Title: Gov Documents submitted for Speedy Trial (Unsealed Portion)

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 4CorrectedTab CopyTab Document Name Page Enclosure Tab 1 RCM 706 Order, 3 August 2010 1 34Tab 1 Defense Delay Request Article 32 Investigation, 11 July 2010 5 11Tab 1 Defense Delay Request Article 32 Investigation, 12 July 2010 6 11Tab 1 Defense Delay Request RCM 706 results, 11 August 2010 8 11Tab 1 Approval of Excludable Delay, 12 August 2010 9 12Tab 1 Extension for RCM 706 Report, 12 August 2010 10 80Tab 1 Email from Dr. Sweda to MAJ Hurley, 10 August 2010 17 77Tab 1 Defense Request for Excludable Delay, 25 August 2010 23 11Tab 1 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 25 August 2010 25 12Tab 1 Defense Request for Appoint of Forensic 2 September 2010 26 80Tab 1 Appointment of Defense Expert, 12 October 2010 27 80Tab 1 Defense Request for RCM 706 Delay, 26 August 2010 28 11, 22Tab 1 Protective Order for Classi?ed Information, 17 September 2010 30 37Tab 1 Preliminary Classification Review Order, 17 September 2010 35 40Tab 1 Defense Response to Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 18 September 2010 36 80Tab 1 Superseding Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 22 September 2010 39 42Tab 1 Defense Response to Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 28 September 2010 41 41Tab 1 Appointment of Second Defense Security Expert, 12 October 2010 43 43Tab 1 Preliminary Classi?cation Review Results, 13 December 2010 44 49Tab 1 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 12 October 2010 45 28Tab 1 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 10 November 2010 47 28Tab 1 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 17 December 2010 48 28Tab 1 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 14 November 2011 49 28Tab 1 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 15 February 2011 50 28Tab 2 Order for RCM 706 to Resume, 3 February 2011 1 29Tab 2 RCM 706 Board Extension Request, 14 March 2011 7 30Tab 2 RCM 706 Board Extension Request, 15 April 2011 8 30Tab 2 Approval of Extension Requests, 18 March 2011 9 31Tab 2 Approval of Extension Requests, 15 April 2011 10 31Tab 2 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 18 March 2011 11 28Tab 2 Defense Expert Request for 18 February 2011 13 80Tab 2 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 22 April 2011 16 28Tab 3 Requests for Excludable Delay, 25 April 2011 1 80Tab 3 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0025 2 78Tab 3 Defense Response to Government Request for Art 32 Delay, 26 April 2011 3 80Tab 3 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 29 April 2011 5 12Tab 3 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 12 May 2011 6 28Tab 3 Defense Request Expert Fort Leavenworth, 20 April 2011 7 80Tab 4 Requests for Excludable Delay, 22 May 2011 1 11Tab 4 Unclassified Email COL Coffman 0028 2 78Tab 4 Unclassified Email COL Coffman 0029 3 78Tab 4 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 26 May 2011 4 12Tab 4 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 17 June 2011 5 28Tab 5 Requests for Excludable Delay, 27 June 2011 1 11Tab 5 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0031 3 78Tab 5 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0032 4 78Tab 5 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 5 July 2011 5 12Tab 5 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 13 July 2011 6 28Tab 6 Requests for Excludable Delay, 25 July 2011 1 11 a CorrectedTab CopyTab Document Name Page Enclosure Tab 6 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0034 3 78Tab 6 Defense Response to Government Request for Art 32 Delay, 25 July 2011 4 80Tab 6 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 26 July 2011 5 12Tab 6 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 10 August 2011 6 28Tab 6 Defense Expert Request, 3 August 2011 7 80Tab 6 Approval Defense Expert Forensic 10 August 2011 9 80Tab 6 Defense Computer Forensic Expert Request, 9 August 2011 14 80Tab 6 Appointment of Forensic Computer Expert, 10 August 2011 18 80Tab 6 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0036 19 78Tab 6 Unclassified Email COL Coffman 0038 21 78Tab 6 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0039 22 78Tab 6 Defense Request for Hardware and Software, 6 August 2011 23 80Tab 6 Approval for Defense Computer Hardware, 10 August 2011 25 80Tab 7 Requests for Excludable Delay, 25 August 2011 1 11Tab 7 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0042 3 78Tab 7 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0043 4 78Tab 7 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 29 August 2011 5 12Tab 7 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 15 September 2011 6 28Tab 7 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0044 7 78Tab 8 Requests for Excludable Delay, 26 September 2011 1 11Tab 8 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0051 3 78Tab 8 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 28 September 2011 4 12Tab 8 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay, 14 October 2011 5 28Tab 8 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0055 6 78Tab 8 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0056 7 78Tab 8 Defense Request for Courier Cards, 20 September 2011 8 80Tab 9 Requests for Excludable Delay, 25 October 2011 1 11Tab 9 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0058 4 78Tab 9 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 27 October 2011 5 12Tab 9 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 16 November 2011 6 12, 28Tab 9 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0061 7 78Tab 10 Requests for Excludable Delay, 16 November 2011 1 11Tab 10 MDW OPLAN BRAVO (?led under seal) 3 58Tab 10 COL Coffman Email, 16 November 2011 47 78Tab 10 Approvals of Excludable Delay, 16 November 2011 48 12Tab 10 Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay 49 28Tab 10 Request for Computer Software, 28 November 2011 50 80Tab 10 Action for Defense Software, 2 December 2011 52 80Tab 10 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0065 56 78Tab 10 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0066 60 78Tab 10 Signed Transmittal Additional Charges, 18 January 2012 61 80Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0001 3 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0002 4 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0003 5 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0004 6 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0005 7 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0006 8 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0007 9 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0008 10 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0009 11 78 CorrectedTab CopyTab Document Name Page Enclosure Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0010 12 78Tab 11 Unclassified Email COL Coffman 0011 13 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0012 14 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0013 15 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0014 16 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0015 17 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0016 18 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0017 19 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0018 20 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0019 21 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0020 22 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0021 23 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0022 24 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0023 25 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0024 27 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0025 28 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0026 29 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0027 30 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0028 31 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0029 32 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0030 33 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0031 34 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0032 35 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0033 36 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0034 37 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0035 38 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0036 39 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0037 41 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0038 42 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0039 43 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0040 44 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0041 45 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0042 46 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0043 47 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0044 48 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0045 49 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0046 50 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0047 51 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0048 52 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0049 53 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0050 54 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0051 55 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0052 56 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0053 57 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0054 58 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0055 59 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0056 60 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0057 61 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0058 62 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0059 63 78CorrectedTab CopyTab Document Name Page Enclosure Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0060 64 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0061 65 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0062 67 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0063 68 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0064 69 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0065 70 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0066 74 78Tab 11 Unclassi?ed Email COL Coffman 0067 75 78 Tab 1 - Page 001DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMANDHEADQUARTERS. U.S. ARMY GARRISON204 LEE AVENUETo FORT DIVER, VA 22211-1199ATTENUON OFIMNF.-MYR-ZA 3 AUG 7-510MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center.Washington. DC 20307-SOOISUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley ManningI. Order. I order a medical examination into the mental capacity and mental responsibility of PFCBradley Manning._. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S. Army Garrison.Fort Myer. Virginia. 2221 I.2. Reasons. The reasons for this order are based on the information contained in the DefenseRequest for Sanity Board. dated July 20l0 and the Defense Renewed Request for Sanity Board,dated l8 July 20|0. According to request, PFC Manning has been diagnosed withadjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions. conduct. Defense also alleges that PFCManning's leadership repeatedly expressed concerns about his mental health and PFC Manning wasplaced on suicide watch while in pre-trial confinement in Kuwait.3. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule for Court-Martial 706(c). theboard shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical Defenserequests that the board consist of three members, including at least one forensic oneforensic and one ncuro You may, but are not required to comply withdcfense?s request. At least one member ofthe board. however. shall be either a or aclinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriate personnel fromwithin your stalTto comprise all or part of the board.4. Required Findings. The Board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinct?ndings as to -?la-4c (below). using diagnostic tools that the Board, in its professional discretion,believes to be necessary and appropriate. In his request, the defense counsel posed a number ofspecific requests for matters to be evaluated and specific tests to be conducted. You may. therefore,conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in 4f-4k and 6 (below).but are not required to do so.a. Does the accused currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If the answer to is yes.answer the following questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the American Association'sDiagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM (2) Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?(3) What is the accused's prognosis l'or recovery?Tab 1 - Page 002IMNF.-MYR-ZASUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning(4) Can this severe mental disease or defect be successfully controlled by treatment withdrugs??(5) Does the long-term commitment of the accused appear to be a necessary altemative?b. Does the accused have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and theseriousness of the charges against her? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the (2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment withdrugs?(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?c. Does the accused have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in her own defense? If the5? answer to is no, answer the following questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment withdrugs??(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?d. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did the accused have a severe mental disease ordefect? If the answer to is yes. answer the following four questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the (2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mentaldisease or defect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of herconduct?(3) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality causedby inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint. or a personal, social. or culturalstandard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?(4)Was this impainnent complete?e. At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mental disease ordefect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of her conduct? Ifthe answer to is yes. answer the following three questions.(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the Ix) Tab 1 - Page 003SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality causedby inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal. social, or culturalstandard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole? (3) Was this impainnent complete? if. Was the accused, at the time of the offense, able to fonnulate a specific intent to commit thealleged acts, to know the probable consequences of her actions, or to premeditate a design to committhe acts? lfthe answer to is no. answer the following questions: (I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the (2) What is the prognosis?g. What personality type does this Soldier possess? h. What is the Soldier's intelligence level??i. Does the Soldier suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with her ability tothink. respond emotionally, remember, communicate. interpret reality, and behave appropriately? Ifthe answer to is yes. answer the following questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?j. Does the Soldier have an organic brain/nervous system disorder or impairment that wouldimpact her ability to think reason, perceive, recall, or in any way control her behavior or herthoughts? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions: i(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?k. Does this Solider stiffer from any level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Ifthe answer to is yes. answer the following questions:(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?5. Consideration.a. The sanity board should. at a minimum, consider all of the following materials in reaching theirfindings:The results of and neurological tests. Tab 1 - Page 004MN E-M YR-ZASUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning(2) Accuscd?s mental health records.(3) Accused?s medical records.(4) Interviews with accused.(S) The charge sheet.b. You may consider. at your professional discretion, any additional questions or matters posed bythe defense if such matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of this memorandum.6. In conjunction with the sanity board, you shall also complete a comprehensive neurologicalexamination to include a CAT scan.7. Release of Report. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with thedisclosure prohibitions ol'Military Rule of Evidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3). Only a statementconsisting of the sanity board's ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 4a through 4kwill be provided to the trial counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFCManning or any evidence derived from such statements should be provided to PFC Manning'sdefense counsel, CPT Paul Bouchard, Trial Defense Service, Camp Liberty, Iraq.8. Telephone Numbers. CPT Ashden Fein is the government counsel. PT Fein may be reached at(202) 685-4903. Information pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from his defense counsel.PT Bouchard. at DSN (3 I 8) 847-3047 or SVOIP (302) 242-4726.9. Suspense. This medical examination and your ?ndings shall be completed no later than 20August 2010. Any extension of time must be submitted through the Govemment counsel to me forapproval.I0. Delay. The period between the request for a delay, on l2 July 2010. and the date the R.C.M.706 inquiry is complete is cxcludable delay IAW R.C.M. 707(c).RL R. COFFMAN JR.COL, AVCommandingTa DEPARTIIENT or THE mayUNIYED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICECAMP LBERTY FIELD OFFJCECAMP LIBERTY IRAQREPLY Y0ATTENHOH AFZD-TD 11 July 2010MEMORANDUM ?l'l~lRU LTC Craig Merutka. Article 32 Investigation Of?cer, matter of US v.PFC ManningFOR Convening AuthoritySUBJECT: Request for delay in Article 32 hearing based on Defense request for a 706 board1. The defense respectfully requests that the July 14?? Article 32 investigative hearing in thematter of US v. PFC Bradley Manning be delayed for the following reason:On I I July 2010, at approximately l600 hours, the defense requested the Governmentappoint and conduct a 706 board on PFC Manning. The defense is waiting to hear if sucha request will be approved by the converting authority.2. POC is the undersigned at DSN: AUL BOUCHARDCPT, IASenior Defense Counsel Ta-DEPARTIENT OF THE ARMY uunen sures ARMY TRIAL narense SERVICE A Itcm? ua.-saw new ornce emu mean weYOOF:AFZD-TI) 12 July 2010MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Craig Merutka, Article 32 Investigation Officer. matter of US v.PFC ManningFOR Cortvening AuthoritySUBJECT: Request for delay in Article 32 hearing1. The Defense respectfully requests that the July 14"? Article 32 investigative hearing in thematter of US v. PFC Bradley Manning be delayed. This request is based on the following threereasons. all of which need to be met for a proper Article 32 hearing to take place:a. An Article 32 hearing should not take place until a 706 evaluation is conducted on theaccused to determine the important issues of mental responsibility and competency. The Article32 hearing should not take place until the Defense receives the long version of the 706 board'sfindings and recommendations. (Note: the Defense has already requested a 706 evaluation beundertaken in this matter. and has received notice that the Government supports such a request.The Government has informed the Defense that a 706 board could be convened and undertakenin about two weeks):b. An Article 32 hearing should not take place until the accused has decided whether hewill obtain the services of a civilian counsel and whether such a civilian counsel is properlyprepared for the Article 32 hearing. The Defense is currently researching this issue for theaccused. The Defense believes that if the accused selects a civilian attorney, then that selectionwill take about two weeks to occur;c. And an Article 32 hearing should not take place in this case until the Defense has anexpert on computer forensics on its team and that the computer forensics expert has ample timeto review the evidence which consists of five CD Rom disks. On behalf of the accused. theDefense will request CyberAgents, a company owned by Mr. Eric Lakes and based in Lexington.Kentucky. to be an expert assistant in this matter. The Defense is ready to submit its request forCyberAgents. but we are waiting to hear Rom Mr. Lakes to confirm his fee schedule. TheDefense anticipates requesting Mr. Lakes within the next 24 hours. The Defense does not knowand cannot predict how long it would take an expert like CyberAgents to review the evidence.2. The Defense believes a tentative date for the Article 32 hearing of 20 August 2010 should beenough time for the three previously-mentioned conditions to be met.3. The Defense reserves the right to request further delays upon showing good cause for suchdelay request(s). Tab 1 - Page 007ATZC-JA-TDS4. POC is the undersigned at DSN: - PAUL R. BOUCHARDASenior Defense Counsel Tab 1 - Page 008DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYumrao sures ARMY TRIAL neransa SERVICEDEFENSE COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMARLINGTON. VIRGINIA 22203 REPLY To5:IALS-TD 1 1 August 2010MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Almanza, 150"? Judge Advocate General Detachment,Legal Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road,Alexandria, Virginia 22310FOR Commander, United States Army Garrison, ]oint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 LeeAvenue, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211-1199SUBJECT: Delay Request, United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning,Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-HendersonHall, Fort Myer, Virginia 222111. The Defense requests a delay in the subject court-martial until the inquiry you orderedunder the provisions of Rule for Court-Martial 706 is completed. The defense maintainsresponsibility for this delay because Captain Paul Bouchard initially requested the inquiryfrom PFC Manning's previous chain of command. This delay would terminate on the datethe results of the inquiry are received by PFC Manning's detailed defense counsel.2. I am the point of contact for any questions or concerns regarding this request. I may becontacted at - (of?ce), (cellular phone), and(email).THOMAS F. HURLEYMAI. IADefense CounselTab 1 - Page 009DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL20? LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINTA 222114199 REPLY TOATTENTION OF_p I 2 AUGMEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Allnanza, |5I1li Judge Advocate General Detachment,Legal Support Organization, MG Albert C- Lieber USAR Center. 6901 Telegraph Road,VA 22310FOR MAJ Thomas. F. Hurley. US. Army. Trial Defense Sewiee. Defense Counsel AssislzineeProgram, Arlington. VA 22203Delay ol'Ar1iele 32 lnvesligalion Bradley ManningYour request for delay in the Article 32 investigation Manning is:approved. in accordance with Rule (R.C.M.) the periodFrom I I August until the R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board completion is exeludable del"e.nse delay.Llisapprovecl.-sCARL R. COFFMAN. JR.COL, AVCommandingTab 1 - Page 010 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OFIMND-MIIH-ZAMEMORANDUM FOR Director, Forensic Fellowship, Walter Reed Army MedicalCenter, Washington, DC 20307SUBJECT: Extension of?RuIe For Courls?Martial (R.C.M.) 706 Bradley ManningI. Your request for an extension oftime to complete the Sanity Board of PFC Manning is:approved. Submit your report NLT three months lrom the date ofthismemorandum.approved, in part. Submit your report NLT six weeks from the date of thismemorandum.approved, in part. Submit your report NLTdisapproved.2. Any future extension oftime must be submitted through the Government counsei to me forapproval.Enci CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.I3-mail Request, 6 Aug 10 COL, AVCommandingTab 1 - Page 011From: MMCTo: CC: - Hm Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:59:55 AMClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEMAJ Hurley:We will proceed with this plan in mind (initial 6 week suspense date).It is therefore likely that we will need an extension and will sorequest along with an estimated time to completion if/when needed.Please note that due to sdweduling con?icts, we will begin evaluationon 27 August. Please provide all standard relevant documents relates to706 evaluations, report of criminal investigation, mentalhealth/medical records, ERB, etc. This may be sent by courier (FedEx orsimilar service) to:Michael Sweda, Chief, Forensic ServiceWalter Reed Army Medical Center6900 Georgia Avenue NW6 (Borden Pavilion), 3rd FloorWashington DC 20307v/r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector. Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center (fax)(business blackberry)(personal mobile)"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Hurle Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG ISent: ue ay, ug To: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-CDSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USF-I SJ A TrialDefense AttorneySubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNC1.ASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. SwedaI am one of PFC Manning's defense counsel. I know we all (the attorneysgm parties) appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and Iall want a thorough evaluation of PFC Manning that follows theby COL Coffman on 3 August. However, we (the defense) would be2:52 comfortable with an initial six week suspense. If, at the end ofgftiri/eeks, you need more time to complete a thorough evaluation, then wewould request that you forward a request for an extension that estimatestihnie required to complete the process.PFC Manning is in pre?trial con?nement, and we want to get his casereferred to trial sooner rather than later.On a substantive note, we believe the order signed by COL Coffman issuf?cient for the charges now preferred. There are no other additionalquestions we want you to answer in the course of completing this matter.Thanks.v/r?Thomas F. HurleyMAJ, JA(cell)From: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCSent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:04 PMTo: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Cc: Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL Lange, ChristopherLTC MIL USA MEDCOM Montalbano, Paul Dr CIV Malone, Ricky COLMIL USA MEDCOM WRAMCSubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONECPT Fein:I have consulted with LTC Christopher Lange, who is my counterpart asDirector of the Forensic Fellowship, regarding the Manningcase.We are in the process of assembling a team for the evaluation, andexpectthe direct evaluation piece (interview and testing) of this to becompletedTab 1 - Page 012in two weeks. Generally, we ask for at least a six week suspense dategmpletion of a 706 report. In the case of PFC Manning, we would likeitgquest a three month suspense from the date that he is ?rst seen, toleolrogthorough evaluation.Please feel free to call or e?mail if you have any questions.v/r.Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center (fax)(business blackberry)(personal mobile)"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAGSent: ur ay, August 5, 1 4 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USAMEDCOM WRAMCCc: Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ ATriaDefense Attorney; Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USASubject: RE: RCM er anning UNCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. Sweda/CPT FeinThere is no need for the members of the board to have a securityclearance.I will speak with PFC Manning tomorrow about the board and ensure thathisanswers to your questions do not include any classi?ed information. Ifhefeels he must disclose classi?ed information, then he will let you knowthat there is more that he wants to say but cannot. CPT Fein and I willthen seek an exception to the current order.v/rThomas F. HurleyMAJ, JAj Tab 1 - Page 013Tab 1 - Page 014?-?--Original From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJAISent: We ne y, August 04, 2010 12:15 PMTo: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A Trial Defense orney; Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USAer (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,I do not foresee the need; however I rather defer that answer to MAJHurleyand the defense team. There is one caveat. A current protective orderisin place and it does not authorize the disclosure of any of theclassi?edinformation related to this case without af?rmative authorization. Soifthere ends up being a need, although doubtful, then the Government willneedto work to get an exception to the protective order.v/rCPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeU.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)COMM:CELL:NIPR:SIPR: From: Sweda, Michael 6 Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMC.Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:10 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJACc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A Trial Defense Attorney; Ject: RE: 706 Or er (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONESir:will the sanity board members require any level of security clearanceforthis?v/r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector. Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center 6 (fax)(business blackberry)(personal mobile)"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."??-??Original Message??-?-From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:07 AMTo: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Rose, Luke CPT SJA Chief, MilitaryJusticeSubject: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning)Importance: HighSir,Good morning. Attached is a RCM 706 Board Order for PFC BradleyManning.Attached is the order and a copy of the charge sheet. CCed on thisemailare the defense counsel (CPT Bouchard, CPT Eaton, and MAJ Hurley).Pleaseadvise of any delays and if your of?ce needs additional time than theallotted suspense, please forward the request through me for theConveningAuthority.v/rCPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeTab 1 - Page 015U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)coMM: cewjswanClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONETab 1 - Page 016Tab 1 - Page 017From: T0: Cc: A Trial Defense Attorney; CPT MIL Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:59:Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEMAJ Hurley:We will proceed with this plan in mind (initial 6 week suspense date).It is therefore likely that we will need an extension and will sorequest along with an estimated time to completion if/when needed.Please note that due to scheduling con?icts, we will begin evaluationon 27 August. Please provide all standard relevant documents relates to706 evaluations, report of criminal investigation, mentalhealth/medical records, ERB, etc. This may be sent by courier (FedEx orsimilar service) to:Michael Sweda, Chief, Forensic ServiceWalter Reed Army Medical _Center6900 Georgia Avenue NW6 (Borden Pavilion), 3rd FloorWashington DC 20307v/ r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Anny Medical Center(fax)(business blackberry)(personal mobile) "lhe United States themselva are essentially the greatst poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Hurl Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG Sent: ues ay, ugus To: Sweda, Michael Dr CN USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-CDSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USF-I A TrialDefense AttorneySubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)ManningB_00000418Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. SwedaI am one of PFC Manning's defense counsel. I know we all (the attorneysbooth partia) appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and Iall want a thorough evaluation of PFC Manning that follows theby COL Coffman on 3 August. However, we (the defense) would be$52 comfortable with an initial six week suspense. If, at the end of you need more time to complete a thorough evaluation, then wewould request that you forward a request for an extension that estimats?tihr?e required to complete the process.PFC Manning is in pre-trial confinement, and we want to get his casereferred to trial sooner rather than later.On a substantive note, we believe the order signed by COL Coffman issufficient for the charges now preferred. There are no other additionalquestions we want you to answer in the course of completing this matter.Thanks.v/rThomas F. HurleyMAJ. JA(cell)From: Sweda, Michael Dr CN USA MEDCOM WRAMCSent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:04 PMTo: Hurlev. Thomas MAJ MIL USA 0 Cc: oDean PT MIL Lange, ristopherLTC MIL USA MEDCOM Montalbano, Paul Dr CIV Malone, Ricky COLMIL USA MEDCOM WRAMCSubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONECPT Fein:I have consulted with LTC Christopher Lange, who is my counterpart asDirector of the Forensic Fellowship, regarding the Manningcase.We are in the process of assembling a team for the evaluation, andexpectthe direct evaluation piece (interview and testing) of this to becompletedManningB_00000419Tab 1 - Page 018Tab 1 - Page 019in two weeks. Generally, we ask for at least a six week suspense dateccormpletion of a 706 report. In the case of PFC Manning, we would liketgquest a three month suspense from the date that he is ?rst seen, togdlroglthorough evaluation.Please feel free to call or email if you have any questions.v/ r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center (fax)(businss blackberry)(personal mobile)?The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and prsent and future are not disjoined but joined."Message--?~From: Hu Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAGSent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 2:24 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USAMEDCOM Cc: Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ ATriaDefense Attorney Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USASubject: RE: RCM NCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. Sweda/CPT FeinThere is no need for the members of the board to have a securityclearance.I will speak with PFC Manning tomorrow about the board and ensure thathisanswers to your questions do not include any classi?ed infomiation. Ifhefeels he must disclose classified information, then he will let you knowthat there is more that he wants to say but cannot. CPT Fein and I willthen seek an exception to the current order.v/rThomas F. HurleyMAJ, JAManningB_00000420Tab 1 - Page 020From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: ay, August 1 1 :15 PMTo: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG Eaton, Michael CPT SJ A Trial Defense Attorney;Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USAJect: 2 er (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,I do not foresee the need; however I rather defer that answer to MAJdefense team. There is one caveat. A current protective order5: place and it does not authorize the disclosure of any of theclassifiedinformation related to this case without af?rmative authorization. Soifthere ends up being a need, although doubtful, then the Government willneedto work to get an exception to the protective order.v/rCPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeU.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)COMM: (DSN 1)CELL:NIPR:SIPR: From: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCSent: ay, ugust :10 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJACc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Eaton, Michael CPT SJ A Trial Defense Attorney;ISubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONESir:will the sanity board members require any level of security clearanceforthis?v/ r,ManningB_00000421Tab 1 Page 021Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certified Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Anny Medical Center (fax)(business blackberry)(personal mobile)"lhe United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:07 AMTo: Sweda, Michael Dr CN USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA omc - - I - rvustloeSubject: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning)Importance: HighSir,Good morning. Attached is a RCM 706 Board Order for PFC BradleyManning.Attached is the order and a copy of the charge sheet. CCed on thisemailare the defense counsel (CPT Bouchard, Eaton, and MAJ Hurley).Pleaseadvise of any delays and if your office needs additional time than theallotted suspense, please forward the request through me for theConveningAuthority.v/rCPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeManningB_O0000422Tab 1 - Page 022U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)commaCELL: -NM: srvicaiClassification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation; UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEManningB_00000423 Tab 1 - Page 02325 August 2010MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office ofthe Staff .ludge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington D.C. 203 9SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic to Assistthe Defense in United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.1. On 18 July 2010, the defense requested that a R.C.M. 706 sanity board be appointed in thecase of United States v. Manning. and that a separate medical expert be appointed to the defenseto observe the R.C.M. 706 board.2. On 25 August 2010. the defense received notification that a R.C.M. 706 board would begin itsassessment of PFC Manning on 27 August 2010. The defense requests that the sanity board bedelayed until a forensic can be appointed to the defense team. If the government hasdenied the former request, the defense hereby renews its request.3. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d), PFC Bradley Manning requests that a forensic fromanother branch of service be designated as a member of the defense team under Military Rule ofEvidence M.R.E. 502 and v. Toledo, 25 270 (CMA I987). PFC Manningalso requests that appropriate arrangements be made for the forensic to travel toQuantico, Virginia to evaluate and work with PFC Manning prior to the R.C.M. 706 board.4. A military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, a right to expertassistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United V. Carries?, 22 288(CMA l986); Uni!edSIaIe.s' v. Robinson 39 88 MA 1994), and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470U.S. 226 (1971). The Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a three-part test fordetermining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The defense must show:?First, why the expett assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert assistance accomplishfor the accused. Third. why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the expert assistantwould be able to develop." Um'IedSIaIe.s' v. Gonzalez, 39 459 (1994).5. All ofthe above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defense isentitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The govemment hasbegun the process of conducting a sanity board on PFC Manning and is presumably using thebest available Army doctors for this purpose. PFC Manning is only requesting a single forensicfrom another branch of service be appointed to the defense team to assist inunderstanding and preparing his defense.a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense inunderstanding medical information concerning the mental status of PFC Manning on the date(s)of the alleged crimes, to determine whether he is able to understand the nature and quality of theTab 1 - Page 024SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic to Assistthe Defense in United Staies v. PF Bradley Mcmning.wrongfulness ofhis conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able to intelligently assist inhis defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation and mitigation for theaccused. The knowledge required to do this is specialized, and concerns medical and data which is beyond the scope of defense counsel?s understanding.b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A forensic assigned to the defense would assist the defense by explaining complex medical terms and theinvolved at the time ofthe alleged crimes. The expert would also administer testswhich would aid in potential diagnosis and treatment. Finally. the expert would be able toexplain medical research in the ?eld of forensic and its relevance to the present case.c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Its Own? The defense has neitherthe experience nor expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs a basicunderstanding of in order to present the defense case, including the need to preparedefense experts to testify. It would be impossible for the defense to properly prepare withouthaving an individual who has the confidentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. As a memberofthe defense team, the defense appointed expert can freely discuss the defense theories ofthecase without fear of compromising PFC Manning's rights.6. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing a forensicfrom another branch of service as an expert; that you instruct him/her that he/she is a?defense representative? and thus part of the defense team. and that matters related to him/herduring the course of his employment as a member ofthe defense team will be confidential.Finally the defense requests that you direct that the R.C.M. 706 board be delayed until thedefense appointed forensic can be made available to monitor the examinationsconducted by the members of the board. The defense believes that the presence of a member ofthe defense team will increase PFC Manning?s willingness to cooperate with the sanity board.Moreover, it will ensure that the defense team has ?rst?hand knowledge of the accuracy andquality of all examinations conducted by the members of the board. This will ultimately reducethe need for future litigation on such issues.7. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense CounselTab 1 - Page 025DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT HYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1 REPLV TOATTENTION OF 25 AUG moIMND-MHH-ZAMEMORANDUM FOR Director, Forensic Fellowship, Walter Reed Army MedicalCenter, Washington, DC 20307SUBJECT: Defense Delay Request of R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board of PFC Bradley ManningI reviewed the defense request to delay the R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. Therequest is: . ,yif approved. The Sanity Board is delayed until the GCMCA takes action on the defenserequest for appointment of a forensic expert consultant. The period between 27August 20|0 and until the GCMCA takes action on the defense request is excludable delay underR.C.M. 707(c).disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.74 I cor?gv, JR.1' COL, AVCommandingUncIassi?ed_Discovery_Manning Tab 1 - Page 0262 September 20 I TH Staff Judge Advocate. of the Staff] udge Advocate. US Arm_\'Militar_\' District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington 30219FOR Contntander. US Arm} Military District of Wasltingtott. Fort L.esle_\ McN:tir.Washington 20319SUBJECT: Reqttest for Appointment of Expert with Iixpettise in Forensic Ps} chiatry to Assistthe Defense in I =?niIud PF ti? Manning.1. On 25 August 2010. the defense requested that the R.C.M. 706 board be delayed until aforensic could be appointed to the defense team.2. The defense would like to supplement their 25 August 2010 memorandum by requesting thatany defense appointed expert possess a Top Secret Sensitive ompartmented Information (TS-clearance.3. The is the undersigned at (40! 744-3007 or by e-mail ateoombs DAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 1 - Page 027DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or0 1 2 OLJT IMND-MI ll Mr. Dan i-J ii. Defense (?unmetAppnintntent oi? tixpert Consultant in I-?nrensie - LES. Bradlex Manninu I. 1 revietxed ynur request for appointment nfan expert consultant in fnrettsie psyeltiatr} for thedefense in the ahme?nnmed case. After earefui consideration. the defense request is:I appuint David M. i3L'I'lL?dCi\ as an expert consultant in the abme-named ease. I t'unher direct that CO1. Benedek be designated a member ofthe dei"en5e learnunder US. Tuiedu. 35 MJ. 2370 I987) and Military Rule 502. Thisexpert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond ntiieage reimbursement. ii?authorized.disappnwed.3. The senior member ufthe RCM 706 heard. in consultation with the aceused?s primar} carebehavioral health prm-ider. V--ili determine the extent to vthich COL Benedel-; may participate inthe RCM 706 inquir}. including whether the defense expert consultant ntny he permitted tomnnitur the exantinatinns conducted by members of the REM 706 beard. R. JR.AV(?ummanding Tab 1 - Page 02826 August 2010MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington D.C. 20319SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the R.C.M. 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions onDisclosure of Classi?ed Information in United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.1. Pursuant to Executive Order 12958, Section 4.1, defense counsel hereby requests theconvening authority delay the R.C.M. 706 board until procedures can be adopted to safeguardany classi?ed information that will be discussed during the board?s determination.2. In support of this request, the defense provides the following:a. On 25 August 2010 defense counsel spoke with PFC Manning telephonically to determineif he would need to discuss classified information during the R.C.M. 706 board inquiry.b. Based upon our discussions with PFC Manning, the defense counsel believes that in orderfor him to participate in the R.C.M. 706 process and aid the members in their determination ofhis mental state at the time of the alleged incidents, he will need to divulge classi?edinformation.c. The information that PFC Manning will need to divulge will be Secret SensitiveCompartmented lnformation and Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented lnformation.3. Based on the preceding information, the defense requests that the Government determinefrom the Original Classification Authority (OCA) that the R.C.M. 706 has a "need to know? aspart of their assessment of PFC Manning?s mental condition.4. Additionally, pursuant to Executive Order 12958, 12968, and 13292 the defense requests thatall members of the R.C.M. 706 board possess the requisite security clearances and that allrequired steps are taken in order to safeguard the information that they receive from PFCManning.5. Since board members notes and any recordings will contain references to classifiedinformation, the defense requests that the government appoint a security officer to the board toassist them in the proper handling of their notes and disposal of any information that maycontain references to classified information.6. The defense also requests the results of the govemment?s classi?cation review by the OCA.Speci?cally, the detennination of the classification review regarding (1) the classification levelof the infonnation alleged to have been disclosed by PFC Manning when it was subjected toTab 1 - Page 029SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the R.C.M. 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions onDisclosure ofClassi?ed Information in United States PFC Bradley Manning.compromise; (2) a determination whether another command requires review of the information:and (3) the general description of the impact of disclosure on affected operations.7. Finally. the defense requests strict compliance with the disclosure prohibitions of MilitaryRules of Evidence 302 and R.C.M. 706. Speci?cally. the defense requests that the boardmembers are infomied of the restrictions on disclosure referenced in R.C.M. 706 8. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 1 - Page 030DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-119917 September 2010MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Protective Order is to prevent the unauthorized disclosureor dissemination of classi?ed national security information in the subject named case. ThisProtective Order covers all information and documents previously available to the accused in thecourse of his employment with the United States Government or which have been, or will be,reviewed or made available to the accused, defense counsel, and other recipients of classifiedinformation in this case.2. APPLICABILITY. ?Persons subject to this Protective Order? include the following:a. the Accused;b. Military and Civilian Defense Counsel and Detailed Military Paralegals;c. Members of the Defense Team IAW M.R.E. 502 and U.S. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270(C.M.A. 1987);cl. Security Officers;e. Members of the Rule for Courts?Martial 706 Inquiry Board; andf. Behavioral Health Providers for the Accused.3. ORDER. In order to protect the national security and pursuant to the authority granted underMilitary Rule of Evidence (MRE) 505, relevant executive orders of the President of the UnitedStates, and regulations of the Departments of Defense and of the Army, it is hereby ORDERED:a. The procedures set forth in this Protective Order and the authorities referred to above willapply to the Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 706 inquiry, Article 32 investigation, pretrial, trial,post-trial, and appellate matters concerning this case.b. The term ?classified information" refers to:(1) any classi?ed document (or information contained therein); Tab 1 - Page 031SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning(2) information known or that reasonably should be known by persons subject to thisProtective Order to be classi?able. If persons subject to this Protective Order are uncertain as towhether the information is classi?ed, they must co11?1m whether the information is classi?ed;(3) classi?ed documents (or information contained therein) disclosed to personssubject to this Protective Order as part of the proceedings in this case;(4) classi?ed documents and information which have otherwise been made known topersons subject to this Protective Order and which have been marked or described as:or c. All such classi?ed documents and information contained therein shall remain classi?edunless such classi?ed information bear clear indication they have been declassi?ed by thegovermnent agency or department that originated the document or information contained therein(hereinafter referred to as ?original classi?cation authority?).d. The words "documents" or "associated materials" as used in this Protective Orderinclude, but are 11ot limited to, all written or printed matter of any kind, formal or informal,including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reasonof any notation made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation, papers,correspondence, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, reports, summaries, inter?of?ce and intra-of?ce communications, notations of any sort, bulletins, teletypes, telefax, invoices, worksheets,and all drafts, alterations, modi?cations, changes, and amendment of any kind to the foregoing,graphic or aural records or representations of any kind, including, without limitation,photographs, charts, graphs, micro?che, micro?lm, video tapes, sound recordings of any kind,motion pictures, any electronic, mechanical or electric records or rep1'esentations of any kind,including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, thumbdrives, hard drives, otherrecordings, ?lms, typewriter ribbons a11d word processor discs or tapes.e. The word ?or? should be interpreted as including ?and", and vice versa; ?he? should beinterpreted as including ?she?, and vice versa.f. Persons subject to this Protective Order are advised that direct or indirect unauthorizeddisclosure, retention, or negligent handling of classi?ed information could cause serious and, insome cases, exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States, or may beused to the advantage of a foreign natio11 against the interests of the United States. Thesesecurity procedures are designed to ensure that persons subject to this Protective Order will neverdivulge the classi?ed information disclosed to them to anyone who is not authorized to receive it,without prior written authorization from the original classi?cation authority and in conformitywith these procedures.g. Persons subject to this Protective Order are admonished that they are obligated by lawand regulation not to disclose any classi?ed information in an unauthorized fashion. Tab 1 - Page 032SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning11. Persons subject to this Protective Order are admonished that any breach of the securityprocedures in this Protective Order may result in the termination of their access to classi?edinformation. In addition, they are admonished that any unauthorized disclosure, possession, orhandling of classi?ed. information 1nay constitute violations of United States criminal laws,including but not limited to, the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18,United States Code, and Sections 421 and 783(b), Title 50, United States Code. In addition, forthose persons who are attorneys, a report will be ?led with their State Bar Association.4. Prior to any RCM 706 inquiry, Article 32 investigation, or court-rnartial proceeding, 21security of?cer will be appointed in writing and served with a copy of this protective order.5. Personnel Security Investigations and Clearancesa. The storage, handling, and control of classi?ed information requires special securityprecautions mandated by statute, executive orders, and regulations, and access to which require asecurity clearance.b. Once a person subject to this Protective Order obtains a security clearance and executes anon-disclosure agreement (SF 312), that person is eligible for access to classi?ed information,subject to the convening authority?s disclosure determination.c. As a condition of receiving classi?ed information, any retained civilian defense counselwill agree to the conditions speci?ed herein and execute all necessary forms so that theDepartment of the Army may complete the necessary personnel security investigation to make adetermination whether to grant access. Any retained civilian defense counsel will also sign theAcknowledgment of Protective Order (hereinafter Any retained civiliandefense counsel shall also sign a standard form nondisclosure agreement (SF 312) as a conditionof access to classi?ed information.cl. In addition to the Acknowledgment, any person who as a result of this case gainsaccess to information contained in any Department of the Army Special Access Program,as that term is de?ned in Executive Order 13526 [or for events occurring before 27 June2010, E.O. 12958], or to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), shall sign anynondisclosure agreement which is speci?c to that Special Access Program or to thatSensitive Compartmented Information.e. All other requests for clearances for access to classi?ed information in this case forpersons not named in this Protective Order or for clearances to a higher level of classi?cation,shall be made through the trial counsel to the convening authority.f. The security procedures contained in this Protective Order shall apply to any civiliandefense counsel retained by the accused, and to any other persons who may later receiveclassi?ed information from the U.S. Department of the Army in connection with this case.6. Handling and Protection of Classi?ed InformationTab 1 - Page 033SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manninga. All persons subject to this Protective Order shall seek guidance from their respectivesecurity officers with regard to the appropriate storage and use of classi?ed information.b. The defense security officer will ensure appropriate physical security protection for anymaterials prepared or compiled by the defense, or by any person in relation to the preparation ofthe accused?s defense or submission under MRE 505. The materials and documents (de?nedabove) requiring physical security include, without limitation, any notes, carbon papers, letters,photographs, drafts, discarded drafts, memoranda, typewriter ribbons, computer diskette,magnetic recording, digital recordings, or other documents or any kind ordescription.c. Classi?ed information, or information believed to be classi?ed, shall only be discussed inan area approved by a security officer, and in which persons not authorized to possess suchinformation cannot overhear such discussions.d. No one shall discuss any classi?ed information over a standard commercial telephoneinstrument, an inter-of?ce communication system, or in the presence of any person who is notauthorized to possess such information.e. Written materials prepared for this case by persons subject to this Protective Order shallbe transcribed, recorded, typed, duplicated, copied, or otherwise prepared only by persons whohave received access to classi?ed infomiation pursuant to the security procedures contained inthis Protective Order.f. All mechanical devices, of any kind, used in the preparation or transmission of classi?edinformation in this case may be used only with the approval of a security of?cer.g. Upon reasonable advance notice to the trial counsel or a security of?cer, defense counselshall be given access during normal business hours and at other times on reasonable request, toclassi?ed documents which the government is required to make available to defense counsel butelects to keep in its possession. Persons permitted to inspect classi?ed documents by thisProtective Order may make written notes of the documents and their contents. Notes of anyclassi?ed portions of these documents, however, shall not be disseminated or disclosed in anymanner or form to any person not subject to this Protective Order. Such notes will be secured inaccordance with the terms of this Protective Order. Persons permitted to have access toclassi?ed documents will be allowed to view their notes within an area designated by a securityof?cer. No person permitted to inspect classi?ed documents by this Protective Order, includingdefense counsel, shall copy or reproduce any pE11't of said documents or their contents in anymanner or form, except as provided by a security of?cer, after he has consulted with the trialcounsel.h. The persons subject to this Protective Order shall not disclose the contents of anyclassi?ed documents or information to any person not named herein, except the trial counsel andmilitary judge. Tab 1 - Page 034IMND-MHH-ZASUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manningi. All persons given access to classi?ed information pursuant to this Protective Order areadvised that all information to which they obtain access by the Protective Order is now and willforever remain the property of the United States Government. They shall return all materialswhich 1nay have come into their possession, or for which they are responsible because of suchaccess, upon demand by a security of?cer.j. All persons subject to this Protective Order shall sign the Acknowledgnient, including thedefense counsel and accused. The signing and ?ling of this Acknowledgment is a conditionprecedent to the disclosure of any classi?ed information to any person subject to this ProtectiveOrder.7. This Protective Order supersedes all previous protective orders. Nothing contained in thisProtective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any right of the accused.R. COFFMAN, JRCOL, AVCommandingDISTRIBUTION:1-Trial Counsell?Civi1ian Defense Counsel1-Senior Military Defense Counsel1-Accused1-Defense Experts1-R.C.M. 706 Inquiry Board Tab 1 - Page 035DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY ToATTENTION OF 17 September 2010MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions U.S v.PFC Bradlev Manning1. According to your four requests, dated 25 August 2010, 26 August 2010, 3 September 2010(Expert), and 3 September 2010 (Defense Team), the accused?s 1ne11tal impressions arepotentially classi?ed which would require defense counsel, the RCM 706 board, andany defense expert to possess security clearances at the SCI level, in order to allow theaccused to fully participate in his defense and board.2. Order. No later than 24 September 2010 and absent an extension by me, the accused isordered to meet with your security expert consultant and disclose the classi?ed information, hewishes to discuss with you, the defense team, his detailed behavioral health providers, and theRCM 706 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary classi?cationreview of this information.3. Preliminary Classi?cation Review. No later than 4 October 2010 and absent an extensionby me, the defense securityexpert consultant will conduct his preliminary classi?cation reviewof the information and provide you and the Trial Counsel with a brief summary of the review,without releasing any privileged and substantive information from the accused?s disclosures.4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret,the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defensecounsel, the defense expert, and the RCM 706 board fully cleared to discuss classi?ed matterswith the accused.5. The notes from the defense security expert?s meeting with the accused will remain privilegedand be turned over to you at the conclusion of the preliminary review, subject to any securityconcerns that may be raised by the information.R. COF MAN, JR.COL, AVConimanding Tab 1 - Page 036I8 September 2010MEMORANDUM THRU Staffludge Advocate, Office ofthe Staff.ludge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington. Fort l.esley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander. US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer?Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia97711SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s Mental Impressions UnitedStates Bradley Manning1. The defense believes that your order. dated 17 September 2010. directing PFC Manning todisclose the classified information that he wishes to discuss with his defense counsel and theRules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 706 board to Mr. Charles Ganiel prior to disclosing thisinformation to his civilian and military defense counsel is not a lawful order and in contraventionof the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C .A.A.F.) in United States Schmidt. 60 MJ. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2004). The order attempts to circumvent the important role oftheattorney?client relationship in maintaining the fairness and integrity of the military justice system. As such, it is a violation of PFC Manning?s rights under the Sixth Amendment andArticle 27 ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice to the effective assistance of counsel inpreparing a defense. Schmidt. at 2, citing UnitedState.s' King. 53 J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2000).2. In Schmidt, the appellant was charged with dereliction of duty for failing to exerciseappropriate flight discipline and failing to comply with rules of engagement and specialinstructions in an air-to-ground bombing incident that caused the deaths of several Canadiansoldiers in Afghanistan. The appellant was privy to classified information pertaining to his case.The militaryjudge ruled. and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (A.F.C.C.A.) affirmed.that the appellant could not discuss the classified aspects of his case with his civilian defensecounsel (who eventually obtained an interim security clearance) without submitting a requestthrough the trial counsel. The C.A.A.F. vacated the A.F.C.C.A. opinion and reversed the rulingofthe militaryjudge. holding that Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 505 ?does not require anaccused, without benefit of his own counsel, to engage in adversarial litigation with opposingcounsel as a precondition to discussing with defense counsel potentially relevant information?that is already in the appellant?s knowledge or possession. Schmidt. 60 M.J. at 2. As such, thegovernment cannot create a ?classified information wall? between the accused and his defensecounsel as a precondition to the client being able to speak to his civilian and military defensecounsel. Id.3. The defense is well aware of its obligations to safeguard classi?ed information under ArmyRegulation 380-5 and 18 U.S.C. 793. 794. and 798 and 50 U.S.C. 421. Based upon thisknowledge, on 30 August 2010, the defense voluntarily returned classified information that wasgiven to it by the government without legal authority or proper authorization. See Attachment A.Likewise, on 25 August 2010, the defense alerted the government to the concern of classi?edinformation being divulged during the R.C.M. 706 process. As such, the defense renews itsrequest that each defense counsel receive at least Top Secret Sensitive ompartmentedTab 1 - Page 03?SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s Mental Impressions UnitedStates PFC Bmdley McmningInformation (TS-SCI) clearance. The defense team is currently Comprised ofthe followingcounsel: Mr. David Coombs in the United States Army Reserves); MAJ Matthew J.Kemkes; and CPT Paul R. Bouchard.4. Additionally. the defense renews its request for limited authorization for PFC Manning?saccess to classi?ed information. It is likely that PFC Manning?s access has been suspended dueto the preferred charges. It is anticipated that the defense will need to discuss and share access tothe classi?ed information at issue in this case with our client. Therefore, the defense requestsauthorization for limited access to classi?ed information by the accused in accordance withM.R.E. 505(d)(4).5. In order to comply with the preparation and ?ling of M.R.E. 505(h) notice, the defenserequests that the protective order dated 17 September 2010 be amended to reflect the followingadditional guidance:a. The accused and defense counsel shall prepare forthwith, but in no event later than business days before any R.C.M. 706 Board, Article Investigation. or court hearing, a briefwritten description of any information known or believed to be classi?ed, which the accusedreasonably expects to disclose or cause to be disclosed in any pre-trial motion or proceeding, orat trial of this case. hereinafter referred to as ?the Accused?s Disclosure Notice"), as requiredunder Military Rule of Evidence 505(h).b. For purposes of preparing the Accused's Disclosure Notice. defense counsel, subject tocompliance with the applicable provisions ofthis Order, shall be allowed to discuss,communicate and receive information from the accused eonceming any matter believed by theaccused to contain. involve or relate to classified information, and believed by the accused torelate to this case. Any retained civilian defense counsel shall also comply with the provisions ofthis Order before having access to said classi?ed information.c. The accused. through counsel, shall advise the Convening Authority and the trial counselwhen he has prepared or possesses the Accused's Disclosure Notice or any other material whichthe accused or counsel believes contains classi?ed information, which he intends to offer at anyR.C.M. 706 Board. the Article 32 Investigation. file in court or Lise in court, and shall thendeliver to the Court Security officer directly, or by means ofa courier designated by the CourtSecurity Officer, the Accused?s Disclosure Notice and all copies thereof, or any other pleadings.All Associated materials and other documents of any kind or description containing any of theinformation in the Accused?s Disclosure Notice shall be stored under conditions prescribed bythe Court Security Officer.d. Until further Order ofthe Convening Authority or the Court. the Accused DisclosureNotice and all other written pleadings shall be delivered to the Court Security Officer. The timeof delivery to the Court Security Of?ccr shall be considered the date of ?ling. The CourtSecurity Officer shall review such pleadings and shall determine with the assistanceand consultation of the attorney for the government and any personnel from any agency Tab 1 - Page 038SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s Mental Impressions UnitedStates? PFC Bradley Manningnecessary to make such determination, whether any of the material submitted is classi?ed, andthe level of classi?cation of any such material. If the pleading or information does not containany classi?ed information, the Court Security Of?cer shall forward it immediately to the R.C.M.706 Board or Article 32 Investigating Of?cer or Court for routine ?ling. lfthe pleading doescontain classi?ed information, or information which might lead to or cause the disclosure ofclassi?ed information, the Court Security Officer shall, after consultation with the trial counseland original classi?cation authority:(1) mark it appropriately;(2) give a marked copy to the trial counsel;have the original ?led under seal and stored under appropriate securityconditions.In this way, any documents containing classified information (or information believed to beclassi?ed and which must undergo a classi?cation determination) which are ?led shall be sealedby order of the onvening Authority.6. The defense requests acknowledgement of receipt of this response. The defense furtherrequests that the Convening Authority rescind his ?Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order"dated 17 September 2010 and amend his ?Protective Order? as discussed above.7. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OFIMND-MHH-ZA 22 September 2010MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions - ll.? v,PFC Bradley Manning1. According to your four requests, dated 25 August 2010, 26 August 2010, 3 September 2010(Expert), and 3 September 2010 (Defense Team), the accused?s mental impressions arepotentially classi?ed which would require defense counsel, the RCM 706 board, andany defense expert to possess security clearances at the level, in order to allow theaccused to fully participate in his defense and board.2. Order. No later than 8 October 2010 and absent an extension by me, the accused is orderedto meet with your security expert consultant and disclose the classi?ed information the accusedwishes to discuss with you, the defense team, his detailed behavioral health providers, and theRCM 706 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary classi?cationreview of this information.3. Preliminary Classi?cation Review. No later than two weeks after the accused?s ?nalinterview and absent an extension by me, the defense security expert consultant will conduct hispreliminary classi?cation review of the information and provide an unclassi?ed written responseto the following questions:a. Is the information provided by the accused classi?ed at a level above Secret (?Yes orb. If any of the information provided by the accused is classified above Secret, does any of theinformation fall within SCI compartments, and if so, what compartments?4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret,the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defensecounsel, the defense expert, and the RCM 706 board fully cleared to discuss classi?ed matterswith the accused. I will also make a determination on whether to authorize the accused todisclose his classi?ed information to the RCM 706 board and his behavioral health providers.5. The notes from the defense security expert?s meeting with the accused will remain privilegedand be turned over to you at the conclusion of the preliminary review, subject to any securityconcerns that may be raised by the information. Under no circumstances should your securityTab 1 Page 039 Tab 1 - Page 040IMND-MHH-ZASUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions - U.S v.PFC Bradley Manningexpert consultant release any privileged or substantive information ??om the accused?sdisclosures to anyone outside of the defense team.6. The sole purpose of this preliminary classi?cation review is to provide the defense and UnitedStates with a basis for granting security clearances to the defense team and the accused?sbehavioral health providers, and determining the appropriate level of classi?cation for the RCM706 board. This preliminary classi?cation review is not a substitute for an of?cial classi?cationreview conducted by an original classi?cation authority (OCA) or an of?cial designated by anOCA.7. This order supersedes my order dated 17 September 2010. R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommandingTab 1 Page 04128 September 2010MEMORANDIJ THRU Advocate. Of?ce ofthe Advocate. US Armyl\:1ilitary District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. Mct\'air. Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander. LTS Army Garrison. Joint Base Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia7771 SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review oftlte Accused's Mental Impressions Lfnricdrlluniringl. The defense has received your supcrseding preliminary classi?cation order dated 22September 2010. The defense has discussed this order with PFC Bradley Manning and with thedefense appointed security expert. Mr. Charles G:-tniel.2. Based upon the defenses discussions with Mr. Ganiel. the preliminary classification reviewcannot be started until the following issues have been resolved:a. Approved Facility: Mr. Gzmiel does not believe that the Qttantico Con?nement Facilityhas the required area in order to speak to PFC Manning about any classi?ed infonnation.Speci?cally. for any Sensitive Compartmented lnfortnation (SCI). the discussion and storage ofthe information received must be in a facility that meets the structural and security requirementsfor a Sensitive ompartmented lnfonnation Facility SC IF). SCI tnaterial cannot be viewed ordiscussed unless in a SCIF in accordance with S105-21-M-I. chapter 3- page 3-1, paragrapltTherefore. unless Mr. Cianie. conducts his discussions with PFC Manning in an approvedSCIF- he will not be able to begin his preliminary classi?cation review.b. Limited Access: It is likely that PFC Mannings access to classi?ed infonnation has beensuspended due to the preferred charges. Mr. Ganiel will not be able to discuss or validate anyclassi?ed information with PFC Manning unless PFC Manning is given an interitn clearance.Additionally. PFC Manning will not have access to any secured sites. specifically a SCIF. unlesshe has the requisite security clearance. See c. Storage: Mr. Ganiel will need the government to provide him with a Government ServiceAdministration (GSA) approved security container to store Secret and Con?dential information.Additionally. Mr. Ganicl will need the same GSA approved security container with the requisiteadditional security precautions for the storage of Top Secret information in accordance withArmy Regulation 380-5. chapter 7. paragraph 7-4. Finally. Mr. C-anicl will need to have accessto a SCIF to store any Special Access Program (SAP) or SCI information in accordance with5 chapter 3. page 3-10.d. Veri?cation: Anything. revealed to Mr. Cianiel has to be veri?ed before he can tnake adetermination whether it is classi?ed and. if necessary. its level of classi?cation. This is a timeconsuming process that Mr. Ganiel does not believe can be completed within the timerestrictions listed in the preliminary classi?cation review order. Tab 1 - Page 042SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions UmveclSixties PFC e. Additional Security Expert: Given the task required by the preliminary classi?cationreview order, Mr. Ganiel has requested that an additional security expert be appointed to thedefense team. Mr. Ganiel believes that the additional expert will help expedite the process byassisting him in reviewing the infonnation, conducting document verification. conductingdocument preparation, and by providing a second opinion regarding information that is eitherSCI or is pan ofa SAP.3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at ,1 5DAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 1 - Page 043DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or12 oer . itsMr. David Ii. Civilian ('uunselSUBJIECT: Appointment ol'Additimm| llefensc Security Expert - .5. v. Brzidlev In response In your request for un additional security expert dated 38 September ZUH), anpuintMr. Cassius N. llall. LLS. Anny Intelligence and Seeun'ty Cunnmind. as an additional expertconsultant in seeurit_\' nmtters for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr.Hall be designated a member ofthe defense team under U.S. v. Toledo. ?.25 J. 270 I937) and Military Rule of lividenci: 502. This catpert uppuintment is at no expense to theUnited States beymid mileage reimbursement. ifupplicable.?MkCARL R. COFFMAN. JRAVCnnmizmding Tab 1 - Page 044DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY umreo sures ARMY TEST AND EVALUATION couuANo .4120 susousHANNA AVENUEABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. no 21005-310313 December 2010MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia2221 SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions UnitedStates v. PFC Bradley Manning1. The defense security expert consultants have completed their preliminary classi?cationreview. Based upon your memorandmn dated 22 September 2010, here are the unclassi?edwritten responses to your questions:a) Is the information provided by the accused classified at a level above Secret?Answer: Yes.b) If any of the information provided by the accused is classified above Secret, does any ofthe information fall within SCI compartments? Answer: Yes.c) Which compartments? Answer: Gamma, I-IUMINT and SIGINT.2. The points of contact for this memorandum are the undersigned Mr. Charles J. Ganiel?and Mr. Cassius N. Hall at? [La2 CHARLES J. GANIELCommand, SSOArmy Test Evaluation Command Intelligence and Security CommandAlexandria, VA Fort Belvoir, VA Tab 1 - Page 045DEPARTMENT or THE ARMY JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUE- FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY ToATTENTION OFIMND-MHH-ZA MEMORANDUM RECORDAccounting of lixcludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) PFC Bradley Manningl. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for anyexcludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above?referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from l2 July 2010 until the date of this memorandumis excludablc delay Lander RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses.and the facts and circumstances ofthis case:a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews ofclassified information.b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 1 July 20l0 and Defense Renewed Request forSanity Board. dated I8 July 2010 (enclosed).c. Defense Request for Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic toAssist the Defense. dated 25 August 20l0 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions onDisclosure of Classi?ed lnfonnation, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Results ofthe Governmenfs Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA.dated 26 August 201 0 (enclosed).f. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access forPFC Manning. dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).g. Preliminary Classification Review of the Accused's Mental Impressions. dated 17September 20 I 0 (enclosed), and Superscding Order, dated 22 September 2010 (enclosed).h. Defense Response to the Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused's Mentallmpressions. dated 28 September 20l0 (enclosed).Tab 1 - Page 046Accounting [)elay under Rule for (?ouz1s?Martial U.S. v. BradleyManninsz4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting delay is not intended to supersedeany previous delays. but merely account for cxcludable delays from the previous accounting tothe date ofthis memorandum.Encls CARL R. JR.as COL. AVCommandingl-Trial Counsell-Defense CounselIQ Tab 1 - Page 047DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199. REPLY ToATTENTION OFI 0 NOV 2010MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) U.S. v. PFC BradleyManning1. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 12 October 2010 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and thefacts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 1 1 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for SanityBoard, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure ofClassi?ed Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Results of the Government?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).f. Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions, dated l7 September 2010(enclosed), and Superseding Order, dated 22 September 2010 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Trial Counsel1-Defense CounselTab 1 - Page 048DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF 7 DECIMND-M MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(c) U.S. v. BradleyManning1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(e) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELA Y. The period from l0 November 2010 until the date ofthis memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and thefacts and circumstances ofthis case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. Defense Request for Sanity Board. dated 1 July 20l0 and Defense Renewed Request for SanityBoard, dated 18 July 20l 0 (enclosed).c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure ofClassified In formation. dated 26 August 20l0 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Results of the Governtnenfs Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA. dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 20l0 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludablc delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays. but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.lincls CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.as COL, AVCommandingCl?: (wo/encls)l-Trial Counsell-Defense Counsel Tab 1 - Page 049DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF1 4 JAN 2011MEMDRANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Exeludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(e) U.S. v. PFC BradleyManning1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 17 December 2010 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(e).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and thefacts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classification Authorities (OCA) reviews of classified information.b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for SanityBoard, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure ofClassified Information, dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Results ofthe Government?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 201(l (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 20l() (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).-Enels CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)I-Trial CounselI-Defense Counsel .. Tab 1 - Page 050DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL- - - .- - .. FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF15 Feb 2011MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) U.S. v. PFC BradleyMininins1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 14 January 2011 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following defense requests, responses, and thefacts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request for SanityBoard, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed). Completed 3 February 2011 (enclosed).c. Defense Request for Delay in the RCM 706 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on Disclosure ofClassi?ed In.formation, dated 26 August 201 (enclosed). Completed 31 January 2011.d. Defense Request for Results of the Govem1nent?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed). Completed 3 February 2011.4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).9 I I I .Encls CARL R. COF MAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Trial Counsel1-Defense CounselTAB 2Tab 2 - Page 001DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 use AVENUEroar men. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLV TOATTENTION OF IMND-MHH-ZA 3 FEB MEMORANDUM FOR Chief, Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,Washington, DC 20307 5001SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning1. Background. On 3 August 2010, I ordered a medical examination into the mental capacityand mental responsibility of PFC Bradley Manning, Headquarters andHeadquarters Company, US. Army Garrison, Fort Myer, Virginia, 222] 1. Prior to the boardbeginning their assessment, I received a request from defense counsel on 25 August 2010 todelay the board until an expert consultant in forensic could be appointed to thedefense team. I approved that defense delay request on the same day. On 26 August 2010, Ireceived an additional defense request to delay the board until procedures could be adopted tohave the board comply with disclosure prohibitions on classi?ed information. I approved thatdelay and subsequently addressed defense concems involving the disclosure of classifiedinformation during the board process.2. Order. I order your team to resume the medical examination into the mental capacity andmental responsibility of PFC Bradley Manning.3. Reasons. The reasons for my previous order were based on the information contained in theDefense Request for Sanity Board, dated I 1 July 2010 and the Defense Renewed Request forSanity Board, dated 18 July 2010. According to the defense request, PFC Manning had beendiagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct. Thedefense alleged that PFC Manning?s leadership repeatedly expressed concems about his mentalhealth, and PFC Manning was placed on suicide watch while in pretrial confinement in Kuwait.4. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706(c),the board shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical Defense requested that the board consist of three members, including at least one forensicone forensic and one You may, but are not requiredto comply with the defense request. At least one member of the board, however, shall be either aor a clinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriatepersonnel from within your staff to comprise all or part of the board.5. Defense Request for Appointment of an Expert Consultant. I appointed CA PT Kevin D.Moore as a defense expert consultant in forensic and a member of the defense teamunder U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C .M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. Thedefense requested this expert be permitted to evaluate and work with PFC Manning prior to theR.C.M. 706 board and that the expert be permitted to monitor the examinations conducted byTab 2 - Page 002IMND-MHH-ZASUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manningmembers of the board. As such, I authorize the senior member of the board, in consultation withPFC Manning?s primary behavioral health care provider, to address the defense requests anddetermine the extent to which the defense expert consultant may participate in the board?sinquiry.6. Special Security Instructions. The defense proffered that PFC Manning would likely needto divulge information potentially rising to the level in order to aid the members in theirdetermination of his mental state at the time of the alleged incidents. The following specialinstructions apply to the portion of the board requiring discussion of classi?ed information withPFC Manning:a. Each member of the board will be cleared up to the level and be read on to thefollowing compartments: Until each member of the board is read-on, the boardwill not conduct the portion of the examination requiring discussions with PFC Manning.b. Each member of the board has a for the purposes of discussingclassi?ed information with PFC Manning during their inquiry. The only classi?ed informationavailable to the board is the mental impressions of PFC Manning.c. Each member of the board will read and acknowledge the enclosed Protective Order nolater than three duty days following the date of this memorandum.d. The board will conduct all their examinations and testing in an unclassi?edenvironment, except the portion of the examination and testing requiring discussions with PFCManning will occur in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The board willorganize their inquiry and examinations in a manner that minimizes the impact of delay due toissues arising from the disclosure of classi?ed information by PFC Manning.e. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than four duty days beforeconducting theportion of the board requiring interviews with PFC Manning. The trial counsel is responsible foridentifying an appropriate SCIF for the discussion of classi?ed information and providingadequate privacy for the board.f. To the extent possible, the board will take and maintain only unclassi?ed notes andtranscriptions; however, any notes or transcriptions that must contain classi?ed information orpotentially classi?ed information will be handled in accordance with applicable law, regulations,the Protective Order, and any speci?c security procedures your security of?cer delineates. Asecurity of?cer will review all notes and transcripts to determine the proper classi?cation.g. I appointed Mr. Charles Ganiel and Mr. Cassius Hall as defense security expertconsultants. Mr. Ganicl or Mr. Hall will also act as the security of?cer for the board and shouldbe consulted when classi?ed information issues arise. The security expert is directly responsiblefor storage and handling of all classi?ed information, to include the board members? notes andany transcriptions. The security expert is not required to participate in the board proceedings, Tab 2 - Page 003SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manningbut will be physically present at the location for on?site consultation, security inspections, and toassist with handling and storage of classi?ed information.h. All reports drafted and submitted by the board to the parties in this case will beunclassi?ed. If a report must contain classi?ed information, submit a written request to me,through the trial counsel.7. Required Findings. The board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinctfindings as to 7a-7c (below), using diagnostic tools that the board, in its professional discretion,believes to be necessary and appropriate. In their request, defense counsel posed a number ofspecific requests for matters to be evaluated and specific tests to be conducted. You may,therefore, conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in 7f 7kand 9 (below), but are not required to do so.a. Does PFC Manning currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If the answer tois yes, answer the following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the American Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM (2) Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?(3) What is PFC Manning?s prognosis for recovery?(4) Can this severe mental disease or defect be successfully controlled by treatmentwith drugs?(5) Does the long-term commitment of PFC Manning appear to be a necessaryalternative?b. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to understand the nature of theproceedings and the seriousness of the charges against him? If the answer to is no, answerthe following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatmentwith drugs?(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?c. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in his owndefense? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the IMND-MHH ZASUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatmentwith drugs?(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?d. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did PFC Manning have a severe mentaldisease or defect? If the answer to is yes, answer the following four questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severemental disease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality orwrongfulness of his conduct?(3) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personalitycaused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, orcultural standard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?(4) Was this impairment complete?e. At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mentaldisease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness ofhis conduct? If the answer to is yes, answer the following three questions.(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personalitycaused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, orcultural standard of conduct, which differs from that of society as a whole?(3) Was this impairment complete?f. Was PFC Manning, at the time of the offense, able to formulate a specific intent tocommit the alleged acts, to know the probable consequences of his actions, or to premeditate adesign to commit the acts? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?g. What? personality type does PFC Manning possess?h. What is the PFC Manning?s intelligence level? Tab 2 - Page 004 Tab 2 - Page 005IMND-MHH-ZASUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manningi. Does PFC Manning suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with hisability to think, respond emotionally, remember, communicate, interpret reality, and behaveappropriately? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?j. Does PFC Manning have an organic brain/nervous system disorder or impairment thatwould impact his ability to think reason, perceive, recall, or in any way control his behavior orhis thoughts? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?k. Does PFC Manning suffer from any level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? If theanswer to is yes, answer the following questions:(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the (2) What is the prognosis?8. Consideration.a. The sanity board should, at a minimum, consider all of the following materials inreaching their ?ndings:(1) The results of and neurological tests, including raw test data.(2) PFC Manning?s mental health records.(3) PFC Manning?s medical records.(4) Interviews with PFC Manning.(5) The charge sheet.b. You may consider, at your professional discretion, any additional questions or mattersposed by the defense if such matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of thismemorandum.9. In conjunction with the sanity board, you shall also complete a comprehensive neurologicalexamination to include a CAT scan.Tab 2 - Page 006IMND-MHH-ZASUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning10. Movement for Appointments. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than fourduty days before any scheduled appointment for medical evaluation or testing, in order for thetrial counsel to arrange adequate transportation and security.1 1. Release of Report. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with thedisclosure prohibitions of Military Rule of Evidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3) and the specialsecurity instructions in paragraph 6, above. Only a statement consisting of the sanity board?sultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 7a through 7k will be provided to the trialcounsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC Manning or any evidencederived from such statements, should be provided to PFC Manning?s civilian and militarydefense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs and MAJ Matthew Kemkes.12. Telephone Numbers. CPT Ashden Fein is the government counsel. CPT Fein may bereached at . lnforrnation pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from hisdefense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs, at 1-800-588-4156 or his military defense counsel, MAJKemkes: at?-l3. Suspense. This medical examination and your findings shall be completed no later thanfour weeks from the date of this memorandum. Any extension of time must be submittedthrough the trial counsel to me for approval.5 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.1. RequestsCOL, AV2. Protective Order, 17 Sep l0 Commanding3. Protective Order Acknowledgment4. Charge Sheet5. Allied Documents Tab 2 Page 007DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYwarren neeo Amv cemenwnnen neeo ueanu cm: svsreuwasumemu, oc 20301-soo1MCHL-FPS 14 March 2011MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY, COL CARL R. COFFMAN, Jr.,JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL. 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER, VIRGINIA222] l-l 199SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFCBradley Manning. The original order asked that the report be completed by 3 March 2011.2. The evaluators are coordinating suitable dates and times for the final evaluation session totake place. This involves multiple parties. Additionally, the ?nal interview will take place at aSCIF and this has resulted in the consumption of extra time for this aspect of the evaluation to becoordinated. We anticipate that the ?nal date for the evaluation should take place in the first tendays of April 2011 and are expecting that this will be confirmed today.3. We are asking for three weeks from the date of the ?nal interview to deliver the completedevaluation reports to the respective parties. Hence, we ask for a suspense date of Friday, 29April 2011.4. POC for this memorandum is Dr. Michael Sweda, WRAMC Department,Forensic Service,MICHAEL SWEDA, PH. D, ABPP (Forensic)CHIEF. FORENSIC SERVICEForensic Tab 2 Page 008DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL WALTER REED HEALTH CARE SYSTEMWASHINGTON, DC 20301-500115 April 2011MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY, COL CARL R. COFFMAN, Jr.,JOINT BASE HALL, 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER, VIRGINIA2221 1-1 199SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFCBradley Manning. The current suspense is 16 April.2. The final interview with SPC Manning was conducted on 9 April. The Board has beendiligently working on completion of the long report. We are nearing ?nalization of the report,but have had limited availability to meet as a full board to discuss the report. This is because ofconflicting schedules and demands of the three board members.- 3. The board respectfully requests an extension of the suspense to COB on Friday, 22 April2011 to allow full and adequate time to discuss and review all pertinent findings. MICHAEL SWEDA, . ABPP (Forensic)CHIEF, FORENSIC SERVICEForensic Tab 2 Page 009DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OFMEMORANDUM FOR Chief, Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,Washington, DC 20307-5001 -SUBJECT: Extension Request for RCM 706 Sanity Board U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manninghave reviewed the request for an extension of the RCM 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. Therequest is:approved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than l6 April 20l l. Any otherextension oftime must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)l?Defense Counsel Tab 2 - Page 010DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF IMND-MHH-ZA l"KlL 'U?llMEMORANDUM FCR Chief, Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,Washington, DC 20307-5001SUBJECT: Extension Request for RCM 706 Sanity Board U.S. v. PFC Bradlev ManningI have reviewed the request for an extension of the RCM 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. Therequest is:(yfapproved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than 22 April 20] 1. Any otherextension of time must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Defense Counsel Tab 2 - Page 011DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or8 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) U.S. v.PFC Bradley Manning1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for anyexcludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 15 February 2011 until the date of thismemorandum is excludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. OCA consent to disclose classi?ed information.c. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request forSanity Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Results of the Govemment?s Classification Reviews by the OCA,dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Accessfor PFC Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).f. RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, dated 14 March 201 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersedeany previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting tothe date of this memorandum.5. The previous memorandum, dated 15 February 201 1, inaccurately re?ected that the sanityboard was completed on 3 February 2011. The sanity board is ongoing. The memorandum alsoinaccurately re?ected that PFC Manning was granted access to classified information on 3February 201 I. To date, the various OCAs involved in this case have not granted PFC Marmingaccess to classified information originating from their department or agency.Tab 2 - Page 012IMND-MHH-ZAAccounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) U.S. v. PFC BradleyManning6. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 201 1(enclosed).Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Trial Counsel1?Defensc CounselTab 2 - Page 01318 February 2011MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia2221 1SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert Assistance With Expertise in to Assist the Defense in United States v. Manning1. Purpose. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d), the accused, PFC Bradley Manning, requests aDepartment of Defense employee and a be designated as a member ofthe defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States 12. Toledo, 25M.J . 270 (CMA 1987). PFC Manning also requests that arrangements, in coordination withDefense Counsel, be made to have the appointed expert visit the Quantico Brig to conductindependent testing of PFC Manning.2. Law. A military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, a right toexpert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Garries, 22M.J. 288 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robinson 39 M.J. 88 (CMA 1994), and Ake v.Oklahoma, 470 US. 226 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the Anned Forces has embraced athree-part test for determining whether govemment-funded expert assistance is necessary. Thedefense must show:?First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert assistanceaccomplish for the accused. Third, why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that theexpert assistant would be able to develop.? United States v. Gonzalez, 39 M.J. 459 (1994).3. Basis. All of the above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defenseis entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The govemrnent hasbegun the process of conducting a sanity board on PFC Manning. The defense is requesting asingle Department of Defense to assist in understanding the work of the sanityboard, to possibly suggest additional testing to the sanity board, to interpret the results oftesting conducted by the sanity board, to critically evaluate the work of thesanity board, and to potentially conduct additional testing in order to prepare a rebuttal to theconclusions of the sanity board.a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to aid the defense inunderstanding medical information and testing concerning the mental statusof PFC Manning on the date of the alleged crimes, to determine whether he is able to understandthe nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning isable to intelligently assist in his defense, and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuationand mitigation for PFC Marming. In short, the defense needs this assistance to better understandhow PFC Manning?s brain was working at the time of the charged offenses and how it isTab 2 Page 014SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance toAssist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manningworking now. The knowledge required to do this is specialized, and concerns medical anddata that is beyond the scope of defense counsel?s understanding.b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A assigned to the defense would assist the defense in understanding the wide range oftests that are available to evaluate PFC Manning. This expert would alsohelp the defense understand what tests are best suited to evaluate PFC Marming. Awould also assist the defense in interpreting and critically evaluating anytesting conducted by the sanity board. A would also beable to explain medical research in the ?eld of and its relevance to the presentcase. This expertise is beyond that of the current defense expert Capt. Kevin Moore, a forensicc. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense hasneither the experience nor expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs abasic understanding in order to present the defense case, including the need to prepare defenseexperts to testify. It will be dif?cult for the defense to properly prepare without having anindividual who has the con?dentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. A more relevantquestion is why the defense needs a separate if one is appointed to the sanityboard. The defense needs this separate for a number of reasons. First, anywho is a member of a sanity board is not a member of the defense team andthe defense does not have the ability to discuss possible case theories with that sanity boardmember. A appointed to assist the defense is able to engage in full and frankdiscussions with the defense on all aspects of the case and any issues relating to metalcompetency. Second, a working for the sanity board would be under noobligation to conduct additional evaluations and testing requested by the defense. Aappointed to the defense would be free to conduct additional testing withoutthe constraints of the sanity board. Third, the sanity board will likely conduct their evaluation ofPFC Manning without the bene?t of a complete social history, and the board would notincorporate that information into their evaluation and testing. A appointed tothe defense would continue to work with the defense in all stages of the case and incorporatedetailed information of PFC Manning?s social history into the testing and diagnostic process.Finally, testing and interpretation is a very subjective science. Any testingdone by members of the sanity board must be subjected to critical analysis. It is highly unlikelythat a member of the sanity board will objectively criticize their own work. The defense needsan independent to assist them in conducting this critical inquiry. For all ofthese reasons, the defense requests a be appointed to the defense team.4. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the defense requests that you issue an order appointing aas an expert; that you instruct this individual that he/she is a ?defenserepresentative? and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to him/her during thecourse of his/her employment as a member of the defense team will be con?dential.Tab 2 Page 015SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Infomiation Assurance toAssist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manning5. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 2 - Page 016DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 222114199IMND-MHH-ZA 22 April 2011MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(c) U.S. v.PFC Bradley Manning1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for anyexcludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 18 March 2011 until the date of thismemorandum is excludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:21. Original Classi?cation Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.c. Defense Request for Sanity Board, dated 11 July 2010 and Defense Renewed Request forSanity Board, dated 18 July 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Results of the Government?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA,dated 26 August 2010 (enclosed).e. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Accessfor PFC Manning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).f. RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, dated 14 March 2011 (enclosed).g. RCM 706 Sanity Board Extension Request, dated 15 April 2011 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersedeany previous delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting tothe date of this memorandum.Tab 2 - Page 017IMND-MHH-ZAAccounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC ?radlggMamas5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 201 1 (enclosed).2 76% Encls CA R.COFF .as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Trial CounselI-Defense CounselTAB 3 Tab 3 - Page 001FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYu.s. ARMY MLITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON210 A smearsoar LESLEY J. MCNAR, cc 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OFNJA-CL 25 April 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer,VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation U.S. v. PFC Bradlev E. Manni_ngl. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until the United States receives consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities(OCAs) to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This consent isnecessary in order for the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and theRules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32Investigation.2. BACKGROUND. Under Executive Orders l2958 and 13526 (as applicable) and Army Regulations380-5 and 380-67, the United States cannot release classi?ed information originating in a department oragency to parties outside of the executive branch without the consent of the OCA or their delegate. Since17 June 2010, the United States has been diligently working with all of the departments and agencies thatoriginally classi?ed the information and evidence sought to be disclosed to the defense and the accused.Enclosed are redacted copies of the OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Review Requestswithout their enclosures, respectively. However, because of the special circumstances of this case,including the voluminous amounts of classi?ed digital media containing multiple equities and thesubsequent discovery of more information helpful to both the United States and the accused, more time isneeded for executive branch departments and agencies to obtain the necessary consent from their OCA orauthorizing of?cial. 3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonabledelay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, forexample, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or time to secure theavailability of evidence.4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 Investigationuntil the earlier of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews or25 May 201 I. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between 22 April 20earlier, be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution willprovide you an update no later than 25 May 20l l.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at-Encls ASHDENas CPT, JATrial CounselCF:Defense Counsel (w/encls)FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02217353i From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYMonday, April 25, 2011 8; I3 PMFein, Ashden cm USA Matthew kemkesMorrow Ill, .|oDean, CPT USA Bouchard, Paul CPT USCENTCOM- Haberland,John CPT MIL USA ar I e, Monica L. SFCUSA SJ ASGT USA JFHQ(Art 32 Delay Request)Tab 3 - Page 002 Got il.Mr. Coombs.Please provide me your feedback on the request by COB 27 April.VRCOL Cad CoffmanSent via Black?cny by FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 3 - Page 00326 April 20] 1MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, United States vs. PFCBradley E. Mannintz1. On 25 April 2011, the Government requested that you delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until the United States received consent from all of the Original lassificationAuthorities (OCAs) to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. Itappears that no OCA has given such approval since the Defense has yet to receive any classifiedevidence or information. Without this information, the Defense is unable to adequately preparefor the Article 32.2. In order to avoid any additional unnecessary delay, the Defense requests that you order theGovernment to:a. Provide either a substitute for or a summary of the information for relevant classifieddocuments;b. Allow the Defense to inspect any and all unclassified documents, tangible items, andreports within the Govemment?s control, which are material to the Defense?s preparation. Rulefor Court-Martial (R.C.M.) and 70l(a). The standard set out in R.C.M.405 and R.C.M. 70] requires the Government to turn over items that are within the?Govemment?s control.? This means that the Trial Counsel, upon Defense request, has anaffirmative obligation to seek out requested evidence that is in the possession of theGovernment even if that evidence is not already in the immediate possession of the TrialCounsel. United States v. Williams, 50 436. 441 (C.A.A.F. 1999). The ?prosecutor will bedeemed to have knowledge of and access to anything in the possession, custody, or control ofany federal agency participating in the same investigation of the defendant.? United States v.Bryan, 868 F.2d I032, 1036 Cir. 1989); Williams, 50 at 441. The Defense specificallyrenews its request for discovery previously either denied or not provided by the Govemment.See Attachment A ANDc. Ensure the Defense has equal access to ID and other law enforcement witnesses byrequiring the Trial Counsel to make available any requested witness. R.C.M. 405(g)(l)(B) and703(a) establishes that the prosecution and defense ?shall have equal opportunity to obtainwitnesses and evidence.? See also Article 46, UCMJ. The Defense has attempted to interviewseveral of the CID agents in this case. On 14 April 2011, the Defense received an email fromDeputy Director? of the Computer Crime Investigative Unit, requesting thatthe Defense coordinate all witness interview requests through MDW Trial Counsel. Speci?cally,the Defense re uests the abilit to eak with Tab 3 - Page 004SUBJ ECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, United States vs. PFCBradley E. Manning3. Due to the limited discovery provided so far, it is likely that the Article 32 will need to bedelayed again unless the above information is provided in a timely manner. The Defenserequests that any additional delay be credited to the Government.4. Hie point ofcontact for this memorandum is the undersigned at lincls DAVID EDWARD COOMBSAS Civilian Defense CounselId Tab 3 - Page 005DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOOFIMND-MHH-ZA 29 APR 20llMEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 lnvestigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning1. On 25 April 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 lnvestigationuntil the United States receives consent from all the Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) involvedin this case to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and infonnation to the defense. See Enclosure 1.On 26 April 201 1, the defense provided a response which acknowledged the need for the classi?edinfonnation and made three specific requests. See Enclosure 2.2. This request is:approved. The Article 32 lnvestigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of theOCA isclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews or 25 May 201]. The period between 22April 201 and the restart of the Article 32 lnvestigation is excludable delay under Rule for Court-Martial(RCM) 707(c). The prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 23 May 20] l.disapproved. The Article 32 lnvestigation will restart within thirty days of thismemorandum.3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le, it is my understanding that ongoing nationalsecurity concerns exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFCManning and others. ln light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), theprosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of infonnation, but will comply with itsobligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. Inaddition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to thedefense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.2 Encls CARE COFFMAN, JR.1. Prosecution Request, 25 Apr 1 I COL, AV2. Defense Request, 26 Apr 1 CommandingDISTRIBUTION:l-Article 32 l0l-Trial Counsell-Defense CounselTab 3 - Page 006DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TONTION OF MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) U.S. v. PFC Bradley@.mningl. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above?referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 22 April 20l 1 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Ckiginal Classi?cation Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. OCA consent to disclose classi?ed infonnation.c. Defense Request for Results of the Government?s Classification Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 20 (enclosed).e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 lnvestigation, dated 25 April 2011 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated l3 January 20l (enclosed).Encls CQEL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)I~Tria| CounselI-Defense CounselTab 3 - Page 00720 April 2011MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate, US AnnyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer?Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia222] SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of a to Assist the Defense in the Caseof United States v. Manning1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Rule forCourt?Martial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the defense requests the appointment of a located at or near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to replace LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy and assist thedefense in the above-styled case. The defense further requests that this replacement expert bedesignated as a member of the defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, andUnited States v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (CMA 1987).2. On 19 April 201 l, the defense, like many others, learned that PFC Manning was being movedto the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth. Due to this abrupt move, LCDRKennedy is no longer ideally suited to ful?ll the role of the defense expert. At this point, LCDRKennedy has not had the ability to meet with PFC Manning. As such, no relationship has been established. The defense requests that the govemment provide a suitablereplacement for LCDR Kennedy who will have the ability to aid the defense in understandingmedical information and testing concerning the mental status of PFCManning on the date of the alleged offenses, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able tointelligently assist in his defense, and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation andmitigation for PFC manning.3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense CounselTAB 4 Tab 4 - Page 001FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY MILITARY CISTRICT WASHINGTON21 0 A STREETFORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OFANJA-CL 22 May 20llMEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer,VA 222l l-l I99SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delay restartingthe Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to release discoverableunclassi?ed and classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This consent is necessary in order forthe United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.2. UPDATE. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classi?cation Authorities(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classi?ed evidence and information to the defense along withreceiving completed classi?cation reviews. In anticipation of OCA consent, CID began making copies ofclassified digital media and evidence for disclosure to the defense. Additionally, the prosecution Ieamedthat several exhibits and documents in the unglassi?gi CID case ?le require authorization to discloseapart from any classi?ed information. The U.S. Attomey?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia isworking to obtain that authorization on behalf of the prosecution from multiple federal districts within theUnited States.3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority. you have the authority to grant a reasonabledelay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, forexample, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or time to secure theavailability of evidence.4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigationuntil the earlier of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests. OCA Classi?cation Reviews. andauthorization to disclose protected unclassi?ed information or 27 June 20l I . For the reasons statedabove, the United States requests the period between 22 April 20l and the restart of the Article 32investigation be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will provide you anupdate no later than 25 June 201 l.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?.I ASHDEN FEINCPT, JATrial CounselCF:Defense CounselFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02217313From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCOFFMAN, CARL COL MIL USA IMCOM Tuesday, May 24, 20] 1 4:57 PMFein, Ashden CPT USA SJA coombs arm courtmanialdefensecom; Matthew kemkesMorrow JoDean, CPT USA Bouchard, Paul CPT USCENTCOM- Haberland,John CPT MIL USA CPT USA Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-NCRe: US v. PFC BM (Art 32 Delay Request) (UNCLASSLFIED)Tab 4 - Page 002 Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDMr. Coombs.Plcasc pnovidc me any you may have by COB 25 May 2011.COL Coffman. CarlFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02215286 Tab4-Page003From: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 201] 8:46 PMTo: COL MIL USA IMCOM Cc: Matthew kemkes Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USASJA Bouchard. Paul CPT USCENTCOM USF-I Haberland,John CPT MIL USAOvergaard, Angel M. CPT USA Ford, Arthur D. WOI USA JFHQ-Fein, Ashden CPT USA IFHQ-Joshua Tooman SJASJA Subject: [Suspected RE: US v. PFC BM (Art 32 Delay Request) (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,The defense maintains it position as stated in the 26 April 2011 memorandum. Given the limiteddiscovery provided so far, it is likely that the Article 32 will need to be delayed in order to provide thedefense with the ability to adequately prepare. The defense requests that any additional delay be creditedto the government.v/ DavidDavid E. Coombs, Esq.Law Office of David E. Coombs11 South Angeli Street, #317Providence, RI 02906Office: 1-800-588-4156Fax: (508) 689-9282 Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are not the intendedrecipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of thisinformation may be unlawful and is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BAS MYER HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEroar MYER, 22211-1199REPLY ATTENTION OF?Zw/in-4 ZealIMND-MHH -ZAMEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning1. On 22 May 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigationuntil the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence andinformation, as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAs) involved in thiscase to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense, whichever is earlier. SeeEnclosure 1. On 24 May 201 1, the defense provided a response which maintained its 26 April 2011position acknowledging the need for additional discovery and noting the potential for further delay fordefense to adequately prepare for the Article 32. See Enclosure 2.2. This requtis:approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of theOCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews, and authorization is granted to discloseprotected unclassi?ed information, or 25 June 2011. The period between 22 April 201 and the restart ofthe Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). Theprosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 June 2011.disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of thismemorandum.3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le, it is my understanding that ongoing nationalsecurity concerns exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFCManning and others. In light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), theprosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of information, but will comply with itsobligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. Inaddition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to thedefense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.2 Encls CARL R. COF-FMAN, JR.1. Prosecution Request, 22 May 11 COL, AV2. Defense Request, 24 May 11 I CommandingDISTRIBUTION:1-Article 32 IOl-Trial Counsell?Defense CounselTab 4 Page 004 Tab 4 - Page 005DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFOFIT MYEFI, VIRGINIA 22211-1199IMND-MHH-ZA EUN 17 2011FZMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(c) - U.S. v. PFC r? 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for C0urts?Martial (RCM) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 12 May 2011 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classification Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classified information.b. OCA consent to disclose classi?ed information.c. Defense Request for Results ofthe Government?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 22 May 2011 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).Enels CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: l?Trial Counsell?Del'ense Counsel FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYu.s. AFIMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON210 A STREETFOFIT LESLEY J. MOHAIR, DC 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OFANJA-CL 27 June 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley E.Manning1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delayrestarting the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority torelease discoverable unclassi?ed and classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. Thisconsent is necessary in order for the United States to ful?ll its discovery obligations underArticle 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense toadequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.2. UPDATE.a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classi?cation Authorities(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classi?ed evidence and information to the defense alongwith receiving completed classi?cation reviews. This includes the enclosed additional requestsforwarded by the prosecution on 23 June 2011, after forensic examiners discovered anotherdocument on digital evidence requiring OCA consent to disclose to the defense.b. The prosecution submitted the unclassi?ed CID case ?le to the National Security Agency(NSA) and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review the?le for classified equities. The NSAidentif1ed approximately twenty sensitive documentsrequiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA is Continuing their review ofthe documents.c. The U.S. Attomey?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia is continuing to work onobtaining authorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution todisclose certain exhibits and documents to the defense. Most of the relevant disclosure ordershave been signed, but a few remain outstanding.d. Since the previous request, the prosecution received approval to produce the Secretary ofthe Army AR 15-6 and related documents. After the defense acknowledges your protectiveorder, dated 22 June 2011, the prosecution will immediately produce these documents andcontinue to produce all related documents. As the prosecution receives other approvals, it willcontinue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 5 - Page 001 Tab 5 - Page 002FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYANJA-CLSUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley E.Manning3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant areasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delayinclude, for example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or timeto secure the availability of evidence.4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32investigation until the earlier of the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCAClassi?cation Reviews, authorization to disclose protected unclassi?ed information, and finalreview of the CID case ?le by the NSA and OGA, or 27 July 2011. For the reasons stated above,the United States requests the period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32investigation be designated as excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution willprovide you an update no later than 25 July 2011.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned atEncls DEN FEINas CPT, JATrial CounselCF:Defense Counsel2FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02217293FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab5-Page 003From: COFFMAN, CARL COL MIL USA IMCOM Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 201 1 4:56 PM To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJACc: Matthew kemkes SJAM. CPT USA SJAArthur D. WOI USA SJAJoshua Tooman Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-SJA Subject: Re: US v. PFC BM (Art 32 Delay Request) (UNCLASSIFIED) Morrow Ill. JoDean, CPT USA 1 Overzaard. Angel Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDMr. Coombs.Do you have any comments on the request??(UL CoffmanFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02215247 Tab5-PageO04From: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:37 PMTo: COL MIL USA Cc: Matthew kemkes Morrow JoDean, CPT USASJA Angel M. CPT USA SJAFord Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-Joshua ToomanFein, Ashden CPT USA SJA SJASubject: [Suspected REDelay Request) (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,The defense maintains it position as stated in its 26 April 2011 memorandum. Once the Government isable to provide the classified and unclassified discovery, we will likely need to delay the Article 32 hearingin order to provide the defense with an opportunity to adequately prepare. The defense requests that anyadditional delay be credited to the government.DavidDavid E. Coombs, Esq.Law Office of David E. Coombs11 South Angeli Street, #317Providence, RI 02906Of?ce: 1-800-588-4156Fax: (508) 689-9282Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are not the intendedrecipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of thisinformation may be unlawful and is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab 5 - Page 005DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOAWENTION OF5 JUL ~40?MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONDelay of Article 32 investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning1. On 27 June 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 investigationuntil the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence andinformation, as well as consent from all the Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) involved in thiscase to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense, whichever is earlier. SecEnclosure 1. On 29 June 2011, the defense provided a response which maintained its 26 April 201 1position acknowledging the need for additional discovery and noting the potential for further delay fordefense to adequately prepare for the Article 32. See Enclosure 2.2. This request is:approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion ot theOCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews, and authorization is granted to discloseprotected unclassified intormation, or 27 July 201 I. The period between 22 April 201 I and the restart ol'the Article 32 Investigation is cxeludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 7t)7(e). Theprosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 July 2011.disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of thismemorandum.3. Alter reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le, it is my understanding that ongoing nationalsecurity concerns exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into Manning and others. In light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigatitin(s), theprosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of information, but will comply with itsobligations under Article 46. UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM 70], RCM 703, and applicable case law. Inaddition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to thedefense. it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delayEncls CARL R. JR.1. Prosecution Request, 27 June 11 COL, AV2. Defense Response. unc ll CommandingDISTRIBUTION:I-Article 32 IOl?'I'rial Counsell?Del'ensc Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OFI 3 JUL 2011MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(c) US. v. PFC Bradleyl. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 17 June 201 1 until the date ofthis memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classi?ed information.b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.c. Defense Request for Results of the Government?s Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 20 I 0 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 5 Jul 20]] (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting ofexcludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed).Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)l-Trial CounselI-Defense CounselTab 5 - Page 006TAB 6 Tab 6 - Page 001DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON210 A STREETFORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OFANJA-CL 25 July 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue. FortMyer, VA 22211-ll 99SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley E.Mailings1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above?referenced case requests you continue to delayrestarting the Article investigation until the United States receives the proper authority torelease discoverable unclassified and classified evidence and information to the defense. Thisconsent is necessary in order for the United States to fulfill its discovery obligations underArticle 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense toadequately prepare for the Article investigation.2. UPDATE.a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense alongwith receiving completed classification reviews. The classi?ed CID forensic reports areprepared for disclosure, pending final approval by the relevant OCAs and final review ofreferences to classified information within forensic reports.b. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency(NSA) and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review thefile for classified equities. The NSA identi?ed approximately twenty sensitive documentsrequiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA identified approximately sixsensitive documents requiring further review by their subject matter experts. Those reviews areongoing.c. The Attorney"s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia is continuing to work onobtaining authorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution todisclose certain exhibits and documents to the defense. Most of the relevant disclosure ordershave been signed, but a few remain outstanding.d. Since the previous request, the prosecution produced the Secretary of the Army AR 15-6and related documents, as well as the complete record of the MSG Adkins reduction board?approximately pages of documents in total. The prosecution intends to produce portionsof the unclassified CID case file that have been approved for release by relevant stakeholderagencies no later than the date of this memorandum. As the prosecution receives otherapprovals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.FOR USIC Tab 6 - Page 002SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 lnvestigation United States v. PFC Bradley E.Maanmng3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant areasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delayinclude, for example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or timeto secure the availability ofevidenec.4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32investigation until the earlier ofthe completion oftlte OCA Disclosure Requests, OCAClassification Reviews, authorization to disclose protected unclassified information, and finalreview of the CID case file by the NSA and OGA, or 27 August 2011. For the reasons statedabove, the United States requests the period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article32 investigation be designated as excludable delay under RCM The prosecution willprovide you an update no later than 25 August 20] 1.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at-ASHDEN FEINCPT, ATrial CounselCF:Defense Counsel2FOR 02217288From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCOFFMAN, CARL COL MIL USA IMCOM Monday. July 25, 20] I 3:32 PMcin, Ashden CPT USA IF SJ AMatthew kemkesSJAM. CPT USA SJAArthur D. W01 USA SJAJoshua Tooman Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ(Art 32 Delay Request) (UNCLASSIFIED)Tab 6 - Page 003 Morrow Ill. JoDean. CPT USAOvergaard, Angel Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDMr. Coombs.Docs the Defense have any issues with the request?COL CoffmanFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 6 - Page 00425 July 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation - United States vs. PFCBradley E. Marming1. On 25 July 201 1, the Government requested that you again delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until it has received consent from all of the Original Classi?cation Authorities(OCAS) to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. Althoughclassi?cation reviews typically take time to complete, the Government has now had over a yearto do so. The latest request by the trial counsel for excludable delay does not adequately explainwhat has been done to require timely response and reviews by the relevant OCAs.2. Given the fact PFC Manning is currently in pretrial con?nement, the Government mustdemonstrate due diligence in securing classi?cation reviews. On 9 January 201 1, the Defensemade a request for speedy trial. The Defense once again renews this request. United States v.Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(ho1ding that Article 10, UCMJ, creates a more exactingspeedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).3. The Defense also renews its request for you to order the Government to provide either asubstitute for or a summary of the infonnation for the relevant classi?ed documents; to allow theDefense to inspect any and all unclassi?ed documents, tangible items, and reports within theGovemment?s control; to provide discovery to the Defense either previously denied or notprovided; AND to provide access to all CID and other law enforcement agents who have workedon this case. Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) and 70l(a).4. Any additional delay should not be excluded under R.C.M. 707(c). Instead, the requesteddelay should be credited to the Government.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (800) 588-4156.7MID EDWARD MBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 6 - Page 005DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE HYER - HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1 19926 JUL 2011IMND-MHH-ZAMEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning1. On 22 July 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigationuntil the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence andinformation, as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAs) involved in thiscase to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure 1. On 25July 201 1, the defense renewed its request to order the United States to provide either a substitute for or asummary of the infonnation for the relevant classi?ed documents; to allow the defense to inspect any andall unclassi?ed documents, tangible items, and reports within the govemment?s control; to providediscovery to the defense either previously denied or not provided; and to provide access to all CID andother law enforcement agents who have worked on this case. See Enclosure 2.2. This request is:pproved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of theOCA isclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews, and authorization is granted to discloseprotected unclassi?ed information, or 27 August 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restartof the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). Theprosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 August 201].disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of thismemorandum.3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le and receiving an update of the procedures beingfollowed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, aswell as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light of thenational security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with thedisclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. in addition, once the prosecution receives the authority todisclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize anyunnecessary delay.?I.?.Hotkbt??2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.1. Prosecution Request, 25 July 201 COL, AV2. Defense Response, 25 July 201 CommandingDISTRIBUTION:l-Article 32 IOl-Trial Counsell-Defense CounselTab 6 - Page 006DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUE FOFIT MYEFLVIFIGINIA 22211-1199. REPLY TOATTENTION OF IMND-MHH-ZA J96 Flute itMEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts?Martial 707(c) United States v.PFC Bradley E. Ma nnigg1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludahledelay under Rule for Courts?Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 13 July 2011 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The above delay is based on the following extensions, defense requests,responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classification Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classified information.b. OCA consent to disclose classified information.c. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of cxcludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 2011 (enclosed),and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed).Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)1-Trial Counsel1-Defense CounselTab 6 - Page 0073 August 2011MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia22211SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger to Assist the Defense in theCase of United States v. Manning1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Rule forCourt-Martial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the defense requests the appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Griegerto replace Capt. Kevin D. Moore and assist the defense in the above-styled case. See attachedcurriculum vitae. The defense further requests that Dr. Grieger be designated as a member of thedefense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States v. Toledo, 25 M.J.270 (CMA 1987).2. On 2 August 2011, the defense received an email from Capt. Moore indicating that he couldno longer perform his duties as the defense forensic See attached email. Capt.Moore informed the defense that his current clinical schedule did not provide him with adequatetime to assist the defense. Additionally, Capt. Moore stated that due to PFC Manning?s assignedlocation at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, he no longer believedthat he was suited to ful?ll the role of the defense expert.3. This is the second time that the defense has had to request for a replacement forensicdue to the assigned expert?s time commitments and con?icts with other militaryduties. Previously, the defense was given COL David Benedick. COL Benedick also citedmilitary commitments as the basis for why he could not adequately assist the defense team. Inlight of this persistent problem, the Defense requests the appointment of a civilian forensic4. The defense requests that you appoint the following expert:Dr. Thomas A. Grieger, M.D., DFAPA Captain (retired), Medical Corps, United States Navy,5. Dr. Grieger?s fees are $350.00 per hour for consultation as de?ned in paragraphone of his fee schedule. See attached fee schedule. The fee for all travel is based upon whethertravel is required outside of a hundred mile radius of Washington D.C. or not. If within thisradius, it is $450.00 per hour for a maximum of $4,500 per day. If outside of this radius, it is$4,500 per day. There is no fee for testimony time, only for the associated travel time and anyexpenses incurred. Likewise, there is no fee for expenses for airfare, car rental, lodging and perdiem as those fees are included in the rate detailed above. The estimated total fee for Dr.Grieger?s assistance in this case is $48,550.00. His hourly rate and fees comport with the ExpertWitness Rate Schedule for the Department of Justice.SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger to Assist the Defense in theCase of United States v. Manning6. The POC is the undersigned at (800) 588-4156 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel Tab 6 - Page 008Tab 6 - Page 009 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUE?r FOFIT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or[(25 Aw. \tMEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic - United States v.PFC Bradley ManningI reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in forensic for thedefense to replace CAPT Kevin D. Moore in the above-named case. After careful considerationof your enclosed request and the enclosed email, dated 4 August 2011, the defense request is:approved. I appoint Dr. Thomas A. Grieger as an expert consultant in the above-named case to replace CAPT Moore. I further direct that Dr. Grieger be designated a member ofthe defense team under U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule ofEvidence I authorize the expenditure of up to $22,500.00 for consultation. Anyexpenditure of funds in excess of $22,500.00 will be disapproved, unless the additional amountis approved by me, in advance, through a separate written request and written approval.disapproved, in part. I appoint LCDR David L. Moulton as an expert consultant inthe above-named ease to replace CAPT Moore. I further direct that LCDR Moulton bedesignated a member of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) andMilitary Rule of Evidence 502. LCDR Moulton is an adequate substitute for Dr. Grieger and isprovided at no expense to the government, beyond mileage reimbursement, if authorized.disapproved. CAPT Moore will remain the defense expert consultant.Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, R.as COL, AVCommandingTab 6 - Page 010From? 1'03 cc: SJASubject: RE: US v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 5:03:26 PMCPT Fein,On August 28, I am slated to go work as a forensic in the Forensic Service of thenew Walter Reed Military Medical Center (COL Malone will be my boss). My PCS date is July 2013. Justtoday, I corresponded with my specialty advisor, who stated that she does not anticipate that 1 will bedeployed in the next year as 1 have already deployed twice and there are several people ahead of meon the deployment list who have never deployed. I do not see any con?icts with me giving theappropriate attention to this case, to include even regular travel to Fort Levenworth to evaluate theclient.v/r.LCDR MoultonFrom: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA [ma11m?Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:15 PMTo: Moulton, David L. LCDR NNMCCc: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA D.L. Moulton; Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-SJASubject: US v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,Thank you for your interest In being a possible defense expert witness in forensic Please seeattached request and let us know whether you are quali?ed and whether you will be available for thenext 12 - 15 months.Please take into account any possible deployments or other taskers that might make you unavailableand understand this appointment will likely require you to travel to Fort Leavenworth, KS.Thank you.v/rCPT FeinTab 6 - Page 011DAVID L. MOULTON, MDMC USN EducationB.A. HumanitiesBrigham Young University, Provo, UT 1996M.D. Doctorate of MedicineUniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 2000Internship National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 2001Residency National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 2004Fellowship Forensic National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 2010Professional AchievementsAssociate Program Director, National Capital Consortium Residency Program, Bethesda,MD, July 2010 to present; September 2008-June 2009. This program provides comprehensiveGraduate Medical Education in a large training program of 44 residents. Specificresponsibilities involved direct oversight of training at the National Naval Medical Center, as well asadvisor to the Program Director on diverse matters pertaining to the operation of the Residency.Clinical Chief Inpatient Service, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, October2007-April 2009. This is a 12-bed adult inpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatientservices to active?duty service members and their dependants. Supervisory role for two LicensedClinical Social Workers. Supervisory role over Residents, Interns and Medical Studentsrotating on the service.Clinical Chief Combat Stress Control, 113"? Medical Company, Taji, Iraq, March 2007-July 2007,and the 785? Medical Company July 2007-Sept 2007. One of two on FOB Taji, whichsupported ?ve Combat Brigades and over 20,000 Soldiers.Department Head, Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, NC Aug 2004-January 2005;September 2005-February 2007. Department Head over Inpatient Services, a 20-bed adultinpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatient services to active-duty service members andtheir dependants. This included supervisory responsibility of 20 staff members.Department Head, CLB-2, 2D FSSG (MLG) Operational Stress Center, Al Asad, Iraq, February 2005-September 2005, providing mental health services to deployed Marine, Army, Navy and Air ForceService Members who honorably serve our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tab 6 Page 012Academic AppointmentsAssistant Professor of Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda,MD. Appointed July 25, 2011.Special Qualifications 1Fleet Marine Force Quali?ed Of?cer, February, 2005. iNavy Pistol Quali?cation (E) Personal and Unit AwardsMeritorious Service MedalNavy Commendation Medal (x2)Army Commendation MedalNavy Achievement MedalArmy Achievement Medal (x2)Presidential Unit CitationMeritorious Unit Citation (x2)Iraq Campaign Ribbon (x2)Recognitions and CommendationsPatient Safety Award of Excellence, National Naval Medical Center, Aug 2008Letter of Commendation, Naval Health Clinic Quantico, March 2008Invited PresentationsSex Offenders and Issues in Sexual Assault. Presented to the Naval Justice School,Newport, RI, April 2010.PTSD in the Court Room. Presented to the Naval Justice School, Newport, RI, May 2011.Board CertificationsGeneral American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7, 2006.Forensic American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7, 201 1.State Medical Board LicensuresMaryland Board of Physicians, License No: D0069601Virginia Board of Medicine, License No: 0101232547North Carolina Medical Board, License No: 20040121 (inactive)Tab 6 Page 013Court Consultant Expert Witness Military Courts Martial Federal Felony CasesU.S. V. Ramzi bin al Shibh, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, June 20112 (9/11 Terror Suspect)U.S. V. Clark, Baumholder, Germany, April 201 12* (Negligent Homicide, 3 counts)U.S. V. McAffrey, Fort Bragg, NC, December 20102 (Attempted Murder, PTSD Mitigation)U.S. V. Law, MCB Camp Lejeune, November 20101 (Premeditated Murder)U.S. V. Chamberlain, MCB Quantico, September 20102 (Assault)U.S. V. Afa, Baumholder, Germany, August 20102 (Sexual Assault)U.S. V. Sobenes, Pensacola, FL, March 20101* (Sexual Assault)Chastain V. U.S. Navy, MCB Camp Lejeune, January 20101 (Hostile Work Environment)Kirk V. U.S. Navy, MCB Camp Lejeune, January 20101 (Hostile Work Environment)U.S. V. Walker, Baumholder, Germany, February 20102* (Sexual Assault)Maryland V. Mary Koontz, Baltimore County, MD, January 20101* (First Degree Murder)U.S. v. Schwartz, Fort Myer, November 20092* (Conspiracy to Commit Murder)U.S. v. Hall, MCB Quantico, VA, May 20092* (Illicit Substance Use, PTSD Mitigation)Government Consultant2 Defense ConsultantIndicates Expert Testimony Provided in Addition to Consultation Tab 6 - Page 014DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE4217 ROBERTS AVENUE. SUITE 5030FORT MEADE. MARYLAND 20755 REPLY TOOF9 August 20l 1MEMORANDUM THRU Trial CounselFOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 222l l-l I99SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States PFCBradley Manning.I . PFC Bradley Manning, the accused, by and through counsel, respectfully requests theemployment of Eric Lakes and Trent Struttmann as computer forensics experts in the matter of US v.Manning. PFC Manning further requests that Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann be designated asInembers ofthe Defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. I987) and Military Rule ofEvidence 502.2. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are co-owners of Cyber Agents, Inc., a Lexington, Kentucky-basedcomputer forensics ?rm. Both individuals are well-quali?ed in the field ofcomputer forensics, andhave often been employed for courts-martial cases. PFC Manning is entitled to a proper defense, andcomputer forensics expertise is necessary for a proper defense.3. Estimated Fees. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate their services will cost the Government$14,000.00 excluding associated travel costs gasoline, hotel, food, etc.). This $14,000.00 ?gureis based on the following:a. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann charge $175.00 per hour per person for their services;b. The Government has noti?ed the Defense that the ease of US v. Manning involves some8 terabytes of data, and given that figure, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate theycan do the necessary computer forensics work in five days. (Note: 8 hours of work perday at $175.00 per hour per person equates to ,400.00 per day per person. $2,800.00per day for two people (Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann) times five days equates to4,000.00 for five days of work);c. This $l4,000.00 estimated fee is also derived on the following:I. That the computer forensics work will not take place at Mr. Lakes? and Mr.Struttmanns? lab in Lexington, but rather, that it will take place in theWashington, D.C. area in a properly secured facility;2. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide their own hardware needs exceptfor hard drives. (Note: It is the Defense?s understanding that it will berecommended to the Government that the Government provide the necessary harddrives);Tab 6 - Page 015SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.3. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide the necessary Encase software,but that other necessary software will be provided by the Government. (Note: 1t isthe Defense?s understanding that the following will be recommended to theGovernment: 1) that the Government provide the necessary software with theexception of the Encase software and 2) that any licensed so?ware that isnontransferable will either be provided by the Government, or, should Mr. Lakesandlor Mr. Struttmann need to purchase such so?ware, that the Governmentreimburse Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann for such software purchases).d. Signi?cance of Estimate. It is important to note that the estimated $14,000.00 fee is justthat an estimate. Given the sheer volume of data involved in the case of US v. Manning(8 terabytes), and given the complexities and uncertainties that can take place incomputer forensics work, there is no exact way that a fee can be precisely pinpointed experts can only estimate how long it will take them to do the necessary work.Nonetheless, understanding the amount of data involved and other factors, Mr. Lakes andMr. Struttmann estimate they can complete the work in five days at a cost of $14,000.00excluding travel costs. Should Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann need more than five days tocomplete their work, such work will be billed at the rate of $175.00 per hour per person.c. Note on Travel Costs. The estimated $14,000.00 fee does not include travel costs.importantly, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann have made it clear that they desire to drive tothe Washington, D.C. area to do their work instead of ?ying via commercial airfare.Flying from Lexington, KY to Washington, D.C. can be expensive; having Mr. Lakesand Mr. Struttmann drive to the Washington, D.C. area would actually save theGovernment money.4. Why Two Experts are Requested. Given the sheer volume of computer data involved in the caseof US v. Manning, and given past experiences of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann, both individuals areconfident that two experts doing the computer forensics work is better, more efficient, and less timeconsuming then having just one computer forensics expert do the work. Simply put, having twocomputer forensics experts on the Defense team would actually save the Government money ascompared to havingjust one Defense computer forensics expert.5. The following sections of this request further outline the basis and rationale explaining why theDefense needs Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann as computer forensics experts. (Note: for more on Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann, to include their CV5, visit 6. Law. 846. Article 46 of the U.C.M.J. provides that Defense and Government should have equalopportunity to obtain witnesses. in particular, a military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protectionand Due Process, a right to expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. (1.8. v.Garries. 22 M.J. 288 (C.M.A. 1986); US. v. Robinson, 39 88 (C.M.A. 1994), citing Britt v.North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971) and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Failure to employMr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would effectively deprive PFC Manning of his ability to present adefense in this case and would deny him "[m]eaningful access tojustice.? Ake v. Oklahoma, 470US. 68 I985). The Court of Appeals for the Amted Forces (formerly the Court of MilitaryAppeals) provided a three-pronged test for determining whether government-funded expertassistance is necessary:Tab 6 - Page 016Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.First, why the expert is needed? Second, whatwould the expert assistance accomplish for theaccused? Third, why is the defense counsel unable to gather and present the evidence that theexpert assistant would be able to develop?United States v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ. 459 (C.M.A. l994) (quoting US v. Allen, 3l M.J. 542, 623(N.M.C.M.R. 1990) aff?d, 33 M.J. 209 (C.M.A. l99l)).7. Why Expert Assistance Is Needed.a. This case unquestionably involves complex computer message traffic that requires expertanalysis and opinion. PFC Manning is charged with serious crimes. Without someone with anexpertise in computers and digital forensics, the Defense will not be able to completely understand,evaluate, or prepare a defense to the Government?s case.b. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are experts in computer forensics. They have been employedbefore as Defense experts in courts-martial, and they possess numerous certi?cations. (For more onthe qualilications of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann visit c. No member of the Defense is learned in the complex field of computer forensics, and none canbecome so between the time of this request and the date of the Article 32 hearing and of the possibletrial.8. What Would Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused.a. Expert assistance would provide the Defense with the necessary understanding of the complexcomputer message trafficking involved in this case. Such understanding is not the province of laypeople. The experts? explanations are, therefore, critical for the Defense, the finder of fact, MilitaryJudge, and everyone involved in understanding the very essence of the case at hand.b. Both Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are highly regarded experts in the field of computerforensics. They possess the requisite knowledge, experience, and expertise to fully analyze theGovernment?s evidence and to aid the Accused in the preparation of an effective defense. Both Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would embark on a full review of the evidence in the case to identify anyexculpatory information that may be contained in the Government?s evidence, and to identify thepotential weaknesses in the Government?s evidence.9. Why the Defense ls Unable to Gather and Present this Evidence.a. No member of the Defense team is trained or otherwise knowledgeable in the complex field ofdigital forensics. Denying the Accused of this fundamental right to present an adequate andknowledgeable defense would amount to a violation of his Constitutional rights.h. The requested experts will be advised that they are members of the Defense team and are, assuch, obligated to keep all matters concerning the case confidential pursuant to the attorney-clientprivilege, subject of course to those exceptions should they become a defense witness.I0. For the aforementioned reasons, failure to provide the requested assistance will result in afundamentally unfair trial. Clearly, this case meets the necessary elements of the Gonzalez case setforth by our highest court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The requested experts shouldthus be appointed to the Defense team as a matter of law.Tab 6 - Page 017SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.11. POC is the undersigned at - PAUL R. BOUCHARDCPT, JADefense Counsel Tab 6 - Page 018DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYEFI, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY toorIMND-MHH-ZA i5A?3 MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Computer Forensics Expert Consultants - PFC Bradley Manning1 reviewed the request for appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computerforensic expert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. After careful consideration,the defense request is:approved. I appoint Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computer forensicex ert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Lakes andMr. Sruttmann be designated members of the defense team under gs. v. 25 MJ. 270(C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. I authorize the expenditure of up to$14,000.00 for computer forensic consultation. Any expenditure of funds in excess of$14,000.00 will be disapproved, unless the additional amount is approved by me, in advance,through a separate written request and written approval. Additionally, reasonable travelreimbursement and per diem, the JFTR, is authorized.disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if 1 forwardthis case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommanding02936274FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab6-Page019From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:27 PMTo: Coffman. Cad COL MIL USACc: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA SJASubject: Discovery Update (US v. PFC BM)unponance: LowSir,Below is FYSA. As discussed before, we are continuing to provide evidence indiscovery as we receive approvals.v/rAshden--?--Original From: Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:19 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJACc: Matthew kemkes; Morrow JoDean, CPT USA Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Ford,Arthur D. N01 USA Joshua ToomanSubject: [Suspected RE: Discovery Update (US v. PFC BM)Importance: LowAshden,Thank you for the update.Best,DavidDavid E. Coombs, Esq.Law Office of David E. Coombs11 South Angell Street, #317Providence, RI 02906Office: 1-800-588-4156Fax: (598) 689-9282Notice: This transmission, including attachments, maycontain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for theperson(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, pleasenotify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying oruse of this information may be unlawful and is -- Original Message Subject: Discovery Update (US v. PFC BM)1FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02936274FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 6 Page 020From: "Fein, Ashden CPT USA Date: Tue, August 02, 2011 2:50 pmTo:Cc: Matthew kemkes" CPT USA SJA "Morrow JoDean,"overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA "Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA"Joshua Tooman? David,we sent you and MA) Kemkes the following today in discovery (BATES36618-36802) CID Case File UpdatesFLAG Memo For Sec Army 15-6SFC Adkins Reduction Board Appeal and AttachmentsBM's newly executed Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)Your tracking number: 7010 1060 0001 1272 6251.v/rAshdenFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02936279FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 6 - Page 021From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJASent: Tuesday. August 09, 2011 3:20 PMTo: Coffman. Carl COL MIL USACc: Morrow JoDean. CPT USA Ford, Arthur 0. W01 USA JFHQ-Subject: FW: Discovery Update (US v. PFC BM)Sir. FYSA. We sent additional discovery today. Vr AshdenFrom: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Tuesday, August 09, 2611 3:19 PMTo: Cc: Matthew kenIkes? Morrow JoDean, CPT USA Overgaard, Angel M. an usA amqm/mu su; pm,ur . - Joshua ToomanSubject: Discovery Update (US v. PFC BM)David,we sent you and MAJ Kernkes the Following today in discovery (BATES B36803):Quantico Brig RecordingsYour tracking number: 7010 1068 0061 1272 6268v/rAshdenFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02914745 Tab6-Page022From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Monday, August 22. 2011 7:08 PMTo: Coffman, Cad COL MIL USASubject: FW: US v. PFC BM Discovery, etc.Sir. we provided more unclassified discovery. FYSA.From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Monday, August 22, 2011 7:67 PMTo: Cc: Matthew kemkes; Joshua Tooman; Ford, ArthurD. N01 USA Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Morrow JoDean, CPT USA SJASubject: US v. PFC BM Discovery, etc.David,Good evening. Below is an update on discovery and other issues:1. A CD containing the Clausen files (036804-842806) was sent to you(7010-1066-0001-1272-6282) and MAJ Kemkes should have received his copytoday or will tomorrow.2. Last week, I emailed Paul that we should have an answer by COB todayon when we expect to have the classified forensic evidence ready for you andyour team. For multiple reasons, we will not be able to provide an answertoday. I hope to be able to provide an answer by the end of this week toallow you and your experts adequate time to plan for travel.3. Trent Struttmann's clearance is being expeditiously processed. Allof his information appears to be received.4. Contracting has received the CyberAgents contract and is working toaward the sole-source contract so we can ensure their payments arepreapproved prior to their arrival.5. we are working on finalizing the acquisition of the defense forensiccomputer equipment and software. Our intent is to acquire all the materialand then send it to your experts (once officially retained by Contracting)so they can preload the software and be ready to go.6. we are working on finalizing Dr. Mou1ton's travel arrangements (DTS)so he can freely travel to LVN-CAC.v/rAshden1FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab 6 - Page 023 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICEFORT MEADE OFFICEFORT MEADE. MARYLAND 20755REPLY TO I - oF:AF 6 August 201 1MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319FOR Commander, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington,D.C. 20319SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software for necessary computer forensics work,matter of United States PFC Bradley Manning.1. On July 23, 2010, MG Terry A. Wolff, the original convening authority in the matter of US v.PFC Bradley Manning, approved the appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes to be part of the Defense Teamas a computer forensics expert and set the funding for Mr. Lakes? services at $5,600.00. (Seeattachment dated 23 July 2010). On 6 July 2011, the Defense requested additionally funding for Mr.Lakes? services and clari?ed that the Defense?s computer forensics expert assistant for the case athand was Cyber Agents, Inc. and its employees, not solely Mr. Lakes, the owner of Cyber Agents,Inc. (See attachment dated 6 July 2011). The purpose of this memorandum is to request that theGovernment provide the Defense with the necessary computer hardware and software products forCyber Agents, Inc. to do the computer forensics analysis.2. Cyber Agents, Inc. needs the following hardware and software equipment to properly do thecomputer forensics to assist PFC Manning in his defense: (Note 1: these hardware and so?wareneeds can be purchased at an estimated cost of $1 ,256.00 and arefurther described, including vendor,etc., in the attachment titled Hardware and Software, US v. Manning. Note 2: CAGE Code for CyberAgents, Inc. is Two SpinPoint MP4 HM500JJ hard drives, 500GB, SATA 300;Two NetAnalysis v1.52/HstEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version);Two Vmware W01-kstations7;Two Snagit licenses;Two Live View Government Version;Two Mount hnage Pro v4;Two Microsoft Office 2010;Two Adobe Acrobat Pro3. The Defense respectively requests that the Government provide the hardware and softwareequipment outlined in number 2 above (equipment that is further described in the attachment titledHardware and Software US v. Manning) to the Defense and/or Cyber Agents, Inc. in order for CyberAgents, Inc. to conduct the necessary computer forensics. The basis and justi?eation for this requestis as follows:a. The matter of US v. Manning involves some 8 terabytes of computer data, and a properdefense carmot be rendered without proper computer forensics analysis;Tab 6 - Page 024SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software, matter of United States v. PFC BradleyMarming.b. Without the aforementioned computer hardware and software, Cyber Agents, Inc. willnot be able to do the necessary computer forensics analysis;c. The accused is entitled to a proper defense, and computer forensics analysis is vital to aproper defense;d. Should the Government have to purchase the aforementioned equipment and software,such equipment and software costs estimated at some $1,300.00 are not prohibitive;e. The aforementioned equipment and software are indeed necessary, and they are readilyavailable on the commercial market.f. Importantly, Mr. Lakes and his company, Cyber Agents, Inc., are properly equipped attheir facility in Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct computer forensics, but given that someof the computer data in US v. Manning is classified as opposed to unclassi?ed data, theGovernment has made it clear to the Defense and to Cyber Agents, Inc., that thecomputer forensics will be conducted in a properly secured and approved facility usingapproved and secured equipment and software. It is this reason that constitutes thenecessity for this equipment and so?ware request - because of the classi?ed nature ofsome of the data in question, Cyber Agents, Inc. cannot use some its own equipment andor 4. Poc is the undersigned a_PAUL R. BOUCHARDCPT, JADefense CounselTab 6 - Page 025DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYEFI, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Defense Request for Computer Hardware and Software - United States v. PFCBradley Manning1. I reviewed the request for computer hardware and software to assist appointed computerforensic expert consultants in the above-named case and your request is:(W) approved. I authorize $1,400.00 for the purchase of the below requested equipmentand software:a. x2 500GB hard drive.b. x2 NetAnalysis V1.52/HstEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version) Software.c. x2 Vmware Workstation 7 Software.d. x2 Snagit License.disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if I forwardthis case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.2. The United States will provide the following items:a. x2 Live View (Government Version) Software.b. x2 Mount Image Pro v4 Software.c. x2 Microsoft Office 2007 Software.d. x2 Adobe Acrobat Pro 9 Software.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommandingTAB 7 Tab 7 - Page 001FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYu.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON210 A STREETFORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OFANJA-CL 25 August 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall,204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley?ung1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you continue to delayrestarting the Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority torelease discoverable unclassified and classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. Thisconsent is necessary for the United States to fulfill its discovery obligations under Article 46,UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately preparefor the Article 32 investigation.2. UPDATE.a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities(OCAs) to obtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense alongwith receiving completed classi?cation reviews.b. CID is conducting a secondary review of the derivative classification of the forensicreports. Recently, the govemment?s security expert reviewed the forensic reports and advisedthat portions of the reports should be reviewed based on the Security Classification Guidesgoverning the information. The prosecution intends to produce the full reports once a finaldetermination of the derivative classification is made by CID Command and the Army G2 givesrelease consent. Three of these reports are unclassified in their entirety, and were given to thedefense on 25 July 2011.c. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency(NSA) and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review thefile for classified equities. The NSA identified approximately twenty sensitive documentsrequiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGA identified approximately sixsensitive documents requiring further review by their subject matter experts. The OGAcompleted its additional review, but the NSA review is ongoing.d. The U.S. Attomey?s Of?ce for the Eastern District of Virginia has obtained allauthorizations from the relevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution, and theprosecution is currently obtaining signed protective orders from defense, as required by thedistrict court judges, to allow disclosure of all relevant exhibits and documents to the defense.FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTab 7 - Page 002FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY A-CLSUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC BradleyManninge. The prosecution is continuing to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) andthe Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) to receive authorization to disclose relevant portions ofany case files. This includes obtaining copies of the FBI and DSS case ?les, if any, to conduct aSearch of the files for discoverable information.f. Since the previous request, the prosecution produced 21,442 pages of documents (batesnumbers 021364-042806). The evidence and information disclosed included the vast majority ofthe unclassified CID case file, the MAJ Clausen administrative reprimand file, recordings of allvisits with PFC Manning at MCB-Q, and various other documents. As the prosecution receivesother approvals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant areasonable delay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delayinclude, for example, time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases, time to obtainappropriate security clearances for access to classified information, or time to secure theavailability of evidence. ?e_e RCM 707(c), Discussion.4. REQUEST. Given the complexity of this case, stemming from the number of classificationauthorities involved and the volume of information requiring classification reviews, theprosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation until the earlierof the completion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA Classification Reviews, finaldetermination of derivative classi?cations, final review of the CID case file by the NSA, andrelease authority from relevant district court judges, or 27 September 2011. The prosecution hasactively and diligently worked to resolve all outstanding issues to ensure timely release of allpossible information to the defense so their ability to represent and potentially defend their clientwill be in no way impaired. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the periodbetween 22 April 2011 and the restart of the Article 32 investigation be designated as excludabledelay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution will provide you an update no later than 23September 2011.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at?axASHDEN FEINCPT, JATrial CounselCF:Defense Counsel2FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab7-Page-003Sent: aur ay, ugus To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA Cc= Matthew kemkes Tooman, Joshua CPT MIL US USAJoDean, - A Overgaard, Angel CPT USA JFHQ-NC Ford, Anhur D. WOI USA WHO-Subject: Re: US v. PFC BM (Art 32 Delay Request)Mr. Coombs.Do _\ou have any issues or additions?COL CoffmanSent via by FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL use ONLY Tab?-Page004From: Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:51 PMTo: Cc: Matthew kemkes Tooman,.loshua CPT MIL USUSA TRADOC MorrowI, JoDean, CPT USA SJ AOvergaard, Angel M. CPT USA FHQ-. DW SJA Ford, Arthur D. W01USA JFHQ-NC Fein, Ashden CPTUSA SJA Subject: [Suspected RE: US PFC BM (Art 32 Delay Request)Sir,The Defense maintains its previous position that any additional delay should not be excluded under R.C.M.707(c). Instead, the requested delay should be credited to the Government for speedy trial purposesunder Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.DavidDavid E. Coombs, Esq.Law Office of David E. Coombs11 South Angeli Street, #317Providence, RI 02906Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156Local: (508) 689-4616Fax: (508) 689-9282Notice: ?this transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are not the intendedrecipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of thisinformation may be unlawful and is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab 7 - Page 005DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJONT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL2o4 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLYTOATTENTION OF 9 AU 2 01 1MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley Manning1. On 25 August 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigationuntil the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence andinformation, as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAs) involved in thiscase to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure I. On 27August 201 1, the defense maintained its previous position that any additional delay should not beexcluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c). See Enclosure 2.2. This request is:approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of theOCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews, ?nal determination of derivativeclassi?cations, ?nal review of the CID case ?le by the NSA, and authorization is granted to discloseprotected unclassi?ed information, or 27 September 2011. The period between 22 April 201 I and therestart of the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The posecution is requiredto provide me an update no later than 23 September 201 1.disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of thismemorandum.3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le and receiving an update of the procedures beingfollowed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing nationalsecurity concems exist in this case, aswell as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light of thenational security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with thedisclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, RCM701, RCM and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the authority todisclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize anyunnecessary delay.2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, R.1. Prosecution Request, 25 August 201 1 COL, AV2. Defense Response, 27 August201 1 CommandingDISTRIBUTION:I-Article 32 1-Trial Counsell-Defense Counsel ITab 7 - Page 006 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 use AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF15 SEP 2011MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Accounting of Excludable Delay under Rule for Courts-Martial 707(c) United ?;ates v. 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a periodic accounting for any excludabledelay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707(c) in the above-referenced matter.2. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. The period from 10 August 20] 1 until the date of this memorandum isexcludable delay under RCM 707(c).3. BASIS OF DELAY. The period of excludable delay is reasonable based on the following extensions,defense requests, responses, and the facts and circumstances of this case:a. Original Classi?cation Authorities? (OCA) reviews of classified information.b. OCA consent to disclose classi?ed information.c. Defense Request for Results of the Government's Classi?cation Reviews by the OCA, dated 26August 2010 (enclosed).d. Defense Request for Appropriate Security Clearances for the Defense Team and Access for PFCManning, dated 3 September 2010 (enclosed).e. Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, dated 25 August 2011 (enclosed).4. PREVIOUS DELAYS. This accounting of excludable delay is not intended to supersede anyprevious delays, but merely account for excludable delays from the previous accounting to the date of thismemorandum.5. I acknowledge and reviewed the defense request for speedy trial, dated 13 January 201 1 (enclosed),and the renewed request for speedy trial, dated 25 July 2011 (enclosed). Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommandingCF: (wo/encls)l-Trial CounselI-Defense Counsel ms- 02915907 .FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab?-Page0O7 iFrom: Fein. Ashden CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJASent: Thursday. September 01. 2011 11:14 AMTo: Coffman. Cari COL MIL USACc: Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USA Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-SJASubject: FW: US v. PFC BM (Discovery Update)Sir. FYSA.--?--Original From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJASent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:13 AMTo: Cc: 'Kemkes, Matthew MAJ MIL 'JoshuaTooman'; Morrow JoDean, CPT USA Ford, Arthur D. N01USA SJASubject: US v. PFC BM (Discovery Update)David,we placed a DVD in the mail today containing unclassified discovery (BATES:042897-044864). This DVD includes multiple pretrial confinement documentsfrom the confinement facilities. A copy is being delivered to MAJ Kemkestoday.v/rAshdenF0 OF I SE 0 LYTAB 8Tab 8 - Page 001FOR OFFICIAL. USE ON LY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON210 A STREETFORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013REPLY TOATTENTION OF26 September 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 LeeAvenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manning1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above?referenced case requests you continue to delay restartingthe Article 32 investigation until the United States receives the proper authority to release discoverableunclassified and classified evidence and information to the defense. This consent is necessary for theUnited States to fulfill its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the Rules for Courts?Martial(RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32 investigation.2. UPDATE.a. The prosecution is continuing to work with relevant Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) toobtain consent to disclose classified evidence and information to the defense and to receive completedclassification reviews. Since the last request, the prosecution received a classification review from theOCA at U.S. Cyber Command. Additionally, the prosecution is working closely with the Department ofState and U.S. Southern Command and expects to receive classi?cation reviews for more than eightydocuments within the next two weeks.b. CID started the necessary secondary review of the derivative classification of the forensic reports,and the forensic reports are currently in the final stages of review before release. After CID completes itsreview and once the Army G2 gives consent to release, the prosecution intends to produce the full reports,with their enclosures and attachments to the defense.c. The prosecution submitted the unclassified CID case file to the National Security Agency (NSA)and another government intelligence organization (OGA) to have their experts review the file forclassified equities. Both the NSA and OGA completed their additional review. The prosecution isworking with the NSA to provide portion-marked version of the documents they deemed classified.d. The U.S. Atlorney?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia obtained all authorizations from therelevant district court judges on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution is continuing to obtain signedprotective orders from the defense, as required by the district court judges, to allow disclosure of allrelevant exhibits and documents to the defense.e. The prosecution continues to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and theDiplomatic Security Service (DSS) to receive authorization to disclose relevant portions of any case files.The prosecution received copies of the FBI and DSS case files and started to review these files fordiscoverable information. Once theprosecution identifies discoverable information, it will work to obtainthe proper authorization to produce the relevant portions to the defense.Since the previous request, the prosecution produced 2,494 pages of documents (hates numbers042807-045301). The evidence and information disclosed included documentation from the confinementFOR OF Fl CIA 1.. USE ONLYTab 8 - Page 002FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYSUBJECT: Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation United States v. PFC Bradley Manningfacilities, as well as the majority of two classi?ed military intelligence investigative case files. As theprosecution receives other approvals, it will continue to disclose evidence and information to the defense.g. The prosecution continues to work with the defense to frontload any administrative requirementsfor the defense members and their forensic computer experts to review classified information andevidence. Since the last request, the prosecution provided the defense with specialized hardware andsoftware so that they are able to review all classified discovery and their experts may use their ownpersonal equipment to analyze and review forensic duplicates of the evidence. Additionally, theprosecution provided a large volume storage device to CID so that a forensic duplicate of the evidence isavailable to the defense once the final authorization to release classified information is obtained.3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonabledelay under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, forexample, time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases, time to obtain appropriate securityclearances for access to classified information, or time to secure the availability of evidence. SQ RCM707(c), Discussion.4. REQUEST. Given the complexity of this case, stemming from the number of classificationauthorities involved and the volume of information requiring classification reviews, theprosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 investigation until the earlier of thecompletion of the OCA Disclosure Requests, OCA Classi?cation Reviews, ?nal determination ofderivative classifications, receipt of signed protective orders from the defense, and properly portion-marked classified documents by the NSA, or 27 October 2011. The prosecution has actively anddiligently worked to resolve all outstanding issues to ensure timely release of all possible information tothe defense so their ability to represent and potentially defend their client will be in no way impaired. Forthe reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between 22 April 2011 and the restart ofthe Article 32 investigation be designated as excludahle delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution willprovide you an update no later than 25 October 2011.S. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned atINCPT, ATrial CounselCF:Defense Counsel2FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY02216469 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab8?Page 003From: Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:27 PMTo: Cc: Matthew kemkes Morrow .loDean, CPT USASJA Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Tooman,Joshua CPT MIL US USAFein, Ashden CPT USA SJA Subject: [Suspected REDelay Request)Sir,The Defense maintains its previous postion that any additional delay should not be excluded under R.C.M. 707Instead, the requested delay should be credited to the Government for speedy trial purposes under Article10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.DavidDavid E. Coombs, Esq.Law Office of David E. Coombs1] South Angell Street, #317Providence, RI 02906Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156Local; (508)689-4616Fax: (508) 689-9282Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential attomey-clientinfonnation and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, pleasenotify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may beunlawful and is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Tab 8 Page 004DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OFIMND-MHH-ZA MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTIONSUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation - United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning1. On 26 September 201 l, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until the completion of Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA) disclosure requests, OCAclassi?cation reviews, a ?nal determination of derivative classifications, receipt of signed protectiveorders from the defense, and properly portion?marl

e-Highlighter

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

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh