Title: Def Req for Art 32 Wit, 2 Dec 11

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: Attachment UNITED DEFENSE REQUEST FORARTICLE 32 WITNESSESMANNING. Bradley 13., US. Army. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US.Army Garrison. Joint Base llall.Fort Myer. VA 2221 1DATED: 2 December 201 1On behalfof PFC Bradley E. Manning, his civilian counsel, David E. Coombs requeststhe attendance of each of the below listed witnesses for the following reasons:a) In order to inquire into the truth of the matter alleged in the charges. consider theform ofthe charges, and assist the Investigating Officer in making recommendations as todisposition of the charges. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 405(3):b) In order to serve as a means of discovery for the defense. The defense has beenunable to speak with several of the listed witnessed due to their lack of cooperation withrequests to be interviewed prior to the Article 32 hearing. Sec R.C.t?vl. 405( a) Discussion(stating the "investigation also serves as a means of discovery" for the defense);c) In order to present matters in mitigation of the charged olTenses. R.C.M. 405(1)(stating an accused has the right to present evidence in defense. mitigation. andextenuation); Article 32(b). Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) (stating an accusedmay ?present anything he may desire in his own behalf. either in defense or mitigation,and the investigation otticer shall examine available witnesses requested. . United IStates Garcia. 59 MJ. 447. 451 2004)( ruling that an accused has the right topresent anything he may desire in his ovvn behalf at an Article 32 in defense ormitigation);d) In order to inquire into the issues of unlawful command in?uence and unlawfulpretrial punishment in violation of Articles 13 and 37 ofthe UCMJ. See R.C.M. 405(e)Discussion (stating that inquiry in to other issues such as legality of searches or theadmissibility ofcvidcnce is proper by an Article 32 Investigating Officer).SA Toni M. Graham. 102"" MP Detachment. 1314 Lyman Road. Schofield Barrael-ts.ltlawaii. 96857. SA Graham is one ofthelaw enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. SA Graham was theprimary agent involved in the initial investigation of the case beginning on 25 May2010. SA Graham will testify about the investigative steps taken from the time oftheLnited Qtates v. .?Vtanning: Article Witness List3)4)6)initial involvement until the matter was transferred to the Computer CrimeInvestigation Unit (CCIU) on 23 June 2010.SA Mark A. Mander, G813. I Rock Island Arsenal. Rock Island, Illinois 6120?)-S000. SA Mandcr is one of the lawenforcement agents that conducted work on this case for the lie is the drafterofmost ofthe CII) Reports of Investigation. Ile is pan of a joint investigation by CIDand the Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under thecooperative investigation agreement. CID is the lead investigative agency withprimary responsibility for coordinating all leads affecting the IIS. Army. and DSS hasresponsibility for leads involving the DOS. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation(FBI) later joined as a_ioint partner in the investigation with responsibility forproviding counterespionage expertise. investigative support. and as the lead agencyfor all civilian related leads.SA (?alder Robertson Ill. G813. Computer Crime Investigation Unit Manheim. (ierman_v. . Heextracted the hard drives from the two SIPR and one computers collected fromthe SCIF. the personal laptop ofSS('} Bigelow. and the personal external hard drive ofManning. SA Robertson will testify about his involvement in the investigationand the steps he took from the initial reporting ofthe alleged incident on 35 May 2010until present regarding the forensic imaging and evidence collection ofelectroniemedia seized in Iraq.SA David S. Shaver. GSI 3. Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. 27 I 30 TelegraphRoad. Quantico. Virginia . saShaver is a forensic examiner who conducted an examination ofthe computers usedby PFC within the 44 loose hard drives seized from digital media collected from PFC Manning's Aunt?s residence. various log tiles fromIraq and Afghanistan, log files from the Army? CounterintelligenceCenter (ACIC). and his personal computer equipment. SAC Shaver completed 19classi?ed reports and will testify about the nature ofhis forensic examinationand the results ofhis examination.SA Charles T. Ames U513. U805 Lowen Road. Fort Belvoir. Virginia 22060.I. SA Antes is one ofthe lav? enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. Ile interviewednumerous witnesses during the CCIU investigation from 2d BCT. Ile also detailedthe collection ofclassified information for the Information Review Task damage assessment.SA Alfred L. Williamson. Digital Forensics and Research Branch, Computer CrimesInvestigative Unit, 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico- Virginia 22134,A forensic examiner who examined the LIS.Government Supply Annex l' computer utilized by PFCUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness list7)8)0)Bradley Manning. He will testify about the nature ofhis forensic examination and theresults of his examination. He will also testify about his forensic analysis andevidence collection from PFC Manning?s cellular telephone. the computer assigned IPaddress I4-1.107. and the forensic imaging ofthe Wikileaks website.SA M. Bettencoun. Computer Crimes lnvestigative Unit. 27130 TelegraphRoad, Quantico, Virginia 22] 34 SA Bettencourt is one of the agents that worked extensively on this case for Iinclude interviewing multiple witnesses in the case and conducting ?eld investigationfor the SA Betteneourt will testify about his involvement in the case and theinvestigative steps that he took.SA Ronald K. Rock. L7nitcd States Department of State, Diplomatic Security ServiceOffice of Professional Responsibility, SA Rock is one ofthe law enforcement agents that conductedwork on this case. The defense requests that SA Rock be instructed to provide theInvestigating Officer and the defense with a complete copy of DSS case file numberPR-2010-00076 and any other collateral investigations by the DSS related to this caseat least two weeks prior to the start ofthe Article 32 hearing.SA Patrick Wheeler, Federal Bureau of lnvestigation. the defense does not havecontact information for SA Wheeler. but believes that he would be the bestrepresentative from the FBI. to discuss the initial involvement of the FBI and theirsubsequent investigation. SA Wheeler is one ofthe law enforcement agents thatconducted work on this case. lle was the first agent to make contact with AdrianLamo on 25 May 2010 in order to obtain the alleged chat logs between Mr. Lamo andPFC .\?lanning. ?lhe defense requests that SA Wheeler be instructed to provide theInvestigating Officer and the defense with a complete copy of FBI case file number242460 and any other collateral investigations by the FBI related to this case at leasttwo weeks prior to the start ofthe Article 32 hearing.I0) CPI Martin Leibman, Kenner Army Health Clinic, 700 34m Street, Fort Lee. Virginia2380I. that performed acommand-referred behavioral health evaluation BHF. on PFC Manning 24 December2009. (?Pl l.eibinan will testify that he detennined PFC Manning appeared to beunder a considerable amount of stress at the time of his evaluation. He will alsotestify that PFC Manning did not appear to have any social support system andseemed hypersensitive to any criticism. He recommended that PFC Manning bemoved from the night shift to the day shift and that he be given a low intensity dutyfor the immediate future. He also determined that Manning was potentiallydangerous to himself and others and recommended removal ofhis weapon or removalof the bolt from his weapon along with increased monitoring and supervision. llewill testify that he used a behavioral health evaluation fonn that was not approved.Form 4038. On that form. however. there was a block that permitted thebehavioral health provider to indicate that the Soldier being evaluated was notlfnited States Manning: Aniclc 3? Witness l.istsuitable for continued access to classi?ed material. Despite having this option. CPTLeiebman did not check this box. He will testify that he does not remember why hedid not check that box. Had he done so, PFC security clearance wouldhave been revoked and he would not have had access to classi?ed materials after thatdate.1 l) Worsley. 1903"? MC Detachment. 500 sw 42"? Street, Topeka.Kansas 66609-1241. He will testifythat he treated PFC Manning on numerous between 30 December 200?) and 26 May2010. As part ofhis treatment. (?Pl Worsley considered letters written by PFCManning?s noncommissioned officer in charge. then MSG Adkins. He will testifythat now SFC Adkins expressed concern about PFC mental and emotionalstability in the three letters noting that PFC Manning appeared to be suffering greatlyand also having difficulty sharing his problem. CPT Worsley will testify that becontacted SFC Adkins after each evaluation was completed in order to give him asummar_\ oftbe information from his review and to allow SFC Adkins to share histhoughts and concerns. Despite the behavior of PFC Manning, (TPT willadmit that he never made a recommendation to the command concerning whether tosuspend l?l-?C Manning?s security clearance. He did, however. speak with MAJClifford Clausen and ISO Eric Usbeck about his reviews and PFC Manning?s needfor ongoing long term to explore and understand his issues.l2) Edan A. Department ofBehavioral Medicine. 1050 Mt. BelvedereBlvd. Fort Drum. New York .He is a that perfomicd a behavioral health evaluation on PFC Manning 22 May and 28 May 2010. He will testify that SFC Adkins had expressed concem tohim about PFC .\-ianning around 10 April 2010, and had given him a memorandumwhere he documented his concerns. Since PFC Manning's primary clinician. PTwas on leave at the time. he completed the command directed mental healthevaluation. Based on his interview of PFC .\/tanning and review ofhis records, (QTPTritch?eld will testify that be determined PFC Manning was at risk to himself andothers and recommended that he not have an operable weapon. He will testify that heconsidered making a recommendation as to PFC Manning's access to classi?edinformation in his 22 May 20 0 evaluation but did not do so because he had beeninformed that PFC Manning was no longer allowed in the Instead. he deletedthe block referencing access to classified information on the MEDCOM Fomt 4038 inorder to have more space to write notes on the form. Pl? Critchfield will testify thathe did receive training on the subject of Soldier suitability for access to classifiedinfomlation. The training that he received was informal "on-the-job" training duringhis residency. lie will testify that the factors suggested to look for in makingsuitability detemtinations were (1 reliability, (2) stability. and (3)judgment. On his28 May 2010 mental health evaluation. PT Critch?eld will testify that be made arecommendation that PFC Manning was not suitable for continued access to classi?edmaterial and that his security clearance should be rescinded.United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List13) David M. Miller, Brigade Modemization Command, Fort Bliss. Texas 79916.Former 2nd (.?ommander. He willtesti that the brigade did not want to take the wrong personnel forward. nor did thebrigade want to leave a large rear behind for a small staff to manage and lead. Heexpected the leaders in the Brigade to identify those soldiers who should not deploy.He will testify that his S-2. the officer in charge ofPl-?C Manning, MAJ CliffordClausen. was not up to the standard of performance that he expected out of someonein that position. Based upon his discussions with then LTC Paul Walter and Brian COL Miller decided it was best to remove Clausen from hisposition as the S2 and place Lim into thatjob. He will testify that from hisperspective. the issues surrounding Pl? Manning should have been something thatthe S2 personnel would have been more involved in than the company. However.there were several issues that may have impacted the response to Manning?sissues. First. during that time period the former company commander. MAJ ElijahDreher was relieved over property accountability and due to the fact he was notmaking good decisions. Second. MSG Adkins. the NCOIC in the S2 Section. was?marginal. but not bad enough to either relieve or replace. He will testify that thenMSG Adkins was technically competent but that he lacked leader skills expected ofaMSG. He will also testify that commanders (in conjunction with their unit securitymanager) are allotted 30 days to submit an initial DA 5248-R following the discoveryofcredible derogatory information on a Soldier. After the initial DF.ROG issubmitted and processed by the unit has 90 days to submit a follow-upS248-R ifthere is a pending investigation or adverse action taken summarycourt-martial). Once the investigation/proceedings are completed and the Soldier hasbeen cleared/charged of offense. the unit must submit a final DEROG. In this case.he will testify that then MSG Adkins failed to keep the chain of command infonncdof PFC Manning emotional and mental condition. He will testify that this failureresulted in the command not submitting a DEROG in a timely manner.l4) LTC "Brian Kems, Old Dominion University, Brigade Cadet Command. RollinsHall. Room 1 l0. Norfolk. Virginia 23529.(Former lfxecutive Officer for 2nd BCT), He will testifythat he was Clausen?s direct supervisor. He believed that MAJ (flausen couldnot provide Miller with accurate or timely estimates or intelligence. and couldnot talk to Miller in a way that served the C?ommander?s needs. The brigadecommander ?nally lost confidence in MAJ Clausen and made the decision afterapproximately 6 months to move him. He will testify that the unit did not conduct aformal relief for cause. but moved him to a transition team. According to Kcms.MAJ Clatisen?s performance was weak. but not so weak as to warrant a relief forcause. Kems did not believe MAJ Clausen was not a strong leader. He tried todecentralizc operations but didn?t have enough oversight to control. He empoweredjunior members who were too inexperience to do the job and did not step in to correctwhen they made mistakes. He will testify that MAJ Clausen was unable to mentor ordevelop younger officers and didn?t have much direct control over the shop. He willalso testify that MAJ (flausen was handicapped by weak NCO leadership in his shop. United States v. Manning: Aniele 32 Witness l.istSpeci?cally. his then MSG Adkins was not an effective leader. ln hisopinion. both MAJ Clausen and MSG Adkins were weak leaders. He will testify thathe was unaware of any leadership guidance provided in the S2 sections regardingenlisted personnel management. He will testify that it did not surprise him that MAJClausen put out information that Warrant ()fricers and Noncomniissioned OfficersI were to defer all management responsibilities to MSG Adkins. He will testify thatperhaps the command was too generous with MAJ lausen and that removing himfrom his position earlier would have been advantageous. He will testify that hebelieves PFC Manning's mental and emotional issues were more than enough to putothers at risk and should have resulted in an immediate DEROG. He will testify thathe did not know anything about PFC Manning?s conduct until a recommendation forseparation was made by the chain of command. He will testify that none of themental or emotional health concerns, prior to May of20l0. made it to his level. LTCKerns will testify that the failure to properly DEROG PFC Manning?s was the unit?sbiggest failure. He believes that the unit should have pulled Manning's access toclassified information much earlier. He will testify that the unit should haverecognized him as needing help and that his condition made him unfit for service asan intelligence analyst. Ile will also testify that the assistant S6 for the brigade. PTCherepko came to him with concerns about unauthorized personal media on machines. According to CPI Cherepko. personnel were putting unauthorized mediaon computers such as programs, games, videos, and music. I .TC Kems will testifythat it was fairly common when the unit arrived to see games. music and movies onthe Sll?RNet. He believed that it was fairly common across Iraq. He will testify thathe tried to get the staff to do the right thing. but media on the Sll?RNet continued tobe the standard. He will testify that at no point was UCMJ punishment applied tothose who were placing unauthorized infomiation on He will acknowledgethat with respect to the media on the he believed that the Amty had becometoo comfortable working on SlPRi\'et while deployed. lt is his opinion that this mayhave bred some complacency because ofthe ease of access. He believes that mostSoldiers did not realize that that placing music and other media on computers was wrong because of how prevalent those items were across Iraq. He willalso testify that after PFC Manning was arrested. CO1- Miller ordered him to take acomplete look at IN across the brigade. l-le formed a working groupconsisting ofthe SGM. S2, S6 and I0 personnel to look at how the brigade wasoperating. Based upon this review, the S6 removed universal ability to write to disks;there was additional eompartmentalizing of information within the based on aneed to know; the S6 instructed staff on how to lock out directories and the brigadeestablished an SOP on the implementation for reviewing infractions for potentialDEROG actions.15) MAJ Elijah A. ZBCT Commander). He will testify that he had very little interaction with the S2shop. He will also testify about the guidance he gave regarding whether soldierswould deploy. He will testify that he was not made aware of any effort to keep PFCManning from deploying. He will testify that his understanding was that llnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness ListManning?s issues came about after deploying. He was not aware that SFC Adkinsrecotnmended to Manning that he self-refer to Mental Health or that Manning even went to Mental Health prior to the deployment. He will also testifythat he was not adequately informed of PFC Manning?s mental health issues by MAJClausen or SFC Adkins. His TDS cuzuzsel is .S?uclmm5kI' at Fort Gordonin - 16) Clifford D. Clausen, National Radio Frequency Center.. He was the 2-"10 S-3 Luttil beingreplaced by Lim. He will testify that SFC Adkins did tell him about an outburstby PFC Manning before the deployment. but that he does not remember SFC Adkinshaving a conversation with him about leaving PFC Manning on rear detachment. Hewill also testify that he did not recall talking to the company commander about PFCManning?s behavioral health issues. He will testify that it was his practice to not takemany issues outside of the S2 Shop, and that he believed the supervision policy ofhaving every issue go through SFC Adkins was fine. Finally. he will testify thatmusic Cl)s were allowed in the 17) CPT Barclay D. Keay. llHC, 4-31 Infantry Battalion. Brigade Combat Team. 10'"Mountain Division. Building 10210 North Riva Ridge, Fort Drum. New York 13682.(night shift 01C for the T-SCIF for 2ndBCT). He will testify that he believed PFC Manning was good at his_iob and he wasalso impressed with PFC Man.ning?s computer skills. Despite this belief. he willtestify that PFC Manning should not have been a soldier as he seemed to actimmature. He will testify that you could not demand things from PFC Manning as hehad a soft skin and was not receptive to commands. He will testify that there was alack of leadership on the night shift which PFC Manning worked on. He will testifythat from his perspective PFC .\?lanning wanted to be it good soldier, but naturally wasnot good at the basic soldier skills. He will also testify that music. movies. and gameswere common on machines. He will testify that he went to a lot of people totry to determine if it was a problem to have media on because he did notthink it was proper. He will testify that he spoke with several individuals within theT-SCIF about this issue. but no one could provide him with an answer. He will testilythat eventually it became the norm to see soldiers listening to music. watchingmovies, and playing games on machines.18) CPT Matthew W. Freeburg. 101 12. Armored Division Road, Fort Drum.New York 13602 . Companycommander and property book holder for all the computers within HHC. Hewill testify about providing commander}; authorization to seize and search thecomputers PF Manning was known to work on. He also provided searchauthorization to search Manning?s room. He will testify that he never receivedan_v information from the S2 Section conceming any of PFC Mamting?s mental oremotional issues until after the alleged assault of SPC Showman. He will testify thatafter the alleged assault, he removed Manning from the T-SC 1F and sent him toUnited States v. Manning; Article 32 Witness Listwork in the Supply Room. He then gave PFC Manning an Article IS reducing himfrom SPC to PFC. Along with the Article 15. Freeburg will testify that he filledout a DEROG form in order to suspend PFC Manning?s security clearance. Cl"l?Frecburg will testify he then went to PT Worsley at Beltavioral Health to discussPFC Manning's condition. Worsely told him that Mamiing?s troubles weredeeper than the Army could fix and that he should be separated. (7 PT Freehurg willtestify that he then sent PFC Manning to CPT (iriteh?eld for an evaluation. Basedupon the mental health recommendations. Freeburg will testify that he initiatedthe chapter paperwork. PT Freeburg will testify that he believed it was shocking thatsomething more serious had not been done to address PFC Manning?s behavioralissues prior to him assaulting SPC Showman and receiving an Article 15. He willalso testify that he was aware that personnel had placed video games, movies. andmusic on the drive.19) (?Pl Steven J. Lim. First Army Division East. (5-2. 4550 Llewelyn Drive. FortMeade. Maryland 20755.) He will testifythat he knew about Manning emotional and mental health issues before takingover as the brigade S2. Additionally_. he will testify that PFC Manning wascounseled on a few occasions due to his emotional and mental issues and that he wasinfonned that PFC Manning was seeing a doctor about his condition. Despite thisknowledge. PT I.im will testify that he was not aware of the full extent of PFCManning mental health issues. He will testify that once he learned of the entire factssurrounding PFC Manning. he believed that PFC Manning should not have beendeployed. He will also testify that he gave a negative counseling to SFC Adkins forfailing to infomi him ofthe various issues Manning was struggling with duringthe deployment. CPT Lim will testify that soldiers were authorized to bring musicCDs to listen to in the T-SCIF. CPT Lim will also testify that the failed todraft a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). PT Lim will testify that he passed thelink to the 1.3.3. Embassy cables to the various including PFC Manning. Hedisseminated the link to the BCT S2 shop and the BN S2?s sometime in the beginningofJanuar_v 2010 in order to allow the to better understand the Iraqi politicalsituation. He will also testify that the comments in the press that say the release oftheCTIDNF. database compromised our key sources and put the lives of sources at risk areinaccurate. Any name in the database (Iraq and Afghanistan) were just namesput in by a soldier ho spoke to some local national and not sources for the UnitedStates. Lim believes that although a name may be in CIDNE. it was likelyspelled phonetically and did not contain the full name of the individual. Limknows that he had the ability to pull 50 different ways to spell Muhammad when hewould do a CIDNE database search. lhat fact there were so many different ways tospell Muhammad is indicative of the fact the names in the CIN D13 database were notaccurate accounts.20) PT Thomas M. herepko. NATO Force Command Madrid. Madrid. Spain 09649,. He was the assistant S-6 for the2BC T. He will testify that the information assurance procedures were not beingUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness l.istfollowed by the brigade. He knew that Soldiers would go to the local market and buymovies. music and games and place the infomiation on their SIPR and NIPRcomputers. lle tried to address the issue but could not get any support from theleadership to enforce the standards. He raised the movie and music concern to the S6,MAJ Morrow, and the Brigade X0, Kerns. but that nothing was done. When themood struck him. he would scan the shared drive for music. movies and games andwill testify that he would find it every day. Every time that he found unauthorizedmaterial on the he would delete it. Occasionally. he would find a Soldierthat would have a huge amount of unauthorized material on their computer in oneinstance it was 500 Gigabytes of information, but nothing was done. He will testifythat as the IASO he did not know that he needed to prepare a InformationAssurance ertilication and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) packet for certi?cationand accreditation ofthe brigade network. He will also testify that due to this failure,it was later determined that the brigade did not have an Approval to Operate (ATO) oran interim Approval to Operate for their network. Additionally. the brigadedid not receive a formal IA certification and accreditation inspection during its tour.contrary to the guidance in Directives. Finally. he will testify that he knewabout personal software being loaded on the Sll?RNet and he would remove thesoftware when he came across it. He is re resented Michelle Borgnino atFort Myer, 21) Michael R. Johnson. Brigade. 25"? Airborne Infantry Division. Joint Basel-Ilmendork-Richardson. Alaska 99505,. lle will testify that SFC Adkins was in charge ofall enlisted responsibilities. lle will testify that whenever he engaged the Soldiers onissues as a leader that he was told to back off by SFC Adkins, Lim. and MAJClausen. lle will testify that the S2, MAJ Clausen, did not set standards for the unit.Based upon this lack of leadership. he will testify that a lot of conduct was ignored.lle will testify that he remembers venting to AJ lausen and SFC Adkins abouthow nothing was being done to address PFC Manning?s mental and emotional issues.lle will state that when he addressed these concerns to MAJ Clausen and Adkinsthat he was told that he needed to stay in his lane. After the change in leadershipwithin the S2 Section. he will testify that all ofthe officers sat down to discuss soldierstandards in an attempt to address substandard conduct. However. SFC Adkinsobjected to any changes and would not allow anyone to address the issuessurrounding PFC Manning. As such, he will testify that nothing was done to addressPFC Manning?s mental and emotional issues.22) Tanya Marie (iaab, 525"? BFSB. Fort Bragg, North Carolina? . She will testify that Adkins was in charge of theadministrative details and supervision ofthe soldiers within the S2 Section. She willtestify that she was made aware of many of the issues surrounding PFC Manningwhen she arrived to the unit. ln her opinion, PFC Manning should have beenremoved from his position in the T-SCIF early on in the deployment. However. shefelt that the leadership within the S2 section was not really concerned withUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listdisciplining Soldiers. She will testify that she asked SFC Adkins why PFC Manningwas not removed from his position in the earlier, and that he told her that itwas a manpower issue. She will testify that she believes that PFC Manning?s issueswere not taken seriously and no one took any steps to help him or even recogni7e thathe needed help. She believes the unit failed to take proper action and failed t.oproperly respond to the issues that PFC Manning was obviously struggling with bothbefore and during the deployment.23 Elizabeth A. Fields. as theSpecial Security Representative (SSR) for the T-SCIF and part ofthe Sunni leam.She will testify that she only received one hour oftraining at l0'h MTN to be the SSRfor the T-SCIF. Her training covered the basic rules and regulations for a S(Jll-' atFort I)rum. She will testify that her training did not really cover ensuring the securityof a T-SCIF. However. she will testify that she was only the SSR at Fort Drum.When her unit deployed to lraq. she will testify that then MSG Adkins was the onethat worked the security of the T-SCIF and she dealt with security clearances. Shewill testi? that SFC Adkins did not receive any training to be the SSR. However, hejust assumed the position under the approval of the MAJ lausen. She willtestify that she believed SFC Adkins provided terrible supervisory leadership. Shethought he was a terrible leader because the problems within the unit were constantlybeing ignored. She will testify that it was obvious to everyone that PFC Manning wasstruggling with mental and emotional issues. However, she will testify that when shetried to deal with the issue and get PFC Manning help. she was told that it was anNCO problem and to stay out of it by Adkins. She will also testify that she didnot believe that MAJ Clausen had any type of management over the section. She alsodid not believe that the Company ISG cared about the S2 section because they werenot co-located. She will testify that she was aware ofmultiple issues with PFCManning. but stated that PFC Manning stayed in the T-SCIF because SF-C Adkinssaid that we needed persomiel. She will testify that she believed that there was a lackof leadership across the board. She will testify that as leaders they should havepushed harder from the NC Os to the Officers. She will testify that she was puzzledwhy PFC Manning was not removed from the T-SC IF after previous behaviorincidents that occurred between him and SPC Padgett in December of 2009. She willtestify that it was simply accepted that people brought in CD5 and DVDs into the T-SC IF . She believed that there was no unit training at that focused on operations during the deployment.24) Joshua D. Lil1resmam.2"d BCT, 10?? Min Hq. Fort Drum. NY 8601'He is represented byCurtis .4. Devlin. Fort Lee TDS, (804) 765-22 90. Curtis. armymil. Hewill testify that he was told by Adkins and MAJ Clausen that he was notresponsible for any personnel who worked in the S2 section. He will testify that onseveral occasions he returned to SFC Adkins and MAJ Clausen to clarify theirexpectations about his responsibilities regarding enlisted Soldiers and Officers and hisnon-role in soldier leadership was reinforced on each occasion. CW2 Ehresman was10United States v. Manning: Aniele 32 Witness l.istaware of multiple emotional outbursts by PFC Manning. He will testify that prior tothe deplo_vment he recommended that PFC Manning should not deploy and expressedthis directly to MAJ Clausen. Cl"l' Martin and SFC Adkins. He will testify that hewas told that .\/lanning would deploy due to manpower issues. He will testifythat he witnessed an incident in December ol?2009 by PFC Manning that required himto physically involve himself in the situation in order to ensure Manning did nottry to hann himself or others. After this emotional outburst, he will testify that hespoke to SF Adkins and recommended that he take the bolt from PFC Manning?sweapon. send him to mental health and then get him out ofthe Army. He also spokewith Lim. CPT Martin and ISG Eric Usbeck about his concerns after theoutburst by PFC Manning. He will testify that even after expressing these eoncems.nothing was done.25) MSG Eric ll. Usbeck, Fort Bliss, Texas.(former ISG of HHC. 2nd BC'l?l. He will testify that prior to the deployment. hereceived occasional comments from SFC Adkins regarding PFC Manning?s attitudeand personal problems. However, he was never aware of any suggestion not todeploy PF Manning. He will testify that he was made aware of one incident duringthe deployment involving PFC Manning by another soldier. MSG Usbeck thensought out SFC Adkins to clarify what this soldier had told him. After learning whathappened. MSG Llsbeck along with SPC Showman decided to counsel PFC Manningfor about 45-60 minutes and referred him to Mental Health for evaluation. He willtestify that could not recall if the referral was command directed or if Manningvolunteered. He will testify that he later learned that PFC Manning had not gone tomental health as required. However, due to his transition. he will testify that heinformed his replacement of the issue instead of attempting to address the issuehimself.26) M80 Mark S. Woodworth. Task Force 3. OPS GRP, l2|2 Port ArthurTerrace, Leesville. Louisiana 71446.He became the ISO of the company in March of2010. He will testify that he was briefed on Manning having an issue with anothersoldier. He believed that PFC Manning had gone to Combat Stress and seen aprovider. The next thing he heard about PFC Manning was the assault of SPCShowman. After the assault of SPC Showman. PF Mamiing was moved to theSupply room. He will testify that SFC Adkins did not talk to him about removing thebolt from Manning's weapon. He also does not recall any discussions aboutsending Manning back to the States or chaptering him out of the Anny. He willalso testify about Cll) coming to the unit and searching PFC Manning?s livingquarters and work space.27) SFC Paul David Adkins. HHC. Fort Drum, New York 13602. DSN-l. He is represented by TDS ('..'0unseI. SFCAdkins will testify that he was PFC Manning's Once a SFC Adkinswas administratively reduced by a board due to being derelict in his duties. The board United States Manning: Article 32 Witness Listconcluded that SFC Adkins failed to take proper steps in addressing PFC issues. SFC Adkins will testify that he was aware of the problems of PFC Manning.Over the course of several months. he will testify that he drafted three memorandumsdetailing various behavioral health concerns of PFC Manning. Despite thisknowledge. Adkins will testify that he failed to notify anyone of these concernsthat could have taken steps to take care of PFC Manning and ensure that he wasgetting the help that he needed. Instead. he will testify that he simply allowed l?l?CManning to continue to work in the T-SCIF as an intelligence analyst. SF Adkinswill testify that he assessed that Manning was salvageable if he received andactively participated in extensive therapy (l -2 times a week on aninde?nite basis) coupled with responsive evaluations, medication andfollow-up adjustments on dosages.28) SSG Lawrence Wayne Mitchell. BCT, Fort Drum. New York 13602.? SS6 Mitchell \vill testify that heoriginally did not have supervisory responsibilities at the unit. After approximately?60 days, he was given responsibility for supervising two subordinate 3Sl~? Soldiers;one of these soldiers was PFC Manning. When SSG Mitchell got to the unit in Mayof 2009, he observed operations for approximately 90 days and then approached Adkins to let him know his input about operations. SSG Mitchell will testify that hespeci?cally told Adkins that PFC Manning needed to be chaptered of the Army.SSG Mitchell believed that PFC Manning clearly? was struggling with emotionalissues that made him ill-suited for military service. This conversation occurred inJune or July 0f2009. SSG Mitchell will testify that he approached SFC Adkinsthereafter about separating PFC Manning from the Amty but was aware thathe could only take the issue to his supervisor so many times before it fell on deaf ears.SSG Mitchell will testify that he found an iPod on a bunk and looked through it todctemiine the owner. When SSG Mitchell viewed photos on the iPod. he noted thatManning was attending what looked like a gay pride parade. He will also testifythat he knew Manning was suffering from extreme emotional issues. I)uring thedeployment, he found PFC Manning curled in the fetal position in the Brigadeconference room. rocking himself back and forth. SSG Mitchell will testify that hewas appointed as a Special Security Representative (SSR) on orders for the The responsibilities for the SSR included reviewing security clearance requests.initiating DEROGS recommending security clearances for personnel in the S2 shop,producing an SOP and security. While he was appointed as a SSR, he willtestify that he did not conduct those SSG Mitchell will testify that he believesthe reason PFC Manning was allowed to remain in the military and did not receive thehelp that he needed to deal with his issues was because Adkins had influenceover every action taken on personnel in the S2 section and it was his decision not todo anything.29) . She will testify? that she has knownPFC Manning since 2008. In the 2008 time frame. Manning told her that he was[7United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listgay. She will testify that she believes that it was a huge issue for him and that hecould not be true to himself without the risk of losing hisjob. She will testify that shebelieved that PFC Manning felt like he had no one to talk to. She believes that PFCManning was very intelligent and knew a lot about the World issues. She feels thatPFC. Manning, had a few emotional issues and these issues made it difticult for him toadjust to the military life.30) SGT Daniel w. Padgett, (Tompany, BSTB. 10"? Mountain Division, FortDrum, New York 13602. T, fomiersupervisor of PFC Manning. 1- le will testify that PFC Manning was a very goodanalyst. who was good with computers but timid and not good at public speaking. Hewill testify that he was assigned as the night shift NCOIC with then SPC Manning andSPC Cooley. He was assigned this position even though he had not yet been to anyleadership schools. He will testify that there really was not anyone supervising thenight shift. He will also testify that when he needed to counsel PFC Manning he wentto Balonek and asked him if he could counsel him. He will testify that he wasgiven permission to handle disciplinary actions for PFC Manning by SFC Adkins andSSG Balonek. He will testify that he believed that he was in essence taking care ofother .\lCOs soldiers and that PFC Manning should have been counseled by SSGBalonek. lle will testify that during one counseling session in December of2009.PFC Manning grabbed the table and llipped it. He will testify that PFC Manning didnot approach him. but he was concerned when PFC Manning stepped towards theweapons rack. He will testify that when PFC Manning stepped towards the weaponsrack. CW2 Ehresman grabbed PFC Manning from behind and held him until hecalmed down. lle will testify that although PFC Manning later apologized to him.that he believes PFC Manning should have been removed from the T-SCIF after theincident. Finally. he will testify that personnel in the were told that theycould listen to music D5 and watch movies in the 31) SGT David A. Sudtler. 709 Ml Battalion, LZS. Anny Garrison. Wiesbaden, (DSN). He is a 351V signal intelligenceanalyst. lle will testify that he lirst met Pl? Manning at a rotation at JRTC. He willtestify that he believes that PFC Manning used to be a very happy and very hyperindividual. but his leadership wore him down. lle will state that PFC Manning wasupset that no one cared about the mission. He also believed that the unit made it verydiflieult on PFC Manning as it seemed to outcast him as though they were trying toget him out ofthc Army. He will testify that a lot of people had support from otherpeople. but that he didn?t believe PFC Manning had any support from his chain ofcommand. He will testify that he recalls an incident when PFC Manning found areport that apparently upset him. PFC Manning had found in the report that someIraqis or possibly some Nloroccans were being arrested at a printing press facility.SGT Sadtler will testify that attached to this report was some evidence which hadbeen collected; however. this infomtation was in Arabic. He will testify that Manning had taken the time to have the document translated and tried to show thetranslation to his superiors. He will testify that PFC Mamting was very upset aboutv\I)Linited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listthe issue. He will testify that if there was a moment in which PFC Manning may havesnapped, this would have been it. SGT Sadtler will testify that everyone stonewalledPFC Manning on the issue as no one thought it was a big deal. lle will testify that thetranslation indicated that the individuals being arrested had printed documents thatwere questioning whether the lraqi govemment was embezzling public funds.32) SGT Lorena Cooley?. HHC . Fort Drum. New York, 13602.SGT Cooley will testify that she believes that PF Manning was picked on by other because they assumed that he was gay. She willtestify that Adkins minimized a lot ofthings with PFC Manning and tried tokeep things within the shop. SGT Cooley will testify that PFC Manning should haveprobably gotten help before they deployed. Finally, she will testify that Soldiersbrought in Ds for music and movies and that this information was placed on thecomputers.33) SGT Sheri SGT Walsh will testify that Manning hadconversations with her about relationship issues and the fact he was having genderidentify issues. She will testify that PFC Manning spoke to her often about wantingto get an Honorable Discharge so that he could keep his Top Secret Clearance afterhis release from the Army. She will testify that she noticed that very few peoplewould talk to PFC Manning. She will testify that every time that she saw PFCManning, he was by himself. She will testi that others would make fun ofPl"CManning's size and the fact that they believed he was gay. One time SGT Walsh savtManning coming out of his room; two soldiers pushed the door back into PFCMamting?s face. She will testify that PFC Manning was obviously upset andembarrassed about having the door pushed back into his face. She will testify thatinstead of complaining about the conduct. i\/tanning simply said that he walkedinto the door by accident. SGT Walsh will testify that she believes Manning wasat a very confusing time in his lite. She does not believe that the Army was a good fitfor him based upon where he was at in his life.34) SPC ihrleah W. Showman. Fort l)rum. New York 13602.?SPC Showman will testify about being aware ofPFC Manning?s emotional issues. She will testify that she went to Adkins andrecommended that PFC Manning not deploy due to his emotional issues. She willtestify that she believes that she was the ?rst in the to see the "Apache video"which she found of her own accord in a network folder. She will testify that shecalled W2 Ehresman. SSO Balonck, and another soldier over to see the video. SPCShowman will testify that over the next few days, several the T-SCIF personneldebated about whether the video showed a camera or a rocket propelled Grenade(RPG) launcher and whether the actions of the Apache crew were appropriate underthe circumstances. SPC Showman will testify about her time as PFC Manning directsupervisor and her multiple observations of PFC Manning both before and during theUnited States V. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listdeployntent that indicated to her PFC Manning was struggling both emotionally andmentally.35) Adrian Lamo.- Mr. Lamo will testify about the chat conversations that he hadwith an individual alleged to have been PFC Manning between 21 May 2010 and 25May 2010. He will also testify about the nature of the conversations and hissubsequent actions.36) President Baraek Obama. The White House, 1600 Avenue NW.Washington. DC. 20300. (202) 456-l4l4. The defense requests the presence ofPresident Obama in order to discuss the issue o?ittlawful Command lntlucnce (UCI).Under Rule for Courts-Martial 4l)5(e). the defense is entitled to explore the issue ofUCI. Under the L'nifomt Code of Military Justice a superior officer in thechain of command is prohibited from saying or doing anything that could in?uenceany decision by a subordinate in how to handle a military justice matter. As theCommander in Chief, President Obama made improper comments on 21 April 201 l,when he decided to comment on Manning and his case. On that date. heresponded to questions regarding PFC Manning?s alleged actions by concluding that"'We?re a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions abouthow the laws operate. He Manning] broke the law." The comments byPresident Obama are UCI. The defense intends to question President Obama on thenature of his discussions with members ofthe military regarding this case andwhether he has made any other statements that would either influence the prosecutionofthis case or Manning?s right to obtain a fair trial. in additional to the UCIissue. President Obama will testify about his views on the Afghanistan released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the leak did not reveal any issues that hadnot already informed our public debate on Afghanistan. He will also testify that theAfghanistan SIGACTS point to the same challenges that led hint to conduct anextensive review of the Afghanistan policy. President Obama will also testify aboutthe problem ofover-classi?cation within the government. Speci?cally?, that hesupported and signed into law the Reducing Over-Classi?cation Act on 7 October2010. Additionally. he will testify that on his first full day in oftice. 21 January 2009.he issued two memoranda for the head of Executive Departments and Agencies thatwere related to transparency in government. The first memorandum focused on theadministration ofthe Freedom of lnfonnation Act (FOIA), and the second focused ontransparency and open govemment. President Obama will testify that thetransparency memorandum he wrote committed the administration to ?anunprecedented level of opettness? and to the establishment of ?a system oftransp?teney. public participation, and collaboration." President Obama will testifythat on 8 December 2009 his administration released a third memorandum an OpenGovernment Directive (OGD). The OGD included detailed instructions fordepartments and agencies on how they are to ?implement the principles oftransparency, participation. and collaboration." Finally. on 29 December 2009,President ()bama will testify that he issued Executive Order 13526 in an attempt toUnited States v, Manning: Article 32 witness Listimprove the system for classifying, safeguarding. and declassifying national securityinformation. including the establishment ofthe National Declassi?cation 37) Former Secretary Robert Gates. Chancellor, College of William and P.O. Box8795, Williamsburg. VA 23187, (757) 221-1693. Former Secretary Gates will testifythat the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitiveintelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defensecould not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documentsreleased by Wikileaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTS aresimply ground?level ?eld reports that document dated activities which do not disclosesensitix information or our sources and methods. omier Secretary Gates will alsotestify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to thepublication ofdiplomatic cables were ?fairly significantly overwrought." He will alsotestify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward. they did notrepresent significant consequences to foreign policy. l-?inally, Former Secretary Gateswill testify that on 29 July 2010. he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency tolead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to Wikilxaks and tocoordinate under the lnfonnation Review Task Force (IRTF. formerly TF 725) toconduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confinnedthat the alleged leaks represented a low to at best moderate risk to national security.Speci?cally. that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated. representedlow-level opinions. or was already commonly understood and know due to previouspublic disclosures.38) Secretary Hillary R. Clinton. U.S. Department of State. 2201 Street NW,Washington, DC. 20520. (202) 647-4000. Secretary Clinton will testify that she hasraised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders "in order toassure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy orour commitment to continuing imponant work that is ongoing.? Secretary Clintonwill also testify that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether anynation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue todiscuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, SecretaryClinton will testify that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration.that she concurs with Fomier Secretary Gates? opinion that they did not representsigni?cant consequences to foreign policy.39) CPT James Kolky. (?avalry Division. Fort Hood. Texas. Brigade S-2. He will testify about his classi?cation review ofthe three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by Specifically. he will testify that the videos were not classified at the time of theiralleged release. However. he will testify that he believes that videos should have beenclassified- He will testify regarding his classification determination.United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness l.ist40) Kevin M. Donegan. Director of Operations for United States CentralCommand. 7115 South Boundary Boulevard. MacDill Air Force Base. Florida3362 RADM Donegan conductedclassi?cation reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations ofof?cial reportsoriginated by The PowerPoint presentations are the subject ofSpeci?cation 10 of Charge ll. RADM Donegan will testify regarding hisclassi?cation determination and his belief ofthe impact on national security due tothe release of the information.41) Robert F.. Betz, (?hiet?Classit'ication Advisory Officer, thegovernment has not provided the defense with contact infomtation for Mr. Betz. Mr.will testify about his classi?cation detemtination concerning the alleged chatlogs between Mr. l.amo and PFC Bradley Manning. Speci?cally. he will testify abouthis classi?cation assessment ofinfomtation discussed in the alleged chat logs. Betz believes the limited discussion caused "serious damage? to national security.42) LtGen Robert li. Sehmidle, Jr.. Deputy Commander U.S. Cyber Command.-Schmidle, as the Original ClassificationAuthority (OCA) over the information discussed by Mr. Betz. Schmidle willtestify that he concurs with the classi?cation determination and impact statementsmade by Mr. Betz. The defense would like to question him regarding his declarationand the basis for his belief.43) Robert S. llarward, USCENTCOTVI, Deputy Commander. MacDill AirForce Base, Florida 33o21, . VADMHarward will testify concerning his classi?cation review and classificationdetermination concerning the Afghanistan Events. Iraq Events. otherbrie?ngs and the B122 l?AX.wmv video. Speci?cally, VADM llarward will testifyeonceming his classification determination and his beliefof the impact on nationalsecurity from having this information released to the public.44} Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, the defense does nothave contact infomtation for Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will testify concerning hisreview of the disclosure of Department ofState Diplomatic Cables stored within theNet-Centric Diplomacy server and part ot?Sll?DlS. Mr. Kennedy will testifyeonceming his classification determination and the impact of the release of theinformation on national security.45) David B. Woods. Commander. Joint Task Force Guantanamo will is-?tiltconcerning his review of the disclosure of five documents, totaling twenty-two pages.RADM Woods will testify concerning his elassilication determination and the impactof the release ofthe information on national security. States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List46) CAPT Kevin D. Moore. Walter Reed National Military Medical enter.?lie will testify that during a meeting in earlyJanuary of 201 l. the Security Battalion Commander in charge ofthe Quantico Brig.Col. Robert Oltman. clearly stated to the Brig Staff that ?l will not have anythinghappen to Manning on my So, nothing is going to He won?t beable to hurt himself and he won?t be able to get away, and our way ofmaking sure ofthat is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and P01 indelinitely." He willtestify that one ofthe other Brig Capt. William Hocter then said "Youknow Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that. maybe you want to callit something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health." Inresponse, Capt. Moore will testify that Col. Oltman said ?We will do whatever wewant to do. You make a recommendation and then have to make a decision basedupon everything else.? Capt. Moore will testify that Capt. Hocter then said. ?Wellthen don?t say it is based upon mental health. You can say it is Maximum Custody.and just don?t put that we [behavioral health] are somehow involved in this." Col.Oltman replied, "Well. that is what we are going to do." Capt. Moore will testify thathe spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brig was so heavyhanded on PFC Manning. He will testify that others at the Brig told him that theyhave never seen anything like this before. Capt. .\4oore will testify that others toldhim that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concem of whatwould happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Mannings treatment.47) CAPT William J. Hocter. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.?lie will testify that neither the Quantico BrigCommander. CW4 James Averltart. nor the Security Battalion Commander. ol.Robert Oltman. gave him any reasons for maintaining the Prevention of lnjuryprecautions other than stating it was for PFC Manning?s safety. He will testify thatCol. Oltman intimated that he was receiving instruction form a higher authority on thematter but did not say who was providing this direction. Capt. Hocter will testify thathe knew that the higher base authorities had frequent sometimes weekly) meetings todiscuss PFC Manning. Capt. lloeter will testify that he gave weekly status reportsstating that he felt the P01 precautions were unnecessary. Capt. Hocter will testifythat he recalls a meeting with C01. Oltman where he stated that Manning wouldremain in his current status Maximum Custody and P01 unless and until he receivedinstructions from higher authority to the contrary. Capt. Hocter cannot recall (fol.0ltman?s exact words. but he does recall that Col. Oltman made it clear that nothingwould change with PFC regardless of his behavior or the recommendationsof behavioral health.48) Inmate Christopher hitfield, .|oint Regional Correction Facility (JRCF). FortLeavenworth. Kansas. Inmate Whitfield will testify that he was taken to the pretrialsection at the and met with PFC Manning. He will testify that he explained thepurpose of his visit and asked PFC Manning who PFC Manning allegedly responded with. sold information to Wikileaksf?United States v. Manning: Article 32 Wimcss ListShortly after this alleged statement, the guards realized that Inmate Whit?eld shouldnot have been in the pretrial area.DAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel


Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh