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

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Prosecution Response to DefenseMotion to Compel DepositionsManning, Bradley E. PFC, U.S. Army, Enclosure 3HHC, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall 8 March 2012Fort Myer, Virginia 22211 UNITED STATESDEFENSE REQUEST FORARTICLE 32 WITNESSESus. Amy. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S.Amiy Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,Fort Myer. VA 2221 IIMANNING. Bradley E., PFC IIII DATED: 2 December 201 IOn 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 thefonn of the charges. and assist the Investigating Officer in making recommendations as todisposition of the charges. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 405(a);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. See R.C.M. 405(a) Discussion(stating the "investigation also serves as a means of discovery? for the defense);c) ln order to present matters in mitigation ofthe charged offenses. R.C.M. 405(f)(stating an accused has the right to present evidence in defense. mitigation, andextenuation); Article 32(b). Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (stating an accusedmay "present anything he may desire in his own behalf. either in defense or mitigation.and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested. . UnitedStates Garcia. 59 M.J. 447. 451 (C.A.A.F. that an accused has the right topresent anything he may desire in his own 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 I3 and 37 of the UCMJ. See R.C.M. 405(e)Discussion (stating that inquiry in to other issues such as legality of searches or theadmissibility of evidence is proper by an Article 32 Investigating Officer).1) SA Toni M. Graham, 102"? MP Detachment, l3l4 Lyman Road, Scho?eld Barracks,Hawaii. 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 of the Lfnited States v. .\/Ianning; Article 32 Witness List3)4)5)6)initial involvement until the matter was transferred to the Computer CrimeInvestigation Unit (CCII I) on 23 June 2010.SA Mark A. Mander. GS13. I Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island. Illinois 61299-5000. SA Mander is one ofthe lawenforcement agents that conducted work on this case for the CCIU. He is the drafterofmost ofthe CID Reports oflnvestigation. He is part ofajoint 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 US Amiy, and DSS hasresponsibility for leads involving the DOS. The Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) 1ater_ioined as ajoint partner in the investigation with responsibility forproviding counterespionage expertise. investigative support. and as the lead agencyfor all civilian related leads.SA Calder L. Robertson GSI3. Computer Crime Investigation Unit (CCIU).Manheim. Germany 1. Heextracted the hard drives from the two SIPR and one NIPR computers collected fromthe SC IF. the personal laptop of SSG Bigelow, and the personal external hard drive ofPFC Manning. SA Robertson will testify about his involvement in the investigationand the steps he took from the initial reporting of the alleged incident on 25 May 2010until present regarding the forensic imaging and evidence collection of electronicmedia seized in Iraq.SA David S. Shaver. GS13. Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. 27130 TelegraphRoad. Quantiw Virginia - SAShaver is a forensic examiner who conducted an examination ofthe computers usedby Manning within the T-SC IF. 44 loose hard drives seized from 2" BC T,digital media collected from PFC Manning?s Aunt's residence, various log ?les fromCIDNE Iraq and CIDNE Afghanistan. log files from the Army CounterintelligenceCenter (ACIC and his personal computer equipment. SAC Shaver completed 19classi?ed CCIU reports and will testify about the nature of his forensic examinationand the results ofhis examination.SA Charles T. Ames Jr.. GSI3. 9805 I.owen Road, Fort Belvoir. Virginia 22060,.. SA Ames is one ofthe law enforcement agents that conducted work on this case. He interviewednumerous witnesses during the CCIU investigation from 2d He also detailedthe collection of classified information for the Information Review Task Force?sdamage 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 U.S.Supply Annex computer (Unclassified). utilized by PFC1 United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List7)8)9)Bradley Marming. He will testify about the nature of his forensic examination and theresults ofhjs examination. He will also testify about his forensic analysis andevidence collection from PFC Manning?s cellular telephone. the computer assigned IPaddress l44.l07. I 7.19 and the forensic imaging of the Wikileaks website.SA 'l'ro_v M. Bettencourt. Computer Crimes lnvestigative Unit, 27130 TelegraphRoad. Quamico. Virginia 22|3 SA Bettencourt is one of the agents that worked extensively on this case for toinclude interviewing multiple witnesses in the case and conducting ?eld investigationfor the CC IU . SA Bettencourt will testify about his involvement in the case and theinvestigative steps that he took.SA Ronald K. Rock. ljnited States Department of State, Diplomatic Security ServiceOf?ce of Professional Responsibility. SA Rock is one of the 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 of the Article 32 hearing.SA Patrick Wheeler. Federal Bureau of Investigation. the defense does not havecontact infomiation 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 of the law enforcement agents thatconducted work on this case. He 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 Manning. The 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 of the Article 32 hearing.I0) Martin Leibman, Kenner Army Health Clinic. 700 24"? Street. Fort Lee, Virginia23801. . that perfonned acommand-referred behavioral health evaluation BHE on PFC Marming 24 December200?). CPT Leibman will testify that he determined 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 PFC Marming was potentiallydangerous to himself and others and recommended removal of his weapon or removalof the bolt from his weapon along with increased monitoring and supervision. liewill testify that he used a behavioral health evaluation fonn that was not approved.MEDC OM Form 4038. On that fonn. however, there was a block that permitted thebehavioral health provider to indicate that the Soldier being evaluated was notUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listsuitable for continued access to classified material. Despite having this option. PTLeiehman 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 classified materials after thatdate.l) PT Michael E. Worsley. l908"? MC Detachment. 500 SW 42"d Street. Topeka.Kansas 66609-l24l He will testifythat he treated PFC Manning on numerous between 30 December 2009 and 26 May2010. As part ofhis treatment. CPT Worsley considered letters written by PFCnoncommissioned officer in charge, then MSG Adkins. He will testifythat now SFC Adkins expressed concern about PFC Manning?s mental and emotionalstability in the three letters noting that PFC Manning appeared to be suffering greatlyand also having difficulty sharing his problem. PT Worsley will testify that hecontacted SFC Adkins after each evaluation was completed in order to give him asummary of the infonnation from his review and to allow SFC Adkins to share histhoughts and concerns. Despite the behavior of PFC Manning, CPT Worsely willadmit that he never made a recommendation to the command concerning whether tosuspend PFC Manning's security clearance. He did, however, speak with MAJClifford lausen and Eric Usbeck about his reviews and PFC Manning?s needfor ongoing long term to explore and understand his issues.12) CPT Edan A. Critchfield. Department of Behavioral Medicine, 1050 Mt. BelvedereBlvd. Fort Drum, New York 13602.He is a that performed a behavioral health evaluation on PFC Manning on22 May and 28 May 2010. He will testify that SFC Adkins had expressed concern tohim about PFC Manning around 10 April 2010. and had given him a memorandumwhere he documented his concerns. Since PFC Manning's primary clinician. PTWorsley, was on leave at the time. he completed the command directed mental healthevaluation. Based on his interview of PFC Manning and review of his records, CPTCritchfield will testify that he determined PFC Manning was at risk to himself andothers and recommended that he not have an operable weapon. le will testify that heconsidered making a recommendation as to PFC Manning?s access to classifiedinformation in his 22 May 20l0 evaluation but did not do so because he had beeninfomted that PFC Manning was no longer allowed in the T-SCIF. Instead, he deletedthe block referencing access to classified information on the MEDCOM Form 4038 inorder to have more space to write notes on the form. PT ritch?eld will testify thathe did receive training on the subject of Soldier suitability for access to classifiedinformation. The training that he received was informal ?on-the-job? training duringhis residency. He will testify that the factors suggested to look for in makingsuitability determinations were (1) reliability, (2) stability, and (3) judgment. On his28 May 20lO mental health evaluation. CPT Critchfield will testify that he made arecommendation that PFC Manning was not ?suitable for continued access to classifiedmaterial and that his security clearance should be rescinded. United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness l.ist13) CO1. David M. Miller. Brigade Modemization Command, Fort Bliss. Texas 799l6.Former 2nd BCT Commander, He willtestify 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 of PFC Manning, MAJ Cliffordlausen. 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 LTCBrian Kems, COL Miller decided it was best to remove MAJ Clausen from hisposition as the S2 and place CPT l.im into thatjob. He will testify that from hisperspective. the issues surrounding PFC 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 PFC Manning?sissues. First. during that time period the former company commander, MAJ ElijahDrcher 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 discoveryof credible derogatory information on a Soldier. After the initial DEROG issubmitted and processed by the unit has 90 days to submit a follow-up5248-R if there is a pending investigation or adverse action taken summarycourt-martial). Once the investigatiorvproceedings 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 informedA of PFC Manning emotional and mental condition. He will testify that this failureresulted in the command not submitting a DEROG in a timely manner.14) LTC Brian Kems. Old Dominion University, Brigade Cadet Command, RollinsHall. Room 119. Norfolk, Virginia 23529,(Former Executive Officer for 2nd BCT), l-le will testifythat he was MAJ Clausen?s direct supervisor. He believed that MAJ Clausen couldnot provide CO1. Miller with accurate or timely estimates or intelligence, and couldnot talk to CO1. Miller in a way that served the ommander's needs. The brigadecommander ?nally lost confidence in MAJ Clausen and made the decision a?erapproximately 6 months to move him. He will testify that the unit did not conduct afomial relief for cause. but moved him to a transition team. According to Kems.MAJ lausen?s performance was weak, but not so weak as to warrant a relief forcause. LTC Kems did not believe MAJ Clausen was not a strong leader. He tried todecentralize 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 lausen was unable to mentor ordevelop younger officers and didn?t have much direct control over the shop. He willalso testify that MAJ Clausen was handicapped by weak NCO leadership in his shop.United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness ListSpeci?cally. his NCOIC. then MSG Adkins was not an effective leader. In hisopinion. both MAJ Clauscn 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 MAJlausen put out information that Warrant Officers and Noncommissioned Officerswere to defer all management responsibilities to MSG Adkins. He will testify thatperhaps the command was too generous with MAJ Clausen 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 concems, prior to May of20lO, made it to his level. LT Kems will testify that the failure to properly DEROG PFC .Vlanning?s was the unit?sbiggest failure. He believes that the unit should have pulled PFC 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. He will also testify that the assistant S6 for the brigade. CPTCherepko came to him with concerns about unauthorized personal media on machines. According to PT herepko, personnel were putting unauthorized mediaon computers such as programs. games. videos. and music. LTC Kems will testifythat it was fairly common when the unit arrived to see games, music and movies onthe He believed that it was fairly common across lraq. He will testify thathe tried to get the staff to do the right thing, but media on the continued tobe the standard. He will testify that at no point was UCMJ punishment applied tothose who were placing unauthorized information on He will acknowledgethat with respect to the media on the he believed that the Army had becometoo comfortable working on while deployed. it is his opinion that this mayhave bred some complacency because of the 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 Manning was arrested. COL Miller ordered him to take acomplete look at INFOSEC across the brigade. He formed a working groupconsisting of the SGM, S2, S6 and lO personnel to look at how the brigade wasoperating. Based upon this review, the S6 removed universal ability to write to disks;there was additional compartmentalizing of information within the BCT 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. Dreher. (Former HHC.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 PFC(1 United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness ListManning?s issues came about after deploying. He was not aware that SFC Adkinsrecommended to PFC Manning that he self-refer to Mental Health or that PFCManning even went to Mental Health prior to the deployment. He will also testifythat he was not adequately informed ofPF Manning?s mental health issues by MAJClausen or Adkins. His TDS cozmsel is Suchomski at Fort Gordon-16) MAJ Clifford D. lausen. National Radio Frequency COMECT Center.He was the 2/10 BCT S-2 until beingreplaced by CPT 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 Manning?s behavioral health issues. He will testify that it was his practice to not takemany issues outside ofthe S2 Shop, and that he believed the supervision policy ofhaving every issue go through SFC Adkins was fine. Finally, he will testify thatmusic CDs were allowed in the T-SCIF.17) CPT Barclay Keay. HHC, 4-31 Infantry Battalion. 2nd Brigade Combat Team. 10"?Mountain Division. Building 10210 North Riva Ridge. Fort Drum. New York 13682.ight shift for the '1?-SCll? for 2ndBC T). He will testify that he believed PFC Manning was good at his job and he wasalso impressed with PFC Manning?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 Manning wanted to be a 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 theabout this issue. but no one could provide him with an answer. He will testifythat eventually it became the nomi to see soldiers listening to music. watchingmovies, and playing games on machines.18) CPT Matthew W. Freeburg, 101 12. Armored Division Road. Fon Drum.New York 13602. . Companycommander and property book holder for all the computers within HHC, 2BCT. Hewill testify about providing commander?s authorization to seize and search thecomputers PFC Manning was known to work on. He also provided searchauthorization to search PFC Manning?s room. He will testify that he never receivedany information from the S2 Section conccming any of PFC Manning?s mental oremotional issues until after the alleged assault of SPC Showman. He will testify thatafter the alleged assault. he removed PFC .\/Ianning from the T-SCIF and sent him toUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listwork in the Supply Room. He then gave PFC Manning an Article 15 reducing himfrom SPC to PFC. Along with the Article 15, CPT Freeburg will testify that he ?lledout a DEROG form in order to suspend PFC Manning?s security clearance. CPTreeburg will testify he then went to PT Worsley at Behavioral Health to discussPFC N/lanning?s condition. CPT Worsely told him that PFC Manning's troubles weredeeper than the Army could fix and that he should be separated. CPT Freeburg willtestify that he then sent PFC Manning to CPT Critch?eld for an evaluation. Basedupon the mental health recommendations, CPT Freeburg will testify that he initiatedthe chapter paperwork. CPT reeburg will testify that he believed it was shocking thatsomething more serious had not been done to address PFC Marming?s behavioralissues prior to him assaulting SPC Showman and receiving an Article IS. He willalso testify that he was aware that personnel had placed video games, movies, andmusic on the drive.19) CPT Steven J. Lim. First Amiy Division East, 4550 Llewelyn Drive. FortMeade, Maryland 20755, He will testifythat he knew about PFC 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 wasinformed that PFC Manning was seeing a doctor about his condition. Despite thisknowledge, PT Lim will testify that he was not aware of the full extent of PFCManning mental health issues. He will testify that once he leamed 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 inform him of the various issues PFC Manning was struggling with duringthe deployment. PT Lim will testify thatsoldiers were authorized to bring musicCD5 to listen to in the T-SC IF. CPT Lim will also testify that the T-SCIF failed todraft a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). PT Lim will testify that he passed thelink to the .S. Embassy cables to the various including PFC Manning. Hedisseminated the link to the S2 shop and the BN S2's sometime in the beginningof January 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 of theCIDNE database compromised our key sources and put the lives of sources at risk areinaccurate. Any name in the CIDNE database (Iraq and Afghanistan) werejust namesput in by a soldier who spoke to some local national and not sources for the UnitedStates. CPT Lim believes that although a name may be in IDNE, it was likelyspelled phonetically and did not contain the full name of the individual. CPT Limknows that he had the ability to pull 50 different ways to spell Muhammad when hewould do a CIDNE database search. That fact there were so many different ways tospell Muhammad is indicative of the fact the names in the database were notaccurate accounts.20') PT Thomas M. herepko. NATO Force Command Madrid, Madrid, Spain 09649.. lie was the assistant S-6 for the2BCT. He will testify that the information assurance procedures were not being United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listfollowed 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. He 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, Kems. 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 Dol) InformationAssurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) packet for certi?cationand accreditation of the 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 (IATO) for their network. Additionally, the brigadedid not receive a formal IA certi?cation and accreditation inspection during its tour,contrary to the guidance in MN F-l Directives. Finally, he will testify that he knewabout personal software being loaded on the and he would remove thesoftware when he came across it. He is represented by PT Michelle Borgnino atFort Myer,2i CPT Michael R. Johnson. Brigade, 25"? Airborne Infantry Division. Joint Baseljlmendork-Richardson, Alaska 99505.He will testify that SFC Adkins was in charge ofall enlisted responsibilities. He will testify that whenever he engaged the Soldiers onissues as a leader that he was told to back off by SFC Adkins. PT Lim, and MAJlausen. He 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.He will testify that he remembers venting to MAJ lausen and SFC Adkins abouthow nothing was being done to address PFC Manning?s mental and emotional issues.He will state that when he addressed these concerns to MAJ Clausen and SFC 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) 1LT Tanya Marie Gaab. HHC. 525"? Fort Bragg, North Carolina 1--She will testify that SFC Adkins was in charge oftheadministrative details and supervision of the 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. In her opinion, PFC Marming 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 T-SCIF 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 recognize thathe needed help. She believes the unit failed to take proper action and failed toproperly respond to the issues that PFC Manning was obviously struggling with bothbefore and during the deployment.23) ILT Elizabeth A. Fields. as theSpecial Security Representative (SSR) for the T-SCIF and part of the Sunni Team,She will testify that she only received one hour oftraining at 10"? MTN to be the SSRfor the T-SCIF. Her training covered the basic rules and regulations for a atFort Drum. She will testify that her training did not really cover ensuring the securityofa T-SCIF. However, she will testify that she was only the SSR at F011 Drum.When her unit deployed to Iraq. she will testify that then MSG Adkins was the onethat worked the security of the T-SCIF and she dealt with security clearances. Shewill testify that SF Adkins did not receive any training to be the SSR. However, he- just assumed the position under the approval of the 3-2, MAJ Clausen. 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 SFC 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 cared about the S2 section because they werenot co-located. She will testify that she was aware of multiple issues with PFCManning, but stated that PFC Manning stayed in the T-SCIF because SFC Adkinssaid that we needed personnel. 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-SCIF 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 Ds and DVDs into the T-SCIF. She believed that there was no unit training at 2/10 that focused on T-SCIFoperations during the deployment. 24) Joshua D. Ehresmam. 1o?' Mm Hq. Fort Drum._NY 13602,He is ted byHe Curtis A. Devlin. Fort Lee TDS.will testify that he was told by SFC 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 wasl0 United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness l.istaware of multiple emotional outbursts by PFC Manning. He will testify that prior tothe deployment he recommended that PFC Manning should not deploy and expressedthis directly to MAJ Clausen. CPT Martin and SFC Adkins. He will testify that hewas told that PFC Manning would deploy due to manpower issues. He will testifythat he witnessed an incident in December of 2009 by PFC Manning that required himto physically involve himself in the situation in order to ensure PFC Manning did nottry to harm 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 of the Army. He also spokewith CPT Lim, CPT Martin and ISG liric Lisbeek about his concerns after theoutburst by PFC lvlanning. He will testify that even after expressing these concerns,nothing was done.25) MSG Eric H. Usbeck. Fort Bliss. Texas,(fonner ISG 2nd BCT). 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 PFC 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 Usbeck 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) MSG Mark S. Woodworth. Task Force 3. OPS GRP, JRTC, l2l2 Port ArthurTerrace. Leesvillc. Louisiana 7l446became the ISG 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. PFC Manning was moved to theSupply room. He will testify that SFC Adkins did not talk to him about removing thebolt from PFC Manning?s weapon. He also does not recall any discussions aboutsending PFC Manning back to the States or chaptering him out of the Anny. He willalso testify about CID coming to the unit and searching PFC Manning's livingquarters and work space.27) src? Paul David Adkins. HHC, BCT. Fort Drum. New York 13602,?He is represented by TDS Cuurmel. SFCAdkins will testify that he was PFC Manning?s NCOIC. Once a MSG, SFC Adkinswas administratively reduced by a board due to being derelict in his duties. The boardll United States Manning; Article 12 Witness listconcluded that Adkins failed to take proper steps in addressing PFC Manning?sissues. SFC Adkins will testify that he was aware ofthe problems Manning.Over the course months. he will testify that he drafted three memorandumsdetailing various behavioral health concerns of Manning. Despite thisknowledge. SFC Adkins will testify that he tailed to notify anyone of these concernsthat could have taken steps to take care of Manning and ensure that he wasgetting the help that he needed. Instead. he will testify that he simply allowed PFCManning to continue to work in the as an intelligence analyst. SFC Adkinswill testify that he assessed that PFC Manning was salvageahle if he received andaetixely participated in extensive therapy (I-2 times a week on anindefinite basis) coupled with responsive evaluations. medication andfollow-up adjustments on dosages.Pd United States v, Manning: Article 32 Witness List 30) sor Daniel w. Padgett. Company. BSTB. 10?? Mountain Division. FortDrum. New York t36o2. formersupervisor of PFC Manning. He will testify that 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 andHe was assigned this position even though he had not yet been to anyleadership schools. lle will testify that there really was not any one supervising thenight shift. He will also testify that when he needed to counsel PFC Manning he wentto SSG Balonek and asked him if he could counsel him. He will testify that he wasgiven permission to handle disciplinary actions for Manning by SFC Adkins andSSG Balonek. He will testify that he believed that he was in essence taking care ofother NCOs soldiers and that Manning should have been counseled by SSGBalonek. He will testify that during one counseling session in December of 2009.PFC Manning grabbed the table and flipped it. He will testify that 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. He will testify thatalthough PFC .\/lanning later apologized to him.that he believes 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 CDs and watch movies in the T-SCIF.31 SGT David A. Sadtler. 709 Ml Battalion. US. Army Garrison. Wiesbaden, . lle is a 35N signal intelligenceanalyst. He will testify that he first met PFC 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. He will state that-PFC Manning wasupset that no one cared about the mission. He also believed that the unit made it verydifficult on PFC .\1anning as it seemed to outcast him as though they were trying toget him out ofthe Army. He will testify that a lot of people had support from otherpeople. but that he didn?t believe PFC .\/lanning had any support from his chain ofcommand. He will testify that he recalls an incident when PFC Manning found arepoit that apparently upset him. PFC Manning had found in the report that someIraqis or possibly some Nioroceans 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 information was in Arabic. He will testify that PFCManning had taken the time to have the document translated and tried to show thetranslation to his superiors. He will testify that PFC Manning was very upset about13United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listthe issue. He will testify that ifthere was a moment in which PFC Manning may havesnapped. this would have been it. SGT Sadtler will testify that everyone stonewallcdPFC Manning on the issue as no one thought it was a big deal. He will testify that thetranslation indicated that the individuals being arrested had printed documents thatwere questioning whether the lraqi govemment was embezzling public funds.32) sor Lorena Cooley. line Fort Drum. New York, 13602, Cooley will testify that she believes that PFCManning 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 CD5 for music and movies and that this information was placed on thecomputers.33) SGT Sheri M- W?a1sh- - SGT Walsh will testify that PFC 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 Anny. 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 testify that others would make fun of PFC.\4anning?s size and the fact that they believed he was gay. One time SGT Walsh sawPFC Manning coming out of his room; two soldiers pushed the door back into PFCManning's face. She will testify that Manning was obviously upset andembarrassed about having the door pushed back into his face. She will testify thatinstead ofcomplaining about the conduct, PFC Manning simply said that he walkedinto the door by accident. SGT Walsh will testify that she believes PFC Manning wasat a very confusing time in his life. She does not believe that the Army was a good fitfor him based upon where he was at in his life.34) SPC Jihrleah w. Showman. Fort Drum. New York . SPC Showman will testify about being aware ofPFC Manning's emotional issues. She will testify that she went to SFC Adkins andrecommended that PFC Manning not deploy due to his emotional issues. She willtestify that she believes that she was the first in the IF to see the "Apache video"which she found of her own accord in a network folder. She will testify that shecalled CW2 SSG Balonek, and another soldier over to see the video. SPCShowman will testify that over the next few days. several of 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 Listdeployment that indicated to her PFC Manning was struggling both emotionally andmentally. 35) Adrian l.amo,. 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 Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Avenue NW.Washington. 20500.-. The defense requests the presence ofPresident Obama in order to discuss the issue of Unlawful Command Influence (UCI).Under Rule for Courts-Martial the defense is entitled to explore the issue ofUCI. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). a superior officer in thechain ofcommand 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 20l I,when he decided to comment on PFC 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 ease or PFC Manning?s right to obtain a fair trial. In additional to the UCIissue, President Obama will testify about his views on the Afghanistan SIGACTSreleased by WikiI.eaks. 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 point to the same challenges that led him to conduct anextensive review of the Afghanistan policy. President Obama will also testify aboutthe problem of over-classification within the govemment. Specifically, that hesupported and signed into law the Reducing Over-Classification Act on 7 October2010. Additionally. he will testify that on his first full day in office. 21 January 2009,he issued two memoranda for the head of Executive Departments and Agencies thatwere related to transparency in govemment. The first memorandum focused on theadministration of the Freedom of Information 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 openness" and to the establishment of ?a system oftransparency. public participation. and collaboration." President Obama will testifythat on 8 December 2009 his administration released a third memorandum - an OpenGovemment 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 Obama will testify that he issued Executive Order 13526 in an attempt toISUnited States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness Listimprove the system for classifying. safeguarding, and declassifying national securityinformation. including the establishment ofthe National Declassi?cation Center.37) Former Secretary Robert Gates, Chancellor. College of William and Mary. PO. Box8795. Williamsburg. VA 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 ikileaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTS aresimply ground-level ?eld reports that document dated activities which do not disclosesensitive information or our sources and methods. Fonner Secretary Gates will alsotestify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to thepublication of diplomatic cables were ?fairly signi?cantly overwrought.? He will alsotestify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward. they did notrepresent signi?cant consequences to foreign policy. Finally. Former Secretary Gateswill testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) tolead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and tocoordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) toconduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmedthat 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. 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 important 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 Former Secretary Gates? opinion that they did not representsigni?cant consequences to foreign policy.39) CPT James Kollty, 15? Cavalry 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 ORSCOM.Speci?cally. he will testify that the videos were not classi?ed at the time of theiralleged release. However. he will testify that he believes that videos should have beenclassi?ed. He will testify regarding his classi?cation determination. United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List40) RADM Kevin M. Donegan. Director of Operations for United States CentralCommand. 71 15 South Boundary Boulevard. MacDill Air Force Base. Florida33621. RADM Donegan conductedclassi?cation reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations of of?cial reportsoriginated by The PowerPoint presentations are the subject ofSpeci?cation 10 of Charge ll. Donegan will testify regarding hisclassi?cation determination and his belief of the impact on national security due tothe release ofthe information.41) Robert E. Betz, Chief Classi?cation Advisory Of?cer, thegovemment has not provided the defense with contact information for Mr. Betz. Mr.Betz will testify about his classi?cation determination concerning the alleged chatlogs between Mr. Lamo and PFC Bradley Manning. Speci?cally. he will testify abouthis classi?cation assessment of infonnation discussed in the alleged chat logs. Mr.Betz believes the limited discussion caused ?serious damage? to national security.42) LtGen Robert E. Schmidle. Jr.. Deputy Commander Cyber Command.. LtGen Schmidle, as the Original Clas cationAuthority over the information discussed by Mr. I.tGen Schmidle willtestify that he concurs with the classi?cation detennination and impact statementsmade by Mr. Betz. The defense would like to question him regarding his declarationand the basis for his belief.43) VADM Robert S. llarward. USCENTCOM. Deputy Commander, MacDill AirForce Base. Florida 33621. VADMllarward will testify concerning his classi?cation review and classi?cation determination concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, Iraq Events, otherbrie?ngs and the B1322 PAX.wmv video. Speci?cally, VADM Harward will testifyconcerning his classi?cation detennination 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 infomiation for Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will testify coneeming hisreview of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic ables stored within theNet-Centric Diplomacy server and part of SlPl)lS. Mr. Kennedy will testifyconcerning his classi?cation determination and the impact ofthe release oftheinformation on national security.45) RADM David B. Woods. Commander. Joint Task Force Guantanamo GTMO). RADM Woods will testifyconcerning his review of the disclosure of?x-?e documents, totaling twenty-two pages.RADM Woods will testify concerning his classi?cation determination and the impactof the release of the infonnation on national security.United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness List46) CAPT Kevin D. Moore, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, He will testify that during a meeting in earlyJanuary of 201 l, the Security Battalion Commander in charge of the Quantico Brig.Col. Robert Oltman. clearly stated to the Brig Staff that 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 of making sure ofthat is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and indefinitely." He willtestify that one of the 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 I 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,andjust 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. Moore will testify that others toldhim that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concern of whatwould happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning?s treatment.47) CAPT William J. Hocter, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center,He will testify that neither the Quantico Brigommander, CW4 James Averhart, nor the Security Battalion Commander, Col.Robert Oltman, gave him any reasons for maintaining the Prevention of Injuryprecautions 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. Hocter will testify that he gave weekly status reportsstating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. Capt. Hocter will testifythat he recalls a meeting with Col. Oltman where he stated that PFC Manning wouldremain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI unless and until he receivedinstructions from higher authority to the contrary. Capt. Hocter cannot recall Col.O|tman?s exact words, but he does recall that Col. Oltman made it clear that nothingwould change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior or the recommendationsof behavioral health.48) lmnatc Christopher Whit?eld, Joint Regional Correction Facility (JRCF), FortLeavenworth. Kansas. Inmate Whit?eld will testify that he was taken to the pretrialsection at the JRCF 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 Wikileaks.?United States v. Manning: Article 32 Witness ListShortly after this alleged statement, the guards realized that Inmate Whit?eld shouldnot have been in the pretrial area.I 1/ DAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel

e-Highlighter

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

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh