elements to the offense charged.

The Court tailored the de?nition of knowledge proposed by the Defense. The de?nition requires
the fact ?nder to ?nd beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused act with actual knowledge and
not constructive knowledge.

Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134 are alternate theories of proving that offense. The members do
not have to ?nd both that the conduct was prejudicial togood order and discipline and was
service discrediting. So long as the fact ?nder ?nds at least one theory beyond a reasonable .
doubt, the fact-?nder can ?nd the accused guilty. The Court will instruct accordingly. If a
?ndings worksheet is necessary, the parties may request the Court to tailor the ?ndings
worksheet such that the fact ?nder be given the option to except Clause 1 or Clause 2 from the
speci?cation.

CHARGE ll, Speci?cations 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: Stealing, Purloining, o} Knowingly
Converting Records Belonging to the United States of a Value in Excess of
$1,000.00.

In speci?cations Charge II, the accused is charged with the offense of
Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly Converting Records Belonging to the United States, of a

Value in Excess of $1,000.00, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 641 and

Article 134, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the accused guilty of this offense, you must be convinced by
legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1) A or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq,

SPECIFICATION 4: between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010;
the accused did steal, purloin, or knowingly convert records to his own use or someone else?s
use, to wit: the Combined Infonnation Data Network Exchange Iraq database containing more

than 380,000 records;

SPECIFICATION 6: between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 8? January 2010;
the accused did steal, purloin, or knowingly convert records to his own use or someone else?s
use, to wit: the Combined Information Network Exchange Afghanistan database containing more
than 90,000 records; I

SPECIFICATION 8: on or about 8 March 2010; the accused did steal, purloin, or knowingly
convert records to his own use or someone else?s use, to wit: a United States Southern Command
database;

SPECIFICATION 12: between on or about 28 March 2010 and onor about 27 May 2010; the
accused did steal, purloin, or knowingly convert records to his own use or someone else?s use, to

33043

wit: the Department of State Net-Centric Diplomacy database containing more than 250,000
records; 0

SPECIFICATION 16: between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010; the
accused did steal, purloin, or knowingly convert records to his own use or someone else?s use, to
wit: the United States Forces Iraq Microsoft Outlook/SharePoint Exchange Server global
address list;

(Elements Common to all speci?cations)
(2) the records belonged to the United States or a department or agency, thereof;

(3) the accused acted knowingly and willfully and with the intent to deprive the
government of the use and bene?t of the records; and .

(4) the records were of a value greater than $1,000;

(5) at the time 18 U.S.C. Section 641 was in existence on the dates alleged in the
speci?cation;

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

The same de?nitions for prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces that I read for you for speci?cation of Charge 11
also apply to this offense.

To ?steal? means to wrongfully take money or property belonging to the United States
government with the intent to deprive the owner of the use and bene?t temporarily or
permanently.

?Wrongful? means without legal justi?cation or excuse.

To ?purloin? is to steal with the element of stealth, that is, to take by stealth the property of the
United States government with intent to deprive the owner of the use and bene?t of the property
temporarily or permanently.

A ?taking? doesn?t have to be any particular type of movement or carrying away. Any
appreciable and intentional change in the property?s location is a taking, even if the property isn?t
removed from the owner?s premises. The accused did not have to know the United States
government owned the property at the time of the taking.

A ?conversion? may be consurmnated without any intent to permanently deprive the United
States of the use and bene?t of the property and without any wrongful taking, where the initial
possession by the converter was entirely" lawful. Conversion may in'c'lud,e "the. misiise.or abuse of





33044

property. It may reach use in an unauthorized manner or to an unauthorized extent of property
placed in one?s custody for limited use. Not all misuse of government property is a_conversion.
The misuse must seriously and substantially interfere with the United States government?s
property rights. -

?Value? means the greater of (1) the face, par, or market value,_or (2) the price, whether
Wholesale or retail. A ?thing of value? can be tangible or intangible property. Government
infonnation, although intangible is a species of property and a thing of value.

The market value of stolen goods may be determined by reference to a price that is commanded
in the market place whether that market place is legal or illegal. In other words, market value is
measured by the price a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. (The illegal market place is also
known as a ?thieves marke price? means the cost of producing or creating the speci?c
property allegedly stolen, purloined, or knowingly converted.

An act is done ?willfully? if it is done voluntarily and intentionally with the speci?c intent to do
something the law forbids, that is, with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.

An act is done ?knowingly? if it is done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake
or accident or other innocent reason.

I have taken judicial notice that Title 18, United States Code Section 641 was in existence on the
dates alleged in speci?cations Charge II.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly Converting
Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value of $1,000.00 or less, in violation of Title
18 United States Code, Section 641 and Article 134, UCMJ.

The court is further advised that the offense of Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly Converting
Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value of $1000.00 or less is a lesser included
offense of the offense set forth in speci?cations Charge II. When you vote,
if you ?nd the accused not guilty of the offense charged, that is Stealing, Purloining, or
Knowingly Converting Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value in Excess of
$1000.00, then you should consider the lesser included offense of Stealing, Purloining, or
Knowingly Converting Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value of $1000.00 or less,
also in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 641 and Article 134, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the
accused guilty of this lesser offense, you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence
beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements as set forth in speci?cations 4, 5, 8, 12, and 16
except the value element. The value element of the lesser included offense requires that the
Government prove the property in each speci?cation was of a value of $1000.00 or less.

The offense of Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly Converting Records Belonging to the United
States, of a Value of $1000.00 or less is a lesser included offense of the offense of Stealing,
Purloining, or Knowingly Converting Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value in
Excess of $1000.00, as set forth in Speci?cations Charge II. If you ?nd the
accused not guiltyof the charged offense in speci?cations Charge II, you
should then consider the lesser included offense of Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly



33045

Converting Records Belonging to the United States, of a Value of $1000.00 or less. The offense
and the lesser included offense differ in that the charged offense requires as an essential element
that you be satis?ed beyond a reasonable doubt that the property Stolen, Purloined, or
Knowingly Converted was of a value in excess of $1000.00. The lesser included offense does
not include that element but..does require as an essential element that you be satis?ed beyond
reasonable doubt that the property Stolen, Purloined, or Knowingly Converted was of a value of
$1000.00 or less.

Findings:

The Court arrived at the proposed instructions by considering the instructions requested by the
parties and any responses to include enclosures and cited authority, pattern jury instructions for
18 U.S. c. Section 641 for the 10?: and 11?? Circuits, the Federal Jury Instructions
provided to ?ue Court from the Defense from the book ?Federal Jury Instructions?, the Federal
District Court Jury Instructions in United States v. Morrison, and the additional research
provided by the Defense regarding whether ?knowing conversion? requires substantial
interference with the government?s use of the property and ?thieves market?. The de?nitions of
?steal?, ?purloin?, and ?knowingly convert? are taken from US. v. Morrisette, 342 U.S. 246
(1952). The de?nitions of ?knowing? and ?will?il? are taken ?om the District Court?s
instructions in States v. Morrison, and from US. v. May, 625 F.2d 186, 190 (8th Cir. 1980)
quoting O?MaIley v. United States, 378 F.2d 401, 404 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1008
(1967) and United States v. Lee, 589 F.2d 980 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court will give a ?thieves
market? instruction if evidence is presented on the value_ of. the .rec,ords alleged to be stolen,
purloined, or knowingly converted by theaccused in a thieves market.

CHARGE ll, Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10,11, and 15: Transmitting Defense
information.

In speci?cations Charge II, the accused is charged with the offense
of Transmitting Defense Information, in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 793(e)
and Article 134, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the accused guilty of this offense, you must be
convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt:?

(1) That at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq,

SPECIFICATION 2: between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 5 April
2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: a video
?le named ?12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi?;

SPECIFICATION 3: between on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March
2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: more
than one classi?ed memorandum producedtby a United States government intelligence agency;



SPECIFICATION 5: on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010;
the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: more than 20
classi?ed records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange? Iraq database;

33046

SPECIFICATION 7: between 'on,_Q_r about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9
February 2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over:
more than 20 classi?ed records from the "Combined Information Network Exchange Afghanistan
database; I

9: between on or about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010;
the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: more than 3
classi?ed records from a United States Southern Command database;

SPECIFICATION 10: between on or about 11 April 2010 and on or about 27 May
2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: more
than 5 classi?ed records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring
on or about 4 May 2009;

SPECIFICATION 11: between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8
January 2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over:_ a
?le named PAX.zip? containing a video named

SPECIFICATION 15: between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15
March 2010; the accused, without authorization, had possession of, access to, or control over: a

classi?ed record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization, dated 18 March
2008;

(Elements Common to all speci?cations)

(2) the classi?ed records, classi?ed memorandum, videos, and ?les described for each
speci?cation in element 1) was information related to the national defense;

(3) the accused had reason to believe the classi?ed records, classi?ed memorandum,
videos, and ?les described for each speci?cation in element 1) could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(4) the accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted or caused to be
communicated, delivered, or transmitted the above material to any person not entitled to receive
it;

(5) at the time 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) was in existence on the dates alleged in the
speci?cation;



33047

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

The same de?nitions" forlprejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces that I read for you for speci?cation of Charge II
also apply to this offense. Would any member like me to repeat those de?ninitions?

An act is done ?willfully? if it is done voluntarily and intentionally with the speci?c intent to do
something the law forbids-, that is, with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.

?Possession? means the act of having or holding property or the detention of property in one?s
power or command. Possession may mean actual physical possession or constructive possession.
?Constructive possession? means having the ability to exercise dominion or control over an item.
Possession inherently includes the power or authority to preclude control by others. It is
possible, however, for more than one person to possess an item simultaneously, as when several
people share control of an item.

A person has unauthorized possession of documents, photographs, videos, or computer ?les
when he possesses such information under circumstances or in a location which is contrary to
law or regulation for the conditions of his employment.

The term ?national defense? is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval
establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness.

To prove that documents, writings, photographs, videos, or information relate to the national
defense, there are two things that the government must prove:

(I) that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States
or might be useful to an enemy of the United States; and

(2) that the material is closely held by the United States government, in that the relevant
government agency has sought to keep the information from the public generally and
has not made the documents, photographs, videos, or computer ?les available to the
general public. Where the information has been made public bythe United States
government and is found in sources lawfully available to the general public, it does
not relate to the national defense. Similarly, where the sources of information are
lawfully available to the public, and the United States government has made no.effort
to guard such information, the information itself does not relate to the national
defense.

In determining whether material is ?closely held,? you may consider whether it has been
classi?ed by appropriate authorities and whether it remained classi?ed on the date or dates
pertinent to the charge sheet. You may consider whether the information was classi?ed or not in
determining whether the information relates to the national defense. However, the fact that the
information is designated as classi?ed does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the infonnation
relates to the national defense.

la

33048

?Reason to believe? means that the accused knew facts from which he concluded or reasonably
should have concluded that could be used for the prohibited purposes. In
considering whether the accused hadreason to believe that the information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign country, you may consider the nature
of the information involved. You need not determine that the accused had reason to believe that
the information would be used against the United States, only that it could be so used.
Additionally, the likelihood of the information being used to the injury of the United States or to
the advantage of any foreign nation must not be remote, hypothetical, speculative, far-fetched, or
fanciful. The Government is not requifed to prove that the information obtained by the accused
was in fact used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

The government does not have to prove that the accused had reason to believe that his act could
both injure the United States and be to the advantageof a foreign country the statute reads in
the alternative. Also, the country to whose advantage the information could be used need not
necessarily be an enemy of the United States. The statute does not distinguish between friend
and enemy.

In determining whether the person who received the information was entitled to have it, you may
consider all the evidence introduced at trial, including any evidence concerning the classi?cation
status of the information, any evidence relating to law and regulations goveming the
classi?cation and declassi?cation of national security information, its handling, use, and
distribution, as well as any evidence relating to regulations governing the handling, use, and?
distribution of information obtained from classi?ed systems.

I have taken judicial notice that Title 18, United States Code Section 793(e) was in existence on
the dates alleged in speci?cations Charge 11.

Findings:

The Court arrived at the proposed instructions for speci?cations Charge II by considering the instructions requested by the parties and any responses to include
enclosures and cited authority, pattern jury instructions for 18 U.S. C. Section 793(e) for the
and 11"? Circuits, the Federal Jury Instructions provided to the Court from the
Defense from the book ?Federal Jury Instructions?, the Federal District Court Jury Instructions in
United States v. Morrison and United States v. Regan.

CHARGE II, Speci?cations 13 and 14: Fraud and Related Activity With Computers

In speci?cation 13 and 14 of Charge 11, the accused is charged with the offense of Fraud and
Related Activity in Connection with Computers, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1030(a)(1) and Article 134, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the accused guilty of this offense,
you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt:

(1) That at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq,

10



33049

SPECIFICATION on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 27 May
2010;

SPECIFICATION l4l:' between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about
February 2010;

the accused knowingly accessed a computer exceeding authorized access on a Secret Internet
Protocol Router Network.

(2) the accused obtained information that has been determined by the United States
Government by Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure
for reasons of national defense or foreign relations; to wit:

SPECIFICATION 13: more than 75 classi?ed United States Department of State
cables;

SPECIFICATION 14: a classi?ed Department of State cable titled ?Reykjavik?l3?;

(3) the accused had reason to believe theinformation obtained could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;

(4) the accused communicated, delivered, transmitted, or caused to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the information to a person not entitled to receive it.

(5) the accused acted will?illy; and A

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

The same de?nitions for prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces, and of a
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces that I read for you for speci?cation 1 of Charge II
also apply to this offense. -

An act is done ?willfully? if it is done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do
something the law forbids, that is, with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.

An act is done ?knowingly? if it is done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake
or accident or other innocent reason.

The term ?computer? means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high
speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage ?rnctions, and includes
any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in
conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriteror
typesetter, a portable hand-held calculator, or other similar device.

ll



33050

The term ?exceeds authorized access? means that the accused accessed a computer with
authorization and used such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the
Accused is not entitled so to obtain or alter. It is the knowing use of the computer by exceeding
authorized access which is being proscribed, not the unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over the protected infonnation itself.

?Reason to believe? means that the accused knew facts from which he concluded or reasonably
should have concluded that the information could be used for the prohibited purposes. In
considering whether the accused had reason to believe that the information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign country, you may consider the nature
d?the information involved. You need not determine that the accused had reason to believe that
tlief i?nformatio_n would be used against the United States, only that it could be so used.

. .Additionally, ?the likelihood of the information being used to the injury of the United States or to

the advantage ?of any foreign nation must not be too remote, hypothetical, speculative, far-
fetched, or fanciful. The Government is not required to prove that the information obtained by
the accused was in fact used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign
nation.

The government does not have to prove that the accused had reason to believe that his act could
both injure the United States and be to the advantage of a foreign country the statute reads in
the alternative. Also, the country to whose advantage the information could be used need not
necessarily be an enemy of the United States. The statute does not distinguish between friend
and enemy.

In determining whether the person who received the information was entitled to have it, you may
consider all the evidence introduced at trial, including any evidence concerning the classi?cation
status of the information, any evidence relating to law and regulations governing the
classi?cation and declassi?cation of national security information, its handling, use, and
distribution, as well as any evidence relating to regulations governing the handling, use, and
distribution of information obtained ?'om classi?ed systems.

The term ?person? means any individual, ?rm, corporation education institution, ?nancial
institution, governmental entity, or legal or other entity.

I have taken judicial notice that Title 18, United States Code Section l030(a)(l) was in existence
on the date alleged in the speci?cation.

Findings:

The Court arrived at the proposed instructions for speci?cations 13 and 14 of Charge II by
considering the instructions requested by the parties and any responses to include enclosures and
cited authority, pattern jury instructions for 18 U.S. C. Section? the 8th, and
11"? Circuits, the Federal Jury Instructions provided to the Court ?'om the Defense from the book
?Federal Jury Instructions?. The de?nition for ?exceeds authorized access? is taken from 18
U.S.C. Section l030(a)(6) and the 1996 legislative history. The de?nitions of ?knowing?,

12

General of Article 92_, UCMJ. In order to ?nd the accused guilty of this
offense, you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt:

the accused violated this lawful general regulation by wrongfully storing classi?ed information.

33051

?will?1l?., and =?3?7reasori?to believe?? are the same as those instructed upon for the speci?cations in
violation of Section
CHARGE Violation of a Lawful General Regulation:

In speci?cations -1-5 of the accused is charged with the offense of Violating a Lawful

(1) That there ?was in existence a certain lawful general regulation in the following terms:
Speci?cation 1: paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007;
Speci?cation 2: paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007;
Speci?cation 3: paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007;
Speci?cation 4: paragraph Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007;
Speci?cation 5: paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 380-5, dated 29 September 2000;

(2) That the accused had a duty to obey such regulation; and

(3) That at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq:-

Specification 1: 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 security system mechanisms.

Speci?cation 2: between on or about 11 February 1010 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.

Speci?cation'3: on or about 4 May 2010the accused violated this law?il general
regulation by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network
computer.

Speci?cation 4: between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010 the
accused violated this lawful general regulation by using an information system in a manner other
than its intended purpose.

Speci?cation 5: between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010

NOTE 1: Proof of existence of order or regulation. The existence of
the order or regulation must be proven or judicial notice taken.

NOTE 2: Lawfulness of order or regulation. The lawfulness of the
order or regulation is not a separate element of the offense. Thus,

13



33052



the issue of lawfu_lness is determined by the MJ and is not submitted
to the members. See United States v. New. 55 MJ 95 (CAAF 2001);
. Uhi?teg__?tates v. Deisher. 61 MJ 313 (CAAF 2005). To be lawful, the
order or regulation must relate to speci?c military duty and be one
that the noncommissionedlwarrantlpetty officer was authorized to
give the. accused. .The order- or regulation must require the accused
- to do or stop doing a. particular thing either at once or at a future-

time. An order or-regulation is lawful i.f reasonably? necessary to
discipline, and usefulness of the
members of a commandand is di'r?e?ctly connected with the
maintenance of good order in the services. (The three preceding
sentences may be modi?edand used by the MJ during a providence
inquiry to de?ne ?_?lawfulness? for the accused.) When the MJ
determines that, based on? the facts, the order or regulation was
lawful, the MJ should advise the members as follows:

I As a matter of law, the (order) (regulation) in this case, as described in the speci?cation, if in fact
there was such (an order) (a regulation), was a lawful (order) (regulation).

NOTE Order or requlat_ion determined to be gnlawful. An order or
regulation is illegal if, for. example, it is unrelated to military duty, its
sole purpose is to accomplish some private end, it is arbitrary and
unreasonable, andlor it is given for the sole purpose of increasing a
the punishment for an offense which it is expected the accused may
commit. lfthe MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order was
not lawful, the MJ should dismiss the affected speci?cation, and the
members shouldbe so advised.

NOTE 4: pispgte as to whether order was general. If there is a
factual dispute whether the order was general, that dispute must be
resolved by the mem bers in connection with their determination of
guilt or innocence. The following. instruction may be given:

General (orders) (regulations) are those (orders) (regulations) which are generally applicable to
an armed force and which are properly published by (the President) (the Secretary of (Defense)
(Homeland Security) (or) (a military department).

General (orders) (regulations) also include those (orders) (regulations) which are generally

applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular

subdivision thereof and which are issued by (an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction)
(or) (a general or ?ag o?icer in command) (or) (a commander superior to one of these).

You may ?nd the accused guilty of violating a general (order) (regulation) only if you are
satis?ed beyond a reasonable doubt that the (order) (regulation) was general.

NOTE 5: Deleted.



33053

. NOTE 6: Order issued by previous commander. If appropriate, the

following additional instruction may be given: . 3

A general (order) (regulation) issued by a commander with authority to do so retains its character
as a general .(order) (regulation) when another of?cer takes command, until it expires by its own
_t_erms or is rescinded by separate action.

NOTE 7: Orders or regu|at_ions containinq conditions. When an
alleged general order or -reggyula-tion proh_ibits a certain act or acts
?except under certain conditions,? ?except in the course of

official duty?), and the issue is raised by the evidence, the burden is
upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is not within the
terms of the exception. In such a case, the MJ must inform the
members of the speci?c exception(s) when listing the elements of
the offense. Additionally, under present law an instruction
substantially as follows must be provided:

When a general (order) (regulation) prohibits certain act(s), except under certain conditions,
then the burden is on the prosecution to establish by legal and competent evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused does not come within the terms of the exception(s).

Conclusion. The Court?s Proposed Draft Instructions substantially cover the relevant
and legally correct instructions proposed by the parties. These draft instructions may be
modi?ed by the Court as necessary from the presentation of the evidence. Affirmative defense,
evidentiary, and procedural instructions will be drafted as appropriate during the trial.



DENISE R. LIND
COL, JA
Chief Judge, 1st Judicial Circuit

15

33054

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

V.

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

U.S. Army,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211











AMENDED
DRAFT
INSTRUCTIONS:

DATED: 10 April 2013

Pursuant to the Court?s Order at AB 516, the Court makes the following change to the

Instructions at AE 4102

Change:

From: ?Intelligence? means any helpful infonnation, given to and received by the enemy, which is true,

at least in part.

To: ?Intelligence? means any infonnation helpful to the enemy which is true, at least in part. To find the
accused guilty of this offense, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence

was given to and received by, the enemy.?

So ORDERED this 10"? day ofApri| 2013.



DENISE R. LIND

COL, JA

Chief Judge, Ist Judicial Circuit

APPELLATE: H10 is
PAGE
PAGE OF PAGES

33055

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

DRAFT

INSTRUCTIONS:
v.


MANNING, Bradley E., PFC
U.S. Army,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, DATED: 30 July 2013

Fort Myer, VA 22211

For speci?cations Charge II, (Stealing, Purloining, or Knowingly
Converting Records Belonging to the United States of a Value in Excess of $1000.00, in violation of 18
U.S.C. ?64l and Article 134, UCMJ, the Court?s instructions (AE 410a) omitted the word ?cost? in the
statutory de?nition of ?value?. Accordingly, the Court makes the following amendment to the Instruction
on the de?nition of value for these speci?cations:

Current Instruction: ?Value? means the greater of (I) the face, par, or market value, or (2) the price,
whether wholesale or retail. A ?thing of value? can be tangible or intangible property. Government
information, although intangible is a species of property and a thing of value.

Amended Instruction: ?Value? means the greater of (I) the face, par, or market value, or (2) the cost
price, whether wholesale or retail. A ?thing of value? can be tangible or intangible property. Government
information, although intangible is a species of property and a thing of value.

So ORDERED this 30"? day of July 2013.



DENISE R. LFND
COL, JA
Chief Judge, Judicial Circuit



mmo? HMO MOAE
nwaa
e_m_Emxwarxa8
5
0
3
3

.5
..;..mnmzomUH
gem om 3, r.r.



9
5
0
3
3

m?mw? E:

.. nL??.Lfy_ ..
m,mumwmza4UHT
.5:

E?m om

Hslp.? ..


am
Eymm
om wwarm





.,Eumww>E 2
36m
on _.>omm



II

mmo? no
mo?
E:

. . 33063

From: Choike Col Daniel

sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:14 PM

To: LtGen George

Cc: Reed SgtMaj Dennis Monenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher Neill CAPT Mary;

Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: Behavioral Profile: Struggles Of Soldier Charged In Leak Case

Signed By:

Sir,

During our initial OPT, when we were just hours away from receiving PFC Manning, the Base
Staff along with Sec Bn and the C0 of the Naval Health Clinic discussed proper receiving
0F the detainee, the initial mental health assessments, continuous mental health
screening/assessments and proper brig supervision. PFC Manning is on suicide watch, which
means he is under constant observation. He is in his cell in skivvies and has only a
blanket. Measures are in place now to ensure all personnel (Brig Staff] Counselors/Mental
Health Physicians) who come in contact with PFC Manning, know that if he no longer meets the
criteria to be detained, that we would be immediately transferred to the mental health ward
in Walter Reed.

The Army Correctional Command actually owns him and has asked for second and third opinions
on his mental health and ability to handle the stress of being detained in our brig. I just
got off the phone with the C0 of the Naval Health Clinic and also just met with C01 Oltman,
and directed that they provide me weekly updates on Manning, by providing general info on his
attitude and mental health. will forward a copy of the weekly reports to you personally, and
it will be separate from the weekly Base Updates.

of note: Col Oltman states that mail from Code Pink and other organizations that think
Manning is a hero, Manning is refusing all mail addressed to him from those types of
organizations.

Sir, we all understand the importance of maintaining a close watch and ensuring he is
mentally stable to remain detained in our facility for quite some time.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:





From: LtGen George 3

Sent: Monday, August 69, 2616 13:42

To: Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel 3

cc: Reed SgtMaj Dennis w; Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher
Subject: Fw: Behavioral Profile: Struggles OF Soldier Charged In Leak Case
Importance: High

?l?q
P/if?,
ManningB_00449894

. 1


ya

. . 33064

Bob and Dan,

we have had one suicide of a high risk prisoner in the brig. we need to make sure that

we have covered down on what we learned from that case. Based on the below, this young man
has a great deal on his plate and it would be good if you impressed upon all who come in
contact with Pvt. Manning the absolute necessity of keeping a close watch on him. This
includes Brig, medical, Chaplain and transport personnel. His life has completely fallen
apart which makes him a strong candidate (from my perspective) to take his life.


GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC

Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,
Comm:
DSN:
NIPR:
SIPR:






New York Times
August 9, 2010

Early Struggles Of Soldier Charged In Leak Case
By Ginger Thompson

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. He spent part of his childhood with his father in the arid plains of
central Oklahoma, where classmates made fun of him for being a geek. He spent another part
with his mother in a small, remote corner of southwest wales, where classmates made fun of
him for being gay.

Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to
conceal his sexuality under ?don1t ask, donit tell? and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee
for officers.

But it was around two years ago, when Pfc. Bradley Manning came here to visit a man he had
fallen in love with, that he finally seemed to have found a place where he fit in, part of a
social circle that included politically motivated computer hackers and his boyfriend, a self-
described drag queen.

So when his military career seemed headed nowhere good, Private Manning, 22, turned
increasingly to those friends for moral support.

And now some of those friends say they wonder whether his desperation for acceptance or
delusions of grandeur may have led him to disclose the largest trove of government secrets
since the Pentagon Papers.

would always try to make clear to Brad that he had a promising future ahead of him,? said
Daniel J. Clark, one of those Cambridge friends. ?But when you?re young and youire in his
situation, it1s hard to tell yourself things are going to get better, especially in Brad1s
case, because in his past, things didn?t always get better.?

Blond and barely grown up, Private Manning worked as an intelligence analyst and was based
east of Baghdad. He is suspected of disclosing more than 150,600 diplomatic cables, more than
90,000 intelligence reports on the war in Afghanistan and one video of a military helicopter
attack all of it classified. Most of the information was given to wikiLeaks.org, which

2

ManningB_00-149895

- . . 33065

posted the war reports after sharing them with three publications, including The New York
Times.

wikiLeaks has defended the disclosure, saying transparency is essential to democracy. The
Pentagon has denounced the leaks, saying they put American soldiers and their Afghan allies
in grave danger.

And while that dispute rages on, with the Pentagon having recently demanded that wikiLeaks
remove all secret documents from the Internet and hand over any undisclosed materials in its
files, Private Manning is being held in solitary confinement at Quantico, Va., under suicide
watch.

Private Manning1s military-appointed lawyer, Maj. Thomas F. Hurley, declined an interview
request.

Much remains unknown about his journey there from Crescent, Okla., the small town where he
was born. But interviews with people who know him, along with e?mail exchanges between him
and Adrian Lamo, the computer hacker who turned him in, offer some insights into Private
Manningls early years, why he joined the Army and how he came to be so troubled, especially
in recent months.

3I1ve been isolated so long,? Private Manning wrote in May to Mr. Lamo, who turned the chat
logs over to the authorities and the news media. 3But events kept forcing me to figure out
ways to survive.?

Survival was something Private Manning began learning as a young child in Crescent. His
father, Brian Manning, was also a soldier and spent a lot of time away from home, former
neighbors recalled. His mother, Susan Manning, struggled to cope with the culture shock of
having moved to the United States from her native wales, the neighbors said.

One neighbor, Jacqueline Radford, recalled that when students at Private Manning1s elementary
school went on field trips, she sent additional food or money to make sure he had something
to eat.

3I1ve always tried to be supportive of him because of his home life,? Ms.
Radford said. 3I know it was bad, to where he was left to his own, had to fend for himself.?

At school, Bradley Manning was clearly different from most of his peers. He preferred hacking
computer games rather than playing them, former neighbors said. And they said he seemed
opinionated beyond his years about politics, religion, and even about keeping religion out of
politics.

In his Bible Belt hometown that he once mockingly wrote in an e?mail had 3more pews than
people,? Private Manning refused to recite the parts of the Pledge of Allegiance that
referred to God or do homework assignments that involved the Scriptures. And if a teacher
challenged his views, former classmates said, he was quick to push back.

3He would get upset, slam books on the desk if people listen to him or understand
his point of view,? said Chera Moore, who attended elementary and junior high school with
him. 3He would get really mad, and the teacher would say, GO.K., Bradley, get out.? 3

It was something he would hear a lot throughout his life.

After Private Manning1s parents divorced, he moved with his mother to Haverfordwest, wales,
her hometown, and began a new chapter of isolation.





. . 33066

Haverfordwest is several times bigger than Crescent. It is also centuries older, with
traditions that run much deeper. A bustling market town, it offered a pace of life that was
significantly faster.

Former students at his school there, Tasker Milward, remembered Private Manning being teased
for all sort of reasons. His American accent. His love of Dr Pepper. The amount of time he
spent huddled before a computer.

And then, students began to suspect he was gay.

Sometimes, former classmates said, he reacted to the teasing by idly boasting about stealing
other students? girlfriends. At other times, he openly flirted with boys. Often, with only
the slightest provocation, he would launch into fits of rage.

?It was probably the worst experience anybody could go through,? said Rowan John, a former
classmate who was openly gay in high school. 3Being different like me, or Bradley, in the
middle of nowhere is like going back in time to the Dark Ages.1

But life ahead did not immediately brighten for Private Manning. After his troubled high
school years, his mother sent him back to Oklahoma to live with his father and his older
sister.

He was hired and quickly fired from a small software company, where his employer, Kord
Campbell, recalled him as clean-cut and highly intelligent with an almost innate sense for
programming, as well as the personality of a bull in a china shop. Then his father found out
he was gay and kicked him out of the house, friends said. Mr. Clark, the Cambridge friend,
said Private Manning told him he lived out of his car briefly while he worked in a series of
minimum-wage retail jobs.

He enlisted in the Army in 2667, to try to give his life some direction and to help to pay
for college, friends said.

He was granted a security clearance and trained as an intelligence analyst at Fort Huachuca,
Ariz., before being assigned to the Second Brigade 16th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y.

Before being deployed to Iraq, Private Manning met Tyler Watkins, who described himself on
his blog as a classical musician, singer and drag queen. A friend said the two had little in
common, but Private Manning fell head over heels. Mr. Watkins, who did not respond to
interview requests for this article, was a student at Brandeis University. On trips to visit
him here in Cambridge, Private Manning got to know many in Mr. watkinsi wide network of
friends, including some who were part of this university townls tight-knit hacker community.

Friends said Private Manning found the atmosphere here to be everything the Army was not:

openly accepting of his geeky side, his liberal political opinions, his relationship with Mr.

watkins and his ambition to do something that would get attention.

Although hacking has come to mean a lot of different things, at its core, those who do it
say, is the philosophy that information should be free and accessible to all. And Private
Manning had access to some of the most secret information on the planet.

Meanwhile, his military career was anything but stellar. He had been reprimanded twice,
including once for assaulting an officer. He wrote in e?mails that he felt 3regu1arly
ignored? by his superiors 3except when I had something essential, then it was back to EBring
me coffee, then sweep the floor.1 1

ManningB_00449897



. . 33067

And it seems the more isolated he felt in the military he wore custom dog tags that said
3Humanist,? and friends said he kept a toy fairy wand on his desk in Iraq the more he clung
to his hacker friends.

According to Wired magazine, Private Manning told Mr. Watkins last January that he had gotten
his hands on a secret video showing a military helicopter attack that killed two Reuters
photographers and one Iraqi civilian.

In a computer chat with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning said he gave the video to WikiLeaks in
February. Then, after WikiLeaks released it in April, Private Manning hounded Mr. Watkins
about whether there had been any public reaction. 3That was one of his major concerns once
held done this,? Mr.

Watkins told Wired. 3Was it really going to make a difference??

In his computer chats with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning described how he downloaded the video
and to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.

3Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart
attack,2 he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called
himself Bemotionally fractured? and a 3wreck? and said he was 3self?medicating like crazy.?

And as he faces the possibility of a lifetime in prison, some of Private Manning1s remarks
now seem somewhat prophetic.

3I mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much,? he
wrote, 3if it wasn1t for the possibility of having pictures of me plastered all over the
world press.?

Ben Fenwick contributed reporting from Oklahoma City, and Ravi Somaiya from Haverfordwest,
Wales. Toby Lyles contributed research.

--NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 USC 167, this material is distributed without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non?profit research and educational purposes only. Provided by G2?Forward.

ManningB_00449898

. . 33068

From: Choike Col Daniel

sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:45 PM

To: LtGen George

cc: Oltman Col Robert Streng CIV Peter Monenson Col Royal; Kauzlanch Col Mark
subject: RE: SITREP

Signed By:

Sir,

Update provided below, taken from the watch journal. In addition to this visit, a Robert J.
Van visited Manning (his cousin), no issues with that visit.

In addition to the info below, Coombs (Manning's Lawyer) called the Brig directly, in order
to inform Manning of issues with David House at the gate. That is an unauthorized
communication, and CWO Averhart is summarizing the event in an email to forward to the SJA.
The vehicle will be released once impound fee is paid and current registration and insurance
are verified.

PAO has been notified, I spoke to TV this afternoon and he is ready to address media
inquiries. A couple Blog sites have referenced the incident, no main stream media interest,
yet.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel 3. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5081





Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:

I)







0



Original Message

From: Foster Brian

To: Tomaszek Capt William

Cc: Foster Brian Chipps Agent Addam
Sent: Sun Jan 23 16:32:43 2911

Subject: SITREP

Sir,

AT 1300, 23JAN11, MILITARY POLICE (SOARES) OBSERVED A 2004 SILVER MERCEDES 4-DOOR BEARING
OREGON REGISTRATION AM) NO DOD DECAL TRAVELING EAST ON FULLER RD. ADJACENT BUILDING
3685 (GATE 1) DURING A 166% COMMAND AUTHORIZED IDENTIFICATION CHECK. THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED
AND CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE OPERATOR HOUSE WHO PROVIDED MILITARY POLICE (SOARES) WITH A
MASSACHUSETTS OPERATORS LICENSE AND NO PROOF OF INSURANCE (OSJAN2011) AND EXPIRED VEHICLE
REGISTRATION (27DEC2010). HOUSE STATED HE WAS GOING TO VISIT MANNING IN THE BRIG AND HAMSHER
WAS HIS GUEST WHO WAS GOING TO EAT AT MCDONALDS ON BASE WHILE HOUSE WAS CONDUCTING A VISIT AT
THE BRIG. A VCIN CHECK WAS CONDUCTED REVEALING HOUSE TO BE A VALID OPERATOR OUT OF THE STATE
MASSACHUSETTS. A VCIN CHECK WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON THE PASSENGER IDENTIFIED AS HAMSHER
1
EXHIBET it


ManningB_oo449933 P/ail 05.: 5



. . 33069

REVEALING HER TO BE THE REGISTERED ONNER OE THE VEHICLE AS HELL AS A VALID OPERATOR OUT OE
CALIFORNIA.

AT 1395, 23JAN11, MILITARY POLICE (EOSTER) ARRIVED ON SCENE TO ESCORT HOUSE AND HAMSER To
(MCB QUANTICO BRIG) EOR AN AUTHORIZED VISIT TO MANNING. UPON INTERVIENING
HAMSHER, SHE NAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE VALID REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE AND NAS INEORMED THAT
GOING To MCDONALDS ON BASE NOULD BE TRESSPASSING DUE TO NOT HAVING ANY MILITARY OR GOVERNMENT
PRIVILEDGES.

AT 1315, 23JAN11, HOUSE HAS ISSUED Two (2) 1 1895 (2913954) EOR EXPIRED REGISTRATION,
AND ONE 1 1395 (2347328) FOR FAILURE TO CARRY PROOE OF INSURANCE, BOTH WHICH CARRY A
MANDATORY COURT DATE OE 11APR11 AT 9999 LOCATED AT 491 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, ALEXANDRIA, VA
22314.

AT 1329, 23JAN11, A VEHICLE INVENTORY NAS CONDUCTED PRIOR TO STORAGE TO IDENTIEY ANY HIGH
VALUE ITEMS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LEET IN THE VEHICLE. UPON CONDUCTING THE INVENTORY (EOSTER)
OBSERVED SEVERAL PAPERS IN THE TRUNK AREA OE THE VEHICLE IN PLAIN SIGHT, NHICH CONTAINED
SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS EROM NEN YORK AND CONNECTICUT SHOHING MONEY TRANSEERES BETHEEN
THEM NITH THE NAMES LISTED AS BRIAN SONENSTEIN AND MICHAEL HHITNEY, A BANK OE AMERICA
RECIEPT, A VETERINARIAN RECIEPT EROM VCA MACARTHUR ANIMAL CLINIC EOR TREATMENT OE A POODLE
WITH THE NAME OF JANE HAMSHER AND AN ADDRES CONTARY TO THE ONE GIVEN TO MILITARY POLICE
DURING THE EIELD INTERVIEN AND ON THE REGRISTRATION AND OPERATIORS LICENSE.

j, AS HELL AS A HAND NRITTEN NOTE THE TEA PARTY, CIA,
NAETA, AND JULIAN ASSANGE.

AT 1359, 231AN11, TOHING ARRIVED ON SCENE.

AT 1499, 23JAN11, CID AGENT CHIPPS NAS NOTIEIED IN TO THE DOCUMENTS AND HAND
HRITTEN NOTES.

AT 1417, 23JAN11, CID AGENT CHIPPS ARRIVED ON SCENE AND DECLINED INVESTIGATIVE JOURISDICTION.
AT 1445, 23JAN11, TOHING DEPARTED THE SCENE HHO STORED THE VEHICLE IN THEIR OEE
BASE STORAGE FACILITY. HOUSE AND HAMSHER ACCOMPANIED THE TON TRUCK T0 OEE BASE
EACILITY.

AT 1445, 23JAN11, MILITARY POLICE (EOSTER) DEPARTED THE SCENE HITHOUT EURTHER INCIDENT.

NOTIFICATIONS:

FOSTER

SOARES

OPERATIONS ROLAF CHIPPS
TOMASZEK

Respectfully,
Foster



From: LtGen George 3

Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:59 PM
TO: Choike Col Daniel

Subject: Re: SITREP



Original Message

From: Choike CO1 Daniel

To: LtGen George 3

Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:56:13 2911

Subject: Re: SITREP

Yes Sir, protocol for all Vehicles with no license and insurance entering the base.

VR, DJC

ManningB_00449934



. . 33070

Original Message
From: LtGen George

To: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:53:48 2611
Subject: Re: SITREP

wrecker?

Original Message
From: Choike Col Daniel

To: LtGen George

Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:51:29 2611
Subject: Re: SITREP

Yes sir, they denied. They rode the wrecker off base. VR, DJC

Original Message
From: LtGen George

To: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:49:33 2611
Subject: Re: SITREP

Did we offer to call them a cab?

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: LtGen George Mortenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col Mark Streng CIV Peter
Oltman LtCol Robert

Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:42:39 2611

Subject: Fw: SITREP

Sir, initial report below in on David House (approved guest For Manning) that was to visit
today. Driver was a Jane Hamsher, who had expired license and no insurance. Access denied. A
more detailed report to Follow. PAO notiFied, media interest expected.

VR, onc

Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Streng CIV Peter Johnson Col Thomas
Greer LtCol Christopher Tomaszek Capt William Riley Civ Joseph Ponte cwoz Joseph
Sent: Sun Jan 23 15:13:54 2011

Subject: Fw: SITREP

House left with tow truck says he will return next week. There is some issue with some bank
documents that were found during the inventory of the vehicle in preparation for towing. The
significance 0F that is unknown at this time. I have queried NCIS and CID and I am awaiting
their response.

Also a Robert James Van is on his way to visit Manning at brig. He is a designated
visitor.





0 0 33071

will have Full SITREP in about 1hr.

R/rgo
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Tomaszek Capt William

To: Oltman Col Robert Riley Civ Joseph
Sent: Sun Jan 23 14:07:19 2011

Subject: Re: SITREP

Currently Finishing vehicle inventory. Towing company on scene. Asked if he could walk or we
could give him a ride to Brig. Told him No for both. He is either going to walk to 7-11 or
sit in gate 1 until taxi shows up. He has been cited for expired registration and no
insurance.

==Sent from my B1ackberry==

Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Riley Civ Joseph Tomaszek Capt William
Sent: Sun Jan 23 14:00:27 2611

Subject: SITREP

will take as soon as you can send. want to get to PAO and CO before House has an opportunity

to put a negative spin on it.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

ManningB_00449936

. . 33072

From: Johnson Col Thomas

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:19 PM

To: Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCo| Christopher Oltman Col Robert

Cc: LtGen George Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Mortenson Col Royat;

Neill CAPT Mary; Salas Col Bryan Streng CIV Peter Logsdon CIV Richard Rothlein
CIV Julius; Jenks CIV Chuck

Subject: FRONTLINE MANNING STORY (TONIGHT)
s?gnedlBy:
Importance: High

Gentlemen, the original e?mai1 went to the base paper's mailbox last night. FRONTLINE will
have PFC Manning's father on this evening to speak about the conditions at the brig.
FRONTLINE's e-mail was sent yesterday and made a request to interview CNO-2 Barnes for
tonight's segment. I do not believe the request would have been supportable given the
interview policy for brig personnel and the almost unreasonable timeframe.

Recommend that the answer to the request to interview the brig OIC be



From: Raney Aronson 1
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:29

To: Sentry.Quantico

Subject: Urgent request sent yesterday

Dear office of Public Affairs,

I emailed the below message to you yesterday and wish to follow up on the status of our
request. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or email me. I can be
reached on my cell at 917-821-4041. I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Kind regards,
Raney Aronson
Raney Aronson
Senior Producer
FRONTLINE

One Guest Street
Boston, MA 02135



Dear Office of Public Affairs,

I'm the Series Senior Producer of the current affairs documentary series PBS FRONTLINE. we
secured an interview with PFC FATHER, Brian Manning, who is speaking publicly for
the first time and discussed the conditions under which he has heard PFC Bradley Manning is
being held. I would very much welcome the opportunity to speak with an MCB Quantico official,
preferably Chief warrant Officer Denise Barnes, regarding Brian Manning's response.

ManningB_00516856



. . 33073

From: LtGen George

Sent: Thursday. April 07. 2011 12:35 PM

To: Miner Col Christopher

Cc: Hogue SES Robert Mortenson Col Royal; Ary MajGen Vaughn Ewers Col John
Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Greer Manning Major
Scott

Subject: RE: Rep Polis Letter

If HQs concurs I am OK with this. Take out the beFore blankets in Fourth para

LtGen. George J. USMC

Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,

Comm:
DSN:
NIPR:
SIPR:



Message-??--

From: Miner Col Christopher

Sent: Thursday, April 67, 2011 16:33

To: LtGen George

Cc: Hogue SES Robert Mortenson Col Royal; Ary MajGen Vaughn Ewers Col John Choike
Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Greer LtCol Christopher Manning Major Scott
Subject: Fw: Rep Polis Letter

Sir,

For your review and approval, the first attachment is the draft response to Congressman
Polis? letter to SECNAV (2nd attachment) inquiring into PFC Manning's treatment. The
response for Col Choike's signature is consistent with other responses and has been vetted
with CL, SJAZCMC, and MCBQ.

VR, Chris

Col Chris Miner

Staff Judge Advocate

Marine Corps Combat Development Command

Phone: (Commercial) (DSN)
Cell:
SIPR:





From: Sucher Maj Robb A

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:44

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Sherrod CIV Jimmy Manning Major Scott
Subject: Rep Polis Letter



1

A Fri-.

ManningB_00518059 AG 0





. . 33074

Col Kauzlarich,

As discussed, attached is the letter to Rep Polis in regards to PFC Manning's pre?trai1
confinement. The Counsel for CMC (Mr. Hogue) recommends that Col Choike sign the letter.

If Col Choike does sign it, I ask For a copy For our records.
Thank you Sir - Maj Robb Sucher

Major Robb Sucher

Comm: i DSN (-
Cell:

ManningB_00518060



From: LtGen George

sent: Thursday, December 23. 2010 11:08 AM

To: ChmkeCo|DanwIJ

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Johnson Col Thomas Kauzlarich Col Mark Miner Col Christopher

VV
Subject: RE: Manning detention (UNCLASSIFIED)
Dan,

Copy all. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,




From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2616 9:06

To: LtGen George

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Johnson Col Thomas Kauzlarich Col Mark Miner Col Christopher
Subject: Fw: Manning detention (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sir,

FYI. we have not had anyone contact us from the UN on Manning. we have received 43 calls
from (worldwide) of individuals requesting his release and/or change a change in his custody
conditions. The SJA will be informing HQMC (JA) for their SA.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5091

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:





From: Greer LtCo1 Christopher

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:45

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert
Cc: Broadston Major Christian 3; Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: Manning detention (UNCLASSIFIED)

rs-1 L:
. -
ManningB_00517806 FAQ 0





. . 33076

Gentlemen,

The attached Army Times/AP Story talks of a UN envoy looking into Manning's detention. I
intend to forward this to MajGen Ary, SJA to CMC as I want to ensure it the request from the
UN does come through, it will be handled at the Service level.

I wanted to ensure you knew about it and my intention to push this up higher legal
authorities.

v/r

LtCol Greer
SJA, MCB

U.N. reviews Manning's treatment in brig

The Associated Press
Posted wednesday Dec 22, 2616 19:16:53 EST

HAGERSTONN, Md. The United Nations? top anti-torture envoy is looking into a complaint that
the Army private suspected of giving classified documents to wikiLeaks has been mistreated in
custody, a spokesperson said Wednesday.

The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture in Geneva, received a complaint
from one of Pfc. Bradley Manning's supporters alleging conditions at the brig aboard Marine
Corps Base Quantico, Va., amount to torture, said spokesperson Xabier Celaya. Visitors say he
spends at least 23 hours a day alone in a cell.

-The U.N. could ask the United States to stop any violations it finds.

Related reading

. U.S. denies mistreating Pfc. Bradley Manning

The Pentagon has denied mistreating Manning. A Marine Corps spokesman said the military is
keeping Manning safe, secure and ready for trial.

Manning was charged in July with leaking classified material, including video posted by
wikiLeaks of a 2667 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news
photographer and his driver. He is suspected of leaking troves of other material to the
government secret?spilling site, which is in the process of posting more than 256,666 secret
State Department cables.

Manning has not commented publicly on whether he is the source of the leaks. NikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange said the organization's "technology is set up so we don't know" the
sources of the material it gets.

Nowak is the special investigator on torture, working for the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Rapporteurs regularly assess complaints from alleged victims of human rights violations. If a
complaint is verified as legitimate, the investigator sends an urgent letter or appeal to the
government that it believes has committed the violation.

In an interview with on Wednesday, Assange called Manning a political prisoner and said
he believes the U.S. is trying to get the soldier to testify against him. He called on human-
rights organizations to investigate.

ManningB_00517807



"If we are to believe the allegations, then this man acted for political reasons," Assange
said. "He is a political prisoner in the United States. He has not gone to trial. He has been
a political prisoner without trial in the United States for some six or seven months.

"His conditions have been getting worse and worse and worse in his cell as they attempt to
pressure him into testifying against me. That's a serious problem.?

Assange has not been charged in connection with leaked documents but was jailed in England
this month after two women in Sweden accused him of sex crimes, including rape. He was freed
on bail last week and confined to a supporter's country estate while he fights extradition to
Sweden, where authorities want to question him.

Assange said it would be "absolute nonsense" for the U.S. to try to make Manning a witness in
a conspiracy case against him. never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it appeared
in the media," he said.



0 0 33078

From:
Sent
To:
Cc:

sumed:
Signed By:

Johnson Col Thomas

Thursday. March 31. 2011 3:22 PM

Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCol Christopher

LtGen George Choike Col Daniel Monenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col Mark
Neill CAPT Mary; Streng CIV Peter Logsdon CIV Richard Rothlein CIV Julius; Salas Col
Bryan ?Manning, Roben LTC USA Jenks CIV Chuck

RE: Request stern maqazine (Germany)

Gents, need your chop on the response to the latest Manning query. The reporter's deadline
is 3 April. The OSD statement has been used in its entirety with multiple media outlets.

Recommend that we not attempt to re-wicker it. The answers were pretty much cut and pasted
from the current MON PAG with the exception of a few modifications for the sake of clarity.

Thanks



TV

Col. T.V. Johnson

Quantico PAO

Reporter's contact info:

Martin Knobbe, US Correspondent, Stern Magazine
535 Fifth Avenue 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017 USA



BLANKET OSD APPROVED STATEMENT:

Bradley Manning is being held in pre-trial confinement at the Marine Corps base
Quantico. He is accused of, and charged with, very serious crimes. He is innocent until

proven guilty.

He is in pre-trial confinement for reasons associated with the criminal

justice system, including the very serious nature of the offenses he is alleged to have

committed.

The circumstances of PFC Manning's pretrial confinement are regularly reviewed, to ensure
compliance with U.S. law and Department of Defense regulations.

ManningB_00518078

.

- I . .

.-








From: Choike Col Daniel
Sent: Monday. August 09, 2010 6:19 PM
To: LtGen George
Cc: Oltman Col Robert Neill CAPT Mary; Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher
Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: FW: Medical Statement of Assurance ICO PFC Manning
Attachments: Medical Brio SOP.docx
signed By:
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Sir,

Update from this afternoon's Mental Health Brief between the Mental Health Physician, Dr.
Hocter and the C0 of the NHC, is provided below. The concern of long term suicide watch has
been addressed already between mental health physicians and the Brig Staff. Manning's status
was changed from Suicide Prevention to Prevention of Injury - thus more clothing articles
will be provided, as well as other comfort items recommended will be considered by the Brig
OIC.

In talking with C01 Oltman this evening, he stated that the OIC's preference was hold off for
a couple more days on making the change, and the tentative date to allow additional clothing
is weds and Dr Hocter agreed. That will end up being a week that Manning was in the suicide
prevention status/skivvies and blanket only. Manning does get a daily sunshine visit for
approx an hour, so he is not completely cloth less, all day long.

will provide weekly updates or updates of any status changes or concerns raised by the Sec
Bn/Brig Staff or Mental Health Physicians.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5601

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:





From: Neill, Mary CAPT ]mai1to:

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2616 17:23

To: Choike Col Daniel 3

Subject: Medical Statement of Assurance ICO PFC Manning
Importance: High

Sensitivity: Confidential

Col Choike,

Just finished receiving brief from Behavioral Health and have the following Update at 1615 9
August 2016:

I
A rrv'" 7


ManningB_00449875 I ,i



0 0 33080

-Detainee being seen 3-4 visits a week by Naval Health Clinic Quantico staff Behavioral
Health physician CAPT Hocter, who is also a subspecialist in Forensic

-Army consultant from Walter Reed Army Medical Center (NRAMC) visited brig on Thursday 5
August to provide additional assessment of detainee and consulted with CAPT Hocter.

-Recommendation from Behavioral Health specialists as of Friday 9 August is to move from
SUICIDE PRECAUTION to PREVENTION OF INJURY as a prescribed posture for medical and security
to follow; includes allowing certain articles of clothing (no belts, shoelaces, etc), no
requirement for constant line of sight observation, moves to eyes on observation every 5
minutes by brig security. would also recommend allowing books to read to improve mental
state (interested in science fiction).

-CAPT Hocter has also partnered with Staff Sergeant Jordan from the brig in developing
contingency plan for hospitalization should the need arise. WRAMC has a ward to
accommodate increased security posture.

Overall affect and mood is improving since arrival, however detainee remains highly
emotionally vulnerable to environmental influences and is a significant risk due to
complexity of personality issues. Has been prescribed medications for anxiety and depression
and medical appointments are being adjusted accordingly in response to detainee status. CAPT
Hocter reports solid line of communication between medical and security staff, however has
noted that the new C0 (or OIC) of the Brig has displayed significant concern and is anxious
about high level of visibility and risk. Brig staff may benefit from having their questions
and concerns addressed by our medical staff.

will continue with these updates on weekly basis on Monday afternoons after the weekend
visits, unless situation or leadership requests more frequent reporting. Standing by to
assist.


MBN

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN
Commanding Officer

Naval Health Clinic Quantico
Com:
DSN:
e-mail:




ManningB_00449876



33081

From:
sent

To:
sumea:
signed By:

Roger. Thanks

Message-

Hocter, William J.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:03 AM
Neill, Mary CAPT

RE: ate Bri siaff


From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Tuesday, August
To: Hocter, William J.

10, 2016 11:63 AM

Subject: Re: Update Brig staff

Got it, I am with the

recommendations directly to CO.

Original Message

From: Hocter, William

To: Neill, Mary CAPT
Sent: Tue Aug 16 16:35:02 2916

base commander as we speak and will present your
Will get back to you shortly.

J.

Subject: RE: Update Brig staff

Skipper-I just spoke to Blevins about the detainee. They have the
necessary paperwork from me and the OIC received it yesterday. Per
the OIC elected to continue suicide precautions, not from a suicide risk
standpoint, but for security reasons. I do wish they would at least let him

have his clothes back

(I recommended no shoelaces or belts for example). I'm

not real happy about this. However, my experience with the Brig has been
that they stick to their guns. I'd appreciate your thoughts.



CAPT Hocter

Message-

From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Monday, August 69, 2016 5:27 PM
To: Hocter, William J.

Subject: Update Brig staff

Importance: High

Doc,
If the recommendation

from you and Col Malone is to move from suicide

precautions to prevention of injury would you please ensure this has been
communicated to the brig staff so they can allow appropriate clothing, etc?
Seems like there may be a disconnect and the detainee is still on suicide

precautions.

C0

Thank you.

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN

Commanding Officer

Naval Health Clinic Quantico



wt"-I

-.. .. m.

Com:
DSN:
e?mai1:

Manning

33082

33083

^rom:
S^nt:
To:

Choike ColDanielJ
Thursday.December 30,201011:55 AM
^Shumake,Sha^nCOLOSDPR^

Cc:
Subject:
SignedBy:

Mortenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col MarkM
RE; PFC Manning and the Ouantico Brig
(b) (6)

Thanks Shawn, look forward to the v i s i t l
SF, Dan
ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3^50 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Original Message
From: Shumake, Shawn COL OSD PR ^mailto:David.Shumake@osd.milj
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:52
To: Choike Col Daniel D

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Thanks Dan
I know you have this well in hand, but just want to be able to give my bosses a first-hand
look to be sure we can manage this up from my level than have i t a l l tumble down h i l l when
they f i n a l l y read an a r t i c l e or start asking c|uestions.
I know i t ^ s a l l being handled by the book

- just want to say I have confirmed i t .

Talk to you guys next week.
v/r
Shawn
Shawn Shumake
Colonel, US Army
Director, Office of Legal Policy
OUSD(P^R)RSI LP Pentagon 5A668
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Choike Col Daniel D (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, December 3
To: Wright LtColTroyV
Cc: Oltman Col Robert G; Galaviz CW05 Abel; Averhart CW04 Dames T; Shumake, Shawn COL OSD PR;
Durham CIV Dan M; Geoffrey SES Raymond F; Mortenson Col Royal; kauzlarich Col Mark M
1.

ManningB^00514280

APPEEEATEEXHIE^T^^^^^
PAGEREFERENCED;
PAGE
^(^E
PAGE^

33084

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
LtCol Wright,
Appreciate the update and additional set of eyes/interest. On Monday, I had my own IG make
an unannounced v i s i t to the brig and once I send that info report to tbe 0CG MCCDC, 1^11
provide a copy as a read ahead for the OSD/Chair, DOD Corrections Council v i s i t next week.
Additionally, we are working on an info paper that outlines a l l the stated concerns from
discussion, v i s i t s and inspections over the past couple weeks and have prepared a brief for
MGen Hummer on 4 Dan. He is the new DCG, MCCDC and was scheduled for an org brief and we are
adding this case as a discussion topic.
Standing by to coordinate the scheduled v i s i t .
SF, DDC
ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3^50 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Wright LtCol Troy V
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:18
To: Choike Col Daniel D
Cc: Oltman Col Robert G; Galaviz CW05 Abel; Averhart CW04 Dames T; COL Shumake (USA)
(b) (6)
Durham CIV Dan M; Geoffrey SES Raymond F
Subject: FW: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Col Choike,
Sir, per our (PSL) rec^uest, COL Shumake (Chair, DoD Corrections Council) has agreed to
conduct a courtesy v i s i t at the Quantico Brig. This is not an o f f i c i a l inspection. I t i s
primarily an opportunity for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico.
Since the PFC Manning case continues to draw international attention I believe i t wise to
ha^e as many people possible, in their o f f i c i a l capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC
Manning is subject to so they can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance
with regulations.
COL Shumake said his schedule is f a i r l y flexible next week. I f you are available I^m sure
he^d like to conduct the tour with you.
V/R
LtCoI Troy V. Wright
Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch
Security Division (PS); Plans, Policies ^ Operations (PP^O)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)
(b) (6)

ManningB^00514281

33085

(b) (6)
Original Message
From: Flynn LtGen George D
j
Sent: Wednesday, December ^9, 2010 8:0^
To: Geoffrey SES Raymond F; Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D; Dunford Gen Doseph F; Tryon LtGen Richard T;
Costantini Col William R; Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Dan M; Salas
Col Bryan F; Wright LtCol Troy V; Choike Col Daniel D; Hummer MajGen Steven A; Dunford Gen
Doseph F; Oltman Col Robert G
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

All,
Dust what I was looking for.

Thanks. S/F GDF

LtGen. George D. Flynn, USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
(b) (6)

SIPR:george.flynn@usmc.smil.mil
Original Message
From: Geoffrey SES Raymond F
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D; Dunford Gen Doseph F; Flynn LtGen George D; Tryon
LtGen Richard T; Costantini Col William R; Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIVDanM; Salas Col Bryan F; Wright LtCol Troy V; Choike Col Daniel D

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Vaughn - Concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee is in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.
We are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that w i l l do a side-by-side
comparison of the standards we are following witb tbe DoD/ACA/BOP protocols. We have been
coordinating with OUSD P^R (who has DoD Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a v i s i t to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we w i l l be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. We have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.
I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.
Regards,

Jeff

ManningB^00514282

33086

Raymond F Geoffrey
Assistant Deputy Commandant
Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headc^uarters, U.S. Marine Corps
3000 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A324)
Washington, DC203503000
(b) (6)

Original Message
(b) (6)
From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Sent: Monday, December 27
To: Geoffrey SES Raymond F
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D
Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Deff,
LtGen Flynn called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning^s treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen Flynn has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig i s being run and that PFC Manning^s treatment meets
DoD standards, he would like to be proactive and see i f there are a few steps we can take to
ensure we hold the moral high ground i f the issue starts to take hold i n the press. I f we do
nothing, we would probably be l e f t with a statement that ^^we are following SOP.^^ He i s
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning is receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.
I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt Webb at Quantico and the other sailor i n p r e t r i a l confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO -- an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.
I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the DoD Executive
Agent for the brigs (Armyi^) or someone to give us a clean b i l l of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while in p r e t r i a l confinement. Again, LtGen Flynn is confident we are
doing everything right
he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic
messaging standpoint. I^m available to discuss.
Happy holidays and talk soon,
V/r,
Vaughn
Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Dudge Advocate to the Commandant
(b) (6)

ManningB^00514283

33087

^rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
SignedBy:

Choike ColDanielJ
Thursday, December 30, 201011:42 AM
Flynn LtGen Georged
l-1ummer MajGen Steven A: Mortenson Col Royal: Kauzlarich Col MarkM; Oltman Col
Robert G; dohnson Col ThomasV
RE; PFC Manning and the Ouantico Brig
MANNINGPDF
(b) (6)

Sir,
Last week before the holidays, I asked the Deputy IG, Major 2elek to coordinate an
unannounced brig v i s i t with my Chief of Staff, and that v i s i t went on Monday of this week and
the f i n a l report is complete and attached in this email for your SA.
I have also received notice from PP^O
(c^uote from LtCol Wright PP^O (PSL)) ^^per our (PSL)
request, COL Shumake (Chair, DoD Corrections Council) has agreed to conduct a courtesy v i s i t
at the Quantico Brig. This i s not an o f f i c i a l inspection. I t is primarily an opportunity
for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico. Since the PFC Manning case
continues to draw international attention I believe i t wise to have as many people possible,
in their o f f i c i a l capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC Manning is subject to so they
can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance with regulations.^^
In addition to this report attached, we are preparing a brief and point paper for MGen
Hummer^s v i s i t , next week on 4 Dan (1330). I also plan on s i t t i n g down with Col TV Dohnson
to use this report for developing a more comprehensive PAG and info campaign, in order to put
things in better perspective in the media.
Will provide a copy of the point paper and read ahead brief on Monday AM, both are s t i l l
under draft.
VR,

DDC

ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Flynn LtGen George D
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:02
To: Geoffrey SES Raymond F; Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D; Dunford Gen Doseph F; Tryon LtGen Richard T;
Costantini Col William R; Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Dan M; Salas
Col Bryan F; Wright LtCol Troy V; Choike Col Daniel D; Hummer MajGen Steven A; Dunford Gen
Doseph F; Oltman Col Robert G
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

ManningB_00514284

APPELLATEEXHIBIT^
PAGEREFERENCED;
^
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33088

All,
Dust what I was looking for.

Thanks. S/F GDF

LtGen. George D. Flynn, USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration

(b) (6)

SIPR:george.flynn@usmc.smil.mil
Original Message
From: Geoffrey SES Raymond F
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D; Dunford Gen Doseph F; Flynn LtGen George D; Tryon
LtGen Richard T; Costantini Col William R; Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIV Dan M; Salas Col Bryan F; Wright LtCol Troy V; Choike Col Daniel D
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Vaughn -- Concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee i s in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.
We are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that w i l l do a side by side
comparison of the standards we are following with the DoD/ACA/BOP protocols. We have been
coordinating with OUSD P^R (who has DoD Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a v i s i t to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we w i l l be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. We have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.
I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.
Regards,
Deff
Raymond F Geoffrey
Assistant Deputy Commandant
Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headc^uarters, U.S. Marine Corps
3000 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A3^4)
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Geoffrey SES Raymond F
Cc: Ewers Col Dohn R; Hogue SES Robert D
Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

ManningB^00514285

33089

Deff,
LtGen Flynn called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning^s treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen Flynn has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig i s being run and that PFC Manning^s treatment meets
DoD standards, he would like to be proactive and see i f there are a few steps we can take t o
ensure we hold the moral high ground i f the issue starts to take hold i n the press. I f we do
nothing, we would probably be l e f t with a statement that ^^we are following SOP.^^ He i s
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning i s receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.
I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt Webb at Quantico and the other sailor i n p r e t r i a l confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO
an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.
I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the DoD Executive
Agent for the brigs (Armyi^) or someone to give us a clean b i l l of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while i n p r e t r i a l confinement. Again, LtGen Flynn i s confident we are
doing everything right
he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic
messaging standpoint. I^m available to discuss.
Happy holidays and talk soon,
^/r,
Vaughn
Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Dudge Advocate to the Commandant
(b) (6)

ManningB^0051428^



From: Wright LtCo| Troy

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:26 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz CW05 Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Mannino and the Quantico Brig

Signed By:

Sir,

I just spoke with Mr. Shelton, from CMC's IG office. Quantico brig should expect a dual
visit from Marine Corps and Army IG offices sometime next week. Detailed coordination to
follow. CNOS

Galaviz and I will also be present for the visit. OSD visit will be tentative, pending
outcome from the visit.

Also just an FYI, Gen Casey and Gen Amos will probably have a conversation about Manning
soon, if they haven't already had it.

PSL is working the MC Public Affairs on a press release, method/venue is being worked right
now. Release will be coordinated with all interested parties before we pull the trigger.


LtCol wright



From: Choike Col Daniel [mailto

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2911 8:37

To: wright Ltcol Troy

Cc: Galaviz cues Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCol wright,

Here is the copy of the MCBQ Deputy IG report that was sent to C6 last week. I still
believe that a visit is warranted as requested by Mr. Geoffroy and LtGen specifically,
as highlighted in a previous email attached above. Need your support in encouraging that
this visit takes place. If you see the possibility fading, I need to know so I can inform my
boss, LtGen Standing by to coordinate a date or discuss this further, if canceled.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:

DSN:

Emaili



From: wright Ltcol Troy

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:36





Wk
A
yggib rv?-uf?Kf?3




To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz CWOS Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart cwo4 James
Subject: Re: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,

I spoke with COL Shumake (OSD) yesterday. He thinks that reviewing the results of the
Quantico IG visit last week may preclude the need For an in person visit. Can I tell him
when to expect the info report?


LtCol wright

LtCo1 Troy wright

Phone:

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: wright LtCol Troy

Cc: Galaviz CNGS Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart CNO4 James

Sent: Mon Jan 03 08:06:35 2011
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig



LtCol wright,
Thursday after 1100 until COB. Or, Friday morning until 1206.

SF, 03c

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:



Message--?--

From: wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:00

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart CWO4 James
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,
what day/time works best for you this week?


LtCo1 wright

Message--?--

From: Choike Col Daniel
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:18

ManningB_00517989

0 33092

ManningB_00514144 . 7

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 31. 2011 12:12 PM

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Durham CIV Jan Wright LtCol Troy Pagan CIV Radomet Galaviz CW05 Abel; Carr
Capt Wayne Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert Greer Christopher
Neill CAPT Mary; Rothlein CIV Julius; Streng CIV Peter

subject: RE: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

signed By:

Sir,

The POC for Quantico is co Security Bn, Col Bob oltman.

we'll make contact with Jan Durham to get our input in the letter that you have described
below. A big piece is the medical/mental health support, but there are also other issues
that will come up as we progress through the mental health evaluation, Art 32 proceedings,
and actual trial. Team Quantico's input will be in 4 areas; the brig - detainee operations,
legal, medical, and public affairs. As an aside to all of this, I hope that we will be able
to discuss/state concerns on our security challenges and access issues, as a result of our
recent demonstration at the front gate. The ante (actions) by those that oppose Manning
being confined here has been up'd.

Up to this point, my biggest concern is the lack of information and the amount of lead time
that we get for a specific request that affects the way we handle/detain Manning.
Additionally, the information requirements from OSD, Sec of the Army, SecNav, HQMC, defense
legal team, has been like being at the wrong end of the barrel of a shot gun and
it has become troublesome determining where the request for info has originated and the
purpose or intent of the inquiry. we had one this morning from OSD, through SecNav, through
DMCS, through to me via I informed DMCS that CL visited the brig and it
would be good to talk to Mr Hogue, and quickly came back with routing the query through his
office. I would hope soon that we can surface sand capture what we are actually doing down
here, and get a proper endorsement from HHQ experts and then get some top cover from HQMC,
and the Army too for that matter, on queries that are rooted from defense tactics, negative
blogs and main stream media. I request a protocol or a request chain to be established, so
we do not speak out of turn or get too emotional, as this case continues to demand our utmost
attention and efforts.

Appreciate all your support, sir.
VR, Dan

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3259 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5091

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:






From: Geoffroy SES Raymond
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2811 16:16

-




I -.4 -





. . 33093
To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Durham CIV Jan wright LtCol Troy Pagan CIV Radomet Galaviz cwes Abel; Carr Capt
wayne A
Subject: Fw: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

Dan -- you may not have all of the below emails. we put together a lot of information
regarding the status of the Manning confinement, what we're doing with the OPT, etc. I need
two things from you. First a MCB rep on the OPT (Jules is the legal rep) to address your
equities. Goal of the OPT is to develop the appropriate future policy and requirements for
Quantico to serve as the PCF in the NCR. This would include changes to the DoDDir and
possible MOUs with the other Services to define their contributions, responsibilities, etc.

Second, we are drafting a letter for ACMC to send to the VCSA on what we need from the Army
to sustain the Manning confinement. See below. Please have your team put together the
appropriate remarks for inclusion in the letter. Please work directly with Jan Durham on
this since Troy is on leave. Jan will oversee our efforts to get a letter drafted in a
couple of days. He will share the draft with you prior to sending forward.

Thanks,

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

3009 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A324)
Washington, DC 29359-3999

r>s~ -1-



From: williams LtGen willie

Sent: Monday, January 31, 2911 7:44 AM

To: Tryon LtGen Richard Dunford Gen Joseph

Cc: LtGen George Geoffroy SES Raymond Hogue SES Robert Dalke Col Scott
Sherrod CIV Jimmy

Subject: RE: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

ACMC,
Copy all on letter from you to Army this week.
Vr/s, Chief

LtGen willie williams
Chief of Marine Corps Staff





From: Tryon LtGen Richard

Sent: Sunday, January 39, 2911 21:49

To: Dunford Gen Joseph

Cc: williams LtGen willie LtGen George Geoffroy SES Raymond Hogue SES Robert
Subject: Re: C6 LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

ACMC,

ManningB_0O514145

0 33094

Believe leveraging the Army for pre-trial support is very reasonable. Additionally,
recommend we broker an MOU with the other Services that might require use of the Quantico
Brig in the future and outline inherent service obligations/support requirements for pretrial
confinement. The Manning case can provide a reference/baseline for the kind of support which
may be required ranging from support to Public Affairs.

will direct OPT to develop a document which can be considered by Quantico.

VR/Rick

Original Message

From: Dunford Gen Joseph

To: Tryon LtGen Richard

Cc: williams LtGen willie LtGen George Geoffroy SES Raymond Hogue SES Robert
Sent: Sun Jan 30 19:14:21 2611

Subject: RE: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

Rick--

Many thanks. Roger all below. I also saw George's e-mail. For practical and legal reasons
(including those you outline below), I accept that Manning will be with us throughout his
pretrial confinement. The focus of our effort should be to prioritize what we need from the
Army in the way of support. I'd like to go back to them in writing for the additional
medical support etc. that we might need to help mitigate both the risk and cost for Quantico.

Chief--

Let's pull this together and get a letter from me to the Army this week.

SF
306



From: Tryon LtGen Richard [mailtozj]

Sent: Sunday, January 36, 2611 19:03

To: Dunford Gen Joseph

Cc: Williams LtGen willie LtGen George Geoffroy SES Raymond Hogue SES Robert 0
Subject: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

ACMC - I am on HQMC business Mon-wed. Mr. Geoffroy will brief the Chief. The unfortunate
reality is that since we accepted PFC Manning under existing agreements with the Army in the
NCR, attempting to arrange transfer may not be legally acceptable or politically viable, and
in fact there may not be an alternative detention option in the NCR.

BLUF - There are no federal or civilian facilities (no existing agreement) in the NCR that
Army can currently utilize as an alternative to Quantico. There is also no assurance that
any alternative federal/civilian facility could offer the same level of support. Few if any
detention facilities would welcome such a high visibility prisoner. All external USMC
stakeholders are satisfied with the current quality detention service being provided.
Additionally, we could request the Army seek an alternative confinement facility but believe
that such a request would rise to very senior levels very quickly and that we would be told
to continue to support.

Initial OPT Review - Background/Key Points:

-U.S. Army Private First Class (PFC) Manning is in pretrial confinement at the Quantico
pretrial confinement facility (PCF) in connection with a high profile federal case
(WIKILEAKS).

ManningB_00514146



-The confinement of PFC Manning has produced numerous strains on the Quantico Brig and
supporting activities at MCB Quantico. Many of those strains have been addressed but others
will continue as long as PFC Manning is confined at Quantico support).

-The U.S. Army has agreements with local jails/prisons across the country to house Army
detainees/prisoners. Those agreements are primarily adjacent to bases/installations which do
not have their own confinement facility. There is not a requirement that these jails/prisons
be federal facilities.

-The Army does not currently have any agreements with local jails in the NCR, largely due to
the fact that the Quantico pretrial confinement facility (PCF) is a no?cost solution in the
area. The Following paragraph (4.7) from 1325.64 "Confinement of Military Prisoners and
Administration of Military Correctional Programs and Facilities" is germane.



4.7. For economy and efficient administration, confinement facilities of any Military Service
shall be used for the confinement of prisoners of other Military Services. Pretrial
confinement of military prisoners normally shall be on a non?reimbursable basis at a
confinement facility nearest to the place of the court?martial proceedings. The Military
Services may enter into agreements or Memoranda of Understanding to address costs and terms
for post trial confinement. Prisoners confined in military correctional facilities shall be
subject to the rules and regulations of the confining facility regardless of the Service

affiliation of the prisoner


- Manning's defense counsel filed an Art 138 motion (quoted in the last week's Saturday WP).
Basically, it is a defense gambit to document any complaints that he can use in the future to
gain reduced sentencing.

Brig operations are being conducted in accordance with regulations and observed by IGMC,
CL, PSL among others.

-The Army could enter into an agreement with a local jail - the most likely would be the
Rappahannock Regional Jail in Stafford, VA. Until contact is made with Rappahannock, or
other jails, it will be unclear how receptive they would be to accepting PFC Manning if at
all.

Better detainee treatment/care at a local jail or federal facility is not guaranteed. what
we might be able to do is leverage the Army for TAD support in terms of a which
is a least one point of consternation at Quantico.

-The Army will not move PFC Manning out of the Quantico PCF without a request from the Marine
Corps.

Moving Manning from the Quantico Brig could potentially support the perception that the
claims of mistreatment/improper treatment were true and thereby aid the defense counsel's
case.

-we don't have a time frame for how long the coordination necessary to relocate PFC Manning
would take.

-A request by the USMC to relocate PFC Manning may produce some undesirable second and third
order effects between the U.S. Army and USMC, particularly NRT confinement issues. what
would be our course of action if Manning was a Marine? we would not in all probability send
him someplace else if the convening authority is here.



0 33096

-If the Marine Corps asks the Army to relocate PFC Manning the request should originate from
the Quantico PCF, be addressed to PFC Manning's command (Joint Force Headquarters National
Capital Region/Military District Washington) and be via HQMC Corrections (PSL/Corrections)
and HQDA Corrections.

We have formed a working group (CL, JA, HS, to address LtGen letter on the
capacity of Quantico to serve as a long-term (undefined) PCF. The results and subsequent
recommendations will Frame Future detainee confinements for all Service members in the NCR.

SF/Rick

Original Message

From: Williams LtGen Willie

To: Dunford Gen Joseph Tryon LtGen Richard

Sent: Sat Jan 29 16:50:24 2011

Subject: Re: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

Yes sir we are. Just prior to us leaving for NOLA, Rick's guys pulled a team together to
work through the various issues associated. At last discussion, all was onboard and
providing the SMEs desired. Will run a "how-goes-it" check on Monday.

vr/s, Chief

LtGen Willie Williams
Chief of Marine Corps Staff

(W) (C)

Original Message

From: Dunford Gen Joseph

To: Tryon LtGen Richard Williams LtGen Willie

Sent: Sat Jan 29 15:35:68 2611

Subject: RE: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY

Chief--
Are we moving out on this?

Thanks
Joe



From: Tryon LtGen Richard [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:52

To: Williams LtGen Willie

Cc: Dunford Gen Joseph

Subject: CG LETTER re QUANTICO CONFINEMENT FACILITY
Importance: High

Chief,

Received this (attachment) over the weekend from LtGen in connection with the Quantico
Brig. LtGen raises a number of questions that cross
lines of responsibility. Long litany of email below outlines some of the issues. Subject to
you direction, I'll pull together a working group to sort through the near term and long
range issues under (PS). If you wish for someone else to take the lead, please advise.
SF/Rick





. . 33097


From: LtGen George [mailto

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:59
To: Geoffroy SES Raymond
Cc: Tryon LtGen Richard
Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Jeff,

Sent the letter to General Tryon on Friday. we are looking for help because in my views this
was not anticipated when we came to this BRAC driven solution of a NCR Temporary Confinement
Facility. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration Commanding General,



??-??Original

From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 13:13
To: LtGen George

Cc: Tryon LtGen Richard

Subject: Fw: IGMC MATTERS

George-- reached to Vaughn on pressing the Army JAG. Below is the latest -- not encouraging.


Jeff

Raymond F. Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and operations (Security) Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 3000 Marine Corps
Pentagon (Rm 4A324) Washington, DC 20350-3000



Sent from my BlackBerry wireless Handheld

Original Message

From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond Shelton CIV Carlyle Choike Col Daniel wright LtCol Troy
Cc: Lee BGEN Kenneth Ouzts Col Michael Baggott Col Kevin Durham CIV Jan

Sent: Thu Jan 13 13:06:10 2011

Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Jeff,
I talked to the Army JAG yesterday and followed up with the Deputy JAG, MG Tate Bottom
line, I don't have a good answer on the legal timeline.

Developing the case is anticipated to take some (indeterminate) time. The investigation into
process breakdowns is being conducted by a G0 and on a fast track, but is still several weeks
from completion. They do not expect the criminal case to be put together for some time and
with defense preparation etc. he could be in pretrial confinement for a considerable period
so we should base our support plan on several months at least.

I'm available to discuss further and go back to the JAG for more. Talk soon, V/r,

6

ManningB_00514149

0 0 33098

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant

95??



From: Geoffroy SES Raymond [mailto

Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:

To: Shelton CIV Carlyle Choike Col Daniel Wright LtCol Troy Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Cc: Lee BGEN Kenneth Ouzts Col Michael Baggott Col Kevin Durham CIV Jan
Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Thanks Carl; let me weigh-in here as I discussed this with LtGen yesterday. His
biggest concern is the drain on his resources to support the Manning confinement, no specific
end state or scheduled legal process moving forward, and the fact that Quantico is not
resourced for this type of long term confinement. He is sending me a letter that outlines
his concerns. I told him we would take for action to coordinate. A lot has to do with BRAC
decisions on Quantico as a pre-trial confinement facility but without the requisite resources
to support this type of high profile confinement. We need to address his concerns with OSD,
and also the Army to get some relief for now and into the future. Maybe additional
medical/support personnel. I think your plan for the assessment is a good one but I would
wait until we receive the letter and it could be part of our plan of action.

For MajGen Ary can you work with Army JAG on the legal timeline?
Thanks,

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security) Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 3006 Marine Corps
Pentagon (4A324) Washington, DC 20350-3006

DSN I



From: Shelton CIV Carlyle

Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:06 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel Wright LtCo1 Troy

Cc: Lee BGEN Kenneth Geoffroy SES Raymond Ouzts Col Michael Baggott Col Kevin
Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Dan, Troy

Copy all, understand that LtGen would like to see Army take a more
active/supportive roll with the detention support. Quantico Brig does not have the full-time
requisite personnel support (particularly medical) required for long term ?special needs"
detention, such as PFC Manning's case. OSD or US Army will need to supplement any
deficiencies the Quantico Brig is not designed to do without significant disruption.

1. I will revisit the idea of an IG visit with Army IG 2. LtCo1 Wright's visit should enable
us to specifically identify what areas require outside support.

3. The IGMC will send an Assessment Team to Quantico even if Army IG desires not to
participate.

4. The IGMC's rapid assessment should capture Quantico Brig needs.

5. The IGMC assessment will be passed to Army IG and Col Shumake (OSD Corrections) for
appropriate action.





0 33099

Our Inspection team is out west, so IGMC's first opportunity to visit will be right after the
MLK break. That will give us enough time to reengage Army IG and get a sense of what needs
to be done for Quantico Brig.

Obviously, Mr. Geoffroy's folks expertise and lead, so we (IGMC) will stay in our ?swim lane"
and support. Hopefully these action will enable us to address Quantico's needs or the Army
may determine it's better to move PFC Manning to an Army facility.

Let me know your thoughts.
Semper fi,

Carl Shelton

Deputy Inspector General, USMC
Headquarters, United States Marine Corps
2 Navy Annex, Room 2233

Washington, DC 26386-1775

Phone:

INSPECTOR GENERAL SENSITIVE INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:

The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachments may contain
Inspector General sensitive or predecisional information, which is protected from mandatory
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 USC Section 552. It should not be
released to unauthorized persons. If you are not the intended recipient of this information,
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this
information is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify this office by
email or by calling 763- 614-1533.

Message--?--

From: Choike Col Daniel [mailto?]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2611 16:17

To: Shelton CIV Carlyle wright LtCol Troy

Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Carl,

Not sure if this meets CG intent. LtCol wright will be heading this way tomorrow, and
in addition to the IG visits, the CG wanted visits from OSD Corrections (Col Shumake) along
with the visit from HQMC PSL.

This issue is much more than MCBQ's his desire for Army and HQMC involvement.
ss, onc

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5661

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:

From: Shelton CIV Carlyle

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2611 19:25



ManningB_00514151

0 33100

To: wright LtCo1 Troy Choike Col Daniel
Subject: Fw: IGMC MATTERS

Troy, Dan,

Sorry for the slow response, BGEN Lee wanted to close out the issue with the Army IG. US
Army is very satisfied with the rapid response and completeness of Quantico's actions, so
they have requested to stand down.

Thanks for everything, but we may see this issue again. Dan, done to you and your
team.

Semper fi,
Carl Shelton

Deputy Inspector General
U.S. Marine Corps

From: Amos Gen James [mai1tc?]

Sent: Mon 1/10/2611 9:40 AM
To: Lee BGEN Kenneth
Cc: Dunford Gen Joseph Ary MajGen Vaughn Hogue SES Robert Shelton CIV Carlyle

LtGen George
Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Roger that piece popped in today's E8 on this implying that he is not being treated
humanely.



From: Lee BGEN Kenneth

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:01

To: Amos Gen James

Cc: Dunford Gen Joseph Ary MajGen Vaughn Hogue SES Robert Shelton CIV Carlyle
LtGen George

Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

General,

After discussion with MajGen McCoy, it appears the Army IG is satisfied with the assessment
of the quality of life and treatment of PFC Manning. It appears no further investigation or
assessment is required at this point. I will have my staff stand down but continue to
monitor the issue.

I will ensure the Under SecNav is aware of this update.

RS

Ken

BGen Kenneth J. Lee
Inspector General of the Marine Corps

ManningB_00514152

33101



From: Amos Gen James [mailto:'

Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 .

To: Shelton CIV Carlyle LtGen George

Cc: Lee BGEN Kenneth Dunford Gen Joseph Ary MajGen Vaughn Hogue SES Robert 0
Subject: RE: IGMC MATTERS

Thanks it all. Spoke as well to LtGen a week ago on this matter. Have not
heard anything yet from Gen Casey, but as you imply, we will fully comply as it's in
everyone's best interests to do so. I know that Gen is paying particularly close
attention to the suicide matter not wanting to give Manning any opportunity to do such a
thing. Keep ACMC and I posted if this evolves into anything more than what you have stated
below.

Semper fidelis
jfa

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

From: Shelton CIV Carlyle

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 18:16

To: Amos Gen James

Cc: Lee BGEN Kenneth Dunford Gen Joseph Ary MajGen Vaughn Hogue SES Robert
Subject: IGMC MATTERS

General,

BGen Lee is currently traveling with the wounded warrior assessment team (Landstuhl, Germany,
3-7 Jan 11), but he directed me to update you about an ongoing issue that's beginning to
surface.

BLUF: Allegations have surfaced in the Press that PFC Bradley Manning (alleged wiki-leaker)
is being subjected to harsh treatment bordering on torture. PFC Manning was assigned to 2nd
Brigade Combat Team, 19th Mountain Div, at Contingency Operating station Hammer, Iraq when he
was apprehended (26 May 2610) by Army CID. On 29 July 2010, PFC Manning was transferred MCB
Quantico Brig for pretrial confinement until his Art. 32 Hearing (est. Spring 2611).

This morning I received a called from MajGen McCoy, Dep. Inspector General, US who informed
me that Army cos, Gen Casey directed Army IG involvement to assess the quality of life for
PFC Manning. Apparently, the UN and Amnesty International are taking an interest in PFC
Manning's pretrial treatment. Majeen McCoy stated that Gen Casey will probably give you a
call in a day or two. BGen Lee wanted to ensure you were aware of what's being done.

PFC Manning is detained in Special Quarters, not Solitary Confinement at the Quantico Brig.
Due to PFC Manning's suicide ideations prior to arriving at Quantico and concerns for his
safety within the general Brig population, he was placed in special quarters. This means
24/7 observation, separation from general population, special mattress and blankets, frequent
visual checks, isolated access to fitness, television, phone and mail.

Action:

1. Col Dan Choike, C0 MCB, Quantico has already ordered an IG QOL assessment for PFC Manning
which was completed 28 Dec 2616. The assessment addressed each of the accusations in the
Press from quality of detention facilities, food, exercise, health, access to mail, phone,
etc. The Quantico Brig was in full compliance.

10

ManningB_OO514153

0 33102

2. Later this week, (PLS) will send their Corrections and Law Enforcement reps. to
review procedures.

3. IGMC and Army IG will follow up with a two person team focusing on overall operations and
PFC Manning's QOL. (This will satisfy Gen Casey's request heading your way).

Due to the request from another Service IG, IGMC is obligated to update the Under SecNav.
Additionally, we will ensure the appropriate Marine Corps staff is notified and updated. I
am standing by for any further questions or information you may need.

Semper fi,

Carl Shelton

Deputy Inspector General, USMC
Headquarters, United States Marine Corps
2 Navy Annex, Room 2233

Washington, DC 26386-1775

Phone:

INSPECTOR GENERAL SENSITIVE INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:

The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachments may contain
Inspector General sensitive or predecisional information, which is protected from mandatory
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 USC Section 552. It should not be
released to unauthorized persons. If you are not the intended recipient of this information,
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this

information is prohi eived this email in error, please notify this office by
email or by calling



11

ManningB_00514154

. . 33103

From: Oltman Col Robert



Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:53 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Re: Anny Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody

classi?cations

Agree and WILCO. Will keep you posted

Sent from my BlackBeny Handheld

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Mon Jan 1017:19:17 2011

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Roger. As long HQMC is here during the visit, then lets proceed. CG has been pushing
through his channels that we get Arrny/OSD just need to coordinate the conduct of
the visit, have HQMC present and before anything is reported up the chain, we get a chance
to comment. Arm-chair quarterbacks not experts that understand our
service procedures and local SOP under the existing they are willing to look
long and hard, rather than drive by and should be good. Your involvement every
step of the way with HQMC engaged is critical to these visits.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Ema":



From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 17:00

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Greg Stoebel, He works in Army Corrections Command. I have no problem pushing him off
easily done with an email we can request he up Col Shumake of OSD. I have heard
nothing about the OSD visit.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer

Security BN, MCB Quantico








Cell


not-at
ManningB_OO514093 . -



. . 33104

Email: robert.g.oltman@usmc.mil



From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:56

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Bob,

When you say "he" will be here at 1330, are your talking about Col Shumake? I know that
CWO5 is scheduled to visit on Weds, but wasn't aware that Col Shumake is coming. Am I
correct here, or off base?

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:42

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Dan

Based off discussions with the Chief he is slated to be here wed at 1330. The Chief and I will
be with him. I share you concerns, and have discussed with Galaviz. I recommend we hit him
up with it again on Wed a.m. when he is here and request he be present at the 1330 meeting
as well.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer

Security BN, MCB Quantico

Cell
BB
Email:

--?-Original

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:33

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Bob,

Concur with you concerns and I think we would be better served with OSD evaluating and not
just Army Corrections. This may be one in the same, seeing that Col Shumake is an US Army
of?cer, but operates in a different capacity.

If we think through this process of evaluation (I think we need to do it even with some











ManningB_00514094

. . 33105

concerns), then what about HQMC PSL evaluating us ?rst and have them sponsor the Army
or OSD Corrections experts to follow suit to compare notes. We need to stress the
importance of concurrence in what we are doing, in light of all the attention received. CWO5
Galaviz is still coming by to visit this Weds, we might need to discuss this beforehand.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 13:15

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: FW: Anny Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Gentlemen

FYSA. This is a result of the email exchanges of the past few weeks. I am open to showing
our facility to anyone who wants to see it but I do have some reservations about an
independent assessment of our detainees. We should expect that if their opinion is different
from ours, Manning's defense council will get that information and exploit it in the press.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer

Security BN, MCB Quantico

Cell
BB
Email:


From: Galaviz Abel

Sent: Monday, January 10. 2011 10:33

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet Wright LtCol
Troy

Subject: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Col Oltman, CWO Averhart, as agreed previously we have asked the Army Corrections HQ's
if they would conduct a review of your custody classification process and decisions made irt
Manning as an outside USMC source. Greg Stroebel has agreed and suggested
Wednesday the 12th between 1330 and 1400 as the best opportunity for him to make it down
there. Please advise on the supportability of this suggested date and time.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section

PS Division, PSL Branch

comjasn-1








ManningB_00514095

. . 33106



BBerry
Email:
SIPR:

I
"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the

results."

ManningB_00514096

33107

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Signed By:

Choike Col Daniel J
Monday, February 07, 2011 3;33 PM
Kauzlarich Col Mark M
RE; Art 138 - Request for Support

(b) (6)

Already have approvall
ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
Office: (b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
DSN: (b) (6)
Email: (b) (6)
Original Message
From: kauzlarich Col Mark M
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 15:17
To: Choike Col Daniel D
Subject: RE: Art 138

Request for Support

CO,
Wholehearted believe that Is CWO Galivi^ i s best guy for this investigation.
him without approval of his bossi^

Can you task

Respectfully,
Chief
Message
From: Choike Col Daniel D
Sent: Monday, February 07, ^011 14:38
To: l^auzlarich Col Mark M
Subject: FW: Art 138 Request for Support
FVI.

Forgot to include you, sorry.

ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
Office: (b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
DSN: (b) (6)
^itiail: (b) (6)
-Original Message-

ManningB_00514097

APPPLLATE EXHIBITJllla
PAGEREFERENCED:,
PAGES
PAG£_^OF_

33108

From: Choike Col Daniel D
Sent: Monday, February 07, ^011 14:38
To: Durham CIV Dan M
Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher M; Miner Col Christopher W; Wright LtCol Troy V; Mortenson Col
Royal
Subject: Art 138

Request for Support

Dan,
As previously discussed on the phone last week, the attached letter is an advanced copy of
the signed letter that w i l l be delivered to CWO 5 Galaviz to assist us in the Art 138
process, specifically addressing claims of abuse in authorities by CW04 Averhart. I hope
that we w i l l be able to complete this action soon, so we can put the issue to rest and move
on. This inc^uiry, by a USMC corrections expert, is instrumental in showing/documenting due
diligence on my part to look into the allegations f u l l y and to obtain insight from someone
with knowledge and expertise that is outside the close proximity of the MCBQ PCF.
Please l e t me know i f you have any questions/concerns.
SF, Dan
ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA ^21345001
Office: (b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
DSN: (b) (6)
Email: (b) (6)

ManningB^00514098



same

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Friday. January 21, 201 1 8:45 AM
To: Greer LtCol Christopher

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: FW: PFC Manning
Attachments: PFC Manning

Signed By:

Chris,

Has Col Miner brought you into the loop on this email? we can discuss at our meeting later
today.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:





From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:27
To: Choike Col Daniel

Subject: Fw: PFC Manning

Dan, as discussed.
v/r,

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security) Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 3000 Marine Corps
Pentagon (4A324) Washington, DC 20350-3000

2 05" >000?

-?-?-Original

From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:42 PM

To: LtGen George Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Ewers Col John Miner Col Christopher

Subject: Fw: PFC Manning

Gents,

FYI. LtGen Dana Chipman, the Army JAG dropped off a copy of the attached letter a few
minutes ago. It is an Article 138 complaint from PFC Manning prepared with the assistance of
his defense counsel and dated 19 Jan. PFC Manning complains that he has been kept on

1 It (Kg-xow-0 9 5
. .415.-.

yf-?vs
-
.

L-

Pi?. .
I 1





ManningB_00513985







?llj 33H0

prevention of injury (POI) watch despite the fact that two Brig Capt Hocter
and Col Malone ?consistently recommended that he be taken off of POI watch.? He also claims
that he was placed on suicide watch on 18 Jan over the recommendation of Capt Hocter and
defense forensic Capt Moore. He indicates that he has requested relief from
the Brig officer via two written complaints submitted 5 Jan 11 and that the brig commander
did not respond (though required to by SECNAVINST). PFC Manning then describes the
character of his treatment on suicide watch and requests that he be removed from POI watch
and his classification level be changed from maximum to medium custody.

An Article 138, UCMJ, complaint is made when a service member believes he has been wronged by
his commanding officer. After seeking redress from the commanding officer, the 138
complainant makes a complaint to the officer exercising general courts-martial convening
jurisdiction over the officer who has committed the wrong. Manning has addressed his
complaint to C01 Dan Choike. The procedural posture is a little murky at the moment because
it is not clear whether the Brig officer is a commanding officer as defined by Article 138
UCMJ and paragraph 6363 of the JAGMAN. Thus, it is not clear whether Manning is seeking
redress from Col Choike as Manning's commanding officer or as the GCMCA of the Brig officer.
In any event, meeting the time limits set forth in Chapter 3 of the JAGMAN, the GCMCA will
need to look into the complaint, take appropriate measures if relief is warranted, and "and
as soon as possible? send to SecNav a copy of the proceedings on the complaint.

V/r,
Vaughn Ary

Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant

05":

ManningB_00513986

?ll? 33111

From: Greer LtCol Christopher

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 5:57 PM

To: Choike Col Daniel Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Additional Charges (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gentlemen,

One other piece of information. Based upon comments made by PFC Manning to Brig staff about
his ability to kill himself with his underwear (no joke!), cwoz Barnes determined that he
would sleep without his underwear as a precaution. He still is fully clothed during the day.
At night he has his blankets so he is not exposed and no female staff have access to even see
him.

This may become another media issue as Manning may bring it up with his attorneys.

As Dr Suess would say: I can wear them in a box, I can wear them with a fox, I can wear them
in the day, I can wear them so I say, but I can't wear them in the night, my comments gave
the staff a fright.

v/r

LtCol Greer
MCBQ SJA



From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2911 17:48

To: Greer LtCo1 Christopher Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark Miner Col
Christopher Ewers Col John

Subject: RE: Additional Charges (UNCLASSIFIED)

Thanks Chris. Busy legal day for our guest, wow. My day was good read Dr. Seuss
books to 1st and 2nd Graders today at our DODEA schools.

Bob,

I'm sure our Brig Marines and MP5 are on a heightened state of awareness both for our guest's
safety and overall safety/security of the base, based upon the news release and additional
charges/Art 138 reply.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



. .

ManningB_0O517546 97 P/?cc.





0 33112

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

sent: Friday. March 04, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: RE: Mannina eariv bind atticle
Signed By:

Sir, when I made the decision to have detainee Manning's underwear removed after taps with
his other gear and still keep him POI, my thought process was that he did not threaten
suicide nor did he make a suicidal gesture as per the SECNAV. In addition, we did not feel
that the extra measures were necessary during regular day time hours. He never said he would
commit suicide nor did he act in a manner that was similar to the incident in January with
CHO Averhart where he was placed in SR status. His behavior was not erratic in any way, as
matter of fact, he was smiling when he was talking to Papakie. The SECNAV states that I
can remove clothing when deemed necessary. I found it hard to justify assigning him the SR
status, it is easier to explain why we left him in POI status than why we placed him in SR
status without adhering to the guidance in the SECNAV. I also could not justify not taking
action in the event of a possible suicide or an attempt at it after he made that comment to
Papakie. Papakie, Blenis and I all felt uncomfortable and almost at the same
time said we need to make adjustments. As a side note Sir, I do not always concur with the
board or items that are brought to me in other capacities. A good example was prisoner
Cantrell, on 26 January, the board voted 2-1 to keep him as interior work detail and I
disagreed and put him in protective custody status. My decision was based on the reason we
had him in confinement and since I did not know who he testified on that may come to the
Brig, I put his safety first. Thanks Sir.

b. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a
suicidal gesture, but are found fit for confinement, may be
placed in the category of ?suicide risk? for observation. They
shall be placed in special quarters under continuous
observation. may direct removal of the prisoner's
clothing when deemed necessary. Prisoner must be under
observation of a supervisor of the same sex."

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134





From: oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:43

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Heading towards office soon. CWO2 Barnes synopsize for me the rational for your action and
the authority vested and cited by you in the SECNAV. I will reply to this email.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

1

?4
.
or



ManningB_00449862



0 33113

Original Message

From: wright LtCol Troy

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Greer Ltcol Christopher Galaviz CNOS Abel; Durham CIV Jan Pagan CIV Radomet
Sent: Fri Mar 04 10:42:48 2011

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Col Oltmanz

Sir, I just wanted to pass on to you a professional opinion from PSL that we have some
concerns about recent (within the last 2-3 days) decisions made by the commanding officer of
the Quantico brig. To take measures that are consistent with suicide watch but not
officially place that person in a suicide watch status is inconsistent with the way we are
supposed to do business. we understand there may be some concern about taking actions which
may result in another Article 138 complaint but if we are doing business they way we are
supposed to there is nothing to worry about.

Very respectfully,
Ltcol wright

LtCol Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)





From: Galaviz CHOS Abel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:45

To: Pagan CIV Radomet wright Ltcol Troy Burris Richard Gillespie CTR Tab
Subject: Manning early bird article

Gentlemen, news from today's Early Bird.

Soldier In Leaks Case was Jailed Naked, Lawyer Says

By Charlie Savage

NASHINGTON A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of
leaking secret government files to wikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and

left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday.

The conditions of Private Manning's confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va., have
drawn criticism in recent months from supporters and his lawyer, David E. Coombs.

The soldier's clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand
naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his web site.

"This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification," Mr. Coombs
wrote. ?It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated.

2

ManningB_OO449863

0 0

Pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other
detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation."

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private
Manning's clothing taken from him. He said that the step was "not punitive? and that it was
in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.

"It would be inappropriate for me to explain it," Lieutenant Villiard said. can confirm
that it did happen, but I can't explain it to you without violating the detainee's privacy."

Private Manning is being held as a maximum security detainee under a special set of
restrictions intended to prevent self-injury, even though supporters say there is no evidence
that he is suicidal.

During an appearance on earlier on Thursday, Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon press
secretary, attributed the general conditions of Private Manning's confinement to "the
seriousness of the charges he's facing, the potential length of sentence, the national
security implications" and to protect him from potential harm.

Also, earlier on Thursday, one of Private Manning's friends, David House, said in a
conference call with reporters that he had visited the soldier the previous weekend and that
his mental condition was severely deteriorating as a result of being confined to his cell 23
hours a day, with one hour to exercise in an empty room, and largely isolated from human
contact.

But Mr. House said that Private Manning did not seem suicidal and contended that he was being
pressured to cooperate.

Investigators have been seeking evidence that could implicate Julian Assange, the NikiLeaks
founder, as a conspirator in the leaking of the military and diplomatic documents and videos.

Mr. House spoke on the conference call with Daniel Ellsberg, who compared the leaking of
documents to wikiLeaks to his own leaking of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war. on
Wednesday, the Army announced 22 additional charges against Private Manning, including
?aiding the enemy.?

The charge sheet did not explain who "the enemy? was, leading some to speculate that it was a
reference to NikiLeaks. on Thursday, however, the military said that it instead referred to
any hostile forces that could benefit from learning about classified military tactics and
procedures.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-S Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section

PS Division, PSL Branch
I



"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

ManningB__00449864

33115

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:55 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Mannina Status

Signed Bv=

Bob,

what you have listed below is on target. The instructions given to me were best passed on
personally to cwoz Barnes, based upon the last two meetings with the CG. I don't
prefer this approach and would rather go through you, but your TAD trip and absence creates
this situation. Much is lost in email missives.

I just got off the phone with cwoz Barnes and let her know about your email and the CG's
intent. I know how things go and what you have done in the past in terms of notifying me, I
only ask/reconfirm that any decisions to change handling instructions or assignment status is
briefed first, before executed. Actions required to save life and/or protect from injury are
not included in this for obvious reasons.

You and I supporting/concurring with the Brig OIC's decisions that change handling
instructions or assignment status, without passing that info to CG for consideration,
is no longer acceptable. we/you are not going to get anything in writing from CG if he
rejects/modifies a recommendation. Memo's for the record can be discussed more between you
and I, in an effort to address your concerns about proper documentation/file keeping.

Summary - #1 - yes adhere to the chain of command, and hopefully you understand why that
didn't happen right now. #2 Yes - recommendations forwarded to me for discussion and
concurrence and then recommendation forwarded to CG, before implementation. I will not
blindly forward a recommendation to the CG, instead I'll discuss it with you so you will know
exactly what I forward. #3 Non-concurrence in writing - we need to discuss and determine the
best way to document decision/final actions for the record. CG wants to be able to determine
political impact, media interest, legal ramifications, and senior leadership reactions, and
can't do so without him being in the loop upfront.

SF, Dan

PS- when do you get back?
Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134-5861



Message??--?

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2011 14:02

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Choike Col Daniel

1 EXHIBIT um





ManningB_00449914

0 0

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: Manning Status

Gents

Just got off phone with X0. She has informed me that any changes in Manning Status must be
approved by Base CO. I think there is an assumption being made that cwoz Barnes is acting
alone and unafraid in her decision process with regard to status and or handling instruction
changes with regard to Manning. That is not the case. She and I discuss, same as I did with
Averhart, every decision and every change and to date I have concurred with all. Also every
change has been discussed with the Boss. Not sure how much more involved we can be.
Understand where guidance is coming from and we will do as directed. However I respectfully
make the following requests 1) we adhere to the chain of command. Barnes will conact me and
I will contact Base CO. 2) Based on conditions etc we, Sec BN will make a
recommendation/request to implement the change. Should there be non concurrence and different
guidance given we would like to have it in writing in order to annotate in the file. we can
set up whatever paperwork is required.

we are on board just want to ensure the files are properly documented.

R/rgo
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld



33117

Prom:
Sent:
To:

SignedBy:

Neill.MaryECAPT
Monday.March-14.20-1t2;19PM
Lagen.ErinKMa^ JTF CAPMED; Smith.BradfordLCDRNNMC; Nelson. Elizabeth CAPT
NMNCA
Ralmondo.Lisa F1.CAPT;Bailey.StevenMLC0R; Bui.l-lanO COR NI-ICO; Malone.Ricky
OCOLWRAMCWashOC; ^Malone. RickyDCOLMIL USA MEOCOM WRAMCC
FW; Request for Forensic Psychiatrist (UNCLASSIFIED)
Request for Assetsdocx; REQUEST FORASSETSLTR(7MAR11)docx;TASKORO
R111t2f00-| Forensic Psychiatrist Support for Marine Corp Brig Ouantico Oetainee.pdt
(b) (6)

Importance:
Sensitivity:

High
Confidential

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Good Afternoon ALL,
FVSA. I have just returned from an unscheduled meeting called by Marine Corps Base Quantico
Commander in regards to PFC Manning and support to brig operations for this particular
detainee. With the recent uptick in media, federal and DoD involvement at the highest
levels, and the progression of legal proceedings in this case, the Base Commander is
proposing that the requirement for Behavioral Health support be increased to 24/7
availability and serve as assigned staff on call by the brig OIC. Furthermore, he and the
brig OIC are not comfortable with the current availability of our provide assigned via
TASI^ORD. I t appears that their sense of need and urgency is different from the current
medical assessments.
At this meeting I have asked several important questions of legal and the correctional
experts on hand:
1. Is this medical support requirement defined by medical experts or correctional f a c i l i t y
experts or both; after a lengthy discussion and awareness of current situation and
environment i t appears that the correctional f a c i l i t y is working hard to drive the increased
Behavioral Health provider support.
2. What is the necessity of having a Forensic Psychiatrist vice a different but appropriate
level of Behavioral Health provider available. Could this be staffed by a different level
provideri^ Legal says should be able to use appropriate level for the current conditions and
not have to lock on with Psychiatrist with Forensic sutispecialty.
3. What is i t the brig staff are requesting medical experts to do specifically with respect
to communications with Brig OIC. I have a handle on after this meeting and w i l l ask that Col
Malone take an in brief with the assigned brig staff prior to meeting with PFC Manning and at
the end of the v i s i t communicate appropriate findings that w i l l allow brig staff to carry out
plan. The brig OIC communicated that the behavioral patterns of PFC Manning during their
daily observations and how he behaves during the provider visits are very different and are
of great concern for the staff.
I expressed my concerns with defining the requirement for medical support based on brig
procedural protocol and i t was suggested that the DFH NCR correctional expert (Col Lynch who
was present at this meeting) w i l l be coordinating the requirement through NCR to DTF CAPMEO
(D3) and giving additional guidance based on correctional f a c i l i t y protocol and established
SOP at the brig. Again, not exactly sure what this requirement w i l l look like and who should
be defining i t . This message serves to provide a heads up that these discussions are taking
place and expect a push to increase the Behavioral Health staff support in the immediate
t

ManningB^0051S428

APPELLATEEXHIBIT^^^
PAGEREFERENCED:
PAGE
GF
PAGE^

33118

future. 1 remain engaged on a daily (of recent hourly) basis with t h i s case and am working
to strike a balance and level of comfort for the Marine Corps leadership as i t i s t h e i r
f a c i l i t y . Next steps . . . I am open to ideas.
^/R^
CAPTI^eill
CAPT Mary 5. N e i l l , OC, OSN
Commanding Officer
Naval Health Clinic Quantico
(b)
(6)

Original Message
From: N e i l l , Mary E CAPT
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:13PM
To: Nelson, Elizabeth CAPT NMNCA; Smith, Bradford LCDRNNMC
Cc: Lagen, Erin 1^. Maj DTF CAPMED; Bailey, StevenM LCDR; Raimondo, LisaH. CAPT
Subject:FW: Request f o r Forensic Psychiatrist (UNCLASSIFIED)
Importance: High
Good Afternoon COS,
Forwarding RFA via Navy Medicine NCA t o DTF CAPMED D3 as directed by D3. This RFA serves as
o f f i c i a l request t o continue DTF CAPMEO sourcing of t h i s validated requirement. Please see
e mail thread below for additional details. I am also including a copy of the current
TASkORD for reference.
Thank you for your support a n d l a m standing by should you have any questions.
contact at D3 t o receive i s Maj Erin Lagen.

The point of

^Bl^^
CAPT N e i l l
CAPT Mary 5. N e i l l , DC, OSI^
Commanding Officer
Naval Health Clinic Quantico
(b)
(6)

Original Message
From: Lagen, E r i n k . Maj DTF CAPMED
Sent: Friday, March04, ^011 10:07AM
To: N e i l l , MaryECAPT; ^Malone, RickyDCOL MILUSA MEOCOM WRAMCC; ^Ivener, DominickDMAD
MILUSA MEOCOM AMEDDCS^
Cc: Ouray, PaulH. COL DTF CAPMED
Subject: RE: Request f o r Forensic Psychiatrist (ONCLASSIFIED)
Sir/Ma^am,
Thank you a l l f o r joining me on the teleconference today. I think we got a l o t accomplished
for our way ahead and have a few due outs we need t o complete. Below i s a recap of what we
discussed as well as the due outs 1 need t o support t h i s mission. Also attached i s a draft
RFA. Below please find the email t r a f f i c that started t h i s b a l l r o l l i n g .

ManningB^0051S429

33119

From: Col Robert
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2

To: Choike Col Daniel

cc: Kauzlatich Col Mark Greer Christopher Neill, Mary Ebitz Maj Amy
subject: ASD Stockton \?sit

Signed By:

BLUF: The visit went extremely well. Mr. Stockton was impressed with the professionalism of
the staff.

At the outset, Mr. Stockton made it clear that inspect or determine
if Manning was being mistreated. Rather, his purpose was to conduct an objective assessment
of the capabilities of our PCP and ?rack and stack? it against the other 4 facilities (Ft
Leavenworth, NAS JAX, Charleston, Norfolk) that he has visited over the last 2 days in order
to make a recommendation on where PFC Manning should be held. This evaluation included PA
posture/issues, medical support, facilities capabilities and other factors such as ability to
conduct a trial near the other facilities.

PA: Col Johnson indicated that the current PA difficulties had largely subsided as there was
now a process in place (although unwieldy) to funnel press queries to PA for approval.
Col Johnson also commented favorably on the working relationship with PAO and the good
working relationship at that level. He stated that we, here at Quantico, recognize the
strategic implications of this situation and will continue to support those efforts at the
tactical level. Mr. Stockton agreed with the importance of the role of PA and stated that was
part of why he was here; so he could not only make a recommendation to his boss but also be
able to address issues presented to him with firsthand knowledge.

Medical: CAPT Neil explained the current request for a behavioral specialist to fill the gap
at the PCP. Mr. Stockton indicated he could definitely help get that the level of attention
needed. She also ran through the current support being provided via JTFCAPMED in
the person of Col Malone and explained that Malone had indentified a backup provider and that
support would continue. we also discussed the apparent incongruity between providing a high
level of support that may not be medically necessary as Col Malone is of the
opinion that there are no issues with Manning. we then discussed the difficulty
of assessing whether Manning was playing the system and our belief that the behavioral health
specialist could help us assess manning?s behavior.

Facility: I discussed the PCP history and the designation of the PCP as pretrial only and
the limitations that came with that designation. I also explained that MCBQ PCF was the test
bed for a pretrial only facility and that we were set up based on a normal pretrial confinee.
This long term situation only highlighted the issues that could arise in a high profile, long
lasting situation. The behavioral health specialist would help the staff assess Manning and
all of the detainees. CWO 2 Barnes then explained the custody and status of Manning, how he
was continuously evaluated, some of the behaviors we had seen, etc. Mr. Stockton queried
whether the custody classification and status assignment were based on an assessment of the
current conditions and if a change of conditions would result in a change of custody. we
explained that the PCP staff was constantly assessing the conditions of confinement and
manning?s behavior but we stressed that the charges were serious, and there were many factors
that supported continued maximum custody and also POI.

Misc: Mr. Stockton was briefed on the lack of SCIFs on MCBQ that could be set aside to serve
the manning case and we pointed out that Belvoir had been provided secure spaces for the
review of classified material.



-
MannIngB_O0513098

. 33120

The walk through went well and Mr. Stockton had no particular questions.

Assessment: The visit highlighted our experience with this issue and the steps we had taken
to minimize friction. It would be difficult to predict whether any of the other facilities
are better equipped to handle Manning. Certainly a change in facilities would result in some
short term friction as other PCF staffs and installation staffs experienced what we have
experienced over the last few months. Mr. Stockton said he truly had a better understanding
of the situation and would be able to appropriately brief his boss on what he felt should be
the way ahead.

Please advise if there are any questions.

C01 R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico



ManningB_00513099



From: LtGen George

Sent: Monday. February 07, 2011 8:01 PM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCo| Christopher Oltman Col

Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Status/update - DV visits to MCBQ Brig
Dan,

BLUF: These type of Manning issues are above the scope of what you and I do here at the
tactical level here at Quantico. The earlier we can get others involved and responsible for
dealing with these strategic and operational issues the better. In addition, we do not need
to have any seams that can be exploited. This is also why Mr. Hogue is coming with the GC
tomorrow. GJF

LtGen. George 3. USMC
Deputy Commandant For Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,





From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 19:55

To: LtGen George 3

cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher w; Greer LtCo1 Christopher Oltman Col
Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Re: Status/update - DV visits to MCBQ Brig

Roger sir.

VR, DJC

Original Message

From: LtGen George 3

To: Choike Col Daniel 3

cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCol Christopher Oltman Col
Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Mon Feb 97 19:50:13 2011

Subject: RE: Status/update - DV visits to MCBQ Brig

Dan,
I am working all of these with the CMC's counsel. Each of these and any others like them
need to be worked at that level. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,

APPELLATE






. .
. -.



ManningB_00518109

33122





From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, February 67, 2611 14:52

To: LtGen George

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCo1 Christopher Oltman Col
Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Status/update - DV visits to MCBQ Brig

Sir,

I had my SJA summarize in the attachment the three recently requested brig visits, for your
SA.

1. OSD (3) - GC, Press Sec, and SA to SecDeF - tomorrow at 1569.

2. UN visit - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr. Mendez - DOD General Counsel's
approval pending.

3. Lawmaker/Congressional visit - Congressman Kucinich w/press request routed to the Army
for guidance. HQMC involved.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



ManningB_0O518110

33123

Prom:

Greer LtCol ChristopherM

Sent:

Wednesday.Febmary IS,2011 10:51 AM

To:

Choike Col Oanield

Cc:

Kauzlarich Col MarkM

Subject:

FW; Manning coordination

Sir,
Wanted you to know that there has been significant staff coordination going on to t r y and
connect the legal players IRTManning. Not sureyet whether the clearing house at HQMC is
goingto be Gen Ary or Mr Hogue, or both, but at least there is a recognition that a HHQ
clearing house is required. (Does not look like PSL is at a l l interested in being that
clearing house.) The consensus is that there should be continued tactical level s t a f f t o
staff coordination between MCBQ and MOW. For example, whether Manning is transported in
cammies is something that we can resolve at this level without input from HHQ.
I am answering several inquiries from Mr Hogue through Col Miner to catch them up on a l l
aspects of the case up to this point. One gratifying point was that apparently Gen Flynn
made i t clear that MCBQ would not be left ^^holding the bag^^.
v/r
LtCol Greer
MCBQ SDA
Original Message
From: Ewers Col Dohn R
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 19:19
To: PEDE, CHARLESNICHOLAS; Miner ColChristopherW; BRADLEV, COREVLORREN
Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher M; Lagasca, Dason, Col, OoOOGC
Subject: Manning coordination
Gents
Tried each of you on the phone today with limited success. (Only got Chris Miner).
LtGen Flynn met with LtGen Chipman today and they discussed Manning.
that there were seams in the handling o f t h e sundry issues associated
incarceration in the Quantico brig. Psych evals, 138 complaints, and
Rapporteur (sp), DOD GC and Congressman are examples. Clearly, there
routine about Manning^s PTC.

Gen Flynn^s concern was
with Manning^s
v i s i t requests from UN
isn^t much that is

General Flynn^s basic question was essentially: when one of these non-routine issues arises,
whose in-box do I put i t ini^ His proposed solution, which General Chipman supported, was to
connect the lawyers.
Chuck, Corey, General Chipman recommended I contact each of you. Dason, we^ve seen that the
DOD GC is going to have some play here. (Chrises, you know why youare on the addee l i s t ) .
What I want to do is make sure we^re a l l talking. We won^t do any poaching (and w i l l avoid
any shirking), just want to make sure we have coordinated actions and responses as this
process moves on toward t r i a l . ( I also know that there are likely to be some issues that
require resolution at higher levels, but an info loop on those should help us all.)
1

ARF^RATEEXHIBIT^^^^^
ManiiiiigB^0051705T

PAGEREFERENCED:
PAGE
^OF
FAGES

33124

1^11 try toget each of you tomorrow. Call i f y o u get a minute. Thanks. VR -

Dohn Ewers
Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps
Deputy SDAto CMC (4D558)
(b) (6)

ManningB^00517058

33125

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Greer LtCol ChristopherM
Friday, danuary 14, 2011 11:43 AM
Choike Col Oanield: Oltman Col RobertG; Kauzlarich Col MarkM
RE; LIN Manning Ooc

Sir, Sent the following as a result of the meeting tot the Manning SDA and t r i a l counsel.
think i t also summarizes the main issues.

I

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gentlemen,
Had a meeting this morning at the Brig with the staff and CAPT Hocter (forensic pych) and
CAPT Moore (forensic psych).
Background: Dr Hoctor is Manning primary mental health provider. He is deploying next week.
As part of the regular mental health care at the Brig, Dr Moore has also been involved with
Manning^s care. Hoctor was approached at one time to be a defense expert but he declined.
Dr Moore has also been approached by the Defense as a potential expert. He declined.
Manning has allowed access to his medical records to Defense. I found out this morning that
the Brig has an ongoing incarceration residency program in agreement with Walter Reed. There
are four residents (actually one intern, two residents and one fellow) how come o the Brig
every Friday as part of a forensic psychiatry rotation/residency program. These residents
treat a l l of the brig residents as well as Manning as there was no distinction between him
and other detainees WRT mental health care. The new rotation of residents is on deck and had
their f i r s t day today. Based on my discussion with CPT Haberland yesterday, we have told
them NOT to be involved in Manning^s treatment u n t i l the CA authorizes i t due to potential
clearance issues. Col Malone, from Walter Reed, is going to assume primary care for Manning.
He was supposed to be there this morning but was not. He supervises the residency program
but our expectation s that he w i l l not treat the Brig population but w i l l only treat Manning.
Issue 1: Request guidance from the CA (or you) regarding guidelines for the residents to be
involved in Manning^s ongoing mental health care. My understanding is that the residents
would conduct/sit in on interview with Manning as part of his care plan. We frankly do not
care what the decision i s , we just want to know i f you wish to restrict the number of people
who haye access to Manning as a legal issue (perspective witnesses) or for security reasons
(clearances, disclosures, etc.) We DID NOT vet past residents in the program nor did we vet
the current group regarding clearances. I do know that one of the residents (actually a
fellow) w i l l be on Manning^s 706 so she stepped out during much of our discussion this
morning. Obviously she does not participate in Manning^s care.
Issue 2: Dr Moore rec^uested guidance from the CA (or you) on how much information they
should disclose to the DC. They have a great deal of experience working with DC^s but he
wanted to know i f there were any areas of concern regarding disclosures. They have a waiver
from Manning that protects them for HPPA purposes and ethical purposes but are looking for
l e f t and right lateral l i m i t s , i f they exist.
Issue 3: Dr Hoctor expressed his concern about the POI status. He f e l t that POI was not
j u s t i f i e d from a medical viewpoint. The Brig OIC explained that the medical component was
part of the overall classification assessment and that the process was continuously
evaluated. Hoctor stated clearly that he did not support the POI status.
Issue 4: Suggest that you request from CA to MCB Cdr that he provide you with a l l
classification and assignment documentation regarding Manning. Vou could simply state t o

APPELLATE EXHIBITQl^w
PAGE REFERENCED:
ManningB_00449938

PAGE

OF

PAGES

33126

build SA for the CA and to prepare for possible l i t i g a t i o n , you request the classification
documentation and that this request is ongoing. That way we have an o f f i c i a l rec^uest we can
respond to.
Issue 5: This is related to 3 and 4. Stand by for heavy rolls i f the CA decides to request
the Base commander to review and consider removing Manning^s POI status. We are continuously
reviewing that status. Unless you want to run our Brig, I think you undercut your own legal
position i f you actually recommend that the POI status be removed. We are the j a i l o r s ,
either you trust us or you don^t. i f you don^t, then move him. The best thing would be to
get this through the 706 process so we can have that additional info to consider in the
status review. Again, the Brig makes a team decision on his status, i t is based on
experience, training, input form the personnel who interact with Manning, and the medical
input. Vou a l l know that he is not is solitary, that a l l the detainees have their own c e l l ,
that no detainees may PT in their cells, etc. As I told Dohn last night, unless someone
wants to come down and accept responsibility for the daily safety and welfare of Manning, i t
is our job.
I need a f a i r l y quick turn on 1 and 2 as t h i s residency program was new info for me. Again,
we DO NOT care who sees Manning. We leave the National Security concerns, clearances, etc,
to you.

LtCol Greer
SDA, MCB
Original Message
From: Choike Col Daniel D
Sent: Friday, Danuary 14, 2011 11:26
To: Greer LtCol Christopher M; Oltman Col Robert G; kauzlarich Col Mark M
Subject: RE: UN Manning Doc
Roger a l l , thanks.

Need an update on the medical transition v i s i t today.

ColDaniel D. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA ^^1345001
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Greer LtCol Christopher M
Sent: Friday, Danuary 14, 2011 9:00
To: Choike Col Daniel D; Oltman Col Robert G; l^auzlarich Col Mark M
Subject: UN Manning Doc
Sir,
Rather than send up an e mail string with a l o t of lawyers mulling over implications and who
is going to say what to whom, I have attached the actual diplomatic note from the UN to the

ManningB^00449939

33127

DoS. I t focuses on the ^^solitary confinement^^ of Manning. As we a l l know, he i s not being
held i n solitary confinement. The response i s not ours although we w i l l have input into the
f i n a l product that i s submitted to DoS. I w i l l keep you apprised as that product i s
developed. I have been engaged with Gen Ary and his staff on this as well. The US has faced
similar ini^uires WRT GITMO and has provided a somewhat ^^stock^^ response.
I also had a long talk last night with Manning SDA personnel IRT l i t i g a t i o n schedule ( s t i l l
none but ^^closer^^ to the 706 kicking o f f ) . Col Malone (they concur no interns unless there i s
some medical necessity and Col Malone has the proper clearance and the SDA has already talked
to Col Malone regarding his role as treating physician), the UN inquiry, and their position
on Manning^s status. I made i t clear to them again that we have the day to day
responsibility for Manning and i f they are unhappy with Manning current status, then someone
in the Army needs to take custody of him or relive us of the responsibility of his welfare.
Until there i s someone with an Army letterhead actually accepting responsibility for his
welfare, then we w i l l consider their input like any other Command, but the decision would
rest with the Brig officer and SecBn. I reiterated our concern that i f something goes wrong,
there i s not a single Army person that would be held responsible or found to be accountable
as long as he stays with us.
v/r
CHRIS GREER
LtCol, USMC
Staff Dudge Advocate, MCB Quantico
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
(b) (6)

ManningB 00449940

33128

From:
Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Greer LtCol ChristopherM
Monday, danuary 24, 2011 8:25 AM
Kauzlarich Col MarkM; Choike Col Danield: Oltman Col RobertG
^W; Wrong version of POI Memo
11Jan 21SPCMCA Requestto Reduce POI (ManningB) pdf:11Jan 21SPCMCA
Response to RCM 305(g) Reguest (ManningB).pdf

Importance:
Gentlemen,
I wanted to get this to you ASAP.
The SPMCA rec^uest to reduce POI requires a response and I w i l l draft one for your review.
This i s the forwarding endorsement^^ on the 5 jan request from DC that Manning be pulled form
POI status. The good news i s that this is carefully worded and simply states that we
carefully review POI and that we continue to review the classification and assignment of
Manning.
The SPCMCA response is a response to a separate request f i l e d on 13 Dan by DC that asked that
Manning be released from confinement. We did not ever see that request. No action i s
required form us on this request.
v/r
LtCol Greer
SDA, MCB
Original Message
From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA DFHQ NCR/MDW SDA(
Sent: Saturday, Danuary 22, 2011 16:33
b
To: Greer LtCol Christopher M
)
Cc: (b) (6)
(
Subject: RE: Wrong version of POI Memo
6
Importance: High
)
Sir,
I apologise for the confusion. We had two version working and I sent the wrong one to Dohn.
The attached rec^uest is from COL Coffman. Also, attached is COL Coffman^s action on the RCM
305(g) reguest for your records and not for release. Thank you for a l l your assistance!
v/r
Ashden

Ashden Fein
CPT, DA
Chief, Military Dustice
U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

ManningB^00517307

APPELLATEEXHIBIT ^1^^
PAGEREFERENCED;
PAGE
^OF
PAGES

33129

(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Haberland, Dohn CPT MIL USA lmailto(b)(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, Danuary 21, 2011 9:10 PM (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Fein, Ashden CPT USADFHQNCR/MDWSDA;(b) (6)
Subject: Wrong version of POI Memo
Sir,
I apologize, I sent the wrong version of the POI memo. CPT Fein w i l l follow with the
correct version.
Very Respectfully,
CPT Dohn Haberland
Regimental Dudge Advocate
(b) (6)

Sent from Blackberry

ManningB^00517308

33130

Prom:

Choike Col Oanield

Sent:
To:
6e:

Monday.August 09. 20103;14PM
Flynn LtGen GeorgeJ
Reed SgtMaj OennisW; Mortenson Col Royal; Miner ColChristopherW; Neill CAPT Mary;
Kauzlarich Col MarkM; Oltman Col RobertG
RE; Behavioral Profile; Stmggles Of Soldier Charged In Leak Case
(b) (6)

Subject:
SignedBy:

^Ir,
During our i n i t i a l DPT, when we were just hours away from receiving PFC Manning, the Base
Staff along with Sec Bn Cmdr and the CO of the Naval Health Clinic discussed proper receiving
of the detainee, the i n i t i a l mental health assessments, continuous mental health
screening/assessments and proper brig supervision. PFC Manning i s on suicide watch, which
means he i s under constant observation. He i s i n his c e l l i n skivvies and has only a
blanket. Measures are i n place now t o ensure a l l personnel (Brig Staff/ Counselors/Mental
Health Physicians) who come i n contact with PFC Manning, know that i f he no longer meets the
c r i t e r i a to be detained, that we would be immediately transferred t o the mental health ward
in Walter Reed.
The Army Correctional Command actually owns him and has asked f o r second and t h i r d opinions
on his mental health and a b i l i t y t o handle the stress of being detained i n our brig. 1 just
got o f f t h e phone with the CO of the Naval Health Clinic and also just met with Col Oltman,
and directed that they provide me weekly updates on Manning, by providing general info on his
attitude and mental health. W i l l forward a copy of the weekly reports t o you personally, and
i t w i l l be separate from the weekly Base Updates.
Of note: Col Oltman states that mail from Code Pink and other organizations that think
Manning i s a hero. Manning i s refusing a l l mail addressed t o him from those types of
organizations.
Sir, we a l l understand the importance of maintaining a close watch and ensuring he i s
mentally stable t o remain detained i n our f a c i l i t y for quite some time.
VR, DDC
ColDanielD. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Ayenue
Quantico, VA 221345001
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Flynn LtGen George D
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 13:42
To: Oltman Col Robert G; Choike Col Daniel D
Cc: Reed SgtMaj Dennis W; Mortenson Col Royal; Miner Col Christopher W
Subject: FW: Behavioral Profile: Struggles Of Soldier Charged In Leak Case
Importance: High

^
ManningB^00449894

APPELLA^EEXFE^^T^^^^
PAGERF FF.^F^FE^^;
PAGE
^OF
PAGE^

33131

Bob and Dan,
We have had one suicide of a high risk prisoner i n the brig. We need t o make sure that
we have covered down on what we learned from that case. Based on the below, this young man
has a great deal on his plate and i t would be good i f you impressed upon a l l who come i n
contact with Pvt. Manning the absolute necessity of keeping a close watch on him. This
includes Brig, medical. Chaplain and transport personnel. His l i f e has completely f a l l e n
apart which makes him a strong candidate (from my perspective) t o take his l i f e .
5/F
GDF
LtGen. George D. Flynn, USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General, MCCDC
(b) (6)

New Vork Times
August 9, 2010
Early Struggles Of Soldier Charged In Leak Case
By Ginger Thompson
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. ^ He spent part o f h i s childhood with his father i n t h e arid plains of
central Oklahoma, where classmates made fun of him f o r being a geek. He spent another part
with his mother i n a small, remote corner of southwest Wales, where classmates made fun of
him f o r being gay.
Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social l i f e was defined by the need t o
conceal his sexuality under ^don^t ask, don^t t e l l ^ and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee
for officers.
But i t was around twoyears ago, when Pfc. Bradley Manning came here t o v i s i t a man he had
fallen i n love with, that he f i n a l l y seemed t o have found a place where he f i t i n , part of a
social c i r c l e that included p o l i t i c a l l y motivated computer hackers and his boyfriend, a selfdescrit^ed drag c^ueen.
So when his military career seemed beaded nowhere good. Private Manning, 22, turned
increasingly t o those friends for moral support.
And now some of those friends say they wonder whether his desperation f o r acceptance ^ or
delusions of grandeur ^ may have led him t o disclose the largest trove of government secrets
since the Pentagon Papers.
^ I would always t r y t o make clear t o Brad that he had a promising future ahead of him,^ said
Daniel D. Clark, one of those Cambridge friends. ^But when youare young and youare i n his
situation, i t ^ s hard t o t e l l yourself things are going to get better, especially i n Brad^s
case, because i n his past, things didnot always get better.^
Blond and barely grown up. Private Manning worked as an intelligence analyst and was based
east of Baghdad. He i s suspected of disclosing more than 150,000 diplomatic cables, more than
90,000 intelligence reports on the war i n Afghanistan and one video of a military helicopter
attack ^ a l l of i t classified. Most of the information was given t o WikiLeaks.org, which

ManningB^00449895

33132

posted the war reports after sharing them with three publications, including The New Vork
Times.
WikiLeaks has defended the disclosure, saying transparency is essential to democracy. The
Pentagon has denounced the leaks, saying they put American soldiers and their Afghan allies
in grave danger.
And while that dispute rages on, with the Pentagon having recently demanded that WikiLeaks
remove a l l secret documents from the Internet and hand over any undisclosed materials in i t s
f i l e s . Private Manning is being held in solitary confinement at Quantico, Va., under suicide
watch.
Private Manning^s military-appointed lawyer, Maj. Thomas F. Hurley, declined an interview
request.
Much remains unknown about his journey there from Crescent, Okla., the small town where he
was born. But interviews with people who know him, along with e-mail exchanges between him
and Adrian Lamo, the computer hacker who turned him in, offer some insights into Private
Manning^s early years, why he joined the Army and how he came to be so troubled, especially
in recent months.
^l^ve been isolated so long,^ Private Manning wrote in May to Mr. Lamo, who turned the chat
logs over to the authorities and the news media. ^But events kept forcing me to figure out
ways to survive.^
Survival was something Private Manning began learning as a young child in Crescent. His
father, Brian Manning, was also a soldier and spent a lot of time away from home, former
neighbors recalled. His mother, Susan Manning, struggled to cope with the culture shock of
having moved to the United States from her native Wales, the neighbors said.
One neighbor, Jacqueline Radford, recalled that when students at Private Manning^s elementary
school went on field trips, she sent additional food or money to make sure he had something
to eat.
^I^ve always tried to be supportive of him because of his home l i f e , ^ Ms.
Radford said. ^ I know i t was bad, to where he was left to his own, had to fend for himself.^
At school, Bradley Manning was clearly different from most of his peers. He preferred hacking
computer games rather than playing them, former neighbors said. And they said he seemed
opinionated beyond his years about politics, religion, and even about keeping religion out of
politics.
In his Bible Belt hometown that he once mockingly wrote in an e-mail had ^more pews than
people,^ Private Manning refused to recite the parts of the Pledge of Allegiance that
referred to God or do homework assignments that involved the Scriptures. And i f a teacher
challenged his views, former classmates said, he was quick to push back.
^He would get upset, slam books on the desk i f people wouldnot listen to him or understand
his point of view,^ said Chera Moore, who attended elementary and junior high school with
him. ^He would get really mad, and the teacher would say, ^.1^., Bradley, get out.^ ^
I t was something he would hear a lot throughout his l i f e .
After Private Manning^s parents divorced, he moved with his mother to Haverfordwest, Wales,
her hometown, and began a new chapter of isolation.

ManningB^0044989S

33133

Haverfordwest is several times bigger than Crescent. I t is also centuries older, with
traditions that run much deeper. A bustling market town, i t offered a pace of l i f e that was
significantly faster.
Former students at his school there, Tasker Milward, remembered Private Manning being teased
for a l l sort of reasons. His American accent. His love of Dr Pepper. The amount of time he
spent huddled before a computer.
And then, students began to suspect he was gay.
Sometimes, former classmates said, he reacted to the teasing by idly boasting about stealing
other students^ girlfriends. At other times, he openly f l i r t e d with boys. Often, with only
the slightest provocation, he would launch into f i t s of rage.
^ I t was probably the worst experience anybody could go through,^said Rowan Dohn, aformer
classmate who was openly gay in high school. ^Being different like me, or Bradley, in the
middle of nowhere is like going back in time to the Dark Ages.^
But l i f e ahead did not immediately brighten for Private Manning. After his troubled high
school years, his mother sent him back to Oklahoma to live with his father and his older
sister.
He was hired and quickly fired from a small software company, where his employer, kord
Campbell, recalled him as clean-cut and highly intelligent with an almost innate sense for
programming, as well as the personality of a bull in a china shop. Then his father found out
he was gay and kicked him out of the house, friends said. Mr. Clark, the Cambridge friend,
said Private Manning told him he lived out of his car briefly while he worked in a series of
minimum-wage retail jobs.
He enlisted in the Army in 2007, to t r y to give his l i f e some direction and to help to pay
for college, friends said.
He was granted a security clearance and trained as an intelligence analyst at Fort Huachuca,
Ariz., before being assigned to the Second Brigade 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.V.
Before being deployed to Iraq, Private Manning met Tyler Watkins, who described himself on
his blog as a classical musician, singer and drag queen. Afriend said the two had l i t t l e in
common, but PrivatcManning f e l l head over heels. Mr. Watkins, who did not respondto
interview requests for this article, was a student at Brandeis University. On trips to visit
him here in Cambridge, Private Manning got to knowmany in Mr. Watkins^ wide network of
friends, in^li.idin^ som^ who were part of this university town^s tight knit backer community.
Friends said Private Manning found the atmosphere here to be everything the Army was not:
openly accepting of his geeky side, his liberal political opinions, his relationship with Mr.
Watkins and his ambition to do something that would get attention.
Although hacking has come to mean a lot of different things, at its core, those who do i t
say, is the philosophy that information should be free and accessible to a l l . And Private
Manning had access to some of themost secret information onthe planet.
Meanwhile, his military career was anything but stellar. He had been reprimanded twice,
including once for assaulting an officer. He wrote in e mails that he f e l t ^regularly
ignored^ by his superiors ^except when I had something essential, then i t was back to t^Bring
me coffee, then sweep the floor.^ ^

ManningB^00449897

33134

And i t seems the more isolated he f e l t in the military ^ he wore custom dog tags that said
^Humanist,^ and friends said he kept a toy fairy wand on his desk in Iraq ^ the more he clung
to his hacker friends.
According to Wired magazine. Private Manning told Mr. Watkins last Danuary that he had gotten
his hands on a secret video showing a military helicopter attack that killed two Reuters
photographers and one Iraqi civilian.
In a computer chat with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning said he gave the video to WikiLeaks in
February. Then, after WikiLeaks released i t in April, Private Manning hounded Mr. Watkins
about whether there had been any public reaction. ^That was one of his major concerns once
he^d done this,^ Mr.
Watkins told Wired. ^Was i t really going to make a differencei^^
In his computer chats with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning described how he downloaded the video
and l i p synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.
^Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart
attack,^ he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called
himself ^emotionally fractured^ and a ^wreck^ and said he was ^self-medicating like crazy.^
And as he faces the possibility of a lifetime in prison, some of Private Manning^s remarks
now seem somewhat prophetic.
^ I wouldnot mind going to prison for the rest of my l i f e , or being executed so much,^ he
wrote, ^ i f i t wasn^t for the possibility of having pictures of me plastered a l l over the
world press.^
Ben Fenwick contributed reporting from Oklahoma City, and Ravi Somaiya from Haverfordwest,
Wales. Toby Lyles contributed research.
NOTE: In accordancewith Title 17 USC 107, this material is distributed without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Provided by G2-Forward.

ManningB^00449898




From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday. March 10, 2011 3:55 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Manning Status

signed By: 1'

Bob,

what you have listed below is on target. The instructions given to me were best passed on
personally to CWOZ Barnes, based upon the last two meetings with the CG. I don't
prefer this approach and would rather go through you, but your TAD trip and absence creates
this situation. Much is lost in email missives.

I just got off the phone with CN02 Barnes and let her know about your email and the CG's
intent. I know how things go and what you have done in the past in terms of notifying me, I
only ask/reconfirm that any decisions to change handling instructions or assignment status is
briefed first, before executed. Actions required to save life and/or protect from injury are
not included in this for obvious reasons.

You and I supporting/concurring with the Brig 0IC's decisions that change handling
instructions or assignment status, without passing that info to CG for consideration,
is no longer acceptable. we/you are not going to get anything in writing from CG if he
rejects/modifies a recommendation. Memo's for the record can be discussed more between you
and I, in an effort to address your concerns about proper documentation/file keeping.

Summary - #1 - yes adhere to the chain of command, and hopefully you understand why that
didn't happen right now. #2 Yes - recommendations forwarded to me for discussion and
concurrence and then recommendation forwarded to C6, before implementation. I will not
blindly forward a recommendation to the CG, instead I'll discuss it with you so you will know
exactly what I forward. #3 Non-concurrence in writing - we need to discuss and determine the
best way to document decision/final actions for the record. CG wants to be able to determine
political impact, media interest, legal ramifications, and senior leadership reactions, and
can't do so without him being in the loop upfront.

SF, Dan

PS- when do you get back?
Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134-5001




From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 14:02
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Choike Col Daniel

I APPELLATE EXHIBIT 91/?y
PAGE
PAGE or PAGES

ManningB_00449914



0 0 33136

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: Manning Status

Gents

Just got off phone with X0. She has informed me that any changes in Manning Status must be
approved by Base CO. I think there is an assumption being made that cwoz Barnes is acting
alone and unafraid in her decision process with regard to status and or handling instruction
changes with regard to Manning. That is not the case. She and I discuss, same as I did with
Averhart, every decision and every change and to date I have concurred with all. Also every
change has been discussed with the Boss. Not sure how much more involved we can be.
Understand where guidance is coming from and we will do as directed. However I respectfully
make the following requests 1) we adhere to the chain of command. Barnes will conact me and
I will contact Base C0. 2) Based on conditions etc we, Sec BN will make a
recommendation/request to implement the change. Should there be non concurrence and different
guidance given we would like to have it in writing in order to annotate in the file. we can
set up whatever paperwork is required.

we are on board just want to ensure the files are properly documented.

R/rgo
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

Manning 5

saw?

From: Kauzlarich Col Mark

sent: Thursday. March 03. 2011 11:58 AM

To: Raimondo CAPT Lisa

Cc: Neill CAPT Mary; Ebitz Maj Amy Oltman Col Robert Greer Ltcol Christopher
subject: RE: Noti?cation

Thanks Lisa,
Unfortunately, C0 and I are not comfortable with the plan.

I'm not a however, if one of my very vulnerable patients, who has been on
suicide watch before, was going to be informed of 22 new charges and one of them holds the
death penalty, maybe-just-maybe I'd be standing by to assist that patient.

Sorry for venting my frustration with sarcasm.

Chief



From: Raimondo, Lisa H. CAPT

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:51

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCol Christopher
Cc: Neill CAPT Mary; Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: RE: Notification

A11 -

CAPT Neill just spoke to COL Malone. COL Malone indicated that he spoke with
NO Barnes at the Brig and all is good to go with his planned visit for
tomorrow. Brig officer is comfortable with the plan.

VR, Lisa

Lisa H. Raimondo

CAPT NC USN

Executive Officer

Naval Health Clinic Quantico
3259 Catlin Ave

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.


From: Neill, Mary CAPT

1 APPELLATE EXHIBIT

PAGE OF PAGES-

ManningB_00449922



some

Sent: Thursday, March e3,'2e11 11:24 AM

To: 'Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCo1 Christopher
Cc: Raimondo, Lisa H. CAPT

Subject: RE: Notification

Agree. I have alerted my back up Behavioral Health coverage to go over and
provide support in the interim. CAPT Moore can attend to the other
individual.


.MBN



From: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:09 AM

To: Neill, Mary Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCo1 Christopher
Cc: Raimondo, Lisa H. CAPT

Subject: RE: Notification

Mary Beth,
Need an answer soonest.

I still should engage Col Malone's Commander. what if PFC Manning would have
attempted something after notification of new charges? Behavioral health
support from primary provider should have been on standby, not track me down
if you need me.

Chief

Message--?--

From: Neill, Mary CAPT [mail

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:00

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCol Christopher
Cc: Raimondo CAPT Lisa

Subject: RE: Notification

I just called JTF CAP 33 directly who have the con on the Behavioral Health
coverage. They understand that I have deemed this urgent and require
immediate plan of action for coverage. If Col Malone is indisposed then I
have made it clear that they will provide an alternate provider. I received
no advance notice that he was not available and not responding to on call
status. Plan is to have one of my providers come over until assistance is
provided from JTF CAP MED. I am waiting to hear from JTF who is calling
Walter Reed for assistance.



MBN



From: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:52 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Neill, Mary Greer LtCo1 Christopher
Subject: RE: Notification

Gentlemen/lady,

who does Col Malone work for?

ManningB__OO449923

1?I?t same

I'm getting ready to go VFR direct to his Commander.
Chief



From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2611 10:45
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher
Subject: Fw: Notification

Chief, FYI.

Need to get a Full-court press from our medical professionals to assist us in
getting Col Malone down here

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3259 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001





From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:42
To: Choike Col Daniel 3

Subject: RE: Notification

He is doing better. A little surly this morning but seem to have gotten back
in his box. No joy with C01 Malone. He is scheduled for his normal visit
tomorrow and but we want it today. we are talking with Capt Raimondo to get
this resolved. Also have a SR detainee and another POI that we want evaluated.
Capt Moore will deal with those two but my issue is the lack of
just gaining contact with Malone and his team.
Barnes tells me she tries to contact and just gets answering machines. Clinic
X0 has all this information. I am sure she will get us what we need.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico





From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2611 10:14

To: Oltman Col Robert Neill CAPT Mary; Greer LtCol Christopher

3

ManningB_00449924



0 . 33140

Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Notification

How is he doing? when will the Dr arrive, or has he arrived?

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



--??-Original Message--?--
From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 20:29

To: Choike Col Daniel Neill CAPT Mary; Greer LtCo1 Christopher
Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Re: Notification

Most recent update from Brig. Manning pacing a mumbling in his cell. All
behavior being documented.


Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel 3

To: Oltman Col Robert Neill CAPT Mary; Greer LtCol Christopher
Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: wed Mar 02 20:25:37 2011

Subject: Re: Notification

Thanks. DJC

Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Choike Col Daniel Neill CAPT Mary; Greer Ltcol Christopher
Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: wed Mar 02 20:16:45 2011

Subject: Notification

Manning chain of command notified and understands situation. Company notified
the BN who will press the Army medical to get engaged. Fully expect Dr. Malone
to see Det Manning tomorrow.

Advise if there are questions.
Sent from my B1ackBerry Handheld

ManningB_00449925

33141

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Oltman Col Robert G (b) (6)
Thursday, Febmary 17, 2011 8:31 AM
Barnes CW02 Denise V (b) (6)
Re: 138

l>
>

These are minor correct?
Sent from my BlackBeny Handheld
Original Message
From; Barnes CW02 Denise V
To; Oltman Col Robert G
Sent; Tbu Feb 17 08:28; 17 2011
Subject; RE; 138
Good Moming Sir, no there were no problems. The only thing be addressed was the fact that once the MO said that Manning was no
longer a SR, he should have been retumed to appropriate quarters. Tbat meant putting him back on POI or whatever status I K was on
before since appropriate quarters was SQ anyway. In regards to the two times he was SR, there was a lapse in the adjustment of his
status because his status was not changed until the C&A board reviewed him. What is supposed to h^pen is that once the MO says
be is not SR then the DBS should do a special move only changing the status from SR back to POI and then the C&A board would
review him the next day and not necessarily wait until Friday when he is normally reviewed. Hope your appt goes well Sir.
CW02 Denise V. Bames
Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
(b) (6)

Original Message
From; Oltman Col Robert G
Sent; Thursday, Februaiy 17, 2011 6;50
To; Bames CW02 Denise V
Subject; 138
CW02 Bames
Any issues with the CW05 Galaviz yesterday and the 138?
Col R G. Oknan
Commanding Officer
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

APPELLATE
EXUm\Tj//i/l
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES
ManningB_00513365

33142

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Oltman Col RobertG-(b) (6)
l^
^ednesday,March2, 2011^:08 PM
GreerLtColChristopherM^c(b) (6)
; Choike ColDanielJ
(b) (6)
;I^auzlarichColMarkM^(b) (6)
^
Re:AdditionalCharges(LJNCLASSIFIED)

We will inform his parent command.Iwill advise when complete.
Samlam.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld
— Original Message —
From: Greer LtCol ChristopherM
To: Choike ColDanielJ^ Oltman Col RobertG^ Kauzlarich Col MarkM
Sent: Wed Mar02 17:57:29 2011
Subject: RE:AdditionalCharges(ONCLASSIFIED^
Gentlemen,
One other piece of information. Based upon comments made by PFC Manning to Brig staff
about his abilityto kill himselfwith his underwear (nojokel^^CW02 Barnes determined that
he would sleep without his underwear asaprecaution.He still is fully clothed during the day.
Atnighthehashisblanketssoheisnotexposedandnofemalestaffhaveaccesstoeven
see him.
This may become another media issue as Manning may bring it up with his attomeys.
As Dr Suess would say:lcanweartheminabox,lcanwearthemwithafox,lean wear
them in the day^lcanwearthemsolsay.butlcan^twearthem in the night, my comments
gave the staffafrighL
v^r
LtCol Greer
MCBQ SJA
—Original Message—
From: Choike ColDanielJ
Sent: Wednesday.March 02.2011 17:^8
To: Greer LtCol ChristopherM^ Oltman Col RobertG^ Kauzlarich Col Mark M^ Miner Col
Christopher W^ Ewers (^olJohnR
Subject: RE: Additional Charges(ONCLASSIFIED)
Thanks Chris. Busy legal dayfor our guesL^DW. My daywas good though....I read Dr.Seuss
books to 1st and 2nd Graders today at our DODEA schools.
Bob,
l^m sure our Brig Marines and MPs are onaheightened state of awareness both for our
guesfs safety and overall safety^security of the base^ based upon the news release and
additional charges^Art138 reply.
SF.DJC
Col Daniel J. Choike, OSMC
Commander.Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico. ^A2213^ 5001
(b) (6)

A^PELLATEEXHIBIT^^^^
PAGEREFERENCED;^
FAGE
^OF
PAGES
ManningB^00514081

33143

EmaiL (b) (6)
—Original Message—
From: Greer LtCol ChristopherM
Sent: Wednesday.March 02, 2011 17:38
To: Oltman Col RobertG^ Kauzlarich Col Mark M^ Choike ColDanielJ^ Miner Col Christopher
W^ Ewers Col JohnR
Subject: FW:AdditionalCharges(LINCLASSIFIED^
Importance: High
Gentlemen^
This is still close hold until tomorrow.Additional charges are no real surprise with the heavy
hitter being the ArticlelO^ charge of^^aiding the enemy^^.That carries the death penalty
althoughtheprosecutionhasinformedthedefensethatitdoesnotintendtoseekthedeath
penalty.
The new charges were provided to PFC Manning and he met with his military defense
counsel after he received iL
The Art 138 response was provided to PFC Manning today as welL He has lOworking days
to respond so we should see something by16March.
v^r
LtCol Greer
MCBQ SJA
(b) (6)
—Original Message—
From: Haberland. John CPT MIL LISA
Sent: Wednesday^March 02. 2011 16:28
To: Greer LtCol ChristopherM
Subject: FW: Additional Charges (LINCLASSIFIED)
Importance: High
Classification: LINCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOLIO
Sir.
Attached isacopy of the new charge sheet with the Additional Charges.This charge will not
be public knowledge forafew hours so please do you send it around yeL
Please let me know if you have any questions.
^ery Respectfully.
CPTJohnB Haberland
Regimental Judge Advocate
(b) (6)

From: Fein.Ashden CPTLISAJFHQNCR^MDWSJA

(b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday.March 02.2011 3:59 PM
To: Fein.Ashden CPTLISAJFHQNCR^MDWSJA
Cc: MorrowllL DoOean.CPTLISAJFHQNCR^MDWSJA
Subject: Additional Charges (LISv BM^
Importance: High
AIL Attached isacopy ofthe charge SheeL preferred yesterday against PFC Bradley Manning

ManningB^00514082

33144

and served on him today.This charge sheet and background information are being released
to the press throughaLI.S.Army Military District of Washington (MDW) press release in the
next few hours. Please do not publicly release this information. Also attached is the point of
contact forthe MDW public affairs office.if your organization would like to coordinate future
messages,
v^r
Ashden
AshdenFein
CPT.JA
Chief. Military Justice
LI.S.Army Military District OfWashington (MDW)

(b) (6)

MannlngB^00514083



0 0 33145

From: Oltman Col Robert

sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:30 PM

To: Choike Col Daniel Neill CAPT Maty
Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Manning status

Signed By:

Brig OIC is going to leave his status as is and his handling instructions will remain the
same for the immediate future; meaning he will only have his blankets from Taps to Reveille.
She and I discussed at length and she will continue to review his actions and review the
recommendations of the Board and based off that will make a change to his handling
instructions. we have applied no timeline to that process.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico

Message--?--

From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Friday, March 94, 2611 16:22

To: Neill CAPT Mary; Oltman Col Robert
Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Manning status

Bob
Need an update on brig actions planned For Manning based on the below.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5901



Message-?--
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 16:20
To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Manning status

For close hold need to know SA:
I have a report from my Brig Medical Officer who debriefed with C01 Malone

this afternoon after visit.
1 APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE REFERENCED:
RAGE PAGES

ManningB_00449912

0 . 33146

PFC Manning is doing well, appeared in good spirits and has been taken off a
medication he has been on in response to the improved status.



MBN

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN
Commanding Officer



ManningB_00449913

33147

Prom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SignedBy:

Bames CW02 0eniseV
Friday.March 04.2011 1;39PM
Oltman Col RobertG
Ebitz Maj AmyR
RE; Manning early bird article
(b) (6)

Sir, when I made the decision t o have detainee Manning^s underwear removed after taps with
his other gear and s t i l l keep him POI, my thought process was that he did not threaten
suicide nor did he make a suicidal gesture as per the SECNAV. In addition, we did not feel
that the extra measures were necessary during regular day time hours. He never said he would
commit suicide nor did he act i n a manner that was similar t o the incident i n Danuary with
CWO Averhart where he was placed i n SR status. His behavior was not erratic i n any way, as
matter of fact, he was smiling when he was talking t o MSgt Papakie. The SECNAV states that I
can remove clothing when deemed necessary.
I found i t hard t o j u s t i f y assigning him the SR
status, i t i s easier t o explain why we l e f t him i n POI status than why we placed him i n SR
status without adhering t o the guidance i n the SECNAV. I also could not j u s t i f y not taking
action i n the event of a possible suicide or an attempt at i t after he made that comment t o
MSgt Papakie. MSgt Papakie, GySgt Blenis and I a l l f e l t uncomfortable and almost at the same
time said we need t o make adjustments. As a side note Sir, I do not always concur with the
C^ hoard or items that are brought t o me i n other capacities. A good example was prisoner
Cantrell, on 26 Danuary, the C^ board voted 2-1 t o keep him as i n t e r i o r work d e t a i l and I
disagreed and put him i n protective custody status. My decision was based on the reason we
had him i n confinement and since I did not know who he t e s t i f i e d on that may come t o the
Brig, I put his safety f i r s t . Thanks Sir.
b. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a
suicidal gesture, but are found f i t for confinement, may be
placed i n the category of ^^suicide risk^^ f o r observation. They
shall be placed i n special quarters under continuous
otiservation. CO/OIC/CPOIC may direct removal of the prisoner's
clothing when deemed necessary. Prisoner must be under
observation of a supervisor of the same sex.^^

CW02 Denise V. Barnes
Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Oltman Col Robert G
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:43
To: Barnes CW02 Denise V
Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy R
Subject: Fw: Manning early bird a r t i c l e
Heading towards office soon. CW02 Barnes synopsize f o r me the rational f o r y o u r action and
the authority vested and cited by you i n the SECNAV. I w i l l reply t o t h i s email.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

^
ManningB^004498S2

^^^^^LATEEXHIBIT^^^
l^AGEREFERENGED^^^^
^^GE
^OF
PAGE^

33148

Original Message
From: Wright LtCol Troy V
To: Oltman Col Robert G
Cc: Greer LtCol ChristopherM; Galaviz CW05 Abel; DurhamCIV DanM; Pagan CIV Radomet R
Sent: F r i Mar 0410:4^:482011
Subject: FW: Manning early bird a r t i c l e
Col Oltman:
Sir, 1 just wanted to pass on t o you a professional opinion from PSL that we have some
concerns about recent (within the last 2-3 days) decisions made by the commanding o f f i c e r of
the Quantico brig. To take measures that are consistent with suicide watch but not
o f f i c i a l l y place that person i n a suicide watch status i s inconsistent with the way we are
supposed to do business. We understand there may be some concern about taking actions which
may result i n another A r t i c l e 138 complaint but i f we are doing business they way we are
supposed to there i s nothing t o worry about.
Very respectfully,
LtColWright
LtColTroyV. Wright
Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch
Security Division (PS); Plans, Policies ^ Operations (PP^O)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Galaviz CW05 Abel
Sent: Friday, March 04, 20118:45
To: Pagan CIVRadomet R; Wright LtCol Troy V; Burris MGySgt Richard L; GillespieCTR TabO
Subject: Manning early bird a r t i c l e
Gentlemen, news from today^s Early Bird.
Soldier In Leaks Case Was Dailed Naked, Lawyer Says
By Charlie Savage
WASHINGTON A lawyer f o r Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of
leaking secret government f i l e s to WikiLeaks, has complained that his c l i e n t was stripped and
l e f t naked i n his c e l l f o r seven hours on Wednesday.
The conditions of Private Manning^s confinement at the Marine brig i n Quantico, Va., have
drawn criticism i n recent months from supporters and his lawyer, Oavid E. Coombs.
The soldier^s clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand
naked outside his c e l l during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said i n a posting on his Web s i t e .
^^This type of degrading treatment i s inexcusable and without justification,^^ Mr. Coombs
wrote. ^^It i s an embarrassment to our m i l i t a r y justice system and should not be tolerated.

ManningB^004498S3

33149

pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing w i l l happen to him again tonight. No other
detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.^^
First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private
Manning^s clothing taken from him. He said that the step was ^^not punitive^^ and that i t was
in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.
^^It would be inappropriate for me to explain it,^^ Lieutenant Villiard said. ^^I can confirm
that i t did happen, but I can t explain i t toyou without violating the detainee^s privacy.
Private Manning is being held as a maximum security detainee under a special set of
restrictions intended to prevent self-injury, even though supporters say there is no evidence
that he is suicidal.
During an appearance on MSNBC earlier on Thursday, Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon press
secretary, attributed the general conditions of Private Manning^s confinement to ^^the
seriousness of the charges he s facing, the potential length of sentence, the national
security implications^^ and to protect him from potential harm.
Also^ earlier on Thursday, one of Private Manning^s friends, Oavid House, said in a
conference call with reporters that he had visited the soldier the previous weekend and that
his mental condition was severely deteriorating as a result of being confined to his cell 23
hours a day, with one hour to exercise in an empty room, and largely isolated from human
contact.
But Mr. House said that Private Manning did not seem suicidal and contended that he was being
pressured to cooperate.
Investigators have been seeking evidence that could implicate Dulian Assange, the WikiLeaks
founder, as a conspirator in the leaking of the military and diplomatic documents and videos.
Mr. House spoke on the conference call with Daniel Ellsberg, who compared the leaking of
documents to WikiLeaks to his own leaking of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. On
Wednesday, the Army announced 22 additional charges against Private Manning, including
^^aiding the enemy.
The charge sheet did not explain who ^^the enemy^^ was, leading some to speculate that i t was a
reference to WikiLeaks. On Thursday, however, the military said that i t instead referred to
any hostile forces that could t^enefit from learning about classified military tactics and
procedures.
Respectfully Submitted,
CWOSAbelGalaviz
Head, Corrections Section
PP^O, PS Division, PSL Branch
(b) (6)

^Don^t t e l l people how todo things. Tell them what to do and let them surpriseyou withthe
results.

ManningB^004498S4

0 33150

From: oltman Col Robert

sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:46 PM

To: Johnson Col Thomas Miner Col Chrisiopher Greer Christopher

Cc: LtGen George Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Monenson Col Royal;

Neill CAPT Mary; Salas Col Bryan Streng CIV Peter Logsdon CIV Richard Rothlein
CIV Julius; Jenks CIV Chuck Villiard 1st Lt Brian 8
Subject: RE: HUFFINGTON POST QUERY
Signed By:

answer A4: should be "good order and discipline" vice "disciple."
Answer A7, I would keep the first sentence and delete the second; it adds no value to the
question and throws CWO Barnes out there again.

Col R.G. oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico




From: Johnson Col Thomas
. Sent: wednesday, March 16, 2611 15:22
To: Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCol Christopher
Cc: LtGen George Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Mortenson Col Royal;
oltman Col Robert Neill CAPT Mary; Salas Col Bryan Streng CIV Peter Logsdon CIV
Richard Rothlein CIV Julius; Jenks CIV Chuck Villiard 1st Lt Brian
Subject: HUFFINGTON POST QUERY

Another query/response for your review/edits and routing up the chain for approval.

Q1. Have and been used improperly to assist in what has been
perceived as the ?torture? of Bradley Manning? If so, what is the justification?
A1. Medical professionals in the military are dedicated to the health and well-being of
service members. Pfc. Manning is being treated fairly, with dignity and respect.

Q2. It was mentioned that the Quantico jail could not comment on the rationale behind the
forced nudity of Bradley Manning, other than for his own safety. Further comment could not
be made based on ?privacy issues.? How could that occur without a valid HIPAA form filled
out by Manning himself or his next of kin? Even military doctors are under HIPAA and to
violate HIPAA would trigger a possible 20 year jail term for the doctors. was a HIPAA form
filled out? was Manning alert and able to do authorize this? were his next of kin notified?
A2. HIPAA laws protect service members from unauthorized disclosure of personal health
information. The Privacy Act of 1974 protect service members from unauthorized disclosure of
personal records or the contents within those records. As a matter of policy, we will not
disclose information protected under either law.

Q3. Multiple medical groups have condemned the use of solitary confinement and sensory
deprivation as torture which can often lead to severe damage. How do the doctors
treating and assessing Manning defend themselves?

A3. Pfc. Manning is not in solitary confinement. He is housed in a single-person cell, as
is every other detainee in the Quantico brig. He is granted the same rights and privileges
allowed for any maximum custody detainee.

1 APPELLATE
REFERENC rm:



Q4. You have claimed that Manning is not in solitary as other soldiers speak to him every 5
minutes to ask if he is ok. The understanding is that Manning is in a cell where he cannot
see others, and he is not permitted to speak to others. He does not receive any news, books,
company, etc., and is only allowed outside this cage for one hour of the 24. How is this not
solitary confinement?

A4. Due to the layout of the brig, no detainee has direct view of another detainee.
Detainees are allowed to converse with other detainees, provided the conversation does not
become disruptive or interfere with good order and disciple.

All detainees, to include Pfc. Manning, are allowed to order books, periodicals and
newspapers, and may send/receive mail. Each detainee receives one hour of television time
per day and may watch any of the available channels. All maximum custody detainees are
restricted to their cells unless receiving visitors, visiting with legal representatives,
making phone calls or showering. None of the time spent for the above mentioned activities
counts against the additional one hour of recreation time allowed for detainees.

How is this treatment any better than what Manning could have received under the
How do you or your superiors plan to defend yourselves against
Charges of unconstitutional abuse

Q5.
previous Bush administration?
charges of crimes against humanity? Charges of torture?
such as indefinite detention?

AS. we will not discuss politics. Pfc. Manning is being treated fairly, with dignity and
respect. All conduct at the brig is professional and respectful, and within the rules and
regulations set forth by Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1649.9, Navy Corrections Manual.

US Congressman Kucinich has requested a visit with Manning. He has been given ?the run
How do you justify denying a US

Q6.
around,? and as such has been issued a de facto denial.
Congressman legal access to Manning?

A6. Please address this question with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Q7. The orders surrounding Manning's treatment come from what source? Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs? The President? Department of Justice? who?

A7. Detainee confinement, including Pfc. Manning's, is guided by SECNAVINST 1640.9. The

brig commander has the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees
under her charge, and to ensure they make it to trial.

Does DOD consider itself to be above the civilian law? Please explain.
Please address this question with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Q8.
A8.

Taken at 1345, 16 March, by 1stLt Brian villiard from:

Jeanine Molloff, Freelance Journalist, contributing to Huffington Post

Deadline: Friday



Col. T.V. Johnson
Quantico PAO

ManningB_00514178

0 33152
From: Oltman Col RobertG?>



Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 9:29 AM
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Choike Col Daniel
nson omas
nstop or
Subject: Re: Marming Article

Great summary chief concur 100%. Did not give my view as I am biased.

Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Kauzlarich Col Mark

To: Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel Johnson Col Thomas Greer LtCol
Christopher

Sent: Sat Mar 05 09:24:01 2011

Subject: Re: Manning Article

CO,

Read article ?rst thing this morning. Villiard sounded knowledgable and objective. Public can
draw own conclusions from, can tell you that this was event driven."

Top cover from would have deffussed allegations that measures are punitive.
Respectfully,



Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Choike Col Daniel Johnson Col Thomas Greer Christopher Kauzlarich Col
Mark

- Sent: Sat Mar 05 07:42:36 2011

Subject: Manning Article

An

AP article in Freelance Star this morning.

Sent from my BlackBen'y Handheld

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 519
_j
PAGE OF PAGES

ManningB_00514201

. . 33153
From: Wright LtCol Troy

Sent; Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:08 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Bunis Richard

Cc: Averhart CWO4 James Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Tomorrow? Visit

Sir,

One of the complaints in the press that's getting a lot of play is PFC Manning's MAX custody status. lthought that just like
a competent doctor who has con?dence in his own wont would recommend that a patient get a second opinion before a
major surgery/treatment that having Army Corrections take a second look at the custody classi?cation of Manning would

verify that Quantico brig got it right.
I will wave Mr. Stroebel off first thing in the morning if you don't want this any more.


LtCol Wright

Oman Robert

sent: Tue 1/11/2011 4:12 PM
To: Wright LtCol Troy Burris Richard
Cc: Averhart CWO4 James Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: Tomorrow? Visit

Gents

Spoke with C01 Choike today about Mr. Stroebel's visit tomorrow. Given the recent email from Carlyle Shelton stating that both the
USA IG and USMC are satis?ed with the package they have been provided, with regard to Manning, we no longer feel that a
visit/independent assessrnem from Mr. Stroebel will provide any value. If he is looking at our facility as part of an
assessment/validation of our capability as a PCF then we will gladly accept his visit If he is coming to only look at actions with
respect to Manning then we request that the visit be canceled Please advise if there are any questions.


Col R.G. Oltrnan

Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantioo



APPELLATE EXHIBIT

PAGE or PAGES

ManningB_00449937

. . 33154
From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:53 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Re: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody

classifications

Agree and VVILCO. keep you posted

Sent from my B|ackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Mon Jan 1017219217 2011

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Roger. As long HQMC is here during the visit, then lets proceed. CG has been pushing
through his channels that we get just need to coordinate the conduct of
the visit, have HQMC present and before anything is reported up the chain, we get a chance
to comment. Arm-chair quarterbacks not experts that understand our
service procedures and local SOP under the existing they are willing to look
long and hard, rather than drive by and should be good. Your involvement every
step of the way with HQMC engaged is critical to these visits.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico. VA 22134-5001



essage--?

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 17:00

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Greg Stoebel, He works in Army Corrections Command. I have no problem pushing him off
easily done with an email we can request he up Col Shumake of OSD. I have heard
nothing about the OSD visit.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer

Security BN, MCB Quantico

- APPELLATE



PAGE
PAGE or

ManningB_O0514093

0 0 33155
Hessage--?

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:56

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Bob,

When you say "he" will be here at 1330, are your talking about Col Shumake? I know that
CWO5 is scheduled to visit on Weds, but wasn't aware that Col Shumake is coming. Am I
correct here, or off base?

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



rigrna
From: Oltman Col Robert
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:42

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Dan

Based off discussions with the Chief he is slated to be here wed at 1330. The Chief and I will
be with him. I share you concerns, and have discussed with Galaviz. I recommend we hit him
up with it again on Wed a.m. when he is here and request he be present at the 1330 meeting
as well.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico




-?Origina| Message??-
From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:33

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Anny Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Bob,

Concur with you concerns and I think we would be better served with OSD evaluating and not
just Army Corrections. This may be one in the same, seeing that Col Shumake is an US Army
officer, but operates in a different capacity.

If we think through this process of evaluation (I think we need to do it even with some

ManningB_0051-1094

33155

concerns), then what about HQMC PSL evaluating us first and have them sponsor the Army
or OSD Corrections experts to follow suit to compare notes. We need to stress the
importance of concurrence in what we are doing, in light of all the attention received. CWO5
Galaviz is still coming by to visit this Weds, we might need to discuss this beforehand.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



--Original
From: Oltman Col Robert
Sent: Monday, Januaiy 10, 2011 13:15

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: FW: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Gentlemen

FYSA. This is a result of the email exchanges of the past few weeks. I am open to showing
our facility to anyone who wants to see it but I do have some reservations about an
independent assessment of our detainees. We should expect that if ?their opinion is different
from ours, Manning's defense council will get that information and exploit it in the press.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico





-?-Original
From: Galaviz CW05 Abel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:33

To: Avemart CWO4 James

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet Wright LtCol
Troy

Subject: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classi?cations

Col Oltman, CWO Averhart, as agreed previously we have asked the Army Corrections HQ's
if they would conduct a review of your custody classi?cation process and decisions made in
Manning as an outside USMC source. Greg Stroebel has agreed and suggested
Wednesday the 12th between 1330 and 1400 as the best opportunity for him to make it down
there. Please advise on the supportability of this suggested date and time.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section

PS Division, PSL Branch

ManningB_00514095

0 0



on peop ow to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

ManningB_0051-1096

33158

SIJIQIDE I PREVEN OF INJURY QEVIEW

From: Captain Hooter 20100806
To: Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
Last, First, Middle Init. SSN RCN

1. The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:

MAXIMUM SR
Ijlnmate DOES pose a threat to himself [3 Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
B/Further mental evaluation IS necessary '1 Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary

natc DOES NEED to be segregated from general Inmate DOES NOT need to he segregated from
population general population

Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration /stress Inmate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration stress

Cl

Remarks:

9 I: Ao?r Kl? 15>
.
.

'"uA
4 .419











is AD

wil am .'HocEer, MD
CAPT MC USN


APPELLATE
Pmi:
PAG PAGES



Ma nningB_000431 27



33159

From: Hocter, William J.

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Neill. Mary CAPT

Subject: RE: Update Brio staff

Signed By:

Roger. Thanks i

Message--?--

From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Hocter, William 3.

Subject: Re: Update Brig staff

Got it, I am with the base commander as we speak and will present your
recommendations directly to Co. will get back to you shortly.

Original Message
From: Hocter, william 3.

To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Tue Aug 10 10:35:02 2010
Subject: RE: Update Brig staff

Skipper-I just spoke to Blevins about the detainee. They have the
necessary paperwork from me and the OIC received it yesterday. Per
the OIC elected to continue suicide precautions, not from a suicide risk
standpoint, but for security reasons. I do wish they would at least let him
have his clothes back (I recommended no shoelaces or belts for example). I'm
not real happy about this. However, my experience with the Brig has been
that they stick to their guns. I'd appreciate your thoughts.


CAPT Hocter



From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:27 PM
To: Hocter, William 3.

Subject: Update Brig staff
Importance: High

Doc,

If the recommendation from you and Col Malone is to move from suicide
precautions to prevention of injury would you please ensure this has been
communicated to the brig staff so they can allow appropriate clothing, etc?
Seems like there may be a disconnect and the detainee is still on suicide
precautions. Thank you.



C0

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN
Commanding Officer
Naval Health Clinic Quantico

APPELLATE



ManningB__00449848 PAGE. 0 PAGES





33160

RISK PREVENTIQN QF INJURY ASSIGNMENT REVIEW

From: Captain Hooter 20100327
T02 Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
MANNING. swam 2-
Last, First, Middle Init. SSN RCN
l. The following action is recommended for subject:
Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIMUM SQ-1 POI

Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself
B/Further mental evaluation IS necessary

Inmate DOES NEED to be segregated from general
population

lnmatc has a LOW of frustration /stress



Medical Remarks:
wt

fig

mntate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself

Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary

DOES NOT need to he segregated from
general population

nmatc has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration I stress

Cl

Ci-?ti

90.IDIJQESLIQE - .
11$ . {Elm . .. .mw(m

CAPT MC USN



ManningB_000-13126

APPFIJ. ATE

PAGE OF





33161

From: Neill, Mary CAP

Sent: Monday. October 18, 2010 5:13 PM

To: Ebitz Maj Amy Lyons Stephen Greer Ltcol Christopher Johnson Col Thomas

Jenks CIV Chuck Kauzlanch Col Mark

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel

Subject: RE: DET MANNING WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT

signed By:

Team,

Medical Clinic Update through 15 October 2010:

1. Detainee seen by Naval Health Clinic Quantico Mental Health provider,

CAPT Hocter on 12 Oct and 15 Oct 2610. Planned visit on 22 October 2010.

Detainee remains stable and adjusted to routine. CAPT Hocter continues to

recommend removal of POI precautions, but defers to brig For determination

of status according to brig protocol. CAPT Hocter has also recommended that

detainee be allowed opportunity to exercise in cell as he has noted a

decline in physical conditioning in detainee over past weeks. I

2. Contingency plan For Mental Health provider coverage has been activated
in the event of CAPT Hocter?s absence and unavailability. we have a
qualified civilian contractor who will have their position description
modified to enable them to provide services at the Brig when needed.

Respectfully submitted,

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN
Commanding Officer
Naval Health Clinic Quantico





From: Ebitz Maj Amy

Sent: Friday, October 1

To: Lyons Ltcol Stephen Greer Ltcol Christopher Johnson Col Thomas
Jenks CIV Chuck Neill, Mary Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel 3
Subject: DET MANNING WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT

Gentlemen and Lady,

As directed.


1 APPELLATE EXHIBIT J42.
M51: . -
PA :5
ManningB_00449904



33162

From: Hooter, William J.

sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:13 AM
To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Subject: RE: Weeklv Report

Signed By:

Ma'am- CAPT Moore and I saw the patient the day after Thanksgiving-the Brig
Admin staff was off for the day. Not surprised we weren't "captured."


CAPT Hocter

Message--?-?

From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Friday, December 93, 2019 9:18 AM
To: Hocter, William J.

Cc: Raimondo, Lisa H. CAPT

Subject: RE: weekly Report

CAPT Hocter,

Thanks for the update. Did you tell me that you were planning a visit on
the

26 Nov, day

after Thanksgiving or the following Monday to cover last week? I thought
that you and CAPT Moore visited. The report from the brig said there were
no mental health visits/evaluations and I was just checking to see if we
need to correct their weekly report. I also want to make sure that we are
sensitive to the wording they are using in the report "due to brig
absence.?

Should any issues arise this has potential to be support for the defense in
that we prescribed a once a week visit and that we also said we would send
alternate behavioral health provider in the event that primary was not
available. Not my intent to dictate medical treatment, but maintain
awareness of highly visible scenario. These reports are seen at very high
levels and may be inaccurate so I want to make sure we are correcting with
respect to our information for the prescribed dates.

50 for the week going forward from 39 Nov the weekly visit that should be
captured in the brig report will be yesterday, 2 Dec 2910. It gets a little
confusing when I augment their report. I am attaching the brig report for
your awareness. Thanks for the continued effort in supporting brig
operations.


CO

--?--Original

From: Hocter, William 3.

Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2616 8:05 PM
To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Subject: weekly Report

Skipper-No change in Manning's condition overall. I'm keeping an on the
1

APPELLATE EXHI BIT

PAGE
ManningB_00513128 PAGE OF





33163

behaviors mentioned in the report last week but am not terribly worried.


CAPT Hocter

ManningB_00513129

33164

From:
Sent
To:

Cc:

sumem:
Signed By:

ALCON,

Neill, Mary CAP

Thursday, October .

Ebitz Maj Amy Lyons LtCo| Stephen Greer LtCo| Christopher Johnson Col Thomas
Jenks CIV Chuck Kauzlarich Col Mark

Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel Raimondo CAPT Lisa
RE: DET MANNING WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT



Please note that our Mental Health provider, CAPT Hocter, has determined
that a weekly visit, vice twice a week, is the appropriate frequency based

on current status of detainee.

Subject to adjustment as required. will

notify if any change to one visit per week.


CAPT Neill

CAPT Mary E. Neill, DC, USN

Commanding Officer

Naval Health Clinic Quantico



??-??Original

Sent: Wednesday, October i

To: Lyons LtCo1 Stephen Greer Ltcol Christopher Johnson Col Thomas
Jenks CIV Chuck Neill, Mary Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Choike Col Daniel 3

Subject: DET MANNING WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT

From: Ebitz Maj Amy

Good Morning Lady and Gentlemen,

As directed.

Major A. R. Ebitz

Executive Officer
Securit Battalion



ManningB_00449890

Marine Cor 5 Base







APPELLATE EXHIBIT 'jZ0%

PAGE

PAGE PAGES

33165

SUICIDE RISK PREVENTION OF INJURY ASSIGNMENT REVIEW

From: Cagtuin Hoctcr. WJ. 30101210
To: Classi?cation and Assigmnent Board DATE
mm B.
Lust. First. Middle lnit. SSN RCN

I. The following action is for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIM UM SQ-I POI
Inmulc DOES pose a threat to himself mute DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
Fuuhcr mcntal IS mcmul evaluation is NOT nccessany
Inmate NEED to he from general Inmate DOES NOT nccal to be segnagatcd l?ro.m
population general population
nmate has a LOW TOI .L-IRANCE of frustration I stress Inmate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
l?rustr;uion I stress

E)

1c i al tticcr? {cmar
ll ll; 1 Sl ks li)?014/?






A







A

william 3. Hocter,
CAPT MC USN

APPELLATE
PAGE REFERENCED:



ManningB__00043115

33166

From: Hocter, Wulliam J.

Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:04 PM
To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Subject: RE: Weekly Manning Report

Signed By:

Skipper-I saw Manning this afternoon. Looks much better. I've recommended
removal from POI. The Brig staff did not have the precaution paperwork for me
today because I was in and out fairly quickly. (I spent an hour there with
Manning and a new patient in from Afghanistan between clinic patients)and I
have asked them to fax it to me tomorrow.



CAPT Hocter



From: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2610 3:26 PM
To: Hocter, William J.

Subject: Re: weekly Manning Report

Got it, thanks for the update and details. we are tracking with getting the
official paperwork lined up to have you covered during your absence so be
thinking about when you want to turnover and introduce to brig staff. Hope
you have a great weekend.



C0

Original Message
From: Hocter, William 3.

To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Sent: Fri Dec 16 15:05:26 2610
Subject: weekly Manning Report

Skipper-Manning looked more anxious and irritable today Although not
suicidal, he appears more vulnerable, and I recommended he stay on POI
today. The most important factor related to his change involves some
environmental changes (TV news removed), which is difficult for a former
intelligence analyst who wants to know what is going on. The situation is
complicated-apparently Fox News reported that Manning's death had been
reported on Twitter. Holiday loneliness also plays a role. I plan to visit
him an additional time this week and to call his attorney to see if some
family and friends might visit.



CAPT Hocter

APPELLATE EXHIBIT A,
PAGE REFERENCE):

ManningB_00449843 PAGE OF

Tut



33167

SUICIDE PREVENTION OF INJURY ASSIGNMENT REVIEW

-1
From: Captain HoctcrTo: Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
mums, mom 2.
Last, First, Middle Init. SSN RCN

1. The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIMUM SQ-1 POI
DOES pose ti threat to himself [Z/Iimtate DOES NOT pose :1 tlireat to himself
2] further mental evaluation 18 necessary Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate DOES NEED to be segregated om general Inmate DOES NOT need to be segregated from
population general population
Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration stress - mate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration stress

Cl

Mgdigg I
em? 71?-?Le Lts<
Mo st/H-1? . w: it con+.vm A-Q ?-Coliom/_






wi igi?m

CAPT MC USN

I
APPELLATE EXHIBIT gm?
PAGE

ManningB_00043114 . P/?Esm-



33168

From: Raimondo, Lisa H. CAPT

Sent: Tuesday. January 18. 2011 5:13 PM
To: Neill, Mary CAPT

Subject: Update from CAPT Hocter 18 JAN
Signed By:

Skipper

CAPT Hocter stopped by to inform you that he was called to the brig urgently
this afternoon to evaluate for an anxiety attack. He indicated that two
of the guards were gruff in their demeanor today and this "sent into
heightened state of anxiety.? (Likely reactive in nature due to guard's
demeanor).

was able to be calmed via dialogue and presence of CAPT Hocter, no new
or additional meds were required. CAPT Hocter's recommendation to brig was
to continue POI, however, he recognizes that the brig guards are now anxious
and they may impart suicide precautions for mbr. CAPT Hocter will relay all
of this to COL Malone.

CAPT Hocter departs tomorrow for his deployment. Plan For Follow-up tomorrow
by either COL Malone or Ms. Cotter at brig.

VR - X0

Lisa H. Raimondo

CAPT NC USN

Executive Officer

Naval Health Clinic Quantico
3259 Catlin Ave

Quantico, VA 22134-6050

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
For the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged intormation. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT ?ag

PAGE
ManningB_0O449842 PAGE PAGES



33169

SUICIDE RISK / Px>EVENTION OF INJURY ASSIGN1Vi..NT REVIEW
From:
To:

Colonel Malone, R. D.
Classification and Assignment Board

20110118
DATE

(b) (6)
MANNING, BRADLEY E .

Last, First. Middle Init.

SSN

RCN

1. Tbe following action is recommended for subject:
Custody:
MAXIMUM
I

Squad Bay:
SQ-1

I Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself

| V l Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
I

Further mental evaluation IS necess.uy



Job:
SUICIDE RISK

Inmate DOES NEED to be segregated from general
population
Inmate bas a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration / stress



I Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate DOES NOT need to be segregated from
general populadon

O:

Inmate bas an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
uslration / stress


Medical Olficer's Remarks:

2^

/tVKu./
ffot

prh

•^-e-cgt^.f / Cf^'^

W'^Kr-

^cgy^'^f'-^^^tJi

^

^"fi^
Ricky D. Malone, MD
COL MC USA
Psychiatrist

/

APPELLATE EXHIBIT VZb
PAGE REFERENCED;
,

PAGE
ManningB_00043105

OF

PAGES

33170

SIJIQIDE RISK Pius VEETIQN QF INJURY . If

From: Captain Hooter, W.To: Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE

Last. First, Middle Init. . . 1

I. The following action is recommended for subject;

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIMUM SQ-1 POI

Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
D?nther mental evaluation IS necessary [3 Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate DOES NEED to he segregated from general Inmate DOES NOT need to be segregated from
population general population

Inmate has :1 LOW TOLERANCE of frustration stress Inmate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration stress

Cl

Medical Qf?cer' Re arks: .- 1
ho?\

[?3J1h.

- 2:5?

Ye



J)

yo
CAPT MC USN


APPELLATE


ManningB_00043106 FAG OF PAGES



IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST IUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

RULING:
v. PROPOSED PLEAS

AND MAXIIWUM
MANNING, Bradley E., PFC PUNISHMENTS
U.S. Army,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, DATED: 28 November 2012
Fort Myer, VA 22211

On 26 October 2012 the Court ordered the parties to address the following issues for each
speci?cation involving a propose plea by the accused.

1. Is the proffered plea a lesser included offense of the charged offense or does it contain amendments to
the speci?cation requiring Convening Authority approval to be a referred offense? U.S. v. Morton, 69
M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F. 2010).

2. Assuming the Court accepts the proffered plea as a lesser included offense of the Charged offense or
the Convening Authority approves amendment of the speci?cation, what is the maximum punishment for
each speci?cation in accordance with the accused?s proffered plea IAW RCM lO03(c)(l)(B) and United
States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

The Court has considered the ?lings of the parties. Neither side requested oral argument. The
Court asked for and received oral argument regarding speci?cation of Charge II. The Court ?nds and
rules as follows:

1. The accused?s proposed pleas to speci?cations Charge 11 under clauses and
2 of Article 134 are lesser included offenses of the offenses charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) and
Article 134. The Court will accept the accused?s pleas to these lesser included offenses if provident. The
Article 134 lesser included offenses are not included in or closely analogous to an offense listed in the
MCM. The conduct and mens rea of the lesser included offenses are not essentially the same as a
violation of United States Code Section 793(e) because the accused is pleading to a residuum of elements
for that offense. AR 380-5 dated 29 September 2000 (Information Security Program) establishes a
custom of the service penalizing disclosures of classi?ed and sensitive information. Disclosures charged
under Article 92 would carry a maximum punishment of reduction to E-l total forfeiture of all pay and
allowances, con?nement for 2 years, and a dishonorable discharge. This will be the maximum penalty for
each of the above lesser included o??ense speci?cations proposed by the accused with a total of 14 years
con?nement for all 7 speci?cations.

2. The remainder of the accused?s proposed pleas are irregular pleas IAW RCM 910(b). The proposed
revised speci?cations are not lesser included offenses of the charged offenses. They are different
offenses. United States v. Diaz, 69 M.J. I27 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (an accused is free to proffer an alternative
plea, but he is not entitled to design his own offense). Without convening authority approval constituting
a constructive referral, the remaining proposed pleas by exceptions and substitutions are charges not
referred to this Court. U.S. v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12, fn 7 (C.A.A.F. 2010). The Court will not accept the
pleas. The pleas are not variances. A variance exists when evidence at trial establishes the commission

1 APPELLATE

PAGE .-



of a criminal offense by the accused but the proof does not conform strictly with the pleadings. United
States v. Allen, 50 M.J. 84, 86 (C.A.A.F. 1999).

3.

The proposed plea to speci?cation 1 of Charge 11 is not a lesser included offense of the
offense charged in that it adds an element of ?knowing that WikiLeaks might publish the
information on the intemet?. ?Knowing? is not a subset of ?wrongfully and wantonly?. This
added element and the substitution of ?wrongfully gave information belonging to the United
States Government to Wikileaks? changes the nature of the conduct the Government charged
as prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

The proposed pleas to speci?cations 4, 6, 8, and 12 of Charge 11 are not lesser included
offenses of the offenses charged in the respective speci?cations. The essence of the offenses
as charged under 18 U.S. C. Section 641 and Article 134 involve a taking, purloining, or
knowing conversion of records belonging to the United States. The substituted words
?removal for an unauthorized purpose? add an element and substantially change the nature of
the conduct the Government has charged is prejudicial to good order and discipline and
service discrediting. In addition, the substituted words are not inherently criminal and
contain no words of criminality. RCM 307(c)(3) Discussion.

The proposed pleas to speci?cations 13 and 14 of Charge II are not lesser included offenses
of the offenses charged in those speci?cations. The essence of the charged offenses under 18
U.S.C. Section 103 is the use of a computer to gain unauthorized access to information
deemed by the Government to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons
of national defense or foreign relations. The proposed substitutions add an element of
?unauthorized possession? and substantially changes the nature of the conduct the
Government has charged is prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

The proposed plea to speci?cation 11 of Charge II is not a lesser included offense of the
offense charged in that speci?cation. The Government has proffered that there were 2
communications of the video at issue, one between on or about 1 November 2009 and 8
January 2010 and a second between on or about 10-12 April 2010. In speci?cation 11 of
Charge II, the Government charged the ?rst communication. The substituted words are a
plea to the second communication which has not been charged or referred to this Court for
trial.

3. In addition to the pleas to the lesser included offense in speci?cations that the
Court has agreed to accept, the accused is also pleading guilty to speci?cation 5 of Charge without
change. Thus the maximum punishment based solely on the accused?s proposed pleas that are accepted
by the Court is reduction to the grade of E-1, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, con?nement for
16 years and a dishonorable discharge.

So ORDERED this 28th day of November 2012.

1


R. LIND
COL, JA
Chief Judge, 1st Judicial Circuit



33173

UNCLASSIFIED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Notice to Court of
DeclassiHcation of Information
(Usama bin Laden Digital Media)

V.

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

29 November 2012
NOTICE

On 21 November 2012, the United States Govemment declassified the following
information for use in this case;
During the raid on Usama bin Laden's (UBL) compound in Abbottabad,
Pakistan, United States govemment officials collected several items of
digital media. From the items of digital media, the following items
relevant to this case were obtained; (1) a letter from UBL to a member of
al-Qaeda requesting the member gather Department of Defense material
posted to WikiLeaks; (2) a letter from the same member of al-Qaeda to
UBL, attached to which were all the Afghanistan significant activity
reports as posted by WikiLeaks; and (3) Department of State information.
The above information is the only information related the UBL raid that has been
declassified; therefore any detail or inference about the digital media, items obtainedfiromthe
digital media, and any process associated with digital media or the raid, except as otherwise
stated above, remains classified.

ASHDENFEIN
MAJ, JA
Trial Counsel

I certify that I served or caused to be served a tme copy of the above on Mr. David
Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 29 November 2012.

ASHDENFEIN
MAJ, JA
Trial Counsel

UNCLASSIFIED

APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE REFERENCED;
PAOE
OF
PAGES



33174



From: Colonel Malone, R. D. 20110113
To: Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
MANNING. BRADLEY 3-
Last, First, Middle Init. SSN RCN

l. The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: ob:
MAXIMUM SQ-1 SUICIDE RISK
Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
8 Further mental evaluation IS necessuy Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate to be segregated from general Inmate NOT need to be segregated from
population general population

Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration stress Inmate has an AVERAGE of
frustration I stress

Cl

Medical Remarks:

?7
7

Ev-flit ovx or 681""
_7,Ul not



Ricky D. Malone, MD
COL MC USA


APPELLATE EXHIBIT _1g5_p

. PAGE
PAGE OF



33175



From: Colonel Malone. R. D. 301 1012 1
T02 Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
Last, First, Middle lnit. SSN RCN

l. The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIMUM SQ-1 SUICIDE RISK
Inmate pose a threat to himself Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself
Further mental evaluation IS necessary Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate DOES NFIED to be segregated from ger.cr'1l Inmate DOES need to be segregated from
population general population

Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCIS of frustration I stress Inmate has an of
frustration stress

Cl

Medicglt) ?c ?s ks:

of

ol?vzcl +0 of



Ricky D. Malone, M)
COL MC USA




APPELLATE


ManningB_00043109 PAGE OF

mu 4



33176

REPORT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH EVALUATION
CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT BOARD

NAME (1 ast, Firsf, MI): SSN: RCN: A

REASON FOR BH EV
suIcI DE WATCH or INJURY OTHER:

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)



BEHAVIOR: HYPERACTNE PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE HOSTILE SUSPICIOUS
LEVEL or DULL SOMNOLENT

LEVEL or= ORIENTATION: TED PARTIAL DISORIENTED



MOOD AND AFFECT: BLE FLAT DEPRESSED LABILE MANIC OR HYPOMANIC
THINKING PROCESS CONFUSED BIZARRE LOOSELY CONNECTED

THOUGHT ABNORMAL HALLUCINATION PARANOID IDEATION
MEMORY: FAIR pooa

ANY ABNORMAL FINDING IN REMARKS
FIN DINGS

MENTAL DISORDER IS: IMPROVING STABLE DETERIDRATING NIA

FOR SUICIDEISELF-HARM IS: MODERATE HIGH

RISK FOR VIOLENCE IS: MODERATE HIGH

BEHAVIORAL Is NOT DUE TO A TREATABLE MENTAL DISORDER (V I 94

INMATE: noEs NEED To BE SEGREGATED FROM GENERAL POPULATION DUE TO A TREATABLE MENTAL

DISORDER
NEEDS FURTHER EXAMINATION: WITHIN 24 HOURS wrrHIN 72 HOURS NIA
OTHER (See Remarks)


ND .44
12:44 \ovJ





EVALUATOR:


DATE MD PRINTED NAME EVOV C5 M4

APPELLATE EXHIBIT
ManningB_00043186
PAGE OF



.
SUICIDE RIS . PREVENTION

From: Colonel Malone, R. D.
To: Classification and Assignment Board

MANNING, BRADLEY E.
Last. First, Middle Init.

I. The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody:
MAXIMUM

Inmate DOES pose a threat to himself
8' Further mental evaluation IS necessary

Inmate DUES NEED to be segregated from general
population

El Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration I stress

Cl

33177

REVIEW

20110128
DATE

SSN RCN

Squad Bay: Job:
SQ-I POI

Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself

Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
Inmate DOES NOT need to be segregated from
general population

Inmate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration I stress

[3

.L

vr\V I OJ







Ievcf gay;

-lo
Fol low

'v

c' --ls -1 V01 cm

ManningB_00043111

Ava/5!;


-Itelivmi.
cal

MD

Ricky D. Malone, VD
COL MC USA


APPELLATE 4; 15/

PAGE
PAGE OF 532 of 1505

33178

.loii^1;R^^ioi^8lCort^^^ioi^8l ^8^1111;^
The IVIid^est Joint l^egional Correctional i^acility^JI^CF) is the neyi/est Department of Defense
(DoD^correctional facility. It isastateof-theart,4^4 tied, medium^minimum custody facility
^itha^^l^ed special housing unit l^uilt to comply with American Correctional Association
Standards. It officially opened on Octotierl^^^2(^10 and received its first military prisoners four
days later. The mission ofthe Jl^CF is to provide pretrial confinement and posttrial incarceration
for LI.S. military prisoners sentenced to up to five years of confinemenL Tbe JI^CI^ staff conducts
correctional and treatment programs in orderto maintain good order and discipline and reduce
recidivism upon release from confinemenL The facility is located adjacent to the LInited States
Disciplinary barracks (L1S8D^; together they form the IVIilitary Correctional Complex (IVICC^ at
^ort Leavenworth, l^ansas. The IVICC is similartoal^ederal bureau of Prisons^ Federal
Correctional Complex in that it clusters several distinct correctional facilities of varying security
levels in one location that share services and manage efficiencies in manpower and logistics.
The JI^Cl^ staff includesateam of mental health professionals, includingapsychiatrisL
psychologisL social workers, and l:iehavioral science noncommissioned officers with experience
in addressing the needs of military personnel in pre and posttrial confinement. The facility's
Directorate of Operations is responsible for security,safety,housing unit operations, military
police investigations and physical security.TheJI^CF also has its own military facility commander
wbo reports to the 15^^ IVIilitary Police SrigadeCommander^1VICCCommander,wholeadsateam
of approximately 1,20(^ trained and experienced Corrections Specialists and Soldiers.
Within the J1^CF,there are six general population housing units capalileofholdingatotal of 4^4
prisoners. All oftbe six general housing units are of the direct supervision design. The
correctional specialist^scontrol panel is located in the housing unit common area, f^ive ofthe
general housing units are two levels with 40 modular cells. 5ach ofthese general housing units
has the capal^ility of housing ^0 prisoners each. The sixth general housing Linit is an open tiay
design with ^2 double I^Links capable of housing ^4 minimum security prisoners. 5ach housing
unit has an open center containing pay phones, tables, chairs, and televisions.

APPELLATEEXHIBIT ^ ^ ^ ^
PAGEREFERENCED;
^
PAGE
GF
PAGES

33179

5ach cell is at least ^(^sc|uare feet, of which ^5 square feet is unencumbered, ^
usable space not taken up by furnishings or fixtures. All cells haveasleeping
surface and mattress,awriting surface and seaL storage for personal items,
and adequate storage space for clothes and personal l^elongings. Lighting in
all cells is at least 20foot-candles at desk level and in personal grooming
areas, and prisoners have access to natural light by means of an opening or
awindow of at least three square feet l^etween the cell and an adjacent
space.
The Special Housing Llnit(S1-1LI)isamultifloor design with 4^ individual cells. The correctional
specialist^scontrol panel is located inasecure observation booth.There are four areas offour
cells each designated for pretrial prisoners awaiting trial. This is where PFC
IVIanning will l^e located. The pretrial living area and daily activities are
T
separate from the general population. Pretrial prisoners are also segregated
from general population prisoners for all meals and recreation. Flowever,
pretrial prisoners, like Pl^CIVIanning, are able to interact with each other ina
common area just outside their individual cells. Pretrial prisoners also
receive^hours of recreation daily and are able to watch television,read or
engage in other personal activities while in their bousing uniL During pretrial
confinemenL pretrial prisoners have access to religious support, medical and mental health
care, personal and legal visitation, phone calls, and are authorised to write and receive mail
daily.
The Jl^C^occLipies approximately 40 acres of property witba250,000 square foot facility
consisting of five buildings. The exterior walls ofthe facility were built using 1,4^^ precast
concrete panels. QLitside the secure perimeter of the fence is an administrative 1:iui1ding,a
utility building and the 1V1CC warehouse. Inside the secure perimeter isavehicle access security
l^uilding and the main multi purpose l^uilding. The main l^uilding is divided into multiple zones
consisting of legaL food service, medical^dental clinics, education, chapel, prisoner services,
visitation,vocational training, 1ibrary,gymnasium,laundry,administrative offices and the
general population housing units.There is an open air central recreation yard consisting ofa
softl^all field, two full sized tiasketbal1courts,ahandbal1 court, weight pad with eight stack
weight systems, andapaved running track, all with exterior lighting.The perimeter fence
consists of two 12 foot chain link fences, topped with wire and an intrusion detection system
monitored from the central control. The perimeter is illuminated by security lighting and
monitored by CCTV and roving security patrols.

33180

Joint Regional C'orrectional Facility

Ft. I etivenuorth. Kansas

1

ManningB_00012911

APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAai§

L

33181

.loint Regional Correctional Facility

^

DOD Corrections Authority
• Title 10 USC, Chapter 47, UCMJ
• Title 10 USC, Chapter 48, Sections 801-940
• DOD Directive 1325.4
- Confinement of Military Prisoners and Administration of Military
Correctional Programs and Facilities

• DOD instruction 1325.7
- Administration of Military Correction Facilities and Clemency and
Parole Authority

• AR 190-47, The Army Corrections System

J

ManningB_00012912

33182

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Correctional Facilities
LEVEL 111
IJSDB
.VLi,\iivuuii Scciirin
Prison
./'

LEVEL1
Jjil Operation
Pre-trial and Short
Term Post-Trial
Conlinemciil

ManningB_00012913

LE\ EL 11
Miniimmi/McdiiMiJ Security'
Prison and Pre-trial
Confiiteinent

33183

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Mission

«xoisi

The JRCF mission is to provide pretrial confinement
and post-trial incarceration for U.S. Military inmates
sentenced to up to five years of confinement. The JRCF
staff conduct correctional and treatment programs in
order to maintain good order and discipline and return
productive Soldiers/citizens upon their release to
military or civilian environments.

ManningB_00012914

33184

15*h MP Brigade Organizational Structure
:i»MPSr^fg*{
cu^wNtv'tfe ^sy s
C0i:ifftAti6«Hi

OepM?/ Brigade
GcrttTianiSei-

MCC
CJM»? of Staff

Cwn-r.w^
Agv*;:4:t

^tt^^K-fi :
Pokey
M-in>gerriW ;

Faoi.iv

USDS Deputy
C-oHVttartCiMK

-:0"' MP aatlaton
ConBT.iwdor

•':>$'•• MP aaa»Jttit)

J S C F Cm'rtJr.vixtj:
1
. . . .

: EwwrkfA* *?! ;
Cp««i:or$

j

V,

AFi»r«).:yK

1

-

J
5 X f ^ f , X 4 * 4f
Jjl-tl&JiiiCIOKl

,:l^.,«5«,

;

•^iCWlb

-.S'j'iSP-M

\

mis!

tiHt.jRCr

j:

Si«*
osaih

S(f*l
WTC. :jaoe

Reivkw
r>riar«(i ServiCBS

ManningB_00012915

33185

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Treatment Programs
Health Clinic:
' Reception physical (health needs)
• Daily sick call/minor procedures
• Audiology booth
• Dental Clinic
• Laboratory
• Referral to installation/local specialist
Assessment Division:
• Conducts archival research
• Assesses internal and external risk
• Develops inmate management action
plan (links classification to risk
assessment)
Mental Health Division:
• Conducts psychometric tests to
assess Inmate functioning
• Treats all mentally ill inmates
• Coordinates psychiatric services

ManningB_00012916

Rehabilitation Division (Post Trial):
• Conducts treatment groups
r Case management group
r Chemical abuse and addiction
program
r Assaultive offender group
«- Sex offender treatment
program.'sex offender
maintenance group
- Anger mar>agement group
• Coordinates self groHlh programs
r Alcoholics Anonymous
- Narcotics .Anonymous

33186

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Pastoral Care
Religious Program:
• Worship services
• Religious education
' Religious classes and meetings
• Facilitate faith support groups
' Support over 26 different religions
Religious Media Room:
• Books
• Videos
Counseling:
• Religious preferences
• Individual

ManningB_00012917

Other Support:
• Volunteers
• Music
• Education
• Admin Segregation Checks

33187

^

. o i n . Regional correctional Facilln

^

Institutional SeiTices
Mailroom:
• Screening (in/outgoing)
• Personal property

Laundry:
• inmate detail
• Personal clothing/bedding

Dining Facility;
• Inmate detail
• DFAC advisory counsel
• Daily operations

Inside/Outside Ground Maintenance:
• Inmate detail
• Area beautification

Funds Management:
• Telephone
• Personal property
• Personal finances
• Health and comfort items

,

Phone Services:
• .Account management

,

8

ManningB_00012918

33188

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Correctional Programs
Work Opportunities:
• Barber apprenticeship
• Textile repair
Education:
• Academic skills training
• Adult basic education assessment
• Independent study courses



External degree completion

Library:
• Law
' Leisure

Pre-Release:




ManningB_00012919

Resume
Job Search
Reintegration

Recreation:
• Indoor
r Basketball
- P9CX
>- Nautilus
r- Volleyball
' Ping pong
• tDutdoor
> Soccer
f Handball
r Fixed weights

^'^1

33189

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Administration
Correctional Treatment File:
• Administrative information
• Disciplinary
• Staff communication
Parole and Clemency Boards:
• Post trial only
Victim/Witness:
• Communication

Visitation:
• Program management
• Request
In/Out Processing:
• Sentence computation
• Transportation
• Finance
• Unit coordination
• Temporary release

Custody Classification Boards:
• Initial
• Annual
• Unscheduled

10
ManningB_00012920

33190

Joint Regional Correctional Facilit)
Operations
Security and Control:
• Physical security
• Transportation support

Policy and Procedures:
• Guide for inmates
• Standard procedures
• Regulations

Daily Operations:
• Reception operations
• Special Housing Unit (SHU) operations
• Housing unit counselors
• Watch commander oversight
Discipline:
• Investigation section
• Recommends disposition
Inmate Advisory Counsel:
• Monthly
• Inmate opportunity to influence change

11
ManningB_00012921

33191

^^Jp

Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Reception O[»erations

Arrival:
• 'Verify confinement order
• Inventory property
• Photo and fingerprint

Additional:
• Next of kin notification
• Establish funds account
• Establish visitation list
• Establish call list

Medical:
• Mental health assessment
• Physical health assessment
• Dental health assessment
1

Integration:
• Classes
• Rule book
Risk Assessment:
• Internal and external
• Management program
• Initial classification

mmmm

12

ManningB_00012922

33192

Joint Regional CorrectionalFacility
Fre-Trial ( only) Daily Schedule of Calls
0500
0515-0545
0650-1120
1120-1150
1400-1500
1550-1620
1630-1730
1740-1840
1900-2100
2115-2120
2205

First Call
Breakfast/Medication Call
Work Call (Pre-Trial Housing Area Only)
Lunch/Medication Call
Outdoor Recreation
Dinner/Medication Call
Library Call
Indoor Recreation
Visitation
Medication Call
Lockdown

13

ManningB_00012923

ManningB__00012924




and Respect



14

saevd '3 do 1 new
=3:>N3u3a3u asva
LIHIHXH

sasva 7 so -3 aava
=aoNauaa3u asva


33196

r-:2







L.

:Juz11a1(z'?

THAT I BE THE 9EF3S0N BELOW

I

I
I

Name or; TITLE

aim: wnkanur '4 nwceauswm; CO

i- ANL. THE

2 Reaocir L1?Twtru=
WIQXkw. Ia?; -

HMS L. FY09

pnnsomasr-:

<5

?ah.


I

immuu umm.

ACTION 1: I


. 3 AUTHORIZED

p.

'1 .
RM: mat
7. 35.373147':

N57 AU-HORIZEU unm.--

102:. FOFWVAHDECI TC uram. mm ~.-Ivuumzuum. . 1. DATE
INTERVIEVU WAS HELD Ilvmm.-. unmea DATE

I
a
3

Ava rm


*0 8wn?ma/

/04) 09+; z/fad /5 D11: 7330/?

rumvns mu GRADE 0; sawpmemsw-.

Edema awry

REMARKS 4/la??
50044? 2/ \/4407', 7'9

Ieoww-ad? cm
?5 5 r"n-HM

SIGNLEEOF CONFINEM: -2 OFFICER


Afr 0:951!? 6: Toncru or; PDIJ
communal


3

DC:

FORM 510, 200?:

TIOI-5 55

APPELLATE

PAGE
PAGE P-4559



?cone Prolessaanan

33197



- . "30_11_0_5l
. .-
- .
Foil Both; paw. -.4



have 511/) 4/xdj 51
1-(rt /7



9

we ANT ssnoe o= om: -
57871

CE 510, SEP 200':

3.







hOD2r :Iannr.n .

a92oeLz'= Himw 0? ZTW

RELCHARC
1 ma
3

TH: ?iuribh
lq YW Li??
QESEOLI Poxuns 903
THQ GOOD Souvfigg, DMID
THE

ManningB_00044269

-5.

0 33198

0: an sai 209- --


I
. 70 DATE -- -~w-may:

.
. -



BL Al WITH THE. LCIV.



2 or 1:12;: 3.8 .
I Lib? 15.:
SULJEC1 AND nun:-us: or TH: tNTEnvI?v\

Pmomg. cm?. to! i4TTCFazv??~?
Re: T9132 NAME Ivnnm- mm.? 5 M. laal? 0! Nlhmg.? .,

in Hill?! I. i
W122 - .. mu -
I I ..-..-- I
- _u

We -mm nu mumULTE


Lau? 5

Data /0



:7 mm o=

ManningB_00044270

L):

5.2? 20:?

33199

If!

=31"

I-.: 0' hi?; upmu :nrmu?Im mu

Tl?

'_nnun:m::R-EUUE5-T THIT . B: Al INTERVIEW WITH THE NAMEC


- TH: OW
I Riizuirr Qllr-~
LDL9 NQT THL OF 13%)

V: A own, Ui



3

. NA



Ana;

Immrl

9. was

A

i SEFIVIC. NL

?l

"1





RQ7

05?: or NH. ssewn yy.
?W/?vr

In um? I-- {Iluun

In


IL



AUTHORIZE NU um mm"
1 (1 mum? at: -IL LII Ti?? Mn-. -
HEC. m: um-Ia . an mum-1 I

5799:

3/8/11

?70/0

1:



94)

wt}
fe?5l/A n-If?

2- ?v?yr

6o/why)?
back me@ 3%

op

Sad:/?

um/?r

?c,
/ivxia

v.
I-

ManningB_00044271

NAME. ANL GRADC. OF ?-?nrum

f7?g?? 3/60 55

"1 3'

}LIna 0-





. . 33200

REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW

?vzvazv btaremen. 0/ out uerore :onmIenn;- mm.-

TO 1. DATE MMDD

Cunfm:-m::n A3 -7-0

REQUEST THAT. I BE AUTHORIZED AL INTERVIEW WITH THE PERSON

3 NAME OR TFTLE



4 uaJs:iTm> PURPOSE or we I
?To ms?

Fkreubf \io$2r?\ In-eh,

5 NAME -35 mlua: DEPT OF MIL SERVICE 2. SIGN O7
mama Begum 6. Ram -- '2

ACTION -06- ftlleo tr Confmernen' (If//cc-r 5
91. WAS 1 DATE
ALLTHORIZED (Sum. reason: urme :1 I :1
FOFIWAIQED TO Ilvanr an: .ua.m..au(u pnnu-L .5 DATE 'n4n7DD

WITH pma- um /mm..zauor pnnu:/I 1, DATE

REMARKS

?-157?

13 NAME AND GRADE OF 14 SIGNATURE OF CONFINEMENT
gs
DD FORM 510. SEP 2001 vasvlous, Enrnor

ManningB_O004-1272



33201

REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW

(Hem: Pm/an Ac: on ma?! ue/om .

(.onfm::m.u:

2 DATE

.11

REQUEST THAT I BE AUTHORIZED AN INT ERVIEW WITH THE PERSON NAMED BELOW

AME OF: TITLE

B?-rt NT

I 1

4 SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW

16 E9

or

5 Pmsonepss NAME {Ln Fur: - SS- -

5-

DEPT OF MIL SERVICE 8 SI TUBE OF PRISONER
Ham?

ACTION /70 be - Con?nement Ol?cerl

7'
7.

4;



INTERVIEW WAS

AUTHORIZED NOT AUTHORIZED (Show reasons urur. ?r-murxs'

DATE I

10a FORWARDED T0 (Name. Glam. arm 0I_mmI2mIon,

HS INITI-I (Name, (Jabs. and

5194 Qemb

N.

DATE

ab :7vvMMu'-
I I

12.nEMAm
cr.-Io? ml



13 NAME AND GRADE OF CONFINEMENT OFFICER

?743; gum;



14 SQNAJURE OF CONFINEMENT OFFICER

DD FORM 510; SEP 2001

ManningB_O0044273

4/


EDI MAY BE USED

Mono Plolosuonal 7 0







REQUE FOF.

/heat. I-nvoct Ac! on has! below lam.

I 2 DATE
I

(unimcnusm Of?ucx 3.0 1 7 e. '1

REQUEST THAT I BE AUTHORIZED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PERSON NAMED BE LOW



1; SUBJEC1 AND PURPOSE OF THE: INTERVIEW . I
Riavm? D134: f~c- JF
80 INA.) CC NOUQT

5 PRIS NAME (L851, Mldd/F lmu0!' 7 DEPT. OF SERVICE 8 SI
rm x~m?L- 5 name .
ACTION (To be hired In ov Confmemen: OfficerAUTHORIZED NOT AUTHORIZED mason.-. undo!

FOHWARDED TD (Nann. Gladc. um- O/gomzauon, planted? I DAT -7

-1 HELD WITH I/varm.. 0rpanTnuaI.. .

g/Mrs I o7o/0

12 REMARKS O15 #15 4A7
4:040 ?If ma-7 A/Llugf 4
47? no-,I?
la I24



H.is Ac. In Mg.
13 NAME AND GRADE or OFFICEFI mama.? 14 SIGN BE OF CONFINEMENT OFFICER
/7 g07L /g/C/1:5



DC FORM 510, 2001 PREVIOUS EDITION MAY BE Promsnnu 7 0

ManningB_O0044274

. . . 33203

REQUEST FOF: INTERVIEVV

Ac .$tawmeu um?! noruu-v mm.

1 To I 2 DATE
Cmumcluzsm I I L7
FIEQUEST THAT I BE AUTHORIZED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PERSON NAMED BELOVI

3 NAME on TITLE .SULJECT AND PURPOSE OF NTEHVIEW

I RECQUCST Qcw"g CF Li?

.aoo

7 new or MIL as or pmsongea

- I

5 NAME lLas.. In/Hall

E. I



ACTION no be men bv Confmemem omcer; '7
9a was DATE
AUTHORIZED [3 NOT AUTHORIZED reasons undo? Remarks:

108 FORWARDED TD [Name Grade, am? DATE

.1a' n?ea VIEW WAS HELD WITH (Name. Grade.

gI?n.s

as
MAS.-D wv-5 I-C-5 LE5 ?leij /3 be,
s/vb) W.) Mia? or 1,7 ,3/as

'iia.'T:

II Ia-1






13. NAME AND GRADE OF CONFINEMENT OFFICER (Printed! I 14- SIG URE OF CONHNEMENT OFFICER
4725+ 8/24.; I 3
DD I PREVIOUS EDITION MAY BE USED Aaobe F'roIcsuonaI7O

ManningB_00O44275



33204

REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW

(Read Privacy Ac! Statement on bacl. before completing /om:

Officer

2 DATE

QOIOOBN7

REQUEST THAT I BE AUTHORIZED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PERSON NAMED BELOW

3 NAME OR TITLE

STH Fr:

TORDAN, HKM1

4 SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW

mat,? OE Fotvii?


5 NA

(um, rust, M/ddlv Imualt

Hanan 8

(HT



'7 DEPT OF MIL SERVICE

8 SI OF PRIS Canflnemem Officer}

ea INT vnew WAS
AUTHORIZED NOT AUTHORIZED (Show under Re-nnark.-u

IJ. DATE

10a FORWARDED TO Gram. aml punter]!

DATE

118 INTERVIEW WAS
3


ELD WITH Grade. and 0/gnmzauon, pnnledl






DATE I

9 LQC7, 5'

12 REMARKS

5/4?

5.-



cxoo13. NAME AND GRADE OF CONFINEIVIENT OFFICER (Famed!

Sm

14 SIGNAT

OF ONFINEMENT OFFICER



I43



DD FORM 51o,'sEP 2ob1

Manning

vnevnous somon MAY 55 use;

I

Adobe Prolusvond 2?

"xi

33205

82 go mm?

hm_o

nL_w_> .mm_ mm?

$000-00 0.: mm; .00 2

0>mEo:m 50> 00:0; 30> 0>mI

090; 20> 0m=m_> >mEo:m 3:030 50> mm:

. E03000: 5 0.0.0.0 :0 9.300 new 000003 Sm?xm .0: LE



w>0E0=m 3:300 50> 3 $0000 03; 30> on

2.00 0 0.
m00mE 30> 9.0: 2.00 26:

n..m__mo >00 000E

. wmmooum 022. 30> on

30220800. 0.20 A30: 0:0 >23 Sm.B.x0 .0:

\cN.
0>m0 comm 95. 30:

?>00 :03 0E: :o=m2u0._ 020:0 30>

Emtco?mq mam. >30: 0:0 >23 Em?xm .0>0am 05 .6 >20 8 0:

o_0..s9 0 30> 05

0.00m 9,0; 0.0

00000 m>mc 30> 05

9.200 05

09.0; 30> 00 E320: ho >:mE 301

00.32 c_ mE0E.mm cmm_u 9.200 20>

F0082. 00000.5. .0:

.wm:_:mo_u So mc_Eo_u .550 0:0 mczuzq



?st m0?0m.c go #53 0.5.0020 0 8:03 0208:. 05 ?mm .02 at
3.05 .mm_ 05 003



u0:w_> oc>>

.wc_m_am:o 0 >2 00:03 coon

0:05 .00. 05 mm? cmE>>
o:0> 02_m_> 93>
0:2: 50> >0 00:03 :03 30>

o>_mE: 00:003.. _mu=u0E 9: mm; .00

9.00 000200.. 8 30: ?.E0m. 32:00.. .020 $200300 .0:

IV

0900 0900300. 0>m; .00
@0000: .3200 95: on

00:030.. _mo_umE 05 mm; .00 2
?.900 303000 0. .0305 .000 Bcco?mq 0.20 .0: .E



0:0 .0 0.50 00.00200. 20> 0>mc .00
.3505 022 on



02

mm;

62030030

:05 n_O omoomm
o_mm 00:z
APPELLATE EXHIBIT lo



055

9

PAGE
PAGE OF



PAGES

Manning

33206



82 .8 3?

53 mama.



LHWX 94.3% o2

Bmcaou m.8mE=._ 2: 2 >Qou 2.
>aumJE =0 on E2 muoocm b2?QEou .mEm.:o 2.

.23m:m_m ._m3w_EmE_

.mEmz

23
.2323 m.EmEc_

memz

who Emu 9.3 can 95 mumwc m>mc_ on

$3.9 65.3 9.2 25:

m:o> uwcaoc oc>>

omocm>m:m 5o>_o cacao: m.mc>>

Q2

0: mm: Cu um; 30> m>mI

wxooaucmi m_mEc_ m? 30> ED

cum? 9: >p cm am Em

SmEc_ 9: on

.2 u> 3.3.,

2: >9 uaumoh cows o>mc Bo: ?ma. muc_m.

5&7

>2 coon :o>.o>mc Bo: awn. ousm

.1r\(w

35 new catch >30: bum Sm?xm .05.:

co :o:mo_umE 9: am on

xx,

n..umn_._owEa 9.: E05 Em oo



x\

mama: mczuom
9: gm .5 E5 mm; .om

>?a2om

Bum mE= ?mm. 9.: mm; cmE>>

>58. .5 c2m>> mu_u_=m co Em >Es co

c2m>> m_u_u_:m co m>m; 95.

AS320 cemxs -- nouns .5 _Eoom.E

.


noun? aEo_:w :0 m_ 9.3

Dmcco?mq mum. 2 :83 new >9..oQ c..mB.x.m dm .3

omm:mm_ on.
Em. 2.: mm; :m?S
cos? .3 .:

.6 9: E2: nu:

>22 .25 w.mmE._Eoo.. .5 Em.wE n.umu..E 30>:

ow_m.oE um. m:_mn_ 30>

o>mu mm.E= >:mE ..SOI
m>m_u mc_on

Eanmuoi new Sm?xm 6:

o__mu 50> 2 35:0 m_m:2mE mc?mo.

9: 95: 90> on

m__2
\oz

mm;

mza

ManningB_0040906B



1m 1mwm1.1* .1::1nn
lIugmnn' Wliu Ill mmn1mnL-l- in? Lulr mm? In.?

In: mm It ::ummz:u::

33207

!.Hl|ll3l ll



HUI |Ill1'

lII.l-





,7

llil}ULI.'

rzw?/0

-

-
I
.

I
cumwmn AcnmurcouuseLur.'s FOLLOW-UP If nussnen
1
-
I
-
.
I
cumwmm. Lomm uunmwzu 1

ManningB_00409069



Il3|'|ll|L'Z

-mu-I? 0 of

l.o2.lUlI-I mm

725 0f1505



82 so on?

.. mama.

33208

?mEozm mmcm?n swm_ mm? cw?S

m? mm? .8

u2_m_> so?

so? ?mEo=m. mmc?mn So? mm:

Sim cm Qs.__mm nan .05:

amc?ou 9 u_:o:am_3 262m.Ec.. .2: 2 m? EmE.xm .0:

omumc. so? m>m: m=mu ?:mE



omzmu mumE so? m>mI

wwmouum ococno?a so? on

..mccom..mQ mam A30: NS: Sm?xm .0: .3

cans comm 9.2 2.5:

coma 9._3 so?

Dmczomcmo. mam. A30: bum ?Es dsonm 9: .6 9. 05:

o.m3o_ so? Ea

mam: so? 20

oamom m>mc so? 90

so?

om>mc so? on E._o._cs *0 $955 ?cmE

oEs_E mEm.Emm cmm? mc?mm so?

EH52. 2 :..mE_xm .0:

.5. ?so .650 ucm mE._2Es So? so?

D. so 2:9: mm.mES .2 ?mm .05:

I if

is. a ?scan

am. 9: mm?

rL_.1c :65

nso? oc>>

a ?n coon so? 96:



- mu.
455 at

Em. was mm;

mso? 055

>5 XX

?zz: ?n u3_m_> came so?

?was

3:032 _mu_omE .9: mm? .8

Emu ?masses 2 Bo: Esemc. Ecto?mo. .05:

omcmu so? mam; .om

;_2d

;\ns

?mama: Econ so? on

o?_mE= mm:oumm.._ _mu_umE 9: mm; .8

Fume ?masses 2 go: Siam. hem Bccomcmo. .05:

o__m sm Emu so? m>mc .om

VA

_ao_uoE 96; so? on

02

mm?

umcozmosc

n_O smoomm
o_mm mm
m_s_




ManningB_00409070

32 mo 8?

mama

33209



Rm: 93222.. 05 Anon ou.=.EQ 2.
uyuumssoo an 2: we 58.6 uesneoo _m:..mtO r.




.oEmZ



6: am. $32 an .23

m.w_mEc_



?z_mn_$Emz 292muumc >5 o>.E on.

as 3 92 so:

?no: amaze: oc>>

50> ,6 m5 3 m.mE>>

0.2 EES

ms: mm: Cu um: 30> m>mI

oxoonucmr m? mzmomx so? 90

wt?m m5 3 3.5.5 cm Em 30> _u_Q

7 1/



9: uc??oucs so? 00

Ex .rC>

02 -32

2: >2 cannot coon so? 26: awn.

42


mmn._m_..w 9.3 >2 uoumoh coma 30> u>m; awn. hr:




new .?oo.o Ecco?mq mam been :..mB.xm .0: .

nmE= co :o__mo_nmE 6-066: 30> m:o:mu_uoE >5 30>

0



omtm oo_Em:O an. ?wonrco E5 mm? .8

La 45051;

30> _mm_ 9: mm?

baa. mu_u_:m co Em so? >55 uc??mucz on

Bic. 5 co_m>> mu_u_:m. co camp m>m; 95.

go cu m_o..u.Sm m0 .556?

X.

nous? on_u_:w co m_ 2aE:_ 9.:

. Wu. Qd??uu .0

Tmcco?mo. 2 toqmg bum. Em__o.xm .8

n..mw:mm_ mam m>mc on_

5
?g 25.2.-

Em. 9: mm? cmE>>

3 u?tfa 1\4.i

00:3 .8

~.u:mEEoo mo Ease 9: um; 20> m>mI

new 2mmE .. Bu: .6 Emma. mam 20>:



om_mmE Log: U9 mean Ba.

J12: 4
ozmu 38.. >:mE

?mun ?o>m new meson

~.E:.omooE tam Sm?xm .05:

o__mu 50> umcmto



?Till}



ManningB_00409071

.

33210



ManningB_00409D72

:.unmn-1- m- nun mu 11- .nnuumm1- urznm n::.na Hr mm 1 :.nnmI::Ilr Ln!? wli 11- lI:' lam
Huh/gm/J;/5 am-g. (6
H-(Hill. MM: t?
-CDMMAN1 ACTIDNS
'FuLLnw.w=1.' N51021Page6of87
728 ofl505



82 mo m?

5 .6 mama

33211

99$ 3 .-

$63 >mEo:m Em. 28> mm..s cmE>>

2 age .3.

?moa?o ES 9.: mm; .8

o>mEo:m mwc?mn um:m.>

>mEo:m 50> mm:

u: rodm. cm aqlmm new mwmuogq .0:

omcmumu Sam 2 on.

Emu m. SEE 9 Ecmi m? .: m::.omuo.a. .05:

omumE w__mo

om__mo >cm mcmE 30> m>mI

wmmauom o>m; on

Zmccomcmq Ase: Sm.6.xm d:

amt comm m:o_

2% comm mE_. ma?a

Emccomumq mum been cam. 32 .m>onm 9.: Ho Acm. 2 on

0632 m>m.c 30> 90

Emma mam; Ea

mamom m>mc E0

m?xmm 30> mac.

&M..ub?.4Q my

om>m; on .0 >cmE

oE3m._ c_ mEmE.m.m cmm_o mc?mm

2 dc

wm:_:mo_o So E?o ucm .50: 30>

.5 am; m..Em
my

$35 m? mm?,

Va:

uB_m_26> um:m_>

So? .3 u2_m_> coon m>mI

mwcoamm. _m.o_nmE 9: mm? .8

Ftmo 2 Eatms bum mum. 220.6. .0:

a??n?u?u

?Emu nm?mnco. m>mc .om

mmuoo: _S:ou m>m; on.

mmcoamm. _mo_nmE 9.: mm? .om

Emu 2 ion ,?.oBw husEmS new smtcomgmo. mcm. E.6.E.. .0:

#m 0.50 30> m>mc _om:



_mo_uwE o>m: so: on

02

mm?



u_O omoomm
o_mm 00.92450 mm
m=2
ManningB__00409073

33212

82 .3 9%

mzo ?man.

Ewcaoo m..m_..mEE m5 2 ?Eco I

:m.c:mEEo0 3 :0 3.9. we 5.3 ?mmcm .cm.mB.Eoo I

umE:.



?Ema

.m._Emcm_m m.m.mEc_

.. .

1.: as nm\\

a .4



?as. T. .5

uxr

:?I5o Ex?

. B. 43? ?c cm.
..JL x3

. . gag 222.

(mile



So Emu 9.3 cmo oz. mama: on_



I

E9 65 mS_ so:

Zemem 01..

o:o> umzzoc o?s

50> .0 9: ho

an. 2,320 ammiad uxx?gm

E2

mm mm: 2 cm;

%_ooancmI ma: m>_mom: so) 93

wtm? m?>n cm ?mm 30> U5

.wm::umuo.n_ 3mE:_ 9.: on

Zavoma?

9: 3 came so? o>m; 26;

?Em

wmuhmzm 2.: 3 uoamob came m>m; 25; ?mm. mu:_m

3.5: new uo?on mum. been bum 32 :?o.xm .0: .3

co :o=mo_nmE 9: so 30> oo

wumn_.omm.? 9: E9: Ea on

:02 m:_:mm 30> 3.4

oo_Em:O 9: .0 ..moa-co En. mm; _om


OJ 5.64.

3mm mac: Ba. 9: was cmc>>

759 3:3? re:

oco_Em>mi >53. .5 c2m>> mu_u_:m Em. >55 on

.6 c8m>> mu_o_:m co m>mc mac. 26:

bass .6 semi mn.6.Sm. .- :29: mn.a.Sm go E3. E5:



Eo_Eu>3n_ 5325 mu_o_:m. co m_ way

mtm. toumg .8

ENE 93 E2

omm:mm_ co
#mm_ 9.: mm; cmE>>
oo_._3 .ow

~.u:mEEoo .6 Ease ms. am; so? w>mI

AS: new $88. go ?mms. bmwm..E Acm ?02?

om_mmE am; mc?n

?3

?Emu mmE= >cmE 30:

w>m_u U3 mE_on_

~.m.S.cmoEQ bum :..mB.xm 65:

Emu Q. umgoto m_m:EmE 94

may 3 mmouum o>m; on

m_m_z_n_zoo

Lb

oz

mm;

9 km as

ManningB_0O409074

. . 33213

I ll?
nun-.. I. ..

ll?. um. ui: .rI\m.H II in:

1'H|I|ul I Mil: ll'



ln.l*.

2%

l\CDMMAHzumwmm n? r.n- uh?

2 82z/c;// A ?jig

Page 9_ of 87

ManningB_00409075 731 of 1505



33214

82 .3 mm

.3 .5 mama.

>oEo=m mmcm?u ?mm. 50> mm? cmc>>

?moa?o .2: mm; .8

o>mEo=m 50> m>m.I

?2

omhmc um:m_> >mEo:m 50> mm:

5. cm .o:m .05:



mwcoumu So? 2 o_:o:n_o_2 on

3.6.9 m. 2 22.9: 9: .2 m.Snmuo.B. m5 Sm?xm .0:

omnm? w__mo >cmE

mum? m>mI

o>m: on

Dmcco?mq arm baa: bcm. Ac: Sm?xm .0:

ommu comm mco_ 26:

?ans some umgoto so?

Emccomumq mum bum Smixm duonm m5 .6 Ace ow or.

o_w..s2 mam; ED

98? mam: ED

oumom m>m: Ea



n..m5Bo;m m?zmm

nwwuxv

om>mc on .0 >cmE .501

oc._E2 mEm_.Emm cmm_o mc?mm so? mi

~m..mEE 2 wwmuogq Em?xm .0:

x.

.8 So 50>

mmE..umb AD 3:95 mm_.m_ES Q: ?t xmm. .02

.

Em. 05 mm? cmn>>

av a? hax?i

2% u2_w_> 93>

3 coon.

axxmm. ?x

9.: mm? cmc>>

kea?m?.

ER u2_m_> 9:5

x\

50> >3 um:m_> came 261

o>_wEz 3:032 _mo?mE 9: mm? .ow

%m.a.u Emzomt 2 ?sofm?om. bum. Bccomumo. .0:



?Emu u?mmacmz no) 96: dm 2

?mama: _Sco_u gas so? on

3.532 _mo__umE 05 mm? .8

wmzmo Bmucmz 2 30: a?om. new Bcco?mo. mum Ego?

o__m um Emu u?wmzum. m>mc .om

HE

_mu=uoE on

O2

mm_>



u_O nmoumm
o_mm m_m
m_s_


ManningB_00409076



82.8 mm?

mama.



Emcaoo ms. 0? >100 Ema
..6b:mEEoo 3 co 3. ?mm?m. b32QEoo .: . 3 A a
xi?ixw .o::mcm_m - . .. 6._3mcm_w
. . . A.$um.a?mL Emz . \Am? rw/T. mm) 1 2.0 292 ?zino 9&2
96 Sue 9.3 can 95 mama: 02m; on.

$3.9 E5 Eu 95. 26:
0:9? cacao:
.59? we m::mm: 9: Ho uwcaoc m:mcmam:

. . 1 . m? m>_mom: u_n_
oc?m 9.13 cm am U5

3mE9.9? 2: 3 333: 83 so? 2,2 39$925 9: 3 333: coon o>m; ?mu. .9: ooc_w
DE: tam qeuon mam been .ocm FE Em.B.xm .05:

\v omE: co cozmo?me 9: am on_

amkr mumnzowma mwmou 9: E9: Em 30> on

. LR: tame: mezom

. 3.5 oo_Em:O 9: E. .5 $8.50 E5 mm; .3
$8 mE_. Em. m5 mm; cwr_>>

. . - . . 32:. .0 c2m>> m_u_u_:m co Em >55 nc??mucz 30> oo

-mw.U.> mu_o_:w :0 m>m: mco_ 261

l. .6 2833 -- :35: no Eoomm
Na co m_ 3mEc_ of
\o ?mccomumq arm 2 .285: new Aozoq Sm?xm .3.

. >cm mama so om

. Ga. 9: mm..s cmE>>

xa? cos; .8:

.$u:mEEou ho Saga 9.: .650 Um; o>mI

33 new 238 .6 2m.mE E0995 Ann

.. .W. . om_moE Lon: ma?a E4

.. o>mU mmE= >cmE

Wm taut tom ma?a

Eaumuoa. tam .0:
Emu 50> .m umzmuo w_m:2mE m:=um9
mu 9.5 93 3 mmwoom 30> on

oz mm;
ms_
ManningB_00409077



COMMAND

Originial will be maintained by the command. Copy will be retained by the Brig.

Complete the visitation form and forward it to: appropriate action. insure the term is completeu and signed oy tne prisoner or detainee.

33216

NAME UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

DATE

3%





REOUEST MADE BY PRISONEFUDETAINEE:

COMMAND ACTIONS

FOLLOW-IIP IF NEEDED:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE

wv?m?

PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE:

PIEVIOLIS EDITIONS ARE OISOLETE

NICO FORM 1640117 (11198) (EFI

ManningB_00409078

Outward UxngFomFlou 1 1
MCBIREA November

Page 12 M87

734 of 1505

33217

32 >0 0.0.

00 2 0000

0.. 0.00 00. 0.00:. 192

0:03 0000.00 50> 002.. 000>>

$000-00 000 003 .00

\a ?$000000 0000.00 50> 30>

0000 30> 00005 0000000 50> 00:

0.0000000 .2 00 03-000 .000 0000000 0.00.30 .00 0:

\n 0000000 2 000000 0_.0o000_0. 0>m0 30> on

5:00 0 QXME 0.003 05 .2 0.5000000. 05 0.00.3.0 .02

o000E 30> 0>00 0:00 30:

\e . 00:00 >00 000E 30>
\4 0000000 000000.00 30> on.
. . 5 000000000 0.0m. >300 .000 >55 0_0..0.x0 .00
(N31 0000 0:2
. 0>m0 0000 0E: 0000000 0:00 30>
300000000. 000 000 >03 0..0..0x0 .030 00 00.. 0.0 >00 00 00 .0:
xi. o_0>>2 0 0500 30> En.
. .3. 00000 003000 0200 30> 0.0
.5 00000 0>00 3Q_an_
x) 00003000 05:00 30>
. m.0>00 30> 00 0.00003 0000000 2.01

00.3000 0. 00000000 0m.0_0 00.000 30>

0000000 .00 .0:



~.m0_0m0_0 030 mcE.0_u 0050 000 0:00:03 50> 005:0 30> 00<

T. T: 0000.000 ~53 000.0000 0 0.003 05 :00 .OC at

N00 3.0

0:05 >00_ 05 003 0055

L.) ?30> 00:05 055

0 >0 00:03 0000 30> 020:

3.0.0 0.05 00. 9: 85$

m30> 00:03 055

0:03 >0 00:03 0000 30> 0>mI

00000000 000 003 .00

50000 000300.. 0.. .500 0030000.. 000 00000000. 0.00 E0000. .00

00000 000003000 30> 0200 .00



00000: 3.000 >00 0>m: 30> on.

m>_0E= 00000000 05 003 .00 0.

0000 0003000 0.. 300 003000.. 000 00000000. mum E0000. .00 .3

0:0 .0 0000 00000300. 30> 0200 .00

>00 30> on.

02 00> 3000:0030

00$ 05 000000
0.00 m0
0020200

mmu .050



ManningB_00409079



32 we 9?

3 moan.

33218

?Nth m.$mEE E: On AQOO m. an

:oh:mEEo0 3 2% co Emu: hEwE.Eoo 28.5.20 2.

- m._2m.cm_m



9: .wQ
?x m::mcm_w m.2mE:_

T..wJd xu na ?zinc memz 222.



$0 Emu 9.9 cmo Es mama: m>m; so? on.

.2. Eu 98. 32cacao: m:m?s

to.

nu: mm: Ow um: 30> m>mI

%_oon_ucmI Em.Ec_ m? m>_mom: En.

ot?w me: cm Em. 30> ED



oo:m>m:0 3mE:_ o5 uc?mhoucz so? on



..n3Mmlu.Qw. 0..

e513 u?mab cows :02 M39. 26; ?mm. oo?w

uni



9: 3 uoumob coon o>m; 26; ?mm. mu?m

I ll

DE: new uotob Dem >30: .32 :..mExm 65$

omE= co :o=mo_nmE 9: ?mm on

%mn__._owm.a women 9: Eoczmm on.

?now: m:o:mu_umE 94


XEIEE:

omrm 9: Eoq-:o .83 ES mm; dw 2

osmwm

3mm :2 mE=. Em. 9: mm? cmE>>

baa. c2m>> mu?sw co Em so) >52. ucm?nmuc: on.

.

mu_u_:w co coma 9.2 251

go on.B.Sm. -- semi m.o.G.Sm..o E5: Eoomwm

.
x?usa man

mEo_:m :0 m_ 3mE:_ 9.3 2



arm 2 :89 bum c..?o.xm .8

~.mm:mm_ mam m>mc on

Ema Ukmm. Lxqw.

Em. m5 cmE>>

mQa..Ew:



n..u:mEEoo zinc or: E?o um:

333 new 2mmE go ?mmcc 20>:

n..m_mmE um? mc_mn_



Emu mmE: >cmc._ Bo:

want um?

~.m::nmoo..q bum Emixm .05:

50> 3% 39620 9.1

3

arm 9: 3 mmaoom o>mz on

1

OZ

(0
LLI




QQL ms_


ManningB_00409080

33219



32 0o

.5 0. 00$

2.0: 033.35%.

0:05 0000000 .00. 003 c0c>>

$000.00 :05 05 003 .00

axe 0000000 50> 00:03 30> 0.20:
00.0; 30> >0c._oz0 0000000 30> 00:

TC0000000 ?.000 :0 0.3.00 .000 000005 .0:
0000000 3 000000 30> on.

3.00 0 00.02.. 0.. 2:00.. 05 .2 003000000 05 E0.5.x0 .05:
o000E 30> 020: 0:00 >c0E 2.01
00:00 >00 000:. 30>
xx: 0000000 0>0; 30> 00

302000000. 0:0 >30: 0:0 >03 :._.0Ex0 .0: 3
?>00 5000 9.0.
?>00 ?000 0E: _u0._0t0 053 30>

300000000 90 >30: 000 >03 503.0 .0300 05 0.0 >00 2 0:
53 0.0.52 0 0>0; 30> 0.0
@000 0:520 0>0c 30> En.
00000 0>0c 30> 0.0
0 Kr 05000 30>
n..0>0c 30> on E._0__c3 .0 0090050 >c0E 301
5 0E0E._mm c00_0 0:500 30>

. 0.. 00000.5. .05:
..0.. 030 .050 0:0 0:530 30> 9.4

3. 0003.000 00 5.03020 0 00:03 00.0EE 05 .: 000 .0:

0003 .0005.

n.tm_> 05.. 00.5



xxd?? V3 03o> 00:03 0:3
1 0 >0 00:03 c000 30> 020:

mwx? $.05 >00. 003 c055
.300?) uufw o3o> 00:05 055

SE3 >0 00:03 2000 30>

m>_0E3 00:300. _0u__u0E 05 003 .00

0000 0003000 2 30: 63:00. .000 00000000. 0:0 .0:

00000 00000300. 30> 020; .00 0.

@0000: 30> OD

0000000.. 05 002, .00

0000 0003000 2 003.300. 0:0 00200000 0.20 .05:

0:0 .0 0.00 00300300.. 30> 0>0c .00 2



_mu_00E >00 020; 30> on

02

00>

02020030

:05 000000
0.00 00%. 00000 02.045.

. .0s_
. 3 - ., 020
0. RU 0.0

ManningB__00409081

33220

32 .8

5 3 2 ammo.

Emaaoo 2: 2 o.c.?oLm
umh:mEEoo ma 2: :0 3.9.. an ?mmcm. .o8mB.Eoo

. .EEmcm_m 53222:.


?mEmz

I ?Ema

.2. ix.
r. -

I

um:Em:m_w m.w_mEc_

29:5.

96 Emu 9.3 cmo Es mums: acm m>mz on.

mega. 65 an 95. 25:

w:o> um_.Eo: oc>>

5% 9: _o umczoc m:mc>>

E2 65.5

m: mm: 2 um: m>mI

m.mE:_ 9.: 30>

wt?m 9.13 cm so U5

>3f>

3mEc_ 2.: so? on

36%

9.: >2 u?mmb coon. :oaW>m; Bo; ?mm. ooc_m

?magnum 9: 3 uwumo: coon 96; ?mm.



32.5 bum. mam baa: new 33 Sm?xm .0:

ABE: co cozmu_umE ?now: so? m?zmm

warm ouzcmzo 9: 8 509:0 E3 65 mm; .om

nawm. yr?

Saw wE.= Hmm_ 9: was cmE>>

c2m>> muasm co 2m EB uc?emuca co

32:. c2m>> mu_o_:m co cows m>mc mac.

co__m\S m.o.BSm. -- r?mcs mb._uSm go 323 Eoumwm

:0 m_ QHNEE 6.3

Sam Hun.

Emcco?mq mam 2 team: \G:oq Em.B.xm

>cm m>mc on

..

Em; 9: mm?

kua?

_om .:

~.u:mEEou .0 Emcu 2: can. .650

TE: bum m..mmE m..mmE >3

Log: um. so.?

nE

mama mmE= >cmE

wmmu E: mc_mn_
Em?xm 65:

.59? 8 no? 2 umtmto m_m_._2mE

mum 9: 9 mmooun so.? on

oz mm>

I mu.? m_s_


ax Ram, en,



ManningB_00409082

. . 33221

SOMMANL

tomnlexe tne visstanm: iorm am! rurwartv at to: aupronrnate acuur. msurc me mm: ::.comme1eu ant. sngnen l)yII1(: pnsonei 0| detainee,
be maintained by the command Copy will be rezaincu the Eng

PRISONEITS NAME UNIT AMI DUTY PHONE

'L4+c .. .,
56/9 /52



I REOUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETRINEE

COMWWO ACTIONS

FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED.

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT) PRISONERJDETAINEE SIGNATURE

.55? (Swag, I/Jzd/224731;
'7 2

PREVIOUS EDNIDHS ARE OBSOLETE
hr-rnwu I995

MCB FORM 184011?) l11l98) (EF-I
Page 17 of 87

ManningB_0O409083 739 of 1505

33222

82 .5 oi.

BB 9 mama.

>mEo=m Em. mmz,

?mou.co 9: mm; .3

o>mEo:m mmcmamu uw=m_> m>aI



om._mr_ um=m_> >mEo:m mwc?mu 50> mm:

Tommwmumc. cm new 6:

3

mmcmamn .50? 2 so? on

3..m_u m.
omn.mE 30> m>m; m__mo >cmE

n..m=mo >cm m_umE m>mI



wmmooum o:osn_m_3 o>mc on

arm baa: new 33 Sm?xm

n$

o>mU comm 95.

want some uo._w.co m:_on 30>

Emccomgmq mam Ase: ham 3: Sm?xm .m>onm ms. .3 sum 8 on

ED

imam m>mc 20

$58 m>m; E0

m:_tom so?

om>mc so? on ho Bo:

mEmE.mm cmmzo mc?mm Ed.

2 Smixm dc

3 '5

.2 use mc_?o_o ucm 24

TH 295 Em?mco 9.2 ?mm. .OC M:

?mm. 93 mm; cmc>>

Q.Cnu0 Wow. u?rwx

o:o> oc>>

>3 coon

'3

Em. 9.: mm; cmE>>

?ac

o:o> u2_m_> 2

3

50> >2 swan 30>

mmcoammz _mo_umE 9: mm? .ow

Tmcmo Emzumc 2 ac: ;.m..2om bum. ..m::oEmo_ mum 6:

om?o 96: 63.

?mama: _mEo_u on

o>_mE: mmcoammz 9: mm? .om

wwmaomg 2 ice hem Btcomcmq mtm. :to.E_ dc

o__m Emu 30> m>mc .Om 2



_mo_noE m>m; 30> on

02

mm;



omoomm
ooFz
m2


. Kr P55



ManningB_0O409084

0 3% "ma:

82 mo SA.

3 2 moan.

305.00 M2085 05 on >100 m.0.?0i 2.
>0 :0 mummcm

TQ H:2mcm_w

.0Emz 0950.220.

33223

90$

.2amcm_m m_?mEc_


Czinc memz ewes



xm?x

$0 900 9.3 :00 0.5 20009:5

o00cm>m:m 50> .0 mzamm. 05 .0 00.30: 20> m:mc>>

0.6.

0: mm: 2 um; 00> 96:

20000001 m:mE:_ 05 05.009 0.0

0:30 0.: >0 :0 E0 0.0

o.mE:_ 05 0032000: 20> on

08 .3 0300.: :03 20> 9.0; 30: ?mm. o0c_w

$9.2m 05 3 023: coon 30> 0>m; 2.0; ?mm. m0:_m

SE: 000 0:0 ?@000 .000 A55 S033 .05.:

00E: :0 :0:m0__umE 05 60 00> on.

0100:0005 0.: 00

0000: 30> >00 mc?um

norm 0020020 05 .0 500.mma, 005$

E20. .0 2203 c0 E0 >53 0:05.000: 00> 00

Lkuzm.

Baa. .0 2063 m0_0_:m. co 00> 0>m; 9.0. 30:

?mass .6 :23: 0.0.0.Sm. I :20: 0.0.030 .8 .00: 900.3%

CO m_ 3mE:_ 05 u:

Toccomgmq arm. 0. roam; 00.0 >300. Sm?xm .00

c0:m:m_> >00 96: 00> 00

05. mm; 0023

00:3 .ow

~.u:mEE00 .0 E020 05 :05 .550 >00 um: 022..

33.: 000 2008 00 m.mmE 0000.5 >00 0.02%

02008 L05. 18 9:00 20> 0.3.

o>m_u m0E: >cmE 30:

0:00 um: 9:00 30>

303000000. 000 SmB.x0 .0:

0:00 .5930 00> 2 090:0 w_m:2mE mc?mm:

05 2 0>mc 20> on

02 mm;



m:<0

ManningB_00409085



0 0 33224

CUMMANI

Complete the wsuauon am: iorward IO: appropnate. Insure Inc norm 1: completes ant.? ny or uetamet-.
Drigimal wiil be maintained by the commanu. Copy will be re1aInedhv1he



um? AND nurv mmpmsnuemomnnez
I
I
I
,7
2
Acnnus
/1

A
I 1

If

FOLLOW-UP up moan.
I /7 I
I /Ir?
I
I 2%

I
(PRINT) Pmsumemnmuuss SIGNATURE
wd ?rms

mwoos zommus All! ossoun
mca rum 1540117 1111981 IEPI
Page 20 of87
742 ofl505

ManningB_0O409086



33225

7



0
Sn: E.




.5. Mama.



93 r; S. 5 Ea.

rffu AmEo:m ?mm. mm?



%8.8 53 9.: mm? .8



o>mEo:m 50> um:m_> m>mI

.9 9

Au. .. La.

um:w_> >mEo:m mm:

NS:

?hum cm 33% tum Em.B.xm 6:

wmcowou 8 so? on

2:8 mEmE 2 acme. 9: 5. m::.cmooB. 92 2.50.3 6:

wmumE m>mr_ m=mo >:mE

om=mo mum.E m>mI

wmmwuom on

Ecco?mq mam Ase: new S?qxm .0: .3

.3 Cm.

o>m? comm 9.2 261

Emu comm u?mto mc_on_ so:

mam. bun: ucm >55 Sm?xm .96 am 9: a5 xcm. 2 on

n.._m32 mam; U5

m>m; U5

mamom m>mc ED

mczumm Ed.


3. 5.9.2., .9 m.

m.m>m; :9 on >cm.E

mEmE._mm :mm_u mc?mm.

2 :..m_Qxm .0:

5.. So ucm mc?sa

mmc.:om.o .6 29.5 m. ?ameu2_m_>

3 so?

Nu

~wm_ 9: mm?

La +1

om:m_> oc>>

?Ea: 50> 3 u3_m_>

wmcoammc _mu_umE 9: mm; .8

mgmu Bmaomg 2 new _.m::om:mQ mum E.5.E.. .0: .3

m>mc .om



wmumm: on.

o>_mE= mmcoqmm. _m.u_umE 9.: mag. .3

Emu 2 20: L.m_..Eom. Eccomcmu .0:

Sm am Emu 2 3 .om



wmco?ucoo _mo=umE o>m: on

02

mm?

nmcozmmad

n_O omoomm
mm
Ow? ms_
9 mu. mza

ManningB;_O0409OB7

33226



82 El.

8 3 mm ?man.

Bmcaoo 2: 2 mode
.

..6n:mEEoU 3 co ?aw: on



.2 $8.5 _8?o_Eoo .mEm_:o

4.1xN.@ nu a .mEmz

m5_mcm_m
-I

?Cz_m$mEmz ems;

E0 Emu 3.3 cmu 95 mama: m>m; so? on

55 EU mac. 26:

SE0: 9:5

ho 9.: _o umczoc 30>

E2



3. mm: 2 Um; no.?



mxooaucmx 2mExx?. SE 333



9: .3 vogue: cum: .50; ?mm. mu:_w

1:31xx;


omuhmnm .3 u?moh coon 26; .59. ?ma. oo:_w

DE: bum co?on ?aoc ham \E:s Em?xm d:

omE= co :o_.mo_umE 9.: ?mm co

mumncomma 9: on

Sumo: m:o:mo_umE m?zmm 92

oozcmzo 9: .woa-:Sam Em. ms: mm;

c2m>> mu_o_:m co mam >55 uc??mucz on_

wco_Em>2n_ 5 cBm>> mu_o_:m co m>mc 95. 26:

NS

533.. go :89: m..o.6_3m. -- m_u.G.Sm .6 E23 Poumm:






oEo_:w co m_ 3mE:_ 9:

Dmccomgmq mum 2 roam; ham. Anzac. Sm?xm .3.

?Em m>woes .om:

~.u:mEEoo Lo Saga 9: cm? .650 can so?

25: .5 m..mmE .cmm.m._E Acm 202?

ow_mmE u? 30>

o>mu mmE__ >cmE

J92.
in

than co?. m:_mn

mgsumoogq tam Em?xm. 6: .5

.5o> gm 2 85:0 mc?mm:

9: 2 mmooum on.

Mani .ms_
oz






U. r- Hxo.

.

ManningB_00409088



33227


. ll-caulk

Au
Rx Ewh \u\:3N um. Nwxmu.

Page 23 of B7

745 of 1505

ManningB_00409089



33228

COMMAND XHSITATIDIL

I Complete the vusitation torn: and iorwa.-d it for appronriate action. Insure the form as comnleted ant signed my the psisomr or uetainee.
I Driginial wiil be maintained by the command. Lops? will as retained by the Brig.

PRISONEITS NAME DATE



um AND nurv PHONE
I
1



REQUEST MADE BY

. -


coummn ACTIONS
.V.
rouow.up u=
I

1'

cnumun uamnm smununs:
-. '7 .- . .


mnnou: mmous ARE ousomt 2,

name: 199!
MCB FORM 1640117

Page 24 of 87

746 of 1505

ManningB_00409090



22 mo CA.

.3 3 mm 09$

33229



>0Eo=0 0000.00 000. 50> 003 0003



$000.00 :03 05 003 .00

0000.00 30> 2.0:

00.00 30> 00:05 >0Eos0 0000000 50> m0I

00 0.000 00 $100 000 0000000. EQQXG .00

W30

000200 2 000000 00,00 30> on

3000 0 00.0.0 2 0.003 0.000.. 00. 0.. 003000000 05 SEEKS .00

o000E 30> 0>0z 0:00

>00 0.006 30>

0000000 000000.?: 0200 30> 00

300000000 000 >300 000 0..0\Qx0 .00 0:

29309

?>00 0000 mco_ 30:

?>00 0000 0.0; 00300000.. 020:0 @500 30> 0.2

300000000 000 >080 000 >02 000350 .0300 00. 00 >00 2 00

?.030. 0 0>0: 30> 0.0

$000 mc_>000 0>0c 30> 05

ommom 0>0z 30> 20

00.03000 9.500 30>

mwvaxv

o0>0c 30> on E._2_c3 .0 009.000 >000. 261

oE3_0_ 0. 000.0 mc_=0m 30>

E0800 0. 0000000 0.0003 .00 0:



~.mc_c00_0 .8. .30 m:_5o_0 .050 000 05.2.0: 9:330 30>



3. 0000000 00 :05 00.0000 0 009: 0000000. 002. 0.00 .00



_mm_ 05 003

mav 3

00:03 0c>>

0 >0 0000 30> 0>0:



$.05 .00. Oz? MN3 c0c>>



o3o> 00:0; 05$



?:03 >0 30:03 0000 30> 0>0:

o>_0E= 0000000. 05 003 .00

30000 0003000 0. >60 006.0% 830000 000 00000000 .00 0:

00000 0200300. 30> 0>00 .00

$0000 _0.:0u >00 0>0; 30> 00

9.005 0000000. _m0_00E 00. 00; .00

70000 003000 2 300 00?0m. 0030.00. 000 00000009 30m E0000. .00 0:

0:0 .0 0.00 0200300. 30> 0>0z .00:



_0o_30E >00 26: 30> on



02

00>

3000:0030

09> omooum
0.00 mm<0 00000 mz_m
ms_
Nx

as

ManningB_OO409091



33230



22 .8 03
.3 8 00$

302000 05 0. 0 0.0.3001. .0EF . 0:00
EM :0 3.0: ma :1 300cm. .0 k.C%.xw?

. 301%..
\n.M.mQ.w0\mw\. Cz_mn_.0Emz 22:.

0.20.5.0 m.0EEc_

.0Emz



\a $0 0.60 00.0? :00 03 0000: 0>0c_ 30> on
.. 000.5 E5 0.0 9.0. 30:
20> 002:0: o?s
$890.5 50> >0 05 .0 00.3002000. 30> 05
n..t0...\Juv0_ 05 >0 0300.: c000 020: 30; ?03 ?mm.
000.030 05 >0 :00n_ 022. 30;
0:0 0200.0 0:0 A50: 0:0 .0: .3
00E: co 5:00.008 0.: 00 00> 00
2085003 00000 0.: 50 00> 00
0000: >00 05:00
. . \a 00:0 00mm 05 >0 .0 600.00 :05 EE 00.5 .00
AU. mv? WEE 0 2.00 30> 0E: >0m_ 0E 00:,
. u..I . .0 ?0.03 00_0_:w co 0.0 20> >22. uc??mucz 00> 00
2% . .0 00_0_:m :0 c000 00> 020: 9.0. 26:
. >332. ?0003 .- :30: 030.530 00:2. E0003:
?302.. :0 m_ 0u0E:_ 05
302209.00. 0:0 0. t0o.0.. 0:0 >0:0q .03:
000302 co=0=0_> 00> OD
$.05 E0. 05 003 005.5
00:3 .00:
.. o0:0EEo0 .8 05 :05 .350 >50 00: 30>
.0cm 2008 5200.. 00 m..00E .0000.E >20 0002?
\a 00.00:. Log: 00.. 9.00 00>
.4 o>0u 0 00E: >c0E 30: 2
?>00 00> 0.3.
0300003 .30 >.s50:ms0 ?03.08 .0:
o__00 50> >0 00> 2 020:0 0502 00?.
0:0 05 3 000000 02?. 30> on B.
A
02 00>




33231

I Complete the msitation tom. and rorward It mrapprepnate action. Insure the form IS completed and signec by the prisoner or detainee.

I Uriginial will he maintained by the command. Copy will be retained by the Brig.



PRISDNEIYS NAME

UNIT AND DUTY PHONE DATE

/I/xrr/4/g//k

REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETAINEE

COMMAND ACTIONS

COUNSELOWS FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

8/euci

MCB FORM IEFI

ManningB_00-109093



1/ 5/4?

2/ 047'

EBISDNERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE.


I938

Page 27 of 37

749 of 1505



33232



82% own

5 3 mm moan.

?net mama}

%mEOt.m Em. mm;

$moa-:o em; 9: mm; .3

mwc?mu so?

>oEo=m 30> mm:

cm o.:.Em new c??xm 6:



omc?mu .50? 3 mmouom o_:o:n_o_3 w>mc on.

Emu

m.
?.256 w__mo >:mE

.33

ow=mu >cm mum.E 20> m>mI_

wmmuuom m>m; on.

Emcco?mq arm been new 35. Emixm 5:

7

mzmu some mEo._ 26:

?>29 some mE_u cozmmhumu _u.m._mto

Dmcco?mo. mtm. Ase: .c:m bus Em?xm .m>onm_ m5 .6 Acm 2 on

~._m32 Ea

mc_>mcm m>m; Ea

y;

wqmom ED

mcnumm

on .6 >cmE 26:

c_ mEmE.mm cmm_u

FREE 2 .0: .3

mm:_:mo_u So .650 ucm So? mn_<

5.: MGEBQU 8 Em?mco m.Em? m2mE:.. 2oc>>

.3

.3 u8_m_> cums o>mI

Em. 9: mm;





SE: 3 u2_m_> .33 so?

3:032 _mo_umE 9: was .ow

302 .o:m .02 M:

nm?mzcm. m>mc .ow



wmumo: Econ on

mmcoamm: _mo_umE 9: was .8

wmgmu ummawmg 2 Bo: tam Eccomgmo. mam. Ego__S 65:

o__m Emu um?mncm. cam; .02.



_au__umE on

02 mm;



n_O omoomm
mw
m_s_




ManningB_00409094

33233

82 as Hm?

3 mm moan.





.. Emcaoo m5 2 ?.o.ou oE>o..m .1
no A wexme E9. 3 5.3 ammcm neaosoo


- .. J11 ummow. .2:

Q.

. mm. "02 J43. memz

Ill!

dii. Fol

$0 m._mu ox? can momma m>mc on

5.9 EE Eu 9.2 25:

moo? omezoc

So? _o wzowmz .9: ho oozzoc 99:5

$8 $55

6: mm: 2 um;

mxoonucmz m:mEc_ m? m>_mom: 30>

wt9.mEc_ 9: so? on.



9: ?n uaamo: cows m>m; Em. mu:_m

8} am?

2.: ?n _o2mo.: coon m>m; 26; ?mm. mu:_w

DE: hem new ?Ss Em..o.xo .0:

co co=mo_umE 9: am oo

on. c_ Emszom no? on.

Boom: m:o_umo_ooE m:_tmm so?

omtm oo_Em_._O 9: 5 ?oo?o E5 mmcBm>> m_o_o_:m co coma no? 95.

.20 I :29: m.Eo3w .6 Eoumma

Qanwmwuww

5235 o_o_o_:m co 3mEc_ one

Eocco?oq mam 2 toqmo .o:m c.?o.mmz,


.5 Emso 9: .550 ?cm on; so? o>m:

n% 02 .m_2
1 - ocm no Emma: .oomm..E ?cm Bo?:
~.m_mmE om: m:_oo
- W. o?mu mmE= hams: ..soI
ooh

~.m.S.omuo..o. new
So? no? 2 omzmto m_m:EmE
9: 3 wmmuum on.

oz mm?

m:
ManningB__00409095

32 mo 3.

3 on moan.



33234

vw?k .35


>wEo:0 en



533 .m0_ 50> mm?

3

600-: .0 :05 05 003 .00:

0wc_

I

:00 30>



00.0: 30>

wmc?mu mm:

>.wQ0mm000: .3 0.0.3.0 :0 35.300 0:0 0

.3 LP

.0: E1

3:203 3 mmuoum Q.

o>0c 30> on.

:0 05. :_0..qx0 .0:



0 0. 3:03 05 0.3.000
. $80.

..

30> m__00 >c0E 30:



.
.

.m__0o +50 000:. 30> m>0I



.4



2.0: 30> on

D0::om:0: 0.20 0

Ll

.0 :.0:Qx0 .0: E.

(3..

3000 9.0. 30:





.. .3 m>0u sumo

9:00 30>

m:m >30: 3:0 >55 .030.

:0 0:10 >20 05.:



rt 0 020020: 30% 0.0




50000 90; 30:3 En.



. ..



_r9__3om 30>



NJ



om>0c 30> on

:3 :0 30920 >c0E 261

A

2:0,

Em mm_0 30> 03:

0: 0

0009 .05.:

M3

~30 .350 0:0

:30 30>

005000 :0 30.: 2.03030 0 0.50.: .00

?mm .8 .3.

Cs?o30> 30:05

.0

:30 30> 9,0:

F3



oumsmm. 05 mm;



. um=w_>

..

. .03

?:03

30:03 coon 30>

o>_mE= omco_

mm: _0n__0mE 05 003 .00

>900 mo: 30: 8.50:. 0:0 3:000

00. .05.:

020?

.- hr

00.0330. 30> 020: .00



NMUOOC



econ. M33 30> on.

o>_mE: 00:0

mm. 05 003 .03 0.

50.3.00 Bo: .?.Eom .0:0 .0::00

mo. .0:

o__0 30 ER

3

u?wmcum. 30> 0>30303330



30> on





:05 9.0003
0.30 00:z<30 mm
.

\Uu ms_




5C Am

ManningB_00409096

33235

82 .8

.5 5 ?mun.

Emcaoo 2: 2 Anon 5.
3 to 39. um ?omcm _o3?QEou 323.20 I





fll?iln.

:2

3.1: .m





P. man.

I.


.

5.4


_m:2mcm_m m_2mEc_

vx 252 ewes





was 9:3 9:3 :3 95m.

com: @m m>m: on

00

us 95. 26:

oz>>



50> m=:mw

m._mES

. .. to. 55>:



o: 3: 2 nm; so? 96:

oxoonucmr

-L .-

so? 90

333-

. ot?m 0;

cm ?mm En

3mE:__

5 ucmb?aucz on



mu Kb 6.

ozw an u2mo.= camp o>.E Lu; um! .AE uo:_w

UT

wm_o._mN_w ma. .3 _uBmo.= coma so?

as aw! mu:_m

a 33 _c_tm qmcco?mo. n.

.5 .33.. .0:

OUFE co

LP

so? om

mm:

on Eur: ?am no? on.

MS

cozntomm



swam oo.Em:O 9:

895mm;

ban. .6 55>: m_u_o_:m co ma

.E_s_vcm.m.mnc: so? on.

. Bic. .6 mn_o_:w

cmmn._.o> m>mc 95.



xn?usgo co?xs m.o..u.Sm -- 555 mu

6.5m Eek ntoomwm



mun

.

Em W. m_ ?nes 9.. 3.

Ectoagmq 2 team: .oE_
owmzm?

. . ..

\G=oo_ Em?xm
oaE_m._> Em m>mr_ sowucaam??o no 9.:

.. noes .ow
was m>a:

. TEE new 32m.

:2 Bmm?E mam 293

n.

nah memo no.?

I

. . 2.

ma?a ?cmE
.mV>m 1.8

. Eznmooi new
goo 50> 5 so? 9 mm.

S?qxm .05:
Wto m: _._2mE msumm. Ea.

. 95..

mmo.__.om gas on

m_s_
02

mm?

3.. 3: cw Ea

ManningB_00409097

82 .3

.6 an ammo.

33236

Ouxuumx ES 6 mm. >mEo=m mmc?mc .mm_ 50> mm; :m?S
\a $won_.co 53 9: mm; .om
w>oEo=m_ mmc?mu 50> n2_m_> m>mI

no.3 um=m_> >mEozm mmcm?u mm:

K38. xq 5 $5

aodm cm qimm new wmmoogq Sm?xm 6:

mmc?mu o>m: 30> on

Emu GXGE 0? 2:3: me. u: m5 GEM:

cmumE m>mc m__mu 26:

?335 La. 4.3 ?3en_ Qmxomb \w3? $.35

m..w__mo >cm mums: m>mI



m>m: on

Imcco?ma mum. >30: >55 c??xm d:

Q_?m3 Ww?wr
0 .

o>mu comm 95.

owm.




>>mu summ mE= u?mto m:_mn_

Tmcco?mq mum >30: new Sm?xm .m>onm 2: .6 >cm 2 0:

o_m32 a cam: n5



Emma mam: ED



oamom mam: 20> E0

mczumm

om>m: on .0 >cmE 261

S?saa?

3.8

wEmE.m.m :m.m.o mc?mm Ed.

~m.mES 2 :.m..Qxm 6: be

So uzm mczuzn

wmtcumn 8 c._m.E_mc0 229$ wm.mEE m? uc xmm. .0t_ nm:m_> oc>>

>n cmon 20vm:m_> oc>>

50> >3 cmon 30>

mmcoamm. .m.u__umE me: mm; .3

wamaumg 2 go: 39.32.. bum Eccomcmq Dam. EB.E. .0:

om._mu m>mc dm:

wmummc ?ucmu on

m>_mE: owcoamm. _mo_umE 9: mm; .ow

Emu ?maumc 2 zoccm?om new Eccom?q mam .0:

2.8 mam: .om



_au_umE m>m: on.

I

02

mm;



53 omoumm
o_mm m_m
m__2




ManningB_00409098

33237

80:0 an

5 .5 8 mama.

E00000 .05. 05 0.. >060 0 00.2050 .:

. :0 00$ 00

3030 uem?eoo 32.5.20 ..


u0E0z._030_a0E_

003 25020. 28

.. .0._0..0cm_mm_0..0Ec_
an\.





2 .52



0. 00.0

.003

.02 0.3. 0.2.:

$0 200 9.00 :00 03 0000: 00> 00

$09 05 0.0 9_o_ 22..

00:20: 23

o00c0>0:m 50> .0 2.000.. 9: 00 00.30: 00>

22 00:3

00. 000 00 00; 00>

$000000: 2085 02000.. 30>

0:000 05 >0 00:00. c0 60 00> 05



308:. 05 0:30.000: 00> on



05 >0 0200.: :03 00> 0>0c 30; 000. 0u:_m

009000.? oz 00000

000.000 05 >0 0300.: 00> 020; 30; 000. 0u:_w

FE: .000 20.0.0.0 0.20 0:0 S0..0.x0 .0:

00E: :0 c0:00_00E 0E 00 00> on.

0000:0005 00000 9: c_ E05 00 00> 00

0000: 00> 000002006 >00 05:00 00> 05

00:00.00 05 0.0 .0 0000-00 :03 Er: 0022,00 30% GE: 50. 05 003

00_o_0m :0 0.0 00> >Es 0000000000 00> 00

20%

.308. 00_0m0m :0 camp 00> 96. 30:

>33. L0 0.0_0.0m. -- 20.02 00.630 00 00:3 Eoummz

.0 ?203 00_o_0w :0 m_ 0.:

1om3.03..i u0m>00

300009.00 0:0 0.. .2000: .000 $03.06 .000:



000000. c0_w0._m_> m>0: 00> 00

3.05 0.00. 05 00.5 0023

Ea

00:3 .00

.6 50:0 05 :05 >00 00; 00>

>03 020 9.008 00 000E >00 80>:

om_00E 02 9.00 00>

>00 0 00E: >c0E

Ax??ur

?>00 00.. 053 00>

0:0 $0.008 .0: .5

S00 .0 00> 020:0 m_0__20E 90.000. 0.3.

9? '3 3

0.: On 000000 020: 30% OD

.0522 0020200

02

03!



.25

ManninB_00409099

33238

Complete the vssitation form and forward It for appropnate action. Insure the form is compleied aml signed by the prxsoncr or detamee

COMMAND VISITATIDN

.: -.

U: Iuxnial will he maintametl by the command. Capy will be retained by the Brig. I

PRISUNEWS NAME UNIT AND DUTY PHONE I DATE

PIPC



REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIOETAINEE

COMMAND ACTIONS

kw?


g?
8.

-





FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED5.1.-
I *7 1 -31- .
- I

9
COMMAND REPRESENTIUIVE SIGMETUBE. I


74IDITHIHS I

I743
Mc: Eon-41540117 wee)

Page 34 of 87

756 of 1505



.- EC 6! . I 33239



)z.:umJ 47/u?fb
. .3 . 9, -I-.- lm?tg Mai @550

. . . .. av?.

garJdia A. - at
. u-fl.? ?at4--.-) Ale'35'31?kitmi?; -5 -
'11- 5" -.-Y-QV R799

P-r? .

-..,





we .1 . in:
.
"1 5,71 -31.-4 -gnu-In fr


u- 4 - If?,
.-- Her?, age_
-.

ManningB_004D9101 757 ?f 1505

> ' "•' *

33240

:OMMAI\Jt VlSiTftTlOIv

1 Complete the visitatiin form and forward it tor apprtpriate actiir. insure tne form ir. compleieti and signed hy the oi isoner f detainee,
j Originial will he maintained hy the commanri Copy wriil he retained oy ths Brig.
PRISONER'S NAME

UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

DATE

PPC IWW'vW^/'^fW^
REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETAINEE

(b) (6)

oi^At^-

m
COMMAND ACTIONS

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE

IS(r
PREVIOUS EOITIOBIS ARE OBSOLETE

MCS FORM 1640)17 (11136) (EF)

DESiqned Using FoimFloiv 2 I
KZmU nggembe, 1991

Page 36 of 87

ManningB_00409102

758 of 1505

33241

m
o

o

t H

CO
03
Ol

ON

CL

r-

ro

-U'--.

.m

H
%

#

f

o
o

4'
rii

1
I

••'h
t-:

o
5 t
00 CO

o >

^!
#

\

Bfe

tig

1%

li
<

\

C
Q LU
LU
CO Qi
Q.
Qi

O

i'i?'

#

m

\

W
\

>s>

O CO

z
S
a
<

#1"

>•/;
to
03
3
Cr

e
o

i

^
01
Xl

o
CO

I

t if*'ki

a

i-i
m.

li
VJ
LA

W

>.

Q

i

u

O

e

9

.1 1^
5.5

(4

01

%

c
c

,8

g

ManningB_00409103

5JS
c

in

I-~

o

VO

^'.'i^^^^i^^^T^^^^^^^^^^^I^^^^^^

33242

o

tH

ra

o
•o
t-~

Dl

ra

CL

;r''

%

-1^

--^'

;^

^
S;-:

\

^

^
c
B::^^

iiiif
^'.^

m

CO

^

1

^

I,

^
^
^
^

ManningB_00409104

%

ra

^

I

CO

O

o
in

00
CO

o

33243

^
^
o
tn

.V,'

CO
01
Ol

•(.",•

^
%
^

•i}
4

LU

^
^

^

?'i

ra
a.

M

^

:%'

z
UJ
LU
Z

o
^

i
i

;&

K' fcs
o
S t
CO CO

o '
o o
I-

k

¥

M
9%

^it

'#

fi

[fi

Q
Qi

O
O

)g

b','-

6.)

\ \

\

%

S

i<

i;

g

S5
'.iU'

f

§

?.w:

1
9:

'ffi

\t.

I.

fll

1?:

%

«

:0;

al c

f,#

>•

:c-

ra ,0)

'-«;
#

i

1^

f

33:
'-A
-•3

to

#

ftfl

•in;
Iffl;
;oj

:o

ro
01
10

.to

I 2;
c

01 _

i
i

c

^
g

^

\ \

l/l,

.-af

o.

ManningB_00409105

ys

(Sg
,w"
#

m %'

^

^

:B.

Xl

c
ra

h

\

c

1
f .c

O

^
^;
^s^
v-fe".

I

oi'j

Vi.

n

%

6
^

v-i

%

^

&
%

i

^

to
01

\

«J

%.

LU 1

^>

Cfi.

.ft

O CO

^

1
g

•-,!"r

s

B

O

Z

g

#

LU LU
CO Qi
< LU
CO >
CO F
D. <
Qi Oi

^
t;\
:H

K\

M
••^,}

^

I

4'

c
&
ra

;0
'J=,
d

iflj;

U
;3'

:^
o
Q

•D

I
i

I
Q

>,

to

ro

ra
X

vn
o
vo
4-,
O

\o
p-

TT#mr
33244

rCO

in
o

•5

° %

f

I g

UJ
5

<

-^^

UJ
UJ

I:

^
C3
C3

m

^
^
^

.15^

^
r'l.

^

N

\

M
^

^
^.
\\

I
u

42

a>

g

i
-b

I

'C

ra
-ra;

13

^

^

•P-B"
§.

.i
•to

•JC;

^

'W

O
B

^
:o

^

^:^
LU

^

ManningB_00409106

(55

33245

4
^

^
cn

^

t

L^

B

^

^

UJ

I
ut

z
IL

z

^

^

o
E t
CO CO

o >
U U.

i= o

^

ii
UJ lU
CO Qi
CO H

ii
ll
lU z

^

n
^
LU
I-

<
Q

ManningB^00409107

^

^
^

V.

^

^

^

^

^

^
^

^
^



82 mo $5

he mama.

33246

300000 3.5. 2 30.00 mEs0.i I
..6b:mEE00 an 2% :0 3.0: me mummcw 0033.500 .5

.E2mcm_m



Rm s?ex?mw .28


uE3m.cm_m m_EmE:_


memz

$0 930 9.3 :00 02 mama: >cm 0>mc_ :02 00

0

$0.9 .9: Eu 95. so:

m:0> umczoc 95>

50> .6 05 00:20:
. 0.0.. 00:3

o: 00: 0. um;

9: $3006.. 30> ED

Ema 2: _m_5.s 5. Em :2 E0

5

39:0. 05 30> 00



0:13 0300.: :03 0>mc 30; um? 00:5

$22.0 05 3 0300.: cows 30; $2 w0:_m

Vmzuw

DE: .25 5.60.0 mum .020 AS: Em?xm .05:

omE: co c0:mu_umE 0.: ?mm 20> 00

%0n:0mm:n_ 9: E05 Em 20> 00

S000: 30> m:o:mu__uoE :o_E_.ommE mcuumm 05.

.

05 509mu_o_:w co Em 20> E3 uc?mhmucz 20> 00

0.029%

mu_o_:m :0 camp 20> m>m; 95. 301

ASE .6 cemxs m_0._05m. I 00.03 0.0.6.30 .6 ES: 903$.?

u.d>m:

ou_o_:w :0 m_ 3mE:_ 9.:

13. 3.45 .

300200000 arm team: 0:0 503.3 .05:

.I

.wmm:wm_ >cm mam: 20> 00

xuxm?raam

?mm. 9: mm?

.00

nu.

.:u:mEE0u ho Emcu 05 :05 .650 >00 um; 30>

TEE Emma. 5200.. 00 A20 302?

n..w_mwE 02 mean 20>



n..>wu 30:

?Sun cm: 20>

bum .0:

2.00 50> 30> 9 090:0 m_m:2mE

3'3 K, 5

9.5 05 3 02%. 30> 00

.Uu\\w m_2
02

mm;

mm was

ManningB_00409108

33247

:;:)ii';iv./;i\!; v;;r;'"ioi
Complete tiie visitation lorm ami lorward ilT#r a[)uriDrmts aciiit;. insure tne lurn- it, comijieied and signsn m,' tne prisone- o- detainee.
Originial will be maintained ny the command Copv will Oe retained liy the Brig.

' REQUEST MADE BY PRISINERIDETAWIEE

/

1

. -

Al

l

l

l

3-3
(b)
(6)

I Cft rflib\lim^ i
i1

DATE

UNP AMD DUTY PHONE

PlllSONER'S NAME

l

/

/

l

II ' / / Uf^
[ ^ . ./.- 7 "

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP If NEEDED:

PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE.

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

^

^
PREVIOUS EDITimS ARE OBSILETE

MCB FORM 1640/17 111198) (EF)

Do^mnpd U^nn FDnnriov 2 1
MCBIflCl. Ibilnihi" I99r.

Page 43 of 87

ManningB_00409109

765 of 1505

33248

82 .8 000

.5 3. 00$



0000000 .00. 50> 003 0055

$000.00 :05 05 00.5 .00

o>0E0=0 0000.000 00:03 30>

00.00 30> 00:00, E00000 0000.000 50> 001

.0 0.00.00 00 0.3.000 000 0000000. 0.0000000 .00 0:

0000000 3 000000 0>00 30> 00

3.00 0 0000. 0.. 00003 00900.. 05.: 000000000 0.00 0.00.0.3 .000:

o0u0E 30> 0200 0:00 30:

o0__00 >00 000E 30>

0000000 000_._00_0u 0>00 30> on

200000.00. 0.0m. >000: .000 >02 0.20.3.0 .00 0:

0000 900. 30:

00?

0000 0E: 000000000 0000.00 m0_00 30> 0.3

30000000 000 >300 000 >03 0..0..0x0 .0300 05 00 >00 00 00 0:

?039 0 0>00 30> 0.0

?.000 003000 30> 0.0

00000 0200 30> 0.0

*5

00003000 05000 30>



1

.w0>00 30> 00 0.00203 00 009.000 >008 301

0003000 0_ 00000000 000.0 00.000 30>

00 00000.6. 0._0..0.x0 .00



~.m0_000_0 030 m0_?o_o 0050 000 050.5 30> 0.4

1

7: 000.0000 200_ 0.203.000 0.3003 00.0000. 0&3: 200

000V

$.05 000. 0.5 003



0:0> 00:05 055

3

050.0000 0 00:03 0000 30>

no 0% 0 3.05 000_ 05 002.
00:00, 05.5

3

SE: >0 00:03 0000 00>

o>_0E= 0000000.. 0.: 003 .00

50000 000000.. 00 300 00:000. .000 00000000. 0.0m 00.0.0. .00

00000300.. 30> 0200 .00 2

000000 .9000 >00 0>00 00> on

o>_0E= 00000000 05 003 .00

00000 000300.. 00:00 003000.. .000 200000.200. 0.0m 000.0. .000:

0:0 00 0000 00000300.. 20> 0>00 .00:



>00 0>00 on

02

00>

0000:0030

00_> n_O 000000
0.00 002.0 0.0000 02.025.

.0522 0020200

0 4 .0000

ManningB_00409110

33249

o
to

ra
CL

^

^
UJ
UJ

z

LL

z

C3
CJ

^
^

^
^
^

^

^
^

^

^

^

Ns

^
^

^

^ ^

^
^

^

\

\ ^

^

13

o
o

XI
XI

c
ra
X

^

01

'ro

^

E £;

^

.c

03

03
to
3
O

x>

03
X)
03 ra
O Sl
03 3

^

no

O

yo

>


ManningB_00409111

AB

>. 03

XI

Q X

E

ra

vo
O
vo
tw
O

rvo
r~

33250

COWIWIAWD VISITATION
Complete the visiration form and forward it for appropriate action. Insure the form is completed and signed by the prisoner or detainee.
Originial will be maintained by the command. Copy will he retained by the Brig.
UNIT AND DUTYPHONE

PRISONER'SNAME

^

I REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETAINEE:

^

^

^

30

(b) (6)

B^B^^^^^

^

DATE

/CO

z
COMMAND ACTIONS

/ / / /

z/rf

/V N
COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE:

o
PREVIOUS EDmOKS ARE OBSOLETE

MCB FORM 1640/17 111198) lEF)

•csigneij Using FoimFlow 2 1
MCB/REA November 1992

Page 46 of 87

ManningB_00409112

768 of 1505



mom 0o as

.6 0? 0000

33251

.. 2. - .

. 3 - $.03 0000000 300. 003
.3.

$000.00 :03 0.: 003 .00
.3 o>0E0=0 0000000 00:03 30> 030:
.1). fr .. .3. 00.0; 30> 00:05 0000000 50> 00:
:0 3300 .000 .05:
Ab 00: ?00 2 000000 200200.00 020: 30> on.
.. 3300 0 03.05 9 00:03 05 0.. 00300000. 05 :..mB.x0 .0: .3
n..000E 30> 0>0c 0__m0 30:
00:00 N00 000E 30? 030:
.. - .\1.Wx 0000000 0:o:n_0_0? 30> on

. . 300000.60. mam >30: 000 >033 :._0B.x0 .0:
0.. 3 w>00 5000 9.0. 30:
. . 43. ?>00 ?000 0E: _u0._0to 0503 30> 0.3..
300000.000. mam >30: .000 >033 Em..Qx0 .9600 0E 00 >20 0.. 0:
?.032 0 2,0: 30> 05
.L. .2000 0:320 030: 30> En.
00000 050: 30> 0_n_
00.03020 05300 30>
. .. 30> on 00 0000.20 >c0E 30:
1-3 oE3_.0_ c_ c00_0 00:00 30>
.. why. .. 70.055 0. 00000.6. .0:
x- -. .2 030 .850 0:0 9.530 30>
.2 000.3000 00 :03 0.303000 0 00:003 c0c>>
. 2.4.. x: ?30> u0:0_>
0 >0 00:03 _._00n 30>
3.0.3 300. 05 003
0.. . 30> 00:05 053
SE: >0 00:03 c000 30>
0 0000000. 05 003 .00
. .9 T0000 0003000 0. 30:. 0030002. 000 30200000 mam ..E0.E.. .0:
. . 0000 003003.00. 30> 030; .00
00000: >00 30> on
00:800. 05 003 .00
00000 00300.. 0. 30: 03.305 0:0 00200000. mam .0:
.. 0:0 :0 0.00 00300330. 30> 030: .00
. . 0>00>

n_O omoomm
020 004.0 00000 mz_m
3 . .. . m_m_z_n_zoo .. .

Manning 3

33252

vo

B

9

O
VO

?
o
f-

I
ra
UJ
LU

1
o

^

O
CJ

^

O

^

^'

ra
% "ra

is

^

II

^-^
1^^^

5 u>
So

>


Ul • ra

^

oi 'ra £

03

3

01 c

E
ro

I 5o

03

5

"2 a o

03

m ra

z

™-o S

l|S:

"1|

CO

\
,. |\ •^r,
vly -

^

?=l

^

•\<

l-

X.
CO

j
E
VFZ

LU
F-

<
Q

ManningB_00409114

o:

01
3

03

ra
cO l

E

%,

CO
to
"oi

ra
E
_c

01

ra

O

33253

o

§
03
131

ro

CL

^

rVi
^

-c

i

J

A.

h

f^.

\

>

IS

o

A

Vi

o
E t
CO CO
o>
O ti.
- o

\^

^

=> o
o
UJ l U
CO Qi
LU

\

^

\

X , .
"^'^^^
\

^

>

^

\

>

V \
>
\

is
O IO CO
UJ z

53
ra
0

ra
o

Q: Q

to
03
3
Cr
03

a
o03

0

O

< <

S

o

>

o
Q

QIt

rue
and in

care?

al needs?
c

XI

ra
-o
>i

g
re
ra

c
o

3

6

2

c

I>

g
03

a
.o>

ra
01
Ol
Ol

c
ra >
ra
o .c
CO
CL

ra 3
.c 01 > o .c
z: re
JZ 01 o"
o"
c:
3
o
Q- > o

S.

10
1^

o
o

lt=

ra
10

c
ra
ra

03
C

c:
o
f2

T3
3

o

03

03
C

este

rm

m

al re

Ol

med

a

fn

03

03 Ifl

was t

3
O

E

an

rue
in

s?
3

>>

care at
rsonnel and
ponse ti

ical CO nditio

me

Bstei
3

sz

c-

03 01

>
>
raJZ
ra

AB

i ^

>

c
re
ra
>
ra

req

%

•D

CO

03

av

Ques on

S

o

"5

CO

ro

re
-a
c
u
re
ra
ra

Idie

ig

to

(V>y

o
-c

03

c

03
-k

i

0
-t:

io

c^>.
ra
c

M
03

form

z i

03

j =

3
O

§ 5

o

>
X>,
I "D
O

Q

u
ra
-D
ra
ra
it
o
O)
c
'ra
J3
.3
o

>,

ra

a

> i

. 0 1 (V,
Ul
Ul
. X ra

o
to

m

ra
u
u
ig
u
C i 'c
01 o
.c £
.c a
ra fll
ra

c

o
£

ire

sz
3

o
Q

ra^
o

>.
c

i

i

sz

ra
E

3

o

>

g
ManningB_00409115

03

c
o

Ul

o
u
re
ra

a
_ra
ra

>> >
01
>^

t^-

i
ra
X

vo
o
vo
(H

o
t-^
t~-

33254

^
^
^
^

^
^

^
^
^
^

^
UJ

^
^

LU
LU

(^^
^

Z

o
^

^

^
'^
1^

:^
^

^

^
^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^
^

^

^
^

^

^,

^

^

^ ^ ^ ^

^

^

^
c^

ManningB^00409118

^
^

(b) (6)

33255

I COIJir.'.AN: ACTIONS

"L

i
cour;3ELor'o =OL.OV-'-UF I= NEEDED

1

1

i

1

I

.


1

'

''r

'i

i

1

...1

:

1

.

:iu'i!''i/K.' r,:"i;E,i-|:i''1,',;: rr,;:!-;

;.;ci'' rn% TIUI. • - W.-K

Page 51 of 87
ManningB_00409117

773 of 1505

33256

B^^^:^,^^

^^^^^^^''^

B^^^^^i^^^^^^

^^B^^

^^^^

^ • , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^'
^

^-^^^B

^^B^^^^^

^^'^^^B^^^'^-

'

'1^^^'

^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

B^^i'^:^^^^B^^
iB^'^^^B^^^

I^^^^^

^^^^^

^1^^^^^^^

BB^^^^^^^B^-^^,^^B

^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^'^

B^^^B^B^^^^

l^^A^^^^^^'^

^:^^^^^^^^^^^B^^

^ ' ^ ^ B ^B^^B^^B^^B^^^^^^^i^^BB^^

^^^^^B^'^^^-^

^^IB^^^B^B

B^^^^^^^
^

^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

B^B^^^B^^B^^^

^ - B ^ B ^ , ^ ^ ^ ^

^B^^^^^^^

^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ B ^

B^^^^^^B^^

^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^

B^C^^^/^^^^^^^^^B^^^B'^^^^^B^I^^^^^^^^

B^^^B^^^^^B^r^B.^^B

^^BB^^^^^^^^^,^^^^

B'

B^^^

^
^

^-^'

-

^

^ - ^

B

B^^^^^BI^^

.^^^.^^B^^^

^^^B-^

,'^^^^^^^^1^^;^

' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ i ^ i ^ ^

^^^^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
'•

^

^^^^^^^^^^^^.^

B^^^B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

B

^

i

^-^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^ B ^ l ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ v

^^^^^^^f^^^^l^^v^^

^

^

^

^

^

^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^

Page 52 of 87

ManningB_00409118

774 of 1505

33257

..iiiiiiiHiii III vi:,111.IIIII mill ,1111 iiiniiii.ii i in nun. 111111,111 :iiitiiii 111..11'. in nun
Lli lllllllll will nil imiiiiiiiiiiin ir tin iiiiiiiiiiiiiu. l.iiii' wil in iiiiiiiniii'ir iiii 1111,
I'i'.iiiuiuEii't; iiiAur

iiiniiiiiiiiiii mil lllllllll. 11 nil 11111.nn:i n U iiiiiiii

IJ;,T;

lll'jr ANII UU!'' I'lUlt'.'.

L..,'lv.

' I
/

(b) (6)

/..'.'L
* \ '. f-i K i ! ' i , . "

'I.

I I

: .1 I '

I

1 •

<

'
I

iiEiainin M/air m' I'msoNtiiinnAiNEi

/ I I
I I I

I

l/l

n : I

COMMAND ACTIONS

,

\

X
/

i-l

^

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

L

fi
il

l\l

I II
L

^

l:mwm REPIIESENIMIVt li'iimi

/ ^(r'/S

'^ L '< • I 'L • / tJ -/^^/T.^

—yr- 7
^ /

/

-

/

I'liEiiiDu;; EDiTior.'.; A ill 0111
.01 rii

IKjutMil lumn f ufiiiliBf. :- I
MOUIllU l
MCBfoiiwiDioin (iiino) IEFI
ManningB_00409119

Page 53 of 87

775 of 1505

33258

<
z
UJ
LU

z
o
o

.r
o
s t
00 CO

o >

^fe

^

\

ii

X

Si

^

^ ^ ^ ^

^

^

^ '

^

:^

LU lU
CO Qi
CO I -

& ^

8k
lU z

z i

03
i:^

cv.

^o

^5

10
03
ti
.Ol

5

1^

> i

ra
c
03

§

o>.
ro

Ul

c

i ^ -O

3

o

E

Cl

o

ra

Ul
Ul

ra
u
u
ro
g
'c
o
x:
a.
ra
ra

so

ui

ra

-Q

ra

g
o
.c

Dl
Dl£

C
ra

03

in
Dl
C

Ol
3

o

>

ra

ManningB_00409120

01

<
o
^

c
ra
o
o
c

>

ro
c
3
O

>

Dl
C

'ra
XI
3
O
> i

"D

Q

03

Q.

9-,

>.

^

c-

to

o
03
ra c
-a

o
c: u
ra
Xl
t^
ra ra
ra
SZ

^

b
ra ra

O)

ra
>
ra
sz

c
o

3

J

g

o

>.

3

o
>.
.

1^
CO

in
c^

^
^

^
^

33259

vo

o
o

I

tH

ra

t-^

g

Q-

<
z

^ 1

LU
LU
Z

u_
Z

o
o
Iv^

^

i^
v^

V

>

^ >

\

<
Q

ManningB_00409121

^

X

^

^s^^

CO

in

U)
in

o

r~-

33260

'sZ'.AWr-.i.i •-• 13i•'31,
! Gomnlcte the visitation form and forward i: for aporopriaie action, insure the form is completer' anr- sinned oy the orisone- or cexainse.
j Drioinia! will be maintainedfayths command. Cooy will oe retained hy tne Brig.
1
PRISONER'S NAME

UWITAND DUTY PHONE

1

(pk^fAWlWJ^
REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE:

.Zl
/

6/^

Hrrtc-- -o^i^vo(b) (6)

,'

DATE

u

-m
//

\

COMMAND ACTIONS

/ \ /I

// I

Iri.

Ill
TJ7
COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

PRISONER/DETAINEE SIGNATURE:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

/ 5 (^^ivcL^

M(-f^^
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

MCB FORM 1640/17 (11/98) (EF)

Designed Using FoimFlow 2 1
MCeiREA Nnembar 199S

Page 56 of 87
ManningB_00409122

778 of 1505

33261

1
v ^

lO

o
o
rvo
ra
Ol

ra

CL


.n
UJ
UJ

z
LL

z
o
o

1
f

3
lO

^

:>
J
\^
\y'l

o
E
t
t n CO

1^

•N

U

\r

^

O >
O u-

c o

\
\

LU t u
CO Qi

< IU
CO >
CO I CL
Qi

\
\
>

^

>

>

s

N

\
\

\
\

>

o
O CO

m z
Z

S

s

>.
01

> I
>^ I
01
T3

^

3
o

>.

LU
t-

Ifl

ra
5

<
o

ra
X

ManningB_00409123

o
ov
t-r~

33262

^
CO

"5
00
U)
03

ro

CL

v^
^
^

UJ
UJ

CJ

z
LL

z
o

^

CJ

1^

^
^

^

C^

^
^
^
^

^
^ ^

^

v^

UJ

v^

^

oi

;^
^

^

C^

z
^

^

^
^

^

^

c

E
E
o

(V-

in

"E

l<
.l-'
>
c

g

"c
ra

o
c
're
s:
u

2
a.


re
a

ro

o

c

m
ra

t
r

<
O

£

HI
Ul

ra
o
u
re
ra
>
re
£
3
O

>.
o

>.

3

CL

>
re
•a
>

fli
> c^- .
ra >ro. 1
-o X I
fll

ro
c
'ffl
Si

3
O

>>

Q

ManningB_00409124

I

c
g

ro

I

8

>>

u
re

i
-D

ra
re
ra
c
ra
ra

>>
£

-a
ra
"re
ra
c
ra
ra

ev.
ra
3

-a
ra
o
o

c^-

01

g
ra

'3

Ul

CO

3

S

10

&;
01

>.

E

c
re

•a
re

sz
3

o

>,
ra

%

I

01
Q.
D)

(3

•g
'o

p

8

ra

c
ro

S re
>
E
ro

fll
"O
c
3
3
O

c

3
O

>.

o
Q

ra

>.

£

K

o
Q

o

(g >>
^ >
'o

U
10

>.

£

X

£

£
3
O

>.
ra
>
re

£

g
O

Ul

>

"to
_re

ra
ro

I

3
O

O

>
o
Q

ra
o
c
CO

O
ra
"re
E
c
ra

£

to

•a
c
ra

Ul

_ra

>
E

ra
o
c
CO

e
ffl

-a
c
3
3

o



o
Q

Cvi

ra
re
o
ra

>
ffl

£

-c

c
re
ro
c

>,

c
•Q
C

5
ra o

ra

Q.

01

£
3

%

01

ra
o
c
re

>
•&
• >•
TJ

ra

cv.

o

Ul

8'

cv.

£

3

• CD

m

ro
ra

ra
ra
c

03

a.

^

3
Xl

3

-D

p-

>,

re

(V-

§

u

"S>^

c^c
o

(V.

-o
c
re

^

j<
3

S

g.

c
«
u

XI

c

"i
in

c^3
o

•a
ffl
ffl

c

>>
t
b

c
re

i

>•:
3
O

£
3
O

>>

o
Q

JE

Q

IO
o

fi
%
o

00
C^

33263

Complete the visitation form anti forward it for appropriate action. Insure the form is completed and signed Originial will be maintained n\- the command. Copy will be retained c the Brig.
PRISONER'SNAME

UNIT AN* DUTY PHONE

1

^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^

^

^

^

(b) (6)

^

REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE:

1

DATE

F^^^/^

1
y.'r\"

''/!

COMMAND ACTIONS

fA

I

!\J

T

IN

/
COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

I

j In
1 / / / I ...

/\

Y

,

/

1

I
/

y

1

/

/

W

/,'-

. ,'' 1 •/ .

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

)g6-)^d^V(J^Wj:^(^#'^

PRISONER/DETAINEE SIGNATURE:

T^"^?
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

Gesigned Using FonnFlow 2 1
MCB/REA November 1391

MCB FORM 1640)17 (11198) (EF)

Page 59 of 87
ManningB_00409125

781 of 1505

.. ?man.

33264

>mEo:m ?mm. mm;

??ag \u\3..3Q
A Emoa?o 9: mm; .om


QN. w?lxm \w . w>mEo:m mmc?mu .50; um?m_>

. 620: so.? um:m_> >mEo:m So?




3.. IN 1. :1 1.3an?: n! I at 1.111 I. uIU5.ln?

Demo 9.65 2 ?Ema ms 5. m::.omuEo. m? Em..o.xm .05:





?him an bum Em.6.x.w .0:
.







ax?:

mmnmE no.? m>m; m__m.u >cmE





mw__mo ?Em 28E 2; m>mI

Emccomumo. Dam. Ase: .u:m bus Em?Emu some 9.2 26:





I nuol?

ti ?(whiff

msonm ms. .8 sum 2 Qt:







Emccomcmq mum QB: new EmB.xm

.

m. m>mc Ea

Emwm m>m; E0














mqmow E0 .

m.m>m; so? on ESE: .6 >cmE

mEmE.mm cmm_u

9 mm.8EQ Em..Qxm .0:


2.. mmcaomn gem: EmB.m.c0 2:95 m$mEE

22$_m_3mm_ 9: mm;
93>

wan sLo..r.L..I..1 I inmwcoamm. _mo_umE 9: mm; .3 .

,.mm:c.E 2 new ..m::om.6Q mum .0:

wmzmo u2mm_..c8 m>m; .om









mmcoamm: _mu_nmE 9: mm; .3

5 . Irv(.3. .. .2 ..s .
an



Fcmo 2 ac: ?Eom. new Eczo?mq mum. .8 .29

Sm Emu u2mm:.um._ no? m>m.c .om ha
..

\?.IlLr IE. I Il\vW.u





u_0 DIOUMM
oo:z
Mu.



ManningB_00409126

33265

^
^
o

s

;i;

S

f 8

^
^
^
^
^
^

^

oi "^ ^

#

art

^

^
K

MS
^

\

#a
^
^
^

i^^^
?2:

^
^
'i^

^o
^c^^
HI.

Bra

to

o

^

^^'
^

ManningB_00409127

33266

B^B9^^^^^
^

^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^

^^B^^^^^B^I^^^^^^^^^^B^

B^^B^B^^^

^^^'B^^^^^^B

^^^c^^^^^^^

B^j^BB^B^c^

,^^^B^1^

'^^^^^^^^^^^

^i^'',^::^^,:^^^!:^.^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^;^^

B ^ t ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ : ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

B ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ / B ^ ^ ^ i ^

B^^^^^^B^^^^

i^^^^^^^c:^i^^^cB^B^^^^^^
^

B

^

. ^ - ^

^

B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ B ^
i^^^^^t^tiBB^B^^^^^^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ . ^ i ^ ^ t ^ c ; : : ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ , ^ ^ ^

' ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ B I , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ / ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ B ^ i i ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1^

B^I^^B^tB^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^^^^^
^

^

^^^^^^^^^ili^li^BC^^^^'^^

^

^ ^ ^ ' i B

^

1 ^

^i^^^^^^^^^^B^^^;^^^^^^^^B^^B^^^

^

^^I^Li^^i^^^^^^—

B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ , : ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^^^^^

^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ B ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^
B ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^
^BLB

^ ^ ^ ^

. ^ B ^ ^ B ^

^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^

^

^

^

^^^^B^^^^^^CI^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^

^i^^B^^^;^::^^:;:^^^^^^^^^^^

^

^

^

B

^

1

^

^

B

^

^

^

^^^^^^^^B^^.^B^^^^^^^

C^^B^.^^i^^fi^li

^B^r^B
1 ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^

^
^^B^^B^i/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:^^^
7 ^ , ^ ^

B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

t^^B^^^^^^^^i^^t^^^^^^^^^^^^

^
^^^B^^^^^i^^^B^^B^^^

^'^^
^

- ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '

^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^^^B'^^^''
^

^

^

^

^

^

,^^^^v^BB^
^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^

B^^^^B^^^^^^B^^B^^^^^^c^
B

^

^

B

^

^

^

^

^
^

^
^

^
^

^
^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

B ^ ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^

^^Bc^^BB

^^^^^^^^B^B^^^^^^^

B^^^^^^^^

Page 62 of 87

ManninaB 00409128

784 of 1505

33267
ZKlk r I'J !

' Comolete the visitation form and forward it foi aporopriate action insure the form is comoleted anri signed lr-; the prisoner QI- detainee
I Iriginial will be maintained hy the command. Copy will be retained oy the Brig.
UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

PRISONER'SNAME

(b) (6)

JHri^. U^'S-r-



' REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE'

DATE

/^R^'//

i

^

I

I COMMAND ACTIONS

Ik
I
COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

.'\

1

'

'/('



\) • rCOMMAND REPRESENTATIVE IPRINTI

j PRISONERIDETAINEE SlGNATUREi
I

'^(rHB''*^ V y- O-JV-yAJ::
PREVIOUS EDITIomS ABE OBSOLETE

lesitined U=mi} Formriow 2 I
MCB/REfl Novcmhsf 1993

MCE FORM 1640/17 (11/98) (EF)

Page 63 of 87
MannlngB_00409129

785 of 1505

33268

^

-9

r-

00

o
•vlto

^

4

03
03

ra

CL

i
LU

o
o

J

Y

3
C\
(^

I.

O

E t

j

CD

1'

.r
\_

CO CO

o >
O ti.

F O

lg
§8LU
LU
CO IU
>
tnO Qi
IC

^.

>

\

V

>

S

>

Qi Qi
O .H

(V-

z
S

_ffl

\
^

>

\

cffl
c

u

Q

i

o

<

o
ro

.Dl

£
O

c
re
'5.
re
£

a

>.

to

iv^

£
-a

ffl

0
>

c
ra
ra
UJ

£
3

o

§ §


ra
>

re
I

I
is

§

o

re

m

^

w o
S
c ra
ra £
Q . "o
•a
c
ra re
w Ul

'5 E

i

o c
"ra 3
S 3
c

O

>,
^<0

ro
c
'ti

ra 3
o" a
c
3

§.

>1

b

(V.

1=

ManningB_00409130

\

ro
c
'c
re

O CO

s

\

\

>.
re
•a
£
U

re
ra
ra

3

o

o

£

I
c
03

E
ro
CO V

cv.
M

IV

ra

ro

5
o

03
Ol
Olf

£
U)

c
,c g
ra "re
ra
o
ra

t

Ul
Ul

ra
u
u
re
u
"c
o

-a
o

ra
ra
c
-B
03

£
Q.

ra

ro
c

ra
re

>

"ra
ro

£
3

3
O

>,
"O

Q

5
o
X

§.
O

o

ro
X

vo
o
vo

o
vo

OO

33269

I

00

o

to

ra
Ol
ra
a.

s
LU

I

z

UJ
LU

i

z

^

LL

z
o

/

5

(J

r-

k
\

/

q

a

•5 l i

>^

i

^

r

t-

V

\
\

w

1^
\.i V \

I

\

>

>)Si

\

^

^^^^

Xl

H8
S

cC'

^

\

\
^

^

to

a

Q.
Xl
C

ra

>

^

§

ra
c
ra

^ai # ,

ManningB_00409131

^s?
^

VO
o

fi
f00

C~-

1'

33270

#


I

I Complete the visitation form and forward it for appropriate action Insure the form is comoieted and signed bvthe prisoner or detainee
. Originial will be maintained by the command. Copy will be retained by the Brig.
PRISONER'SNAME

1

|/%:/?;^%''^ |

'

UIIIIT AH!D DUTY PHONE

:
I

(b) (6)

j

DATE

y^,//

x^^;:^/
^
^

I

(

REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE:

~l

77

rmr

^

COMMAND ACTIONS

"l\

\\

'

f

\\ \ i iri

YJJ

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

/
/!

;

/'
% -

PRISONER/DETAINEE SIGNATURE:

COMMAND REPRESFNTATIVE IPRINTI
I

^
I

PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE ORSOLETE

Designed Usmg hrmFiort 2 1
MCB/REA November 1998

MCB FORM 1640117 111/38) (EF)

Page 66 of 87

ManningB_00409132

788 of 1505

!
1

33271

4

N
00

•s
^

s

01
131

^

ra
CL

i\

^ -

i
W

UJ
UJ

X

C3
CJ

i

y

.1:

i:

c:^

d

y
3$

i:

tq

^

5 -ZL

o

5
^

I

\^
-./

S b

-Js
:=>
«;)

A

>
u.
o

00 CO

"Ki

Q
Qi

V
/

O
O

LU lU
CO Qi

\

<

N

>
H

v

\

X

V

>

<
Qi
(-

>

\

\

J> >

s

1
$

\

(V.

ro
c

CO

re
ra
Qi Q

§

I

| <

XI

c
o

I

3
O
ro

Ol


s

Q
•.
c

'5
re
sz
O

c
ra

>

§

c
3
3
O

•a
"OT

'5
'c
ra
ra
UJ

i

£
3

&

I

-ic
to

>.
a
c

ra

S I

li
c I
S I

I']
o

>
ra

5

g:

10


(S

"5 ^

§
c
o

ra
ra

i
>v

Q.
Ol

tl

82
ra

1
u

I

£

^

ro
c

2
to
3

1
I
IB
U
'c
o

Xl

§

t

£

C

c
ra

m

>>

ro
G

ra
Q

'3
£

3
O

>.

S

8

»

ti

"5.

3.
O

2
u
u

c

1

1ro

ra

ManningB_00409136

5

f g
c
g
tS
i"
g
"o

(V.

OB

^

is

ro

re
>.

01
Q j 01

"o
c
•Q
c
ra

03

•5.

£

I

i

lg
^ -V
£

o

(V.

ra

£

3
o
X

o' 3
c O

>
o

o

ra
ra

VO

O

IO
tn

o

ts

OV

33272

/
XL,

'S

o
Ol
to
03
Ol

I
#
UJ

5

^

<
z
UJ
LU

z

^

^

LL

z
o
o

^

^
^
^

^'
^
^

(^

^

^

^
1^

^

^
^

'^

X

X

^
"3

^
^

X

i
£
ra

^

l^^
%

\z)

£
ra
u
ra

V\

Is

o
^

N

re
u

«

s
"8
g

J-

c

H
to

<
Q
13

ManningB_00409135

vo
o

%
ov
r-

33273

COMMAND VISITATION

Complete the visitation form and forward It for appropriate action. Insure the form is completed and signed by the prisoner or detainee.
Originial will be maintained by the command. Copy will be retained by the Brig.
PRISONER'SNAME

UNIT ANO DUTY PHONE

DAT5

'^^

^ ^ ^ A ^ ^i ^B^ ^^^ ^^

.^I^'^l^L^)^^^

(b) (6)

^^^^
REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETAINEE:

A/ :' 1' ,

/a /.r
COMMAND ACTIONS
-

fli I

/-.J

I'^n

/^

n

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

1-'



h : i 1/

•>'.! i #i

/ i./;

J-L

PRISONER/DETAINEE SIGNATURE:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT)

.yf

""vC^

PREVIOUS EDITIONS AW-BSSSlETE

MCB FORM 1640/17 (11/981 (EF)

ffesignetl Using FoimFlow 21
MCSIREA Novemfaei 199S

Page 68 of 87
ManningB_00409134

790 of 1505

33274

#
lO

-y?

o
o

P!

%

Ol

"4OV

ra

s.

i

#

V-

•^^
Cl

LU

I

I

D
%

i

^

^

E

w
%
5

m

o
o

j

I
I

3
1$
1

Qi

,%)
^
%

^

I

V' ^ '

CQ CO

O >
"fe
o

%

s>

O

s t

§^
i

•s\

>>

O

- O
LU LU

- o£.
ill
>

CO F

ii
lU z

z i
Qi a

< <

J

UJ

§

ManningB_00409138

\

\
^

\

X,

\

\

s

\

\

\

vo

r~

33275

^
^
o

f2
ra

g

^

CL

^
UJ

^
z
UJ
LU

z

o
^
%:

^

^
^
^

^'^

^

5
%
y

\

^
^

r\

^

X

\

\

^ '

2

\

s>

r.

0.

C

^
^

I

I 3
CO

^

ManningB_00409139

O
lO

vo
0\
t-~

33276

COMMANOVISITATIOI^
Complete tbe visitation formandforwatditforappropriate action. Insuretheformiscompletedandsigiiodhytheprisonerordetainee.
Originialwill be maintained bytbe command. Copywill be retained by the Brig.
PRISONER'S NAME

UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

DATE

B ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

(b)
(6)

B^^^^^^^^
REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE:

I

A

/

/

I

•'

/~\

COMMAND ACTIONS

Lri

-A-

ifltM
V

I

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

/.' ,'

/ U ' //
il
\L ! T V

s
PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNATURE:

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE IPRINTI

/ ^ ^

c
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

MCB FORM 1640117.111198) (EF)

Designed Using FonnFlow Z1
MCBIREA NovemliirlSSS

Page 71 of 87
ManningB_00409137

793 of 1505

33277

^

vo
O

^

o

IO

in

%

M

ra

^

^

Ol

C

1

S

^
^
^

s.

t
$

I

UJ
LU

z
u^
z


\;

13

I

^

I:
"^"^
01^ H
LOCO

>
u.
O
Q
Qi

O
O

s

s

LU lU
CO Qi
LU

\

V^

\:'.: \
fv-

lU z

re
ra

^ ") \ \

^

\

o-

03

< <

«

3

01

o

a

,Dl

c o
•D re
c .ffl
ra ra

cv.
Ul

•a

ra
ra
c

Hi

01
Q l 01

>>
c
re
ra

>

re

£
3
O

>,
o

Q

ra
£

re

o
-a
c
re

£

tn

o

E.

>

re
> i

£

•o
ra

'0
c

£
3
O

3
Q.
3

>>
ra
>
re

I

.c c
ro

o



"5. .2
"re
ra

o
XI

u
ra

C"

u>
ra

3

o
>.
ro

ra
ra

t

c

3

E

Ol M
c
'
ro I
03 I

%i

3
o

01
Dl

Xi

.
in C^a

ro
c
ra
ro
3

o

>>
ra

ra

-D
Cl
03

5
o

ra

I

ro
c
'ra

£
3
O



re
ra
Ul

c

£.

o

Q.

ra
ev

m >,
^o 5

o

c^
c
]re

c

01

•g £
CO

>,
ffl

c
c
o
S3

c ro
"3 c

ManningB_00409141

s s

^

Qi a

^

>

ro
c
'c

z s

UJ

vQ

•V'^l

Oi
H
O CO

^

E

\

\

>
H
<

ft
E
ks

^• \ :•
I.

^7

h
r

4
<

ra
ra

01

c
c
o
G
05
Q.
.Dl

^
O

c
Xl

•a a

I ll

c^tn

s,

o

CO

c ra
ra c
o

f

,c
ra

c
o

£
Q.

a^g
.c
ra
ra "5.
X
>
ra 01 '

ra

ra
» >
re
£
3
O

>.

o
Q

E '
5
o
X

£
3
O

>>
o

Q

\

•"\

r-

^

33278

^
7^

to

"S
03
Ol

^

^
LU

^
z

^

LL

z

F

C3
CJ

^

^
S
%
\
^

%
'^-

^
^
^

i

^

^
^
^

\

\

^
^

;,..;

X

^1

^
^

X

3

_ -o

HS

13

cv-

$
73

>
ra
>

^
^

03
X3.
_ra

^

^

Ol
UJ

1^

^

c
'ra
£
3
O

>•
ra

ManningB_00409140

CO

^ 1

o

fi

tH

o
vo
a\
c-~

33279

COMMAND VISITATION
Complete the visitation form and forward itfor appropriate action. Insure the form is completed and signed by the prisoner or detainee.
Originial will be maintained by the command. Copy will be retained by the Brig.
UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

PRISONER'SNAME

^

^

^

(b) (6)

^^^^^^B^^^^

^

DATE

REQUEST MADE BY PRISONER/DETAINEE:

lljnkJi.
I w

z

COMMAND ACTIONS

/

1

I I^ '/

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

'

/

^

COMMAND REPRESENTATIVE (PRINTI

PRISONERIDETAINEE SIGNAJ&llE:

/ ^ ^ " ^ A ^ ^
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

MCB FORM 1640117 (11/981 IEFI

Designed Usingf ormFlow 2 1
MCBfREA NovBmbcr199a

Page 76 of 87

ManningB_00409142

798 of 1505

33280

o

f2

ra
at
ra

CL

\
&.
LU

s
<

K

z

\

UJ
UJ

z

z
o
u

•n

<
^

)

LL

5r

^

i

-K

.O

•r


^
\

vA

7v <

>
u_
O
Q
Qi

>

&

r

CQ CO

s
V

>


:

N
•V4

#

S t

•>v.

X

A

O

kR

L


?
X
^. ^

•\fs

/v!

\

a Oo

1"
\

\

\

^%

•4

\

\

\

\

V

\ \

yv
i

SJC

C^

ro
c
'c
re
ra

O CO

lU

c
c

03

&

ll

CO
03
C

I

I

I
01

03

5
o

2
"o

CO

CO

"E
c
ra
"S
c
c
o
w

ra

01
Q.
,0]_

c
ra

G (

E

m

c
re
ra

.5 '

C
O

u
"re
u

5
>y

UJ
I-

<
Q

c
re
ra
>
re

£
3

gv

8

ManningB_00409144

Xl

cv.
in

•B

^
M

Xl

I
c

•a

c

03

ra
c

-o
>.
>

re

£
3
O

>>

o
O

3
O
>v

^
oJ-

g

3
O

s
>

c
ra
ra
£
3
O
>v

ra
>
re

"S.
n

£

o
ra
>>
£
•o
ra
"io
c
ra
ra
£
3
O

> i

ra

>

5

i

to
j3

03

M

ra
o"
c

u
re
ra

•D

c

c
_o

v>

re
ra
o
ra

td

-8

I
3

03
O

ro Q j cn i
c X CL
3
O

>

ra

TJ

a
o
>

E

o

3

^

£

'ra
S
c c
-c

ra
ra
10c

c^
>.
CQ re
6 - T3

>

evc
"a

c
ra
"5.
ra
.c
CJ
ra
w
"c

!

03
CL
Ol

ro

I?
£
o O
5 U

£:

V

I
\.
03

z

^

\

I

CO H

ii

M
wVi

cv.
Ul

oi

3
o

£
Ul

ro
c
ra
ro
3
O

>
ra

t

ro

03
Ol
oi;

-8


tn
Ul

6 UJ
to
^ ra

o uu
c w

«,
rs

c ra
ra c

Xl

ra

t

&

O
£

c a
ra ra

"o
ro
_c
'ra

^
03

o"
c

£
3
O

5
%

ra
o
> i
c
ra .
03
Tl =

ra
E

re

>%
g
o

X

£
3
O

>.
o
a

5
o
X

ra
o
o
ra
u
•£
o

g
ro

>
>.
01 '

£

a.
_ra

•ffl
ra
>
ra
£
3
O
>v
O

o

>. .
XI

>.
03
>
ra
X I

1

t

vo
o
>o

%
o
o
00

33281

^
^

00

o

"S

fi
%

f g

^

^

i;

i

LU
UJ

^

z
LL
Z

^^1

\

^
^

^ ^
1^
I ^
^

^
^
^
^
^
^-^

Ii
^
;^

^

\

^

^

\

^

^
^

^

^ 1^ ^

^
^

^
•e
%

,e

Vl

0.

Il
E
^
^
^
^
^
^

M

I
^
re

^

ManningB_00409143

a-^

CO

ra

,1^

o

13

£
U

£
3

gvl
ra
::^
re
;^

t3
O
3

to
co
to

H

4^

33282

I

vo

o
o
a>
h-

03
Ol

>::.-

ro
CL

vo

t4H

o
o
00

li
o_
lii

1
UJ
UJ

O

o

Qi
CO CO

>
u.
O

Q
Qi
O
O

%g
lU

^

^

K
/

>

i
il

§

(V-

>

o

w
3.g O
•§ ro
c

£

o
ro.

>,
£

•a
ra
w

a.

i

£
3

£ Cvfll o in
E
ra

X3

3
O

ra
cn ^

01

>

2:

"3

£
3
O

a.

'ti
01

3
O

Ol

3

ra
X

C

J

Ol

g

a

"Q

cv.

ra
^ uu
o

ffl

XI

(S
ffl

t

£

u

c

c c
ra o

' c
ra

t

5
o
X

^'

Ul

to

re
ra

>.

"D

c
ra

a

O

>.

Q.

e
03

-c
'o o
X ro
c c
ra 'ra
o
o £
c 3

o

i

§

•o
ra ffl

in

ro
c

>.

§
o

5

c
ra
ra

>>
ra
>

t

o
"O

^to

c
o

.c c :
ra

.ro
c
'ti
ra
ro

>

5

I

O -a
ra £
« ro
c u>

£

ra
G
o

# £
o u
c ra
X) ra
i;
ra
ra E

£
O

i E

03

.Dl

w o
S tJ'
c
ra ra

I

ra

:

01

c
re
a.
re

ManningB_00409145

^'S^

%

C

cv.

Q

X

ro
c
'c
re
ra

Xl

<

X

\

\

>

(V.

O CO
LU HZ

UJ
H

£
'/I

i-S

>

h<



I

g

ara
ra
03
ffl XI

>

re

c
o
£

a.
ra
ra
>
re

£
3

&

£
3
O
>v

O
Q

o
Q

ra
X

33283

^
o

§

ra
Ol
ra

T-..

CL

^
^

I
UJ
UJ

^
^
^

C3
CJ

i

I

^

s

iS
X
.Q

% tu

II

^

I

^
^
^

li

>


ii

I

^

ra
E

ra
'wl
Z

^

^

^

^

^

V

k

oi
5
ra

fll 'S3 S
3 ra c

i Mi

l" lI I!

.s> -o 5

«

«> o

01 ra

5

1 ' ^

^

^

tl

^

^

CO
Ol
'1^

CO

£
t.1

'ro

^
ra
^

^
^

'o
^ 3

^
^
13

ManningB_00409146

13

tw
O

ts
o

33284

COl^l^ANOVISITATlOl^
Complete tbe visitationformandforwatditfor appropriate action. Insure fhe form is completedandsignedbythe prisoner or detainee.
Originialwill be maintained by tbe command. Copy will beretained by the Brig.
PRISONER'S NAME

UNIT AND DUTY PHONE

^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^
REQUEST MADE BY PRISONERIDETAINEE:

A

U

AI

(b) (6)

BBB^^^^B^^^

DATE

3 ^ /v\Ki^-^^/

r

I \l 0 IU t

COMMAND ACTIONS

COUNSELOR'S FOLLOW-UP IF NEEDED:

f\

JTW^
^' L' \)
COMMAND REPRES0ITATIVE (PRINT)

/^^

PRISONER/DETAINEE SIGNATURE:

^v^^/^MW^
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

MCB FORM 1640/17 (11/98) IEFI

Designed Using FoimFlow 2.1
MCBIREA November 199S

Page 81 of 87

ManningB_00409147

803 of 1505

33285

;

I

a;

^l^il^

~J

<

^^.^

V

4
^Bii^

^^^;

m

LU
LU
Z

^

LL

z
o
o

#
^: ^
^

^
^

b
^^^^^

X

i

^

'.i

^1^^

^

Iv ^

^

^

^1^^

l/3

^
UJ
1-

§

Page 83 of 87
ManningB_00409611

805 of 1505

33286

IB^i

^
^
^
^
^
UJ

UJ
UJ

z
13
CJ

^
'^'
":;^
^
^

^

':i^

1^

4
^

^

»"

^

^^^^

^
^
UJ

^

^01

^

13

Page 82 of 87

ManningB_00409610

804 of 1505

91^960WO sGuiuuBi/M

9091 JO 608

33287

Z8JOZ8a6Ed

i]

Wf

»
Ttv

C

^

$
lii
5

<
z

UJ
LU

z
LL

z
o
o

A$

i

o
<

UL
_j b
< (O

%
St

ii I
II

9
*T

<1

VSw

IS
8|

^

I

A
•••'I

h
^
-ft;

W

S

1%!

I

^

%

ft

& \

\
#

i

If
. •{

#

I
-y;^
V)

LU

s

^

!

'ft

3%

i

ph4

Ql

cS

g

o%
ftR

tA"
s?

w
%

m:

1

%
&

Wi

if

-0):
£;

di'
07

'>!

5?

I

I
m

%

41

I

f
^

ra;

S
T!

m

ife'

m

#

IW

#
1g@
nH
Oi

E

3"

'P;

%

£

j

w
#

m
Bi

1

II

Bw

I

#
JC

."^

s

£;
O;
£'.:
Di
W

:%)
'-*

m

K

.i

J6':

$.

I

I

\ \

*

-•s

i4

§

: .'•
m.

1^

#

JC;

o

a
%

El

•jo!

i

81

W
SS:

S;
#
M
••X):

\

SI.960W0 g6u!UUB|/\|

see IJO 808

33288

ZSioggaGBd

^

x>

I
\
4(

'> H

'- %:

4

iz

I

UJ

$'

UJ

tu

M

z
o
o
>S1

4.

f
@

^ \i

%
^

iL
*

#1

&
-j-J.
\''^

M
\

#

j
l#

•%Mi

1
I
M
'a$]

m
m
ig

M
g
UJ

%

M
#
#

I

I
w

^

w

I

co
ra

>t o
CL

ra
oi

Sl

LL

o
x5 u
K
o
x> 0)

>

ID

»
c
01
Sl

g

#
>s

^

I

o;

IS
e
ra,

I

i

g

fl?

i

ip:

XI
# c^
03
.Q
^ O

|1

m

M

01
CD
3
O

>,
>.
o o

Q

Q

t

M
3

B:

(5;
^*!r

i
'£5.
«l
•o"

£ i

01 ©
Sl JZ
03
Ol
3
O

H).-

>1

W-'
M

I

-g

iftU

S4

r01
to £
n;
2
E
Q
'S
Ul
v>
c
o
ra o
o
c
XI
o
>, Qo .
01
01 "to
Sl
E CO
o
x>
ra
to
E E

01
Sl (C

m
'IA

w=

I

to
d
3
O
O

\

A,

I

SC

m

#

3i

aw

t

tSi.

K

f

#
r

^

•iv,

4

as

i

,\

\^ \

wa

HI

1

i

c<
Ml

,10)'
13

_c;

a
%j

n

#

•s

€1.960M0 aBumUBj/M

9091 }0 908

33289

Z8iOfr8 86ed

i
^

%

#
%
*g

-^5'

I «J
I

%

A

a

i¥|
p'E

sg^

#K
#

#
&
.#

%

'gK

#

A

ai

tl

^

vt

Ul

I

4

g
^

r

Q'T

w
u.

n

H
CO
o
>
LU LL
Qi
Oi O
O
o Q:
o

;
I?.

•f

1^

I

y
%

1

\
\

o
o
LU

Oi
< tu
Ui
z>
Oi CO
I-

n

S

#
#
#

>

\

\

sss>

^

%

m

X-

%

§iz
zs
Q
o<

'X

—3

tCO
lU

5
Q

A
W
c
O

^

0)
3

a
-4

-4.

t

\'

171-960WO 86u!UUB|/\|

SOS IJO Z.08

33290

Z810 98 8BBd

#
•il'.';

#

'&%
%%'
#
#

'W

^

lg

#

m

m
«
r-'O «
• 10 IS

#c(r(

III

K

i'i

^

1^

ffi
X

III

#

#

\

4

'

^

#

>^

\

V

I

\

-e:

p s>

1.^

V

#

s

4-

1
1
£S

w

%i

fi

evereUL)
ta
Qi

to
to

ijro;

iiii;

m
m
#

'£.:
'•3:

0?

Si

#

^!
m
#


I

M:
•v.:

m

%
#
re.
#

21 3
3

o

:3;

o
Q

#
.itSJ

>
o
X

413

CO

Q

^

33291

#

#
1

-_ACE

DEP.ARTMENT OF THE NAVY

MCCDC Ouantico Base Brie
2 DATE

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

j

^o\\

1.

Zpm^

frnn ri^!nii.'nt",ry statement to
whom 1 Know to be

nrsKe the following

^ iT'TY^f^F 3 t 3 ^ < » £ f ^ N T ^ ^ ^ ^

VKfT"^ ^ ^ O '

S^O?*t^V^?0^
« exttiPaSL to me , fully underi.tantj Ina. this.

_ , s . . „ „ . , . „ . e . . e „ ,

^ ^ * ^ 9 ^ K )

CALJ-

bvl^l-

•^cwtm^ cL^RM- ^STw^eJ TV(^a^a» ou^
>ev>

{v^A(JWP^KADLtYV

OPNAV 5527/2 (12'-82)

ManningB_00043316

S/N 0107-LF-055-2710

Designed Using FomFlow 2 15, HQMC/AFtAE, May 98

APPELLATE EXHIBIT ^l(a
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES

33292

1,^^^^

^;;;^i^^l^^^^^

B^'^^'l'^^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^

^

^

l

^

^

^

i

^

^

^

^

,.11.

^

I'I

lllll'.l'.'lll.

5^K6'2m-f\A- GAf^warr
B'.BI.llll

11111','

^^T^^

11 l l

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^^^^

^ ^ ^ ^

T.cir' In:' MfilHlii'.'ii '"m-^w • 'iL"i-H+'^c.*.'@ik!a.'& V./IIIII.LI ail' llii'„,-Jl, -^saaasnijea.,'

• i;-;i|.,i,-;

I ' III'.-.

lull .in;,'-,:; , t i l , : i|-,s Hi:,

u'-.ii,-,'ii i:'ii>;;i'. .ii.'ii..i:( ir .'iciv'/i'^iuK- , ?(C.0C%|V6 k^c^^Ar3:0fU cAL-L- pOTo CoHH-ter Or 'JC li'x.i.^iyLTi'C^ OF W % c Y V^u^Ul^xotJ
SHou^
V
\
\

/>lAWT\\;_
ManningB_00043324

33293

L)L--^\r'Th/IEh!T Cir

/v/ / i
I K'l'' '

i '

V O L U N T A R Y STATEIVt5I\T

25.5,a,«,ii«ii't,. s w t m J r

(g/^^^TT

Gt4l
! inaKi Um r.iciu-inieii' ci,' iii" (iwii#B*«vifil! 1
.11 inuri"Ikwac^pbi
f.tmeii,ii,WLC|ivRi,c(,iic.':i.,iiiun'yki,t,wlHcjc^^^

r-^OXCJ^')10tJ Q.{^.

l-iir

iiiHic; IIK- uiliowiiif-

ru^'ERi/rso^

W i l t 111, I KlltlW I t ' 111

I,:::.:

%>ID VZ- xX

^^p^oLtj £PWftfel? (V^ftf^'^'c-N'C^
'l#N!Ll*&l4i!''''%%p*!'"

'iiiiiilK.i

Il'.li

«tii(it! iiiiMCi I lulh' iiiirJKitiiciiici liici' liii:.

T^Utvni^lJ

SUtlP

fp^^

cAuL-

^'ETUCl^t'^UkCC?

{^)'lOXCi\TrC>Kl ^ t t ^ b

Out

(^dr\^'^^

p^r

K/5
IWCvf^Y^J-vX^i G^D^-^

OPNAV S027il'l',l-t;2i

ManningB_00043327

S/K li10-,-'..r-t)B;.-2?lt,

rmsiciiiptl Usinii roim^iciv ;: 1C HOMC/AFIAE Mav

33294

. J z i ' ^ ' A , " " " / ! / ) ' ] / ' ' ' ' >!• ".-/:• U l ' 1 .'

11>/|' '11 'IIIIIInr.., I'.ii..- '.
11.1'

\' DL'J K- 7 A R Y ST A.~EWi E 1\"

19^3,)

RmoLcv tuwfYpo n^oPWTUi^
lici' riiic I'oiiiiilfin';,i;ii':;iii;;i"i'ic
VIlCill, I KIUIV l l , I't

' i i H k : III'.- i.iii:iv%/iir

^KGi^^rjf-

[/Ul Y ^^X^ ^(j(>£K\jnoK ( p M

niak! till! siciioiiieii o' nn owii irat- wil! ciiic williou; yiiy liiieaii:. o' pioini.sc-;; oxlKiicietl K, mc-. , lulK uiiof-;i;„fiiif'liicv tin;.
taiciiKiiK ll cjivRi' c;oiic,c-.'iiiiiKi niv KiiowlcifltK' o;

C lyjrjXA/^;^

0"NA\' 5527,'L' r,l-C2

ManningB_00043328

(\ ^C^l eiflC-^

(^AL^'

^e^^.^^ j^^ci^Y'^rwcA^^ /^c^/iy , i ^ . :

3/1- t'KiT-Lr-[!5;..C71(.

..lasicinc'-ci usin^i r-ciriiriw,';. 1-: H3IVOARAE

IV.Ei\ HV-

33295

J E - ' i ' . r TI\/iEN'- •:>!

/v/ I'v
I l\/i- ' ' i I '
I)-,I

VO L 'J NT A R Y STATE IVI E l\ T

^ii.ili! i : . ' I '.III,' I II II

:^ol(;'l
^(KP'OL'l'( C0W(Y(k9 M A ^ y ^ ^ u I 1151' r l l l f VClltllllfl :v

WHOM ' '
titaini.irin I .

mix

DUT4

S'cK^stA^r

^^t(r-

6

11 I ' l l . '

Pt^

I l l ' - ttilitiV'/: ic

W ^ T r

SO^t^n^O?^

Ct>65)

1 nifikt lm. r.iciKoineii' oi w own iiei- will aiifi v/illioui anv liiK-.att. 01 iiiomii-.o;. extKiided it. me , iiiliv tiiKieiu'iaiir, Ina
i»a,e,ii(.in,i^n,vt-i,.t;()iit:ui,iii,(,niylcnowW()i 01 V o W / X t - ^ f ' ^ ^ ^ t ^ O C t h

eo^l^

OPNA\' 5527,1' ;-.'i-C2,

ManningB_00043329

^^^Wv^^

C^O

D^oioi.%3sO

E,/I\'i10"-Lr-U5'.27H'

btssitinet: tianii rcirm=iiM

l ; H3lv'CiAF'A£. Wiav 91'-

I

33296

H: ."'it:''lYI::i\'7 ( I f l / l : A / / i f l

VOLUNTARY STATEME^VT

mX-^C^O^^'rico at\J ii/>ii

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I'li'L anci \'uli,i,;.iry sLwham I know lo hc

IM.£fejT
f^i^vC-)

., mal'vi ill!- lollovi/inn

t P U > £

.Sof&g>V/.S«gg

I mal'.f llii', sl,Ucnifiil ol niy own fn;t; will and williotil any 1hic;iL.s oi |iioini:ie.icndod in mc I fully undcisland
lhal tins siaLenicn: i ; given concerning my 1. nowicdse of

fV\^ <0'\sV\l/\A,

c i o ^ i j o <5;
«iv.cWV«^ (^ur)c^ Te^vorisr^ i^bge^c^

ovA(l cio^L

pM^oK^fA^-l^ Wr^^*^ j'^^ys^"^ ^^^\v.
|^^c:tFvL.ui^

mWir^^)\^^^*^ ^

EMCLDSUREW
Manning B_00043330

33297

REPORT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH EVALUATION
CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT BOARD

(LBSL FIISI, MI): 6? I

I FOR BH EVALUATION
SUICIDE WATCH EREVENTION OF OTHER:

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION LCHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

BEHAVIOR: HYPERACTIVE PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE HOSTILE susmcuous BIZARRE

LEVEL OF ALERTNESS: (FULLY ALED ILU. . SOMNOLENT
LEVEL OF ORIENTATION: PARTIAL DISORIENTED 5
M000 AND AFFECT: FLAT OEPRESSED LABILE MANIO OR HYPOMANIC
THINKING PROCESS QIKR CONFUSED DIMRRE LOOSELY CONNECTED
THOUGHT ABNORMAL HALLUCINATION PARANOID IDEATION DELUSIONS

MEMORY: FAIR POOR I

ANY ABNORMAL FINDING IN REMARKS

gTT\Ob?\?1Df\e\\ ow? or-Vlorx
0" ORFVQ amgsd?l o.m9. b. 44,,
I 0 MW
Fmu ?Sm. Wm
POOV Qye 0.vxCQ? 641??

h0?f? bz-?cuJLEv\ (gang,
706 OJMQ \m5 - gun-in?5I'$ O\x? ?V\l?mIv\3
- nth}. Of.
V7 oz)-ucvc. n\5"T
(A 5 . can cimn?zhb ?mg

bJRa.v\om51 M5 pmn,-I Qfmol Anus]! .
2:43., 63? AL
.

6) 206:2 L-L.) h-T4,.

APPELLATE


as PAGES 533 of 1505



I FINDINGS

MENTAL DISORDER IS: RESOLVED IMPROVING DETERIORATIMG NIA

RISK FOR SUICIDEISE LF-HARM IS: QED MODERATE HIGH

RISK FIR VIOLENCE IS: MODERATE HIGH
BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE: Is DUE TO ATREATABLE IVENTAL
INMATE: (SE9 DOES NOT NEED TO BE SEGREGATEO FROM DUE TO A A

DISORDER
NEEDS FURTHER EXAMINATION: WITHIN 24 HOURS WITHIN 72 HOURS Ki?) NIA

OTHER (Sea Romarks)

Page31of36 .

REPORI OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT BOARD



33298


PM







om

57? 39*? 0?--dA?gRs? Qt? QWIC5
NO Oxvl-xc.-I-y




i
Tm, Imwucaaior. 9/am! dish M51


Ti?


do ht?? am} MIAAKQ, .

NAME (Last, First, MI): SSN: - RCN:
- MANNIM, (Kr: I 25.3
SON FOR BH EVALUATION
SUICIDE PREVENTION OF INJUWYE OTHER:
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
BEHAVIOR: HYPERACTIVE AGGRESSIVE HosnLE SUSPICIOUS
LEVEL OF ouLL soM~oI_eN1-
LEVEL OF ORIENTATION: PARTIAL DISORIENTED
M000 AND AFFECT: FLAT DEPRESSED LABILE MANIC OR HYPOMANIC
THINKING PROCESS CONFUSED BIZARRE LOOSELY CONNECTED
THOUGHT CONTENT ABNORMAL HALLUCINATION PARANOID IDEATION DELUSIONS
MEMORY: FAIR POOR
ANY ABNORMAL FINDING IN REMARKS
FINDINGS I
MENTAL DISORDER IS: RESOLVED IMPROVING ?19 DETERIORATING 5
RISK FOR IS: MODERATE HIGH
RISK FOR VIOLENCE IS: MODERATE HIGH
BEHAVIORAL IS IS NOT DUE TO ATREATABLE NENTAL DISORDER Pr
INMATE: DOES DOES NOT NEED To BE SEGREGATED FROM GENERAL PQDULATION DUE TO A TREATABLE MENTAL A
. DISORDER comm.? I
NEEDS FURTHER EXAMNATION: WITHIN 24 HOURS WITHIN 72 HOLRS NIA
OTHER (See Remarks) I
REMARKS:



950: (D
can pwviie

5 -

9\IM\cu due. 4-O



dwu? 0: .\k4
. 5-hwt?gf
y: bum. ff mm -

oe um.:.mM.

|U\~0t Iv, M235 do In
ad Omcbw-o.rf.. Oo?\pIiaM9-





M9. fgnsong,



vFQt"\a

cm? H:
. emm



DATE

UATOR:

QQWT I5-I LWL ML

PRNTED NAME

ManningB_OO0431 81

REA

1
2

Page 33 of 36

540 of 1505

33299

INCIDENT REPORT FACILITY)
(Rev. 6-83)

Complete this form In TFIIPLICATE. Ensure that all Information Is CORRECT and LEGIBLE. Forward original and one copy to the
Administration Chief. One copy is to be retained by the Security Chiei or OIC oi the individual?: organization it the incident oocured ourside
the facility.

QUANTICO BASE BRIG 131 20110113

INJURED DUTY A
MANNING.BRADLEY E.




-L4 "3217 II



SIR ON THE ABOVE TIME AND DATE WHILE PERFORMING MY DUTIES AS DUTY BRIG SUPERVISOR. I GM2 WEBB
WAS GETTING SND READY FOR HIS DAILY RECREATION CALL ALONG WITH LCPL TANKERSLEY. LCPL
IN RESTRAINTSAND CALLED ON THE RADIO TO SOUND STAND BY FOR
LOCKDOWN. LCPL TANKERSLY THEN ESCORTED SND OUT OF HIS CELL AND INSTRU CTED HIM TOFACE THE
ROW EXIT. SND FACED THE DOOR THEN LCPL TANKERSLEY STATED AYE AYE LCPL. SND ASKED

LCPL TANKERSLEY THEN EXPLAINED TO SND THAT ANYTIME HE RESPONDS TO A STAFF MEMBER HE IS TO
RESPOND AYE AYE. YES OR NO AND SAID PERSONS RANK IF ENLISTED AND SIR OR IF COMMISSIONED.
LCPL TANKERSLEY TOLD HIM LETS GO AND SND SAID ITHEN EXPLAINED TO SND THAT HE IS A
DETAINEE INSIDE THIS FACILITY AND ANY TIME HE IS ADDRESSED BY STAFF MEMBERS HE NEEDS TO RESPOND
USING RANK OR TITLE. SND SAID YES GM2. I THEN ASKED IF HE WAS READY TO CONTINUE WITH HIS
RECREATIONAL CALL AND SND REPLIED YES GM2. LOCKDOWN WAS COMMENCED AND WE (GM2 WEBB LCPL
TANKERSLY AND LCPL CLINE) ESCORTED SND TO DORM ONE FOR HIS RECREATIONAL CALL . UPON ARRIVAL TO
DORM ONE WE ENTERED THE HATCH AND ESCORTED SND TO THE CENTER OF -THE SPACE TO REMOVE HIS
RESTRAINTS. LCPL TANKERSLY INSTRUCTED SND NOT TO MOVE WHILE HE WAS REMOVING HIS RESTRAINTS SNE
RESPOND SO LCPL TANKERSLY REPEATED HIMSELF TELLING SND NOT TO MOVE SND STATED NOT
LCPL TANKERSLY TOLD SND HE NEEDED TO SAY LANCE CORPORAL THEN SND STATED LANCE
LCPL TANKERSLY REMOVED RESTRAINTS AND ONCE HE REMOVED HIS HAND RESTRAINTS
SND FELL BACKWARDS FALLING ON HIS BUTTOCKS LCPL TANKERSLY AND MYSELF REACHED OUT TO CATCH

HIM AND IASKED IF HE WAS OK. HE THEN JUMPED UP AND QUICKLY RAN BEHIND A WORKOUT MACHINE
MUMBULING SOMETHING AND COVERING HIS FACE. I THEN CALLED THE SECURITY CHIEF TO COME TO DORM.

ONE AT THAT TIME HE UNCOVEREO HIS FACE AND STARTED YELLING SORRY GM2 IM

SORRY I INSTRUCTED LCPL CLINE TO GRAB A CHAIR SO THAT SND COULD SIT AND CALM DOWN.

FULLER ARRIVED AT DORM ONE AND I EXPLAINED THE OCCURRENCE OF EVENTS TO HIM. HE THEN
ASKED SND IF THERE WAS ANY PARTICULAR EVENT THAT TRIGGERED REACTIONS . SND STATED HE
UNDERSTAND WHY HE WAS BEING TREATED DIFFERENT AND THAT IT SEEMED THAT ALL THE GUARDS
WERE ANXIOUS AND IT WAS MAKING HIM ANXIOUS . FULLER ASKED WHAT COULD WE DO TO HELP YOU

me m'auLA~ce omen nus sToi11'o?sfcx an we saw T0 uosnim nus asmnneo TO FACLITY

FOLLOWING PERSONS NOTIFIED
nmeor reason was CALLS ms
GM2 WEBB 1325
TITLE TIME

ADMIN CHIEF FULLER 09:? as I to/:7
PROGRAMS CHIEF BLENIS I
OPERATIONS CHIEF SSGT LEE 71?: I
BRIG SUPERVISOR MSGT PAPAKIE Zgo Kc 1 A
BRIG COMMANDER CWO4 AVERHART

mus. cam; oaomzmou. rm: (PRINT) sm was one I
at APPELLATE sxman mg 535 D2351 1 01 I 8 6

PAGE

ManningB_00043469

I



0 0 33300

INCIDENT REPORT ONAL FACILITY)
(Rev. 6-83)



SND STATED HE KNOW . HE WAS THEN ASKED IF HE WANTED TO GO BACK TO HIS CELL OR CONTINUE
RECREATIONAL CALL SND STATED HE WAS OK AND IF POSSIBLE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH HIS
RECREATIONAL CALL. I CALLED FOR 2 DIFFERENT ESCORTS TO ASSIST WITH RECREATIONAL CALL AND TO
RELIEVE LCPL TANKERSLY AND LCPL CLINE. CPL BALDWIN AND LCPL ARTILES ARRIVED. SND RODE A SPIN

BIKE AND COMPLETED HIS RECREATIONAL CALL WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. EOS --

ManningB_00043470

33301

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEFENSE RESPONSE TO
GOVERNMENT MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE MOTIVE EVIDENCE

V.

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC
U.S. Army,

HHC, USA

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

30 November 2012



RELIEF SOUGHT

The defense respectfully requests that the Court deny the Govemment?s 16
November Motion in Limine to Exclude Motive Evidence. The evidence described as
motive evidence is actually admissible considering all of the relevant facts and law.

OF PERSQSION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The Government, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof as well as the
burden of persuasion. See RCM 905.

FACTS
The Defense stipulates to the facts described by the Government in its motion.


The defense does not request the production of witnesses or evidence in order to
resolve any legal or factual issues with respect to this motion.

AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

The Defense does intend to call Adrian Lamo to discuss in detail his ?chat?
conversations with PFC Manning. We anticipate that examination will include a
discussion of PFC Manning's motivation during the charged time period. See AE 344.
Likewise, the Defense intends to call Zachary Antolak to discuss those matters
described on pages 3 and 4 of our Motion to Compel the Production of Vt?tnesses,
dated 23 November 2012. (See AE 408.)

Motive evidence is relevant in this case for two separate reasons: (1) the elements
of certain charged offenses make PFC Manning's motivation relevant and (2) the
testimony of Jihrleah Showman with respect to PFC Manning's intent makes evidence
of motivation proper rebuttal evidence.

This topic was generally addressed by the Defense Motion to Compel the Production
of Witnesses (AE 408) discussed above. Therein," the Defense described the need to

1

APPELLATE



PAGE 0? PAGES



33302

produce Antolak and essentially requested the same relief sought in this instant motion.
The Defense writes this separate response in order to address the cases cited by the
Government in its Motion in Limine.

Many of the cases cited by the Government McGuiness, and Kiriakou) do not
altogether block motivation evidence in this case because those accused, unlike PFC
Manning, were not charged with Aiding the Enemy under Article 104, UCMJ. In order to
?nd PFC Manning guilty of the Speci?cation of Charge I, the trier of fact will have to
determine that he aided the enemy with a ?general evil accused had to know
he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the United States.? See AE 410.
Evidence that suggests that PFC Manning's motivation was something other than to
deal with an enemy would tend to make a fact of consequence his guilty
knowledge) less probable and, therefore, relevant. This same logic applies to every
charged offense that requires guilty knowledge Specifications Charge ll).

Additionally, the Government sought to introduce evidence under MRE 404(b) of an
act of PFC Manning that was proof of his intent to commit the charged offenses in a
motion on 3 August 2012. See AE 250. Speci?cally, the Government described an
encounter that PFC Manning had with then-SPC Jihrleah Showman, another Solider
assigned to HHC, 2/10 at Fort Drum, prior to their deployment to Iraq. During this
conversation, SPC Showman recalls PFC Manning telling her that he has no loyalty to
his country. The Court granted the Government's motion with respect to this particular
piece of evidence and will allow it for its tendency, if any, to prove PFC Manning's intent
with respect to the charged offenses. See AE 287.

The Defense believes that the evidence described in the preceding paragraph opens
the door to motive evidence. A closer examination of US v. Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. 105
(CAAF 1995) is instructive with respect to this point. As indicated by the Government in
its brief, CAAF used that case to distinguish between motive and intent by distinguishing
between an immediate intent and an ulterior one. See Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. at 113-
114. The former is the requisite intent in order to commit a crime; the latter is often
inadmissible motive when offered by an accused on the merits. lg.

The Defense submits that the Showman intent evidence is only relevant to describe
an ulterior (and not immediate) intent of PFC Manning. That conclusion is compelled
when you examine ?404(b) intent cases" that are emblematic of a more immediate
intent: US v. Sweeny, 48 M.J. 117 (CAAF 1998) (stalking of ex-wife is relevant in
prosecution of stalking current wife) and US v. Harrow, 65 M.J. 190 (CAAF 2007)
(evidence of assaultive behavior toward daughter is evidence when accused is charged
with her premeditated murder). These cases show the difference between putting on
evidence of another crime or simply another act. Evidence of another crime like those
cited earlier in this paragraph will more often supply a more ?immediate" intent.

There are plenty of 404(b) "intent" cases that seem to more accurately describe the
ultimate criminal ?motive? of an accused: US v. Henry, 55 M.J. 108 (CAAF 2000)

33303

(evidence of pornographic video order fomi possession admissible when accused is
charged with making a minor watch pornography with him) and US v. Hays, 62 M.J. 158
(CAAF 2005) (intent evidence of explicit emails admissible when accused is charged
with solicitation to commit rape of a minor). The Court can see that this evidence, while
called evidence of intent, is ultimately more probative of the criminal motive of an
accused. The testimony of Showman will describe conduct that falls more within this
line of cases. As such, the Court must allow the Defense to rebut the Government's
404(b) evidence.

The ?pigeon holes? of 404(b) should be of no moment to the Court in making this
determination to allow the Defense to rebut the Showman ?intent" evidence with the
Lamo and Antolak "motivation" evidence. It is long settled that a trial judge should not
be particularly concerned with how this evidence is characterized. See US v. Castillo,
25 M.J. 145 (CMA 1989).

The Defense would certainly understand any desire to avoid over-litigation of a
collateral matter. However, the evidence offered by the Government through Showman
must be put in its appropriate context. Stated bluntly, Lamo and Antolak will impeach
the evidence from Showman by contradiction, showing that her testimony should be
given little weight when considered in the context of all the other evidence at trial.

CONCLUSION

The defense respectfully requests that the Court deny the Government's 16
November Motion in Limine to Exclude Motive Evidence. The evidence described as
motive evidence is actually admissible considering all of the relevant facts and law.



THOMAS F. HURLEY
MAJ, JA
Defense Counsel

33304

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

DEFENSE RESPONSE TO
v. GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE
MANNING, Bradle E., PFC
U.S. Army,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, DATED: 30 NOVEMBER 2012
Fort Myer, VA 22211

RELIEF SOUGHT

1. PFC Bradley E. Manning, by and through counsel, moves this court to deny the
Government's motion for judicial notice.

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

2. As the moving party, the Government has the burden of persuasion. R.C.M. 905(c)(2). The
burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. R.C.M. 905(c)(1).

FACTS

3. PFC Manning is charged with ?ve speci?cations of violating a lawful general regulation, one
speci?cation of aiding the enemy, one speci?cation of disorders and neglects to the prejudice of
good order and discipline and service discrediting, eight speci?cations of communicating
classi?ed information, ?ve speci?cations of stealing or knowingly converting government
property, and two speci?cations of knowingly exceeding authorized access to a government
computer, in violation of Articles 92, 104, and 134, Unifonn Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
10 U.S.C. 892, 904, 934 (2010).

4. The original charges were preferred on 5 July 2010. Those charges were dismissed by the
convening authority on 18 March 201 1. The current charges were preferred on 1 March 2011.
On 16 December through 22 December 201 1, these charges were investigated by an Article 32
Investigating Of?cer. The charges were referred on 3 February 2012.



5. The Defense does not request any witnesses be produced for this motion33305

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

6. The Defense objects to the admission of the Government?s Enclosures to its Motion for
Preliminary Determination on Admissibility of Evidence dated 16 November 2012 and will
address each Government Enclosure in turn.

1. Government Enclosures 1-The Defense objects to the Court taking judicial notice of the above Enclosures because the
Government has made no showing of the Enclosures? relevance. MRES 401 and 402 establish
that any evidence ?having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence? is relevant and admissible. Absent a showing by the Government that the instant
Enclosures are relevant, judicial notice would not be proper. Should the Court ?nd Enclosures
1-9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are relevant, the Defense has no objection to the Court taking judicial
notice of the requested documents. The Defense would, however, request the Court limit its
judicial notice to those speci?c portions of the Enclosures for which the Government is able to
establish relevance.

11. Government Enclosures 10-14, 20 and 21

8. The Defense objects to the Court takingjudicial notice of the above Enclosures because the
Government has made no showing of the Enclosures? relevance. MRES 401 and 402 establish
that any evidence ?having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence? is relevant and admissible. Absent a showing by the Government that the instant
Enclosures are relevant, judicial notice would not be proper.

9. If the Court ?nds that Enclosures 10-14, 20, and 21 are relevant, the Defense objects to the
Court taking judicial notice because they are inadmissible hearsay. On 18 October 2012 this
Court ruled that a statements appearing in a newspaper are admissible ?only if the newspaper
article within which the statements appear qualify for a hearsay exception.? See Appellate
Exhibit 356 at 11. Here, Enclosures 10-14, 20 and 21 contain statements that appeared in
newspapers or other publications. Not only has the Government failed to offer the Court a
hearsay exception for the publications in which the statements appear, it has also failed to
articulate a hearsay exception for the statements themselves. Because the Government has failed
to articulate the necessary hearsay exceptions for Enclosures 10-14, 20 and 21, the Defense
requests this Court deny the Government?s request forjudicial notice.

Government Enclosure 17
10. The Defense objects to the Court taking judicial notice of the above Enclosures because the

Government has made no showing of the Enclosures? relevance. MRES 401 and 402 establish
that any evidence ?having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence



33306

to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence? is relevant and admissible. Particularly troubling about this Enclosure is the fact that
no publication date is evident. The only date which appears on the Enclosure is the date on
which the Government presumably printed the document, 16 November 12. It is hard to
contemplate a showing of relevance for an undated document. Absent a showing by the
Government that the instant Enclosures are relevant, judicial notice would not be proper.

CONCLUSION
11. To summarize, the Defense makes the following objections:

Enclosure 1, Army Field Manual 2-0?Relevance

Enclosure 2, Army Field Manual

Enclosure 3, Army Field Manual 2?22.2?Relevance

Enclosure 4, Army Field Manual 2-22.3--Relevance

Enclosure 5, Army Soldier?s Manual and Trainer?s Guide ?Soldier?s Manual and
Trainer?s Guide for Intelligence Analysis, MOS 35F, Skill Level 1/2/3/ ?--Relevance
Enclosure 6, Executive Order 1295 8?Relevance

Enclosure 7, Executive Order 12972?Relevance

Enclosure 8, Executive Order 13 142?Relevance
Enclosure 9, Executive Order 13292?Relevance

Enclosure 10, BBC news report??Relevance and Hearsay

Enclosure 11, New York Times article?Relevance and Hearsay

Enclosure 12, New Yorker Article?Relevance and Hearsay

Enclosure 13, Washington Post news article?Relevance and Hearsay

Enclosure 14, Armed Forces Press Service news article?Relevance and Hearsay
Enclosure 15, Department of State enemy designation?Relevance

Enclosure 16, FBI designation of Adam Yahiye Gadahn as terrorist?Relevance
Enclosure 17, Department of State website?Relevance

Enclosure 18, State Department enemy designation--Relevance

Enclosure 19, State Department testimony?Relevance

Enclosure 20, ?Inspire? magazine?Relevance and Hearsay

Enclosure 21, The Winter 2010 issue of ?Inspire? ?Relevance and Hearsay

12. Based on the above, the Defense requests that the Court deny the Government?s motion for

judicial notice.

Respectfully submitted,

CPT, JA
Defense Counsel

33307

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Government Response
to Defense Motion for Judicial
Notice of H.R. 553 and
Congressional Hearings
Discussing Classification
30 November 2012

RELIEF SOUGHT
COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, and
respectfully requests this Court deny the defense motion to takejudicial notice of H.R. 553, as
well as transcripts of House Committee meetings on the Espionage Act (16 December 2010) and
Over-Classification (22 March, 26 April, and 28 June 2007). These congressional materials or
documents are irrelevant during the merits phase. Additionally, the United States requests the
Court find the cited testimony inadmissible under Military Rule ofEvidence (MRE) 803(8).

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF
As the moving party, the defense has the burden of persuasion on any factual issue the
resolution of which is necessary to decide the motion. Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM),
UnitedStates, Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 905(c)(2) (2012). The burden of proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence. RCM 905(c)(1).
FACTS
The United States stipulates to the facts set forth in paragraphs 3-5 of the defense motion.
WITNESSES/EVIDENCE
The United States requests this Court consider its Ruling on the Defense Motion for
Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts - Finkel Book and Public Statements, dated 18 October
2012, as well as the other cited Appellate Exhibits.

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
In its motion of 16 November 2012, the defense requests this Court takejudicial notice of
H.R. 553, the "Reducing Over-Classification Act," as well as transcripts of House Committee
meetings on the Espionage Act (16 December 2010) and Over-Classification (22 March, 26
April, and 28 June 2007) pursuant to MREs 201 and 201 A. The defense argues that not only do
the law and congressional records satisfy requirements for takingjudicial notice, but that they are
independently admissible under MRE 803(8) and also relevant. The defense arguments have no
merit. It is appropriate to takejudicial notice of the law in so far as it exists and is relevant. It is
also appropriate to takejudicial notice of the testimony in so far as the congressional record
presents an accurate accoimt of it, but not for the truth of the matters asserted.

^

APPELLATE EXHIBIT m\
PAGE REFERENCEDPAGE
OF
PAGES

33308

LTHISCOURTSHOULD DECLINE T O T A I ^ J U D I C I A L N O T I C E O F H . R . 5 5 3 0 N
THE MERITS AS,PURSUANTTOMRE201A,ITS RELEVANCE TOTHEACTION
ATISSUEISAPRERE^UISITEFORJUDICIALNOTICE.
Tbe La^^ Judicial Notice and Relevance
MRE 201 govemsjudicial notice of adjudicative facts, i^^^ Appellate Exhibit356.
Judicially noticed facts must be those not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either
generally known or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to soLirces whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ . The militaryjudge must takejudicial notice
of adjudicative facts if requested byaparty and supplied with the necessary information. MRE
201(d)
Judicial notice is only appropriate fi:^r adjudicative facts, not fi^rinferencesaparty hopes
the factfinder will draw from the fact(s)judicially noticed, i^^^ Appellate Exhibit356.
Accordingly,judicial notice is not appropriate for legal arguments and conclusions, ./i^.
Moreover, Appendix 22 of the Manual fi:^rCourts-Martial,which sets fi^rth analysis ofthe
Military Rules ofEvidence, explains that "adjudicative facts" are to be distinguished from
"legislative facts." The Federal Rules ofEvidence Advisory Committee defined "legislative
facts" as rules "which have relevance to legal reasorung and the lawmaking process,whether in
the formulation ofalegal principle orrulingbyajudge or court or in the enactment ofa
legislative body."
Domestic law may be judicially noticed pursuant to MRE 201A"insofarasadomestic
law isafact that is of consequence to the determination of the action."
Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence ofany fact
ofconsequence to the determination more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
MRE40L
Application to tbe Facts
The defense is correct in stating that H.R. 553 "was signed into law by the President of
the United States, and unquestionably qualifies as domestic law as contemplated by MRE
201A." However, MRE 201Aalso states that domestic law is appropriate fi:^r judicial notice only
when it isa"fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action" at issue. ^^^MRE
201A. Here, the law itselfis notafact determinative of any issue in the present case. Instead,
the defense attempts to extract from the law certain conclusions. Suchfindingsappear to set
fi^rth the factors motivating congressional attention to the issue. Therefi::^re, they are not
adjudicative facts in and ofthemselves, but rather appearto be precisely the sort of"legislative
fact" contemplated by the Federal Rules ofEvidence Advisory Committee. As such, they are not
appropriate forjudicial notice under MRE 201.
Additionally,the statements that the defense motion expresses interest in do not satisfy
MRE201A. These congressional findings, the defense alleges, indicate that over-classification

33309

problems result in confnsion about what infiormation can be shared with whom. Moreover, they
assert they are relevant in rebuttal against the accused'sknowledge at the time of tbe misconducL
FirsL as indicated above, MRE 201A requires the lawtobeafact of consequence to the action at
issue. ^^^MRE201A. Therefore, while it would be appropriate to takejudicial notice that H.R.
533 exists if the fact ofthe law'sexistence were determinative, it is not appropriate to take
judicial notice ofthe content ofthe legislative opinions it contains—except insofar as the law
truthfnlly expresses Congressional wilL The law is not at issue. Thus, H.R. 533, and by
extension, its conclusions, are not appropriate forjudicial notice as contemplated by the plain
language ofMRE 201A.
However, assttmingi^^,^^^^^^ that the content ofthe law and the assertions contained
within are the type of facts contemplated by MRE 201A, it would still need to have beenafact
available to the accused at the time ofhis misconduct in order to affect his state ofmind at the
time and thus be relevanL As the law itselfwas not published until December of2010, this is
impossible. Moreover, even ifthe law is merely memorializing circumstances which existed at
that time, contemporaneous evidence ofthose circumstances (which may have gone in to the
making ofthe law) and not the later-published law itselfis wbat tlie defense should seek to
admiL
Toconclude, defense seeks judicial notice of statements inalaw and not ofthe law itself.
This is not permitted by MRE 201A. Moreover, even ifthe facts within the law are those
statements contemplated by MRE 201A, they cannot establish what the defense proffers and are
thus irrelevanL For this reason, they cannot be relevant to the action at hand, and thus are not
appropriate fi:orjudicial notice Lmder MRE 201 and 201A.

H.THECOURTSHOULDDECLINETOTAI^JUDICIALNOTICEOFTHE2010
TESTIMONY OFTHOMASBLANTONASTHETESTIMONYDOESNOTCOUNT AS
ADJUDICATIVEFACT,REPRESENTSHEARSAY^ITHINHEARSAY,ANDIS
ALSOIRELEVANT.
Tbe L a ^ of Judicial Notice
MRE 201 govemsjudicial notice of adjudicative facts.
Appellate Exhibit356.
Judicially noticed facts must be those not subject to reasonable dispute in thatthey are either
generally known or capable ofaccLLrate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, i^^^^i^. The militaryjudge must takejudicial notice
of adjudicative facts if requested byaparty and supplied with the necessary infiormation. MRE
201(d)
Judicial notice is only appropriate for adjudicative f^cts, not for inferencesaparty hopes
the fact finderwill draw from the fact(s)judicially noticed.
Appellate Exhibit356.
Accordingly,judicia1 notice is not appropriate fi:or legal argLmrents and conclusions.
Moreover, Appendix 22 ofthe ManLLalfi:or Courts-Martial, which sets fi^rth analysis ofthe
Military Rules ofEvidence, explains that "adjudicative facts" are to be distinguished from
"legislative facts." The Federal Rules ofEvidence Advisory Conrmittee defined "legislative

33310

facts" as rules "which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in
the fi^rmulationofalegal principle or ruling byajudge or court or in the enactment ofa
legislative body."
Application to tbe Facts
The content ofMr.Blanton'stestimony before Congress does not represent adjudicative
facL It is the expression ofhis own opinion. The onlyjudicially noticeable fact is that it was
captLired accurately by congressional reporting. As with the statement by John Conyers,which
this Court declined to take judicial notice ofin its 180ctober 2012 ruling in Appellate Exhibit
356, despite the fi:ormalcircLimstancesLmder which the statements were made, Mr. Blanton's
statement refiects his personal conclusions. Moreover, given the forum ofhis testimony,it
appears his statements were made to advise Congress as it considers the formulation of policy
and thus, precisely the sort of"legislative facts" not appropriate fi:or judicial notice.
TbeLa^^ Hearsay ExceptionMRE^03(^)andHearsay^itbinHearsay
MRE 803 (8) provides that public records and reports are also exceptions to hearsay
evidentiary limitations. It states, in relevant part, thaL
Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any fi:orm, ofpublic office or
agencies, setting fi^rth (A) the activities of the office or agency,or(B) matters
observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there wasaduty to
report, excluding, however, matters observed by police officers and other
personnel acting inalaw enfi:orcementcapacity,or(C) against the govemmenL
factual findings resulting from an investigation made piirsuant to authority
granted by law, Linless the sources ofinfbrmation or other circumstances indicate
lackoftmstworthiness.
MRE 805 states that "hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded Lender the hearsay
rLLleifeach part ofthe combined statements confirms with an exception to the hearsay rule
provided in these rules."
Application to tbeFacts
The CoLirt has stated that "a Congressional record could be admissible under MRE
803(A)if relevant."
Appellate Exhibit356. As such, the Congressional record proffered by
the defense could, ifrelevant, be admitted as an exception to hearsay fiorthe truth ofwhat it
asserts. However, the truth ofwhat this record asserts is not the truth ofwhat Mr. Blanton
asserts, but rather that Mr. Blanton asserted it the way he did. Toillustrate this poinL suppose
Congress heard testimony ofabigot or racisL or perhapsaparanoid schizophrenic. Even if
relevant, their statements should not be admitted for the truth ofwhat they assert merely because
captured byareliable report. Instead, the method ofreporting merely assLires the Court that
statements were truthfi^lly reported. AsadeclarantLmavailable to testify as to the truth of what
he asserts, Mr. Blanton'stestimony is hearsay not subject to exception under MRE 803(A).
Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Blanton'stestimony relates thefindingsand opinions of others

33311

("GovemorToml^ean, head of the 9/11Commission, afier looking at all the al^aeda
intelligence...said, you know, 75 percent of whatlsaw that was classified should not have
been"), the testimony constitutes hearsay within hearsay as described in MRE 805.
Tbe La^^ Relevance
Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence ofany fact
of consequence to the determination more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
MRE40L
Application to tbeFacts
Assuming ^^^^^^1^^ that the testimony at issue is admissible as part ofaCongressional
record, it is still not relevant to the case. FirsL as the opinions expressed belong to Mr. Blanton,
they have no bearing on the accused'sstate ofmind at the time ofhis misconducL Moreover, as
Mr. Blanton'stestimony is discusses over-classification generally and was delivered after the
accused'smisconducL it does not speak at all to the specifications charged, or the accused's
misconduct on which they were based. It is thus entirely irrelevant to the merits section ofthe
case.
IHTHECOURTSHOULDDECLINETOTAI^JUDICIALNOTICEOFTHE
CONTENTOFCONGRESSIONALHEARINGSIN2007.
Tbe La^^ Judicial Notice, Hearsay,and Relevance
MRE 201 govemsjudicial notice of adjudicative f^cts. i^^^ Appellate Exhibit356.
Judicially noticed facts must be those not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either
generally known or capable ofaccLLrate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accLiracy cannot reasonably be questioned. i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . The militaryjudge must takejudicial notice
of adjudicative facts if requested byaparty and supplied with the necessary infi:ormation. MRE
201(d)
Judicial notice is only appropriate fi;or adjudicative facts, not for inferencesaparty hopes
the factfinderwill draw from the fact(s)judicially noticed.
Appellate Exhibit356.
AccordingIy,judicial notice is not appropriate fi:or legal arguments and conclusions.
Moreover, Appendix 22 ofthe Manual fi:orCoLirts-Martial, which sets forth analysis ofthe
Military Rules ofEvidence, explains that "adjudicative facts" are to be distinguished from
"legislative facts." The Federal Rules ofEvidence Advisory Committee defined "legislative
facts" as rules "which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process,whether in
the formulation ofalegal principle orrulingbyajudge or coLfrt or in the enactment ofa
legislative body."

MRE 803 (8) provides that public records and reports are also exceptions to hearsay
evidentiary limitations. It states, in relevant part, thaL

33312

Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any fi:orm, ofpublic office or
agencies, setting fi:orth (A) the activities of the office or agency,or(B) matters
observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there wasaduty to
report, excluding, however, matters observed by police officers and other
personnel acting i n a l a w enforcement capacity,or(C) against the govemmenL
factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursLiant to authority
granted by law, unless the sources of infiormation or other circumstances indicate
lackoftmstworthiness.
Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence ofany fact
ofconsequence to the determination more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
MRE40L
Application to tbe Facts
The comments expressed in the 2007 House hearings are not appropriate for judicial
notice. These comments represent legislative and not adjudicative facL It might be appropriate
to take judicial notice ofthe fact that Congress held hearings in 2007,but not the content oftbe
statements. Moreover, the statements do not constituteacongressional record tmder MRE
803(8)(A), as contemplated by Appellate Exhibit356.
Fiirther, the United States grants that the defense-cited testimony ofthe Director of
Information Security Oversight Office differs from the other cited statements in that it(1)asserts
aquantifiable fact not restated from another declaranL and (2) was offered priorto the alleged
misconducL Therefore, this specific utterance is more reliable than others. However, in order
forthis to be relevant on the merits to the accused'sknowledge at the time of the misconducL
there must be evidence that the accused was aware of the overclassification issue. Lastly,any
relevance this may have to an allegedly "broken system" is confined to pre-sentencing, nota
merits inquiry.
CONCLUSION
The United States respectfully requests tbe Court deny the defense motion to takejudicial
notice ofthe congressional materials. The United States further requests the Court find these
documents inadmissible under the theories proffered and irrelevant to the merits phase ofthe
case at hand as outlined above. Additionally^based on this filing the United States intends to file
amotion in limine for this Court to preclude the defense from raising evidence of overclassification at triaL

^ow
CPT,JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

33313

I certify that I served or caused to be served a tme copy of the above on Defense Coimsel
via electronic mail on 30 November 2012.

>^^^Mom&^
YPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

33314

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
V.
Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer,Virginia 22211

)
)
^
^
^
^
^
^
^

Govemment Response
to Defense Motion for Judicial
NoticeofONCIX,IRTF,and
DOS Damage Assessments
30 November 2012

RELIEFSOUGHT
COMES NOW the United States ofAmerica, by and througb undersigned counsel, and
respectfiilly requests this Court deny the Defense Motion for Judicial Notice ofDepartment of
State (DOS), Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive(ONCIX), and Information
Review Task Force (IRTF) Damage Assessments.

BURDEN OFPERSUASION AND BURDEN OFPROOF
As the moving party,the defense has the burden of persuasion on any factual issue the
resolution ofwhich is necessary to decide the motion. ^^^i^/^^Ci^^^^.^.^^^^i^/(^C^^,
^^^^^^i^^^/^^,Rule forCourtsMartial (RCM)905(c)(2)(2012) The burden ofproofis bya
preponderance ofthe evidence. RCM 905(c)(1).
FACTS
The United States stipulates to the facts as set forth in the defense motion.
WITNESSES/EVIDENCE
The United States requests this Court consider its Ruling on the Defense Motion for
Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts^Finkel Book and Public Statements, dated180ctober
2012.
LEGALAUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
The defense requests this Court takejudicial notice ofthe ONCIX, DOS, and IRTF
damage assessments pursuant to Military Rule ofEvidence (MRE) 201. The defense proceeds to
argue that not only do the damage assessments satisfy requirements for takingjudicial notice, but
that they are also independently admissible. The defense arguments have no meriL Thedamage
assessments are inappropriate fiorjudicial notice, and also inadmissible under MREs 801 and
803. Each issue with the defense motion is addressed below.

I . THE COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS AT ISSUE, AS THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS IS
NOT AN ADJUDICATIVE FACT.
1

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 4 3 1 .
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33315

TbeLa^
MRE 201 govems judicial notice of adjudicative facts, i^^^ Appellate Exhibit356.
Judicially noticed facts must be those not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either
generally known or capable ofaccurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, i^^^^i^. The military judge must take judicial notice
of adjudicative facts if requested byaparty and supplied with the necessary information. MRE
201(d)
Judicial notice is only appropriate for adjudicative facts, not for inferencesaparty hopes
the factfinderwill draw from the fact(s)judicially noticed, i^^^ Appellate Exhibit356.
Accordingly,judicial notice is not appropriate for legal arguments and conclusions. 7i^.
Application to tbe Facts
The damage assessments produced by the IRTF,ONCIX, and DOS areacompilation of
subject matter experts'opinions assessing the state of affairs at the time the relevant assessment
was finalized or otherwise drafied by the organization. They were geared toward documenting
the impact of the accused'smisconduct on department or organization operations. The
documents themselves do not purport to express facts only. Moreover, neitherthe infiormation
contained within them, northe conclusions oftheir authors, are based on infiormation generally
known or capable ofaccurate and ready determination. With respect to tbe DOS drafi:
assessmenL the document was never finalized nor officially vetted-thus, it is questionable
whetherthe assessment is reliable at alL The United States is therefore prepared to accept
judicial notice be taken that(1)these documents exisL and (2)they purport to convey their
respective Department'squalitative assessment ofthe impact of the accused'smisconduct ata
specific period in time. However, for the reasons detailed, the United States does not find it
appropriate to take judicial notice ofthe content ofthe assessments, and in so doing, afford the
conclusions contained within the assessments the imprimatur of facL

H.THECOURTSHOULD DECLINE TO ADMITTHEDAMAGEASSESMENTS AT
ISSUE UNDERBOTHTHENONHEARSAY AND HEARSAYEXCEPTION
THEORIESOFFEREDBYTHEDEFENSE.
^ . ^ . ^ i ^ ^ ^ i ^ i ^ ^ . ^ ^ . - ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ . ^ ^ i ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

TbeLa^
In its ruling on180ctober 2012, this Court adopted the three-part test articulated by the
Second Circuit inT^^/^^^^1^^^.^^.1^1^/^^^^ to determine if the statements at issue in the defense
motion were admissible against the govemment and worthy ofjudicial notice, i^^^ Appellate
Exhibit356. The test requires the Court,"^tojbe satisfied that the prior^statement^ involves an
assertion of fact inconsistent with similar assertions inasubsequent triaL Second, the court must

33316

determinethatthe^statementsjweresuchastobetheequivalentoftestimonialstatements...
Last, the district court must determine byapreponderance ofthe evidence that the inference that
the proponent of the statements'^shes to draw isafair one and that an innocent explanation for
tbe inconsistency does not exist."./^.
Tbis Court has mled that "to qualify for admission asastatementagainstaparty
opponent, the statement must bear suehaclose resemblance to in-court testimony that they may
be considered its fiinctional equivalent." 7i^. Inconsistency highlighted by the use ofaparty
admission should moreover be clear and obviate any need for the trier of fact to explore other
circumstances surrounding the issuance ofthe prior StatemenL i^^^^i^. Casual statements made
to private individuals,with no expectation of conveyance beyond the listener, are not testimonial,
even ifhighly incriminating to another. ^ii^. Moreover, statements are not testimonial ifthe
declarant did not make the statements thinking they would be available for use atalater court
proceeding. 7i^.
Application to tbe Facts
In its motion, the defense argues that the "damage assessments are statements made by
individuals that clearly qualify asaparty opponent" as the departments are "closely related to the
prosecution in this case" and were "directly affected by the leaks for which ^the accuseds has
been charged." Def MoLat3. However, as indicated above, the prosecution must generally
manifest its beliefin the truth ofsuch statements. Todate, the prosecution has not manifested its
beliefin the tmth ofany ofthe statements made in the damage assessments.
Additionally,the defense states that "the primary purpose ofi^theassessmentsjwas to
convey unambiguous, factual infiormation to the highest levels ofour govemment." DefMoLat
3. The defense is speaking out ofboth sides ofits mouth. They argue that the damage
assessments convey unambiguous factual information, knowing fiill well that the assessments are
basicallyacompilation of subject matter experts'opinions assessing the state of affairs at the
time the relevant assessment was finalized or otherwise drafted by the organization.
Moreover, the damage assessments are not admissible under the three part test articulated
by the Second Circuit in ^^/^^^^ and set forth above. There is no reason to expect witnesses
from the organizations to testify^ inconsistently with the damage assessments, nor any reason to
hold the prosecution responsible for assessment conclusions absent any prior manifestation by
theprosecution indicatingabeliefin their veracity. Also, shouldawitness from the department
concemed testify inamanner that contradicts the content of the assessment, there is no reason to
believe there is not an innocent explanation for this inconsistency,nor any reason to believe
further inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the assessment'sformulation could not
resolve any apparent inconsistency. Lastly,these damage assessments are not testimonial in
nature. This is especially tme for the DOS assessmenL as the Court has acknowledged its nature
asadrafi documenL Finally,the damage assessments were not done in anticipation oflitigation,
but because of each organization'sown operational priorities. InfacL damage assessments are
generally not completed until afierthe conclusion of criminal proceedings.
. ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^ I ^ ^ . ^ ^ . - ^ ^ ^ ! ^ ^ . ^ ^

33317

TbeLa^
MRE 803(6) permits records ofregularly conducted activity to be admitted as evidence
as an exception to hearsay. It reads in relevant part:
Amemorandum,report,record,ordatacomplication,inaany form, ofacts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from
information transmitted by,aperson with knowledge, i f kept in the course o f a
regularlyconducted business activity, and i f it was the regular practice of that
business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,
all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by
certification that complies with MiL R. Evid. 901(11) or any other statute
permittingcertificationinacriminalproceedinginacourt of theUnited States
unless the source of the information or the method or circumstances of
preparation indicatealack of tmstworthiness.
Application to tbeFacts
The defense asserts that Army Regulation 380-5, para10-5(a), requires information
holders to notify original classification authorities(OCAs)ofinformation compromise, and also
provides that these OCAs will, in tum, conduct an investigatory damage assessmenL ^^^Def
MoLat4. It offers this authority presumably to establish that such assessments are routine
business activity. However, AR380-5 isaregulatory authority intemal to the Army. It holds no
authority overthe larger Department ofDefense and the Department ofState, and no authority
over ONCIX. Additionally,damage assessments are by nature ad hoc and reactive. Asthe
compromise of closely held information is notaregular business activity,damage assessment
evaluating the impact ofunauthorized disclosures are hardly regular.
^ . ^ . ^ i : ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ . ' ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^

Tbe Law
MRE 803 (8) provides that public records and reports are also exceptions to hearsay
evidentiary limitations. It states, in relevant part, thaL
Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, ofpublic office or
agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency,or(B) matters
observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there wasaduty to
report, excluding, however, matters observed by police officers and other
personnel acting inalaw enforcement capacity,or(C) against the goverrmrenL
factual findings resulting fi-om an investigation made pursuant to authority
granted by law, unless the sources ofinformation or other circumstances indicate
lackoftmstworthiness.

33318

The analysis ofthis mle notes that "great care must be taken to distinguish such factual
determinations from opinions, recommendations, and incidental inferences." Appendix 22,
MCM
Application to tbeFacts
The damage assessments at issue do none ofthe things covered in MRE 803(8). They do
not set forth the activities ofthe agency. Instead, they are designed to assess the impact ofa
particular incidenL Moreover, they are notasimple recitation of events observed, but instead the
subjective evaluation and analysis of events. Finally,the damage assessments are not the result
ofan investigation conducted pursuant to authority granted by law.

CONCLUSION
The United States respectfully requests the Court deny the defense motion to takejudicial
notice ofthe DOS,ONCIX, and IRTF damage assessments. The United States fiirther requests
the Court find these documents inadmissible under the theories proffered by the defense.

/^^IAI^M^SROW
^ P T , JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

I certify that I served or caused to be served a tme copy of the above on Defense Counsel via
electronic mail on 30 November 2012.

(^^I^^M^RSW^
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

Protestors March On Quantico Gate | wusa9.txim

33319

.

2013 Malibu LS

CHEVY'S
GIVING MORE

Low Mileage Itase example loi qualilied competitive leases

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

! p T y y PER MONTH FOR 36 MONTHS WITH $1,479 DUE AT SIGNING.' l i l l 3 ! l H I 3 i U i i i i i H
•f $350 DUE AT LEASE TERMINATION
how proof ofcurrent
ol cuiremlelease
aseof»1999
ol a USScroi
newerion-KM
non-GM
vehicle.
Must S
show
newer
vehicle.
No security deposit required. Tax title, license ant) dealer fees extra.

|l Exampit b»»d m^.-

Protestors March On Quantico Gate
8:05 PM, Jan 17, 2011

|

0 tximments

2013Malibu LS

CHEVY'S —
GIVING MORE

rMilcagc lecisc pxampl: loi qujlilicd competitive leases

$199

PER MONTH FOR 36 MONTHS

WITH S1.479 DUE AT SIGNING.'
+ $350 DUE AT LEASE TERMINATION
Must Show arpof of current leasp of n 1999 or newer non-GS" vchidttio security deposit required. Tax. title, license and dealer tees entia.

VIEW INVENTORY > I LEARN MORE >

1Exampl*b»edort„.*

MOST VIEWED ARTICLES
Lawrence DePrimo, NYPD officer,
gives homeless man boots, photo of
act of kindness goes viral
3 T v ^ ^ ®

Written by

M < ° J

^

QUANTICO, Va. (WUSA) -- Scores of anti-war protesters braved

Bruce Leshan

©BruceLeshan

S A A A H

.

.

,

,

,

^

._

.

FILED UNDER

Virginia News
Military News

Restaurant inspectors Cite sanitation
Issues At Restaurants In Fairfax,
Montgomery, and Prince George's
Counties

,

| f l V « I VVUSA9 News Director Fred

DAmbrosi Bans Lindsay Lohan story
I tmMk I After Asking Twitter
^ ^ H j i Tom Gryder of Vienna, Va , and

They aretrying to win the release of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the man
accused of handing secret cables over to WikiLeaks. Manning is
,

rniwMi iNiTipt?

, ,_
I

*he weather Monday to try and push past guards at the Manne
Corps Base in Quantico.



.

^ ^ ^ H ^en/ice dog Astro, denied entry to
^''S'™^"

,

would 'be a distraction'

being held in maximum confinement" in the Quantico brig.

t.,tviviiviuMi 11CO

^

Prinro William

_

Krince wiiiiam

The protestors insist Manning's a hero -- not a traitor.

Amazing High Angle Rescue on Massachusetts
Avenue In DC

County

SEE MORE

The anti-war protestors briefly blocked the exit. "You're on federal
property. Please move!" a guard told them, and they finally pulled
r

u.

.

.

.

.

.L. ,

,-

MOST WATCHED VIDEOS

back to stage their demonstration on the grass near the Iwo Jima
statue.

http://www.wusa9.ixim/news/lccal/stoiy.aspx?stoiyid=131351[l 1/30/2012 8:29:50 PM]

NYPD Officer's Kindness Sparks

APPELLATE E X H I B I T J I L L .
PAGE
I ^ A O E REFERENCED:^
OF
PAGES ^

Protestors March On Quantico Gate | wusa9.com

33320
Online Sensation

The protest was organized by activist Pat Elder and the Defending
Dissent Foundation, among others. The demonstrators thought
Martin Luther King Day was a good day to make a point about what
they see as the military's violation of Bradley Manning's civil rights.

VVUSA9 Crews Uncover Unusual
Restaurant Sanitation
Amazing High Angle Rescue in DC

"An-est the real criminals!" yelled one
demonstrator.
Another told the guards, "We've got the
Constitution on our side!"
While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
holds news conferences and serves a kind
of high tech house arrest at a luxurious
British mansion, the man who may have
-made him famous is confined to a six by
twelve foot jail cell at Quantico in virtual
isolation as a national security risk.

n-t

Fight breaks out after man sentenced
for boy's death

SEE MORE

a vibrar\t mion ofyou

wNTreat

# yourse f
gto uxury

"Twenty three hours a day in a small cell, woken up every five
minutes," complained Colleen Rowley, the former FBI special agent
and 9/11 whistleblower who joined the first part of the protest
outside FBI headquarters.
The Justice Department is still trying to figure out a charge to lodge
against Assange. Manning on the other hand is facing as much as
52 years in prison for leaking 100s of thousands of documents he
allegedly dubbed while serving as a low-level Army intelligence
analyst.
The material includes a video of an American helicopter crew killing
two Reuters photojournalists and ten other people in Baghdad.
"We believe that Bradly Manning will be seen eventually as a hero,
as a whistleblower," says organizer Pat Elder.
"If you want to stop this war, give information to the public so they
can say to Congress, stop this war, that's a supervening value,"
says former CIA analyst Ray McGovem, who was also among the
protestors.
A Marine spokesman rejects the allegations of mistreatment...
saying Manning's jailers are treating exactly the same as any other
national security detainee.
Manning's lawyer has asked for his pre-trial release. The
allegations of mistreatment have drawn the attention ofthe UN's
special investigator on torture, who's sent a formal inquiry to the
State Department.
Written by Bruce Leshan
9News Now & wusaQ.cotn

Comments (0) | Share your thoughts »

http://www.wusa9.com/news/loeal/story.aspx?storyid=131351[l 1/30/2012 8:29:50 PM]

Vanished 25 Years ago: Tiffany
Goines

Very's Re^i^ Qaeie
(202) 812-8372

'

^

Master's in Diplomacy
Online on Your Schedule, Accredited
Top Ranked, Traditional University
fliplonlcX;v,ilorwi
M.S. in National Security
Earn a Career in Global Affairs With Our
Online Degree Program.
NOVAKM

Man Cheats Credit Score
1 simple trick & my credit score jumped
217 pts. Banks hate this!
www.thsq-edilsolLilionoroqram.coiTi

AllCholces [>

Roatls closing totlay for Quantico 'WikiLeaks' prisoner protest - INSIDEN0VA.COM: News
^

^.

PlaceaClassifled Siibscobe Subscribe,Digital MediaKit
.^^^
..^^

1^

^

33321

^^--^ ^ g l l ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ B ^

^^^^^1^^

^

^

^^^^'^^^^^^^'

^ ^^^^

^^^t^

l^^^l^^^^^^,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^iil^^^^'^lll^-^^^^^^^^^

^:^ootac^

^^^^^^^B^i^^^'^^^^^^^.B^^^^ttD^

^^l^^-i^

1^^

Boob, CDs,
DVDs, Video
Games,
Comic Books
.mdtajngetlliooksjtiin

\l

*i
mnm^t

'»*'^n!«wwf»ii

*

.
•wmi

n -

-

-•^P ' .-• ••

INSIDEN0VA.COM

,


aa.-Kjr.f-assta

NtifVaA' *

.
8

.
s tt

,

..
* \ m b aiSS^^a-^^MtBa*
m-^ Mta^


k talM . ( « . . • p -W-*/! - . ( I f ,v « ; a » « » « « i «

• • ••i?^'*.-* y#*i8..
•• iiitmBi-.M-- •
i:Mv
» * • iiPic«. •-T
rt
«K
•., SV -

*l1l3BMff'-

*

1 1 * ; . ' M «>-••'•

.-e
s

wait.:

*• .if.
-1- nan «
=1

*.-fl
.*

*.H '

# aa

u - „ .*'• na'

^ w z- m :

J

Bi^«V

r •: i ™

c 9

:

]

PART OF INSIOENOVA NETWORK
1 Home News Sports Weather Lifestyles Obituaries Multimedia Things To Do About Us

c

Real Estate Autos Jobs Classifieds
Stafford County Sun 1 Belvoir Eagle i Ouantico Sentry Online

Manassas. VA 20110 1 Now: 25° | High: 50" | Low: 1
)-S1 5-Dav Forecast

Home

> News

"T[lfraSj2 0FFADi

Roads closing today for Quantico
'WikiLeaks' prisoner protest
story

Comment*

/T;-

Print 0

ntaTv««t)i[ol

0

VinU

-Li;

HOLIDAYC

SHO

Area's Largest
Handmade-Only
Craft Show

Font Size: Q Q

1000s of
Homemade Products

a

Posted: Friday. March 18, 2011 1:46 pm | Updated: 3:59 pm,
Fli Nov 16. 2012.

Dec. 1-2 • Fredericksburg Expo Center

Karl Pugh j V 0 comments
Hundreds of people are expectetj to gather Sunday to
rally in support of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the
accused WikiLeaks whistleblower being held in the brig
at Quantico Marine Corps base.

s
MANASSAS, VA'
CURRENT CONDITIONS
<2

The Virginia Department of Transportation on Friday
issued a traffic alert asking motorists to avoid U.S. 1
between Russell Road and Brady's Hill Road from noon
to S p.m. due to the protest.

waving flags, holding banners and shouting through a microphone

VDOT plans to close Fuller Heights Road at the main
gate to Quantico at noon Sunday and reduce traffic on
U.S. 1 to one lane each direction.

Clear Humidity: 100%
O C O winds: CM at Omph
Feels Like: 25'
YOUR EXTENDED FORECAST

John Boal/News&Messenger

About 160 people protested outside Quantico Manne Corps Base

#

Thursday
/-^
1* *

Tomonrow

High 377L0W 27"
Clear

^ I ,

High 50°/Low 27"
Sunny

to free Bradley Manning, who is currently held in the bng on
charges that he release classified information to Wikileaks. on the
Quantico Manne Corps Base, on January 17. 2011.

Northem Virginia Youth Ballet presents

The Nutcracker

29|

Featuring international Guest Artists

Melissa Zoebisch-Glusacova
jcova^^
and Alexandru Glusacov
Sot Dec 8 & Sun Dec 9 at 3PM
' Patriot High School | NokesvilleVA
TICKETS AVAILABLE NOW!
CLICK FOR PRICES

Access to Fuller Heights Road from Fuller Road will be
prohibited and motorists should use Graham Park Road
to Old Triangle Road.
Manning has been held in the Quantkxi brig since July
awaiting trial.
Sunday's rally is endorsed by the Bradley Manning
Support Network, Veterans for Peace, Courage to
Resist, CodePink and many other groups. Pentagon
Paper's whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg is among those
expected to attend.

Saturday
V I , High 49VLOW 28*
( ^ y ^ - Mostly Cloudy

Sunday
V 1 , High 59"/Low 33°
( l ^ y ^ - Mostly Cloudy

7 Day Forecast

SUBMrr'YOOR NEWSf

^

We're always interested in hearing
about news in our community. Let us
know what's going on!

The protesters are planning to park at the National
Museum of the Marines Corps, gather near U.S. 1 and
Anderson Road in Triangle and then march to the
Ouantico main gate.

AcodeniyofRussionBallelVA com j 703-363-2268 | Ba1le1N:t\ilen1(ow-ool com

http:/Avww.insidenova.com/news/aiticle_1459g7c6-e058-S74il-aJ91-lca604dd5al7.html[l 1/29/2012 11:46:14 PM]

Submit news

.:o:u_uo3< ?u_ao=oU _u:o=uZ x..oE1vu? _u9.2u_ao.. u_e<..
32.8. 8. . =13.
..
G73in? Lmixu
.33.
3&5 55209006 3. 2 1 3 1 n.
2.2.. oz . . .. 3.6 m_3o.. Hm 5.
.2
.2. TJ
3.?re:
.050 uvcotuon
E?u. S.





#3 Eon


3-13 3. .93. .1

?20:
.0: .. 4 I z?_Q 3:0 4 . 3.3. 31:0:





..toz
5 5

Bu: 252
3.3. u_oao._ :63 .2.
?gs. 2.5 3.5 an. 252 3.3. 8:6 E.

H-1. 1.0- JED:
J. . 8:



2 Tan. E.

Ton. .59. .3. 28.5 {son .2.
3.3. zen 6. tin. .o_?uu 3.

2 I 0.. ?9.01

:13 Susi!
II





.53 zo?om . .: 2 Tan. o_.9_o_ou . ..

. . . IF: 0 3.3. 3:2: 3.

3-3. .2. .93. 8.55 3oz .2.

.056. .3 3-3. 5:315
2.1.3.
.20 1:I_toL



R: 3.3. .5.

3. 3.3. an; E.

3.3. E: E. Tl.
3.

3 TE. 22.. 23:3. .1.
2 1 2 ..Bus.

?outs. 3:

u==E>m A:

3.2 53: auto: ii 2 Tan. .9.
E3: .2:





3




.3. .26: .2. 2.3






9.3

9.253: ?.553: 2.9652
28: !.8om .23: .829: _s.o=uz icoauz 1:93.: lino: E53. 2.3: _E8om





. . 33323

From: Papakie Brian

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:33 AM
To: 'jamesaverhan@yahoo.com'
Subject: FW: visits ICO Det Manning
Signed By:



From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:53

To: Hocter, william J.

Cc: Averhart CNO4 James Papakie Brian
Subject: RE: Brig visits ICO Det Manning

GTG Sir. He's not here yet but we expect him today and he will be full suicide watch so
tomorrow for a first visit is good. wasn't there another M0 with you previously that
was Army? Mr. David weis has a med.army.mil mail address so I was assuming that he's in the
Army. My thoughts were that it may help on both ends if this guy was also seen by a same
service MO as well.


Blenis



From: Hocter, william J.
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2

To: Blenis Craig

Cc: Papakie Brian Averhart CHO4 James
Subject: RE: Brig visits ICO Det Manning

I'll come in to see him more often. Is tomorrow ok for a first visit, or do
you need me to come in today? Obviously, please put him on full precautions
until I see him. LCDR weis is Navy (though he's a fellow at not
sure what having him come in more frequently would accomplish.


CAPT Hocter



From: Blenis Craig mailto
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Hocter, William J.


Subject: Br sits ICO Det Manning

Good morning Sir,
I am contacting you in regards to a Det Manning who we expect to receive
into confinement today. He is a high profile case, so much so that we
strongly anticipate the media to be knocking on our door fairly often. He
has been deemed a high risk of harm to himself from as high as a MajGen in
the Army. HQMC has already contacted us stressing the attention that we are
going to receive from housing this Soldier. From your end I am asking if you
can make at least a second weekly visit or a third if you can, just to see
1 -



ManningB_00449831 FAG ES

,3
0 33324

this Detainee. Also, being that he is Army can you see if Captain weis can
make at least a weekly visit For this Soldier as well. Let me know what you

can do and I'll be able to brief you better tomorrow when I see you. Thanks
Sir.


Blenis

100449832

0 0

From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Tuesday. November 30. 2010 5:41 PM

To: Averhart CWO4 James
cc: Papakie Brian

subject: Phone call with Mr. Coom

Signed Bv=

Categories: Green Category

Good afternoon Sir,

I just got off the phone with Mr. David Coombs in regards to Det Manning. He asked me about
any unusual behavior that manning has exhibited recently and I replied, without giving any
specifics, that some guards have seen Manning act strangely. Ltcol Coombs stated that he
heard that Manning has been licking the bars to his cell and sleep walking. Because he has
obviously been briefed from some party, I did confirm that Manning has been observed licking
the bars to his cell while appearing to be sleeping. I did not go into any other specifics,
at which time Ltcol Coombs asked if Manning has been seen by Capt Hocter. I told Ltcol Coombs
that Capt Hocter most recently saw Manning on 19 November, and unless Capt Hocter is on
leave/TAD, he sees Manning every Friday. I'm bringing this to your attention because the
specifics of Manning licking his bars was in the weekly report. The chain of this information
went from guard to me, and from me to Papakie and yourself via the weekly report. To my
understanding this report goes from yourself to our Commanding Officer, then to C01 Choike
who I assume briefs LtGen for the reason of them being ?in the know? for anything
concerning Manning's confinement. It appears that information from this report is going in
other directions, and I'm just not sure if that is planned or appropriate, and if it is not,
who needs to know. This may all be by design above our heads, but I'm not comfortable sitting
on this information and potentially leaving you or Papakie open to being blindsided.

Respectfully,
Blenis, C.M.
Quantico Base Brig
Programs Chief


.

Eh?, I

Ma nningB_00449942

33326

INITIAL CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION

1. DATE
201N729

4. XNTFICATION

2. IITEIVINIER DIME
HANKS.

3- (X and
ntnuo


MANNINQBRADLEYE.

66%

E-3

.
5. AOSTIATIVEFACTORS

b.

c. RUIN. HEALTH PRQIIM

6. SPECIAL QUAIITERS



I. MANAGEMQT FACTQS (Enmrpolnl wluns)

u. OFFENSE
1-U

ILSIGTANCEAIJSE
YESI1-1 VESXZ-2

YESXJ-3



YESIJ-4

G. PEWHG CHARGESIWARRANTSIDETNNERS
NO I 0

YES -

d. HISVQV VIOLENCE

OIESITUID)

-YES-4

0. HISTORYOFESCAPE
NO-0 YES-9

f. LEIBTNG SENIENOETIE RQAIJING
0 91 DAYS
8 4-TOIOVEAIS - 8



-1YEAR-1

LFEIMATH-8

3-0-TOSYEARS-I

g. TOTAL nouns

SQEENIIBGCISION (Xena)
D-Hhkn)

(12-oPoOu)

I. muniasnou

a. OVERIIDE (Xena)
PM
In. IATQAIE

KY3-

MONTHS.

SND WAS UNDER CONSTANT SUICIDE WATCH PRIOR TO BEING CONFINED IN THIS FACILITY FOR MULTIPLE

coo: uonwucuu

I.

4

I. MAX
HANKSJIW.

6. TITLE
DUTY BRIG SUPERVISOR



10. DE
ISR



DD FORM 2711. NOV 1999



?guou?is

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 925 c.
PAGF
PAGE or PAGES



33327

CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET
11. 12. 13. 14. rxmg}
20100729 2200 BANKS, R. 3? 0575359
ADJUDGED
15. AonnusmA11v? FACTORS
a. such:
mnowoovou
SND STATES THAT HE FEELS CONFUSED
no was
(2) HAVE vou 1-:v-an THOUGHT ABOUT conw1rr11ns suncu-:1 on
(3) on vou MAKE A Fun 1o sulcloe? at
(4) HAVE You even ATTEMPTED su1c1D?7 (If Yes. what and how?) at
0. PHYSICAL HEALTH 1-aoauzm no was
(1) Do You HAVE A con'rAGIous (If Yes, when)
(2) no vou HAVE Anv mousnsv (If Yes. mm) 3
(3) ARE vou mono Anv nuaoccmonsv or Yes. reason)
ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION
c. Men"rA1. HEALTH 9 no
11) oo YOU HAVE Anv uenm. pnoauzusv (r Yes. what?)
GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER, DEPRESSION, GENDER DISORDER. ADDHD
arm. when?)
a. stream no was
to voun nnowuose. no vou HAVE Anv znamasnn (If Yes. who 11:! why?)
DD FORM 2711. NOV 1999 Paga2of4Poges

ManningB_42951

- 33328

CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET lcontlnuoca

13. MANAGEIENT FACTORS
I. AH YOU CONFINED
128. 134

b. SUBSTANCE ABUSE

DRUGS


ALCOHOL

(1) HAVE YOU EVER USED DRUGS OR



(2) HAVE YOU USED DRUGSIALCOHOL IN THIS

Ilfanswarto bath (1)and(2) is No, to 16.42. Afeitharn) arm is Yes. oantlnualnes (3) throq?
(3) HAVE YGJ EVER BEEN DISCIPIJNED IN THE SERVICE OR FIRED FROM A JOB BECAUSE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL


(4) HAS DRUGIALCOHOL USE EVER LED TO FAMILY OR CUIFLICTST

(5) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED WHLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR

(6) HAS USE OF DRUGSIALCOHG. RESULTED IN OTHER PROBLEMS. SUCH AS BLACKOUTS OR LOSS OF

c. PENIING CHARGESIWARRANTSIDETAINERS
DO YOU HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING WARRANTSIDETAINERS OR ADDITIONAL PENDING (If Yes. explain)

YES



d. HISTORY OF VIOLENCE NO YES

(1) HAVE YOU EVER ASSAULTED ANOTHER
(IFNO. skip to 16.9. If Yes. answer (2)
(Z) NON-PHYSICAL ALTERCATION

(3) ASSAULT WITHOUT A WEAPON

(4) ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON

(5) IIULTPLE ASSALLTS

46) AGE A?ume or
22

(1) EXPLAIN
PUNCHED A FELOW SOILDER FOR NO REASON

OFESCAPE (Xasapprqorma. Yostaanyofthofalowhgquudorm)

U) HAVE YOU EVER ESCAPED OR ATTEDIWED TO ESCAPE

(3) WERE YOU EVER APPREHENWD ON A PARGE



(3) HAVE YOU EVER RESISTED

(4) DD YOU EVER RIITIATE A PERDD OF UNAUTHOHZED ABSENCE WHILE OTHER CHARGES WERE

DDFORM 2111.NOV 1999 Page3of4Pa9es

ManningB_42952

33329

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