Title: Def Notice of Intent to Use Class Info& Prop Alternatives to Court Closure (CORRECTED COPY/REDACTED), 13May 13

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: Unmarked redactions were present when Army received this documentUNITED STATES OF AMERICADefense Notice of Intentto Use Classi?ed Information8. Proposed Alternatives toCourt ClosureMANNING, Bradley, E., PFCU.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. ArmyArmy Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson HallFort Myer, Virginia 22211CORRECTED COPY13 May 20131. (U) This notice is based on the defense's original filing of its intent to use classified evidence underMRE dated 22 February 2013 (AE 490). The purpose of this filing is to provide the Governmentand the Court with greater factual specificity and identify, where appropriate, the alternatives to Courtclosure that will be used in order to adduce the testimony from the particular witness in open court,rather than a closed session. Nothing in this document should be read as being inconsistent with the 22February notice. In the event of a conflict, the defense reserves the opportunity to make an additionalfiling in order to clarify the nature of the information.2. (U) Both parties have described for the Court alternatives to closure. See pages 2-5 of AE 479(Government's original Grunden filing) and pages 2-3 of AE 489 (Defense Response to Government'sOriginal Grunden filing). The alternatives will only be discussed below in the context of how they applyto certain portions of classified evidence that will be discussed during the cross examinations of theidentified Government witness.3. (U) The Government has indicated that it will call approximately 141 witnesses. The testimony ofseventy?three (73) of those witnesses will involve classified information. It wishes to close the Court tohear the testimony of twenty-eight (28) witnesses. The defense is certainly willing to work with theGovernment in order to ensure that the alternatives it uses for the remaining forty-five (45) witnesses isconsistent for the sake of the witnesses and the Court. S. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding USCENTCOM information:A. (U) RADM Kevin Donegan. PAGE A: SW6B. (U) Mr. Jacob Grant.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Grant during cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This witness is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentativelyagreed to stipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.C. (U) Mr. Bert Haggett.l. (U) information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Haggett during cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This witness is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to workwithin the alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and theCoun.D. Robert Harward. ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within the alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court. E. (U) LT Thomas Hoskins. II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. if that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.F. (U) MajGen Kenneth McKenzie.II. (U). Alternatives. The defense believes that MajGen McKenzie may testify in open court withthe use of a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open3 This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, willavoid the accidental disclosure of classified information.G. (U) Mr. Ken Moser.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Moser during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. if that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency forthe witness and the Court.H. (U) MG Michael Nagata.ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that MG Nagata may testify in open court with the useof a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.I. (U) Mr. Martin Nehring. II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. if that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.1. (U) Ms. Jacqueline Scott.I. (U) information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom Ms. Scott during her cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. if that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.K. (U) Mr. Louis Travieso. ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.L. (U) Mr. Charles Vankleek.l. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom Mr. Vankleek during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentativeiy agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.6. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Department of State information:A. (U) Ms. Elizabeth Dibble. II. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that Ms. Dibble may testify in open court with the useof a syllabus or code words. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.8. (U) Mr. John Feeley.ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that Mr. Feeley may testify in open court with theuse ofa syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. if properly prepared, willThis witness is conversant with classified information and,avoid the accidental disclosure of classified information.C. (U) Mr. Glen Johnson.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom Mr. Johnson during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by theGovernment to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.D. (U) AMB Patrick F. Kennedy.II. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that AMB Kennedy may testify in open court with theuse of a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, willavoid the accidental disclosure of classified information.E. (U) AMB Michael Kozak. II. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that AMB Kozak may testify in open court with the useof 3 Syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. Thespecific problems and processes can be elicited through the use of code words or a syllabus. Thiswitness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid the accidentaldisclosure of classified information.F. (U) Mr. James Moore. II. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. If a stipulation fails, the defense believes that Mr. Moore may testify in open court with the useof a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.G. (U) Mr. Gerald Mundy.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Mundy during his testimony.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.H. (U) Mr. Nicholas Murphy.- II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.I. (U) AMB David Pearce. ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that AMB Pearce may testify in open court with theuse of a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court.The specific effects in any particular country can be described through the use of code words or asyllabus.Thiswitness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid the accidentaldisclosure of classified information.J. (U) Mr. H. Dean Pittman. ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. if that fails, the defense believes that Mr. Pittman may testify in open court with the use of asyllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. Thespecific effects in any particular country or organization can be paired with the effect to fully describethe potential harm from the leak. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properlyprepared, will avoid the accidental disclosure of classified information.K. (U) SA Ronald Rock.l. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom SA Rock during his testimony.II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness for both merits and sentencing. If that fails, the defense ishappy to work within the alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for thewitness and the Court.L. (U) AMB Stephen Seche. ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. If that fails, the defense believes that AMB Seche may testify in open court with the use of asyllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.M. (U) Ms. Susan Swart.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Ms. Swart during her testimony.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.N. (U) Ms. Tasha Thian.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Ms. Thian during his testimony.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.0. (U) Mr. Charlie Wisecarver.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Wisecarver during his testimony.10II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.P. (U) AM8 Don Yamamoto. II. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that AMB Yamamoto may testify in open court withthe use of a syllabus or code words.This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, willavoid the accidental disclosure of classified information. Q. (U) AMB Marie Yovanovitch. II. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. If that fails, the defense believes that AM 8 Yovanovitch may testify in open court with the useof a syllabus or code words. The general information she provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.R. (U) Mr. Joseph Yun. 11ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. If that fails, the defense believes that Mr. Yun may testify in open court with the use of asyllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid theaccidental disclosure of classified information.7. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Defense Intelligence Agency information:A. (U) Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein. B. (U) BG Robert Carr. ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that BG Carr may testify in open court with the use ofa syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court. He willbe able to associate organization, effect, and location using code words or a syllabus. This witness isconversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid the accidental disclosure ofclassified information.C. (U) Colonel Julian Chesnutt. D. (U) Mr. John Kirchhofer. II. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that Mr. Kirchhofer may testify in open court with theuse of a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court.The specific effects can be listed separately with the organization that has suffered a particular type ofdamage. Mr. Kirchhofer will be able to match the classified effects with the appropriate organization.This witness is conversant with classified information and, if properly prepared, will avoid accidentaldisclosure of classified information.E. (U) Mr. Randall MacRobbie.ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense believes that Mr. MacRobbie may testify in open court with theuse of a syllabus or code words. The general information he provides may be discussed in open court.The speci?c effects achieved can be described with the use of a syllabus that lists the organization, theparticular effect, and the country involved. This witness is conversant with classified information and, ifproperly prepared, will avoid the accidental disclosure of classified information.F. (U) Mr. Danny Lewis.l. 8. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Joint Task Force Guantanamo information:A. (U) Mr. Jeffery Motes. II. (U) Alternatives. This witness is not a closed court witness. The parties have tentativelyagreed to a stipulation for the testimony this witness will give during the merits portion of the trial. Ifthat fails, the defense is happy to work within the alternatives developed by the Government to ensureconsistency for the witness and the Court. For sentencing, we will work within the alternativesdeveloped by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.8. (U) RADL David Woods. II. (U) Alternatives. This witness is not a closed court witness. The parties have tentativelyagreed to a stipulation for this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within the alternativesdeveloped by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.169. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization(JIEDDO) information:A. (U) Mr. James McCarl.B. (U) Mr. Adam Pearson. 10. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Department of Defense Law Enforcement information:17A. (U) Mr. Mark Johnson.I. (U) Information. Mr. Johnson will discuss his experience as a computer forensic specialist inlaw enforcement. He will then discuss his involvement in this particular case. He will discuss theprocess he used to examine the digital media he was given to analyze. Mr. Johnson will use any reportshe drafted to describe the nature of the forensic analysis performed as well as the computer forensictools used.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.8. (U) SA Mark Mander. ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.C. (U) SA Calder Robertson. II. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. Furthermore, this is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.11. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding non?Department of Defense Law Enforcement information:A. (U) SA Troy Bettencourt. ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.B. (U) SA David Shaver.Otherwise, SA Shaver can betreated like the other computer forensic investigators and handled with whatever alternative theGovernment uses with those witnesses. C. (U) Ms. Mary Horvath.I. ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. Furthermore, this is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.12. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Department of Defense Personnel or Department of DefenseContractors information:A. (U) Mr. Peter Artale.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Artale during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. if that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.B. (U) Mr. Steve Buchanan.I. (U) Information. Mr. Buchanan will discuss his familiarity with lntelink and the process bywhich lntelink logs are created internally in the database. He will discuss his interpretation of the19Intelink logs in this particular case. He will also discuss his involvement in this case, how he was directedto participate, and the form of his report when it was sent back to his superiors.ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of thiswitness. Furthermore, this is not a closed court witness. If the proposed stipulation fails, the defense ishappy to work within the alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for thewitness and the Court.C. (U) Mr. Wyatt Bora. ll. (U) Alternatives. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony ofthiswitness. Furthermore, this is not a closed court witness. If the proposed stipulation fails, the defense ishappy to work within the alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for thewitness and the Court.D. (U) Mr. Sean Chamberlain.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Chamberlain during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.E. (U) Dr. Michael Collins.I. (U) Information. Dr. Collins will discuss the basic framework of Centaur and its creation ofinternal activity logs. Dr. Collins will also discuss his involvement in this case (eg. who tasked him tohelp, the typical method that these sorts of requests are handled, and how it was handled in this case).Finally, Dr. Collins will discuss his own interpretation of the handling of the logs as well as how thisinterpretation identifies PFC Manning's activity on the server.II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.F. (U) Mr. Jim Downey.I. (U) Information. Mr. Downey will discuss the basic framework of Centaur and its creation ofinternal activity logs. Mr. Downey will also discuss his involvement in this case (eg. who tasked him to Ihelp, the typical method that these sorts of reakiests are handled, and how it was handled in this case).20Finally, Mr. Downey will discuss his own interpretation of the handling ofthe logs as well as how thisinterpretation identifies PFC Manning's activity on the server.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.G. (U) Mr. Patrick Hoeffel. ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a closed court witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.H. (U) Mr. Mark Kitz.l. (U) Information. Mr. Kitz will testify about his experience with the DCGS-A system. lnitially,he will discuss the history, function, and purpose of the computer system. Mr. Kitz will discuss thechanging nature and uses of the DCGS-A system over time, focusing on its function during the chargedoffenses. He will also discuss the overall cost of the system. Finally, he will discuss any vulnerabilities ofthe system and what steps, if any, have been taken to address those deficiencies.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.I. (U) Mr. Jason Milliman.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified testimony will be elicitedfrom Mr. Milliman during his cross examination.II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.1. (U) CW4 Armond Rouillard.I. (U) Information. CW4 Rouillard will testify about how the USF-I GAL was created. He will goon to indicate what servers are associated with this GAL and its cost of maintenance. CW4 Rouillard willalso discuss the appropriate way the GAL can be obtained and used. Finally, CW4 Rouillard will discusshow the GAL fits within the general framework of Army information technology systemsll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.21 13. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in open court regarding Department of Defense information with respect to the unitwitnesses:A. (U) SFC Jose Anica.I. (U) Information. The defense does not beiieve that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom SFC Anica during his cross examination.II. - Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work withinthe alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency forthe witness and the Court.B. (U) SPC Kimberly Bales.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence wili be elicitedfrom SPC Bales during her cross examination.II. - Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work withinthe alternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.C. (U) SGT Lorena (Cooley) Defrank.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom SGT Defrank during her cross examination.II. Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work withinthe aiternatwes eveloped by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.D. (U) CPT Casey (Martin) Fulton.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence wili be elicitedfrom CPT Fulton during her cross examination.II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.E. (U) CW3 Hondo Hack.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any ciassified evidence be elicitedfrom CW3 Hack during his cross examination.ii. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.F. (U) CPT Steven Lim.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom CPT Lim during his cross examination.22ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.6. (U) SGT Chad Madaras.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom SGT Madaras during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.H. (U) SGT Daniel Padgett.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom SGT Padgett during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.I. (U) SGT Daniel Sadtler.I. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom SGT Sadtler during his cross examination.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.1. (U) Ms. Jihrleah Showman.l. (U) Information. The defense does not believe that any classified evidence will be elicitedfrom Ms. Showman during her cross examination.II. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.14. The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in an open session regarding information:A. (U) Mr. Maxwell Allen.I. (U) information. Mr. Allen is an informational technology contractor working for Hewill discuss his work history with the in general and unclassified terms. He will then discuss theadministration of the database that supports including a description as to how the logs arecreated and maintained inside the system. Mr. Allen will then discuss how he came to be involved in theinvestigation, the nature of the task given to him, the search he performed, and the results of the searchgiven the parameters. He will discuss the frequency with which these types of searches are performed.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.23.. 8. (U) Ms. Strobl.l. (U) Information. Ms. Strobl is an information technology contractor that works for .Ms. Strobl will discuss how the systems that create the logs function generally She will also testify as to how those systems work together to createthe logs, the relevant content of the logs, and how she came to retrieve those logs.ll. (U) Alternatives. This is not a court closure witness. The parties have tentatively agreed tostipulate to the testimony.of this witness. If that fails, the defense is happy to work within thealternatives developed by the Government to ensure consistency for the witness and the Court.15. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in a closed session regarding USCENTCOM information: II. (U) Alternatives. The defense concedes that the Court should close to hear the testimony ofthis witness and follow the procedures described by the Government to preventthe disclosure of theidentity of this witness. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of this witness,pending the response to the defense interrogatory.16. (U) The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses who the defensebelieves will testify in a closed session regarding information: ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense concedes that the Court should close to hear the testimony ofthis witness and follow the procedures described by the Government to prevent the disclosure of theidentity of this witness. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of this witness. ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense concedes that the Court should close to hear the testimony ofthis witness and follow the procedures described by the Government to prevent the disclosure of theidentity of this witness. The parties have tentatively agreed to stipulate to the testimony of this witness. ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense concedes that the Court should close to hear the testimony ofthis witness and follow the procedures described by the Government to prevent the disclosure of theidentity of this witness.17. The defense provides the following notice with respect to those witnesses called by the defense:A. (U) Professor Yochai Benkler.I. (U) Professor Benkler will discuss the document that serves as the basis for Specification 15 ofCharge ll. Specifically, he will contextualize the response from the U.S. Government to the "threat"posed by the Wikileaks organization.ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense will avoid discussing classified information by having ProfessorBenkler describe the response of the U.S. Government in general terms, rather than associate with thecharged document contemplated by Specification 15.B. (U) Colonel Morris Davis (Retired).l. (U) Colonel Davis will discuss the charged documents from Specifications 8 and 9 of Charge ll.He will discuss the rationale behind the drafting of those charged documents and how those documentswere shared inside the U.S. Government. Colonel Davis will identify how those documents were used25 from their creation until their public disclosure. He will also place the release of these chargeddocuments in the context of other releases of the same or similar information from the sameheadquarters.ll. (U) Alternatives. The defense will avoid discussing classified information by having ColonelDavis talk in general terms about how these charged documents were used from their creation untilSummer 2010. If reference to a specific charged document is required, Colonel Davis will identify theparticular piece of classified information by its reference to a location on a page and then discuss howthat information may have been revealed prior to the disclosure by PFC Manning.C. (U) Ambassador Peter Galbraith.I. (U) Ambassador Galbraith will testify about the SIPDIS system and the type of cable thatwould and would not be distributed through SIPDIS. He will discuss the general contents of the NCDdatabase while not identifying any specific cable or openly discussing its contents. Instead, he willtestify about the general type of information contained within a SIPDIS cable. He will also testify thatthe NCD described international affairs from 300 embassies dating from 1966 to 2010, including cablesthat he drafted or that were drafted by his office. Additionally, he will testify about the number ofcables released that were unclassified, confidential, and secret. He will also discuss how none of thecables were classified as top secret.ll. (U) To date, Ambassador Galbraith has not been granted clearance to review any classifieddocuments associated with this case. The defense will avoid discussing classified information by havingAmbassador Galbraith testify in general terms about the topics described above.0. (U) Mr. Charles Ganiel.l. (U) Mr. Ganiel will testify as an intelligence analyst expert witness. Mr. Ganiel will testify thathe conducted internet search of the information relayed in the documents charged in Specification 13and found many documents that relayed the same factual information.ll. (U) Alternatives. This witness will testify about classified information by referring to thedocument itself and directing the Court to the portion of classified information that has been publiclyrevealed already. He will then show the Court what information was found during his internet research.Both aspects of this testimony will avoid publicly mentioning the substance of either of the groups ofdocuments in open court.E. (U) Mr. Cassius Hall.I. (U) Mr. Hall will testify about the charged documents that serve as the basis for Specifications5 and 7 of Charge II. He will discuss how those products are used and how much of the informationcontained in those documents was already publicly available over the internet or through otherunclassi?ed means. Mr. Hall will testify about those charged materials that serve as the basis forSpecifications 2 and 11 of Charge ll. Mr. Hall will testify about the charged documents that serve as thebasis for Specifications 3, 10, and 15.ll. (U) Alternatives. For Specifications 5 and 7, Mr. Hall will testify about classified informationby referring to the document itself and directing the Court to the portion of the classified informationthat has been publicly revealed already. He will then show the Court what information was found26during his internet research. Both aspects of this testimony will avoid publicly mentioning the substanceof either of the groups of documents in open court. For his testimony regarding Specifications 2, 3, 10,11, and 15, Mr. Hall will testify about these charged classified documents in a way that does not identifythem to the open public or confirm information contained in the documents. Mr. Hall will direct theCourt's attention to the particular substance of this testimony and then convey his testimony to theCourt in a way that avoids disclosing classified information.18. THOMAS F. HURLEYMAJ, JADefense Counsel27

e-Highlighter

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

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh