Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 39(a) Session, 2/28/13, Providence Inquiry for Formal Plea

US v. Pfc. Manning is being conducted in de facto secrecy. For more information on the lack of public and press access to United States v. Pfc. Manning, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights , which filed a petition requesting the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) "to order the Judge to grant the public and press access to the government's motion papers, the court's own orders, and transcripts of proceedings, none of which have been made public to date."

This is a transcript of the Article 39(a) Providence Inquiry held on February 28, 2013 at Fort Meade, Maryland in US v Pfc. Manning. It may contain omissions or errors.

  • Judge: Army Col. Denise Lind

  • Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard

  • Defense: Mr. David Coombs,Captain Joshua Tooman, Major Thomas Hurley

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order, let the record reflect all parties present when the court last recessed are again present in court. Is there anything we need to address before we move into the substantive areas we are going to look at today?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, just to recap for the open record that we closed the-- we made a closed session previous to now and the record of trial-- excuse me, the recording was classified at the secret no foreign level and currently now is unclassified.

There is also this court security officer conduct an inspection and filled out a check list from that inspection to make sure the court was properly cleared and then properly opened during that closed session, and that check list has been filed with the government and been put in the allied documents and not marked as an appellate exhibit.

Judge Lind

Alright, does either side-- or defense do you have any objection to not marking the administrative documents as appellate exhibits?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, we will proceed. Pfc. Manning it has been a long time since we have gone over basically what we've gone over with-- at the arraignment. And if you remember at the arraignment, we talked-- I talked to you about your rights to counsel.

And, you have had several changes-- or you have had changes along the way in the counsel.

And, you advised me the last time we had that discussion that you wished to be represented by Mr. Coombs, by Major Hurley, and by Captain Tooman.

Is that still your choice?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And we also talked about your forum rights-- and I would like to go over that again with you as well. You have the right to be tried by a court consisting of at least five officer members-- that is a court composed of commission and or warrant officers.

If you request it, you can be tried by a court consisting or at least one third enlisted members-- but none of those enlisted members could come from your unit. You are also advised that no member of the court can be junior in rank to you. Do you understand what I have said so far?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now if you are tried by court members, the members would vote by secret written ballot and two thirds of the members must agree before you can be found guilty of any offense.

If you were found guilty of-- two thirds must also agree in voting on the sentence, and if that sentence includes confinement for more than then three-fourths of the members would have to agree.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You may also request to be tried by military judge alone-- if your request is approved, there would be no court members and the military judge alone would decide whether you are guilty or not guilty and if you are found guilty, the military judge alone would determine your sentence.

Do you understand the difference between trial by members and trial by military judge alone?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

By what type of court do you wish to be tried?

Pfc. Manning

Judge alone.

Judge Lind

Is there a written request to trial by military judge alone?

Defense (Coombs)

There is your Honor. It has been marked as appellate exhibit 492.

Judge Lind

May I see it please? Alright, I have before me what has been marked as appellate exhibit 492.

Pfc. Manning do you have a copy of appellate exhibit 492 in front of you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Is that your signature there in block one charlie [1(c)]?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you know that I would be the military judge in your case when you signed this document?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is this request a voluntary one? Did you make this of your own free will?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

If I approve your request for trial by me alone, do you understand you are giving up your right to trial with members?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you still want to be tried by me alone?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright, your request is approved and the court is assembled. What is today's date?

Defense (Hurley)

It's the 28th Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Thank you. Alright, Major Fein, just to remind me-- there has been an amendment in the convening orders since the court began.

Can you just for the record detail what convening order we are on? What the latest convening order is?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. We are currently operating under court martial convening order number one, dated 11 February 2013, Headquarters US Army, Military District of Washington.

Judge Lind

Alright. Is the accused ready to enter pleas?

Judge Lind

Pfc. Manning, Mr. Coombs will speak on your behalf.

Accused and counsel please rise.

Pfc. Manning, how do you plea-- before receiving your plea, I advise you that any motions to dismiss or grant other appropriate relief should be made at this time.

Your defense counsel will speak for you.

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor.

My client pleads as follows:

To 'The Specification' of Charge I and to Charge I, not guilty.

To Specification 1 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 2 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '15 February 2010 and 5 April 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '14 February 2010 and 21 February 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 3 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '22 March 2010 and 26 March 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '17 March 2010 and 22 March 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 4 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 5 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '31 December 2009 and 9 February 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '5 January 2010 and 3 February 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 6 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 7 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '31 December 2009 and 9 February 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '5 January 2010 and 3 February 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 8 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 9 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures 'between on or about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures 'on or about 8 March 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 10 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '11 April 2010 and 27 May 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '10 April 2010 and 12 April 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 11 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 12 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Specification 13 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '27 May 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '4 May 2010'. Further excepting the words 'knowingly exceeded authorized access' substituting therefore the words 'knowingly accessed'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 US Code Section 1030(a)(1),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 14 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures '15 February 2010 and 18 February 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures '14 February 2010 and 15 February 2010'. Further excepting the words 'knowingly exceeded authorized access' substituting therefore the words 'knowingly accessed'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 US Code Section 1030(a)(1),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 15 of Charge II, guilty except the words and figures 'between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010' substituting therefore the words and figures 'on or about 8 March 2010'. Further excepting the words 'information relating to the national defense, to wit:'. Further excepting the words, 'with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted'; substituting the words 'did willfully communicate'. Further excepting the words and figures, 'in violation of 18 US Code Section 793(e),'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Specification 16 of Charge II, not guilty.

To Charge II, guilty.

To Specification 1 of Charge III, not guilty.

To Specification 2 of Charge III, not guilty.

To Specification 3 of Charge III, not guilty.

To Specification 4 of Charge III, not guilty.

To Specification 5 of Charge III, guilty except the words and figures '1 November 2009' substituting therefore the words and figures '8 January 2010'. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

To Charge III, guilty.

Judge Lind

Thank you. Please be seated.

Alright, Pfc. Manning, what is your full name?

Pfc. Manning

My full name is Edward Manning, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright-- Are you in the active Army?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

How long have you been in the active Army?

Pfc. Manning

At least five-- nearly five and a half years, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright-- have you had any breaks in service?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you a United States citizen?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright-- before we talk about the offenses that you are pleading guilty to I want to go over a few issues to make sure that you understand the full meaning and effect of your guilty plea. Do you have a copy of the charge sheet in front of you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have a copy of the lesser included offenses that you are pleading guilty to?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

First of all I want to talk about your waiver or your RCM 707 and 6th Amendment portions of your Speedy Trial motion.

Your defense counsel made a motion to dismiss your case, because the government violated your right to a Speedy Trial.

He provided three grounds for the motion: RCM 707, the 6th Amendment, and Article 10.

The court denied the motion and read the ruling on Tuesday, this week.

Your plea of guilty waives your Speedy Trial motion for the offenses to which you are pleading guilty to except for the Article 10-- the litigated Article 10 part of your motion. Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

That means an appellate court won't consider my ruling denying your Speedy Trial motion on RCM 707 or 6th Amendment grounds for the offenses to which you are pleading guilty to, do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And Mr. Coombs explained that to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now-- do you have any questions about this?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, knowing what Mr. Coombs told you and what I have told you, do you still want to plead guilty knowing that your RCM 707 and 6th Amendment grounds for your Speedy Trial motion are waived with respect to the offenses that you are pleading guilty to?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

The second issue I want to discuss with you is your discussion with me during the providence inquiry.

What we call the providence inquiry is basically our dialogue to establish your pleading guilty-- and your admitted guilt to the elements of the lesser included offenses that you are pleading guilty to.

Now I want to talk to you about how your plea to the lesser included offenses impacts the case if the government decides to go forward on the merits with the greater offenses.

Your statements in the providence inquiry cannot be used by the government or considered by me on the merits-- if the government tries to prove the greater offenses.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

However, your plea can be used to establish elements of the less included offense that are included within the greater offense without further proof by the government.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now in this case you are pleading guilty to lesser included offenses of specification charging violations of 18 Unites States Code 793(e) and 1030(a)(1).

As we'll discuss later the elements of 18 United States Code Section 793(e) that the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and how I would instruct on them are as follows.

Charge II, Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15 transmitting defense information.

This is how I would instruct if it was going to be a panel and I wasn't-- these are the instructions that I will follow-- even though I am not going to read them in a trial by a military judge alone.

In Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II you are charged with the offense of transmitting defense information in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 793(e) and Article 134 UCMJ.

In order to find the accused guilty of this offense, you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

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

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

Specification 3, between on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010, the accused without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency;

Specification 5, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, the accused without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database;

Specification 7, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, the accused without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database;

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

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

Specification 11, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, the accused without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over a file named "BE22 PAX. zip" containing a video named "BE22 PAX.wmv";

Specification 15, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010, the accused without authorization had possession of, access to, or control a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008;

The following elements are common to all the Specifications:

Element (2): classified records, memorandum, videos, and files described for each Specification in element (1) was information related to the national defense.

Element (3): The accused had reason to believe that the classified records, memorandum, videos, and files described for each specification in element (1) could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

[Element] (4) The accused willfully communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempted or caused to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the above material to any person not authorized to receive it.

[Element] (5) At the time 18 United States Code Section 793(e) was in existence on the dates alleged in the specifications.

[Element] (6) Under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit on the armed forces.

Then the definitions I would give if this was a members case-- and that I will follow if the government decides to go forward with the greater offense are as follows:

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

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

A person has unauthorized possession of documents, photographs, videos, or computer files when he possesses such information under circumstances or in a location that is contrary to law or regulation [missed a few words] of his employment.

The term national defense is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness. To prove the documents, writings, photographs, videos, or information relate to the national defense there are two things the government must prove.

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

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

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

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

Additionally, the likelihood of the information being used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation must not be remote, hypothetical, speculative, far-fetched, or fanciful. The government is not required to prove that the information obtained by the accused was in fact used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. The government does not have to prove that the accused had reason to believe that this act could both injure the United States and be advantageous to any foreign country. The statute reads in the alternative. Also, the country to whose advantage the information could be used may not necessarily be an enemy of the United States. The statute does not distinguish between friend and enemy.

Determining whether the person who received the information is entitled to receive it; you may consider all the evidence introduced at trial including any evidence concerning the classification status of the information; and evidence related to law enforcement regulations governing the classification and declassification of national security information; its handling, use, and distribution. As well as any evidence related to the regulations governing the handling, use, and distribution of information obtained from a classified systems.

I am taking judicial notice that Title 18 United States Code Section 793(e) was in existence on the dates alleged in Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 or Charge II.

Under prejudicial to good order and discipline is conduct which causes reasonably direct and obvious injury to good order and discipline.

Service discrediting conduct is conduct which tends to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in public esteem.

With respect to prejudice to good order and discipline, the law recognizes that almost any irregular or improper act on the part of the service member could be regarded as prejudicial and some indirect or remote sense. However, only those acts in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable is punished under this Article.

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

Under some circumstances the accused conduct may not be prejudicial to good order and discipline, but none the less may be service discrediting. As I've explain those terms to you, likewise depending on the circumstances the accused conduct can be prejudicial to good order and discipline but not service discrediting.

Now, you are pleading guilty to a lesser included offense by exceptions and substitutions.

Now you understand that some of the elements that-- your pleading guilty then to all of the specifications that have been charged under 18 United States Code Section 793(e) and Article 134 except Specification 11.

Now I told you earlier that your plea will establish certain elements that the government has to prove for the greater offense.

Now your guilty plea admits to the following elements.

It admits to element (1) that you had unauthorized possession of the video in Specification 2; more than one classified memorandum produced by a government agency in Specification 3; more than 20 classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database in Specification 5; more than 20 classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database for Specification 7; more than three classified records from a United States Southern Command database for Specification 9; more than five classified records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009 for Specification 10; and a classified record produced by a United States intelligence organization dated 18 March 2008 for Specification 15.

Your plea will also admit element (4) for all specifications except Specification 11-- that you willfully communicated the above material to a person not authorized to receive it.

Your guilty plea is also going to admit for all specification except Specification 11 that under the-- element (6)-- that under the circumstances your conduct is to the prejudice to the good order and discipline in the Armed Forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

There are two or three elements left that the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to find you guilty of the greater offense in violation of 18 United States Code Section 793(e) depending on the ruling that we discussed two days ago.

How I rule on the issue-- in that I am awaiting the parties' briefs on this issue.

Those elements are:

Element (2), that the classified records, memorandum, videos, and files described in each specification was information related to the national defense-- the government is going to have to prove that regardless of how I rule.

And element (3)-- this is the element at issue that I would be-- that you had reason to believe the classified records, memorandum, videos, and files described for each specification could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

And element (6) the government also will have to prove regardless of how I rule on element (3). At the time 18 United States Code Section 793(e) was in existence on the dates of the Specifications. Now with respect to element (6), I've taken judicial notice of the statute. So, the government doesn't have to present any further evidence to establish to establish its existence.

That leaves elements (2) and (3). The issue the parties are briefing me on is whether element (3) is required in document or tangible item cases or if it is only an added element for cases involving intangible information.

If I rule for the government on that issue-- essentially the only element the government would have to present-- additional evidence to prove after your plea is element (2)-- that the classified records, memorandum, videos, and files described for each specification was information related to the national defense. Do you understand this?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now if I rule for the defense then the government is also going to have to prove element (3)-- and if I rule for the defense and as a fact finder I subsequently find that the it's tangible information versus intangible information-- both of those would have to occur.

Alright, did your defense counsel explain all of this to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay. Do you have any questions about this?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you still want to go forward with your guilty plea to the LIO-- lesser included offense of the specifications under 18 United States Code 793(e)-- except for Specification 11-- that you are pleading guilty to?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, now the same is true of your pleas to the lesser included offenses of Specifications of 13 and 14 of Charge II. The elements the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for those specifications-- and how I would instruct on them are:

Charge II, Specifications 13 and 14-- fraud and related activity with computers.

In Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II, the accused is charged for the offense of fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) and Article 134, UCMJ.

In order to find the accused guilty of this offense you must be convinced by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) That at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq: Specification 13, between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010; in Specification 14 between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 18 February 2010 the accused knowingly accessed a computer exceeding authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network.

(2) That the accused obtained information that has been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations to wit: Specification 13, more than 75 classified United States Department of State cables; Specification 14, a classified Department of State cable entitled Reykjavik 13.

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

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

(5) That the accused acted willfully; and,

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

The same definitions for prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces that I read for you in specifications-- for the specification of 18 United States Code 793(e) also apply to this offense.

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

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

The term computer means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical or arithmetic or storage function and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. But such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter or any portable handheld calculator or other similar device.

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

Reason to believe means knew facts from which he concluded or reasonably should have concluded that the information could be used for the prohibitive purposes. In considering whether the accused had reason to believe that the information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign country, you may consider the nature of the information involved. You need not determine that the accused had reason to believe that the information would be used against the United States only that it could be used. Additionally, the likelihood of the information being used to the injury of the United States of the advantage of any foreign nation must not be to remote, hypothetical, speculative, far fetched or fanciful.

The government is not required to prove that the information obtained by the accused was in fact used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. The government does not have to prove that the accused had reason to believe his act could both injure the United States and be to the advantage of any foreign nation. Also, the country whose advantage the information could be use, need not necessarily be an enemy of the United States. The statute does not distinguish between friend and enemy.

In determining whether the person who had received the information was entitled to receive it, you may consider all the evidence introduced at trial including any evidence concerning the classification status of the information; and evidence relating to law and regulations governing the classification and declassification of the national security information; its handling, use, and distribution as well as any evidence related to the regulations governing the handling, use, and distribution obtained from classification systems.

The term person means any individual, firm, corporation, education institution, financial institution, government entity, or legal or other entity.

I've given judicial notice that Title 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) was in existence on the date alleged in the specification[s].

Now again you are pleading guilty to lesser included offenses in Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II by exceptions and substitutions. Your guilty plea admits to the following elements:

Element (1). Your plea admits that you knowingly accessed a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer. The government still has to prove if they go forward with the greater offense that you exceeded authorized access. So element one is kind of bifurcated. You are admitting part of it and the government still has to prove part of it.

Element (2). That you obtained information that has been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations to wit: more than seventy five classified United States Department of State cables for Specification 13; and for Specification 14 a classified Department of State cable entitled Reykjavik 13.

Element (4) that you are also admitting that you willfully communicated the above material to a person not entitled to receive it-- and that would be element (5), excuse me.

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

Now there are two elements and one element in part that the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to find you guilty of the greater offense, in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1). Those elements are:

Partial of element (1), the government would have to prove that you knowingly exceeded authorized access.

Element (3), that you have reason to believe the information obtained could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation; and,

Element (6) at the time 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) was in existence on the dates alleged in specification.

Now once again with respect to element (6) I've taken judicial notice of the statute. So, the government doesn't have to present any further proof to establish its existence.

That leaves partial element of (1) and element (3).

Do you understand this?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did your defense counsel explain this to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions about this?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you still want to go forward with your plea with respect to the lesser included offense of 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) that you are pleading guilty to?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Finally, I want you to understand how your guilty plea will work if the government decides to go forward with the greater offense.

If I find your plea is provident, I am not making any findings today.

If the government decides to go forward with the greater offenses, the government would present their evidence in the merits portion of the case.

As I said before, I can't use anything that you tell me during the providence inquiry.

Everything that the government presents is going to have-- they are going to have to present without that evidence at the merits portion of the trial.

And I would have two possible findings regarding the specifications, when you have entered guilty pleas:

Guilty to the lesser included offense pursuant to your plea or guilty to the greater offense if proved by the government.

There will be no possibility for me to find you not guilty based on your plea.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions about any of that, that I have just discussed with you?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you still want to plead guilty?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright Pfc. Manning, your counsel has entered a plea of guilty to lesser included offenses by exceptions and substitutions for several of the charges and specifications.

Your plea of guilty will not be accepted unless you understand its full meaning and effect.

I am going to discuss your guilty plea with you.

You may wish to consult with your defense counsel at anytime before answering any of my questions.

If you have any questions of me feel free to ask them.

Judge Lind

A plea of guilty is equivalent to a conviction and is the strongest form of proof known to the law.

On your plea alone without receiving any evidence this court can find you guilty of the offenses for which you have pled guilty.

Your plea will not be accepted unless you realize that by your plea you admit every act or omission and every element of the offenses to which you have pled guilty.

And that you are pleading guilty, because you are actually in fact guilty.

If you do not believe that you are guilty than you should not for any reason plead guilty.

Do you understand what I have said so far?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

By your plea of guilty, you give up three important rights, but you give up these rights solely with respect to the offenses for which you pled guilty.

First, the right against self-incrimination. That is your right to say nothing at all.

Second, the right to a trial of the facts by this court. That is your right to have this court-martial decide whether you are guilty or not guilty based upon evidence the prosecution would present and on any evidence that you might introduce.

And, third, the right to be confronted by and to cross-examine any witnesses called against you.

Do you have any questions about any of these right?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, do you understand that by pleading guilty you no longer have these rights with respect to the offenses to which you have plead guilty?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

If you continue with your guilty plea, you will placed under oath and I will question you to determine whether you are in fact guilty.

Anything you tell me may be used against you in the sentencing portion of the trial.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

If you tell me anything that is not true, your statements may be used against you later for charges of perjury by making false statements.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And your plea of guilty as we just discussed to a lesser included offense may also be used to establish certain elements of the charge offense, if the government decides to proceed on the charged offense.

Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Trial counsel, please place Pfc. Manning under oath.

Prosecution (Fein)

Pfc. Manning, please stand and face [missed] and raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements you shall make are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Sir, I do.

Prosecution (Fein)

Please be seated.

Judge Lind

Alright is there a stipulation of fact in this case?

Defense (Coombs)

There is not, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, defense I understand that this a plea without a plea agreement or a stipulation of fact between the parties. Is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright and I understand that Pfc. Manning has prepared a statement to orient the court to the facts.

It has been marked as-- as an appellate exhibit. Is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

It is your Honor. Appellate exhibit 498.

Judge Lind

May I see appellate exhibit 498 please?

Defense (Coombs)

Actually, I stand corrected your Honor. Appellate exhibit 499.

Judge Lind

Thank you. Alright I have before me what has been marked as appellate exhibit 499. Pfc. Manning do you have a copy of the statement in front of you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor. Before we-- we go into appellate exhibit 499 would it be possible for a ten minute comfort break?

Judge Lind

Certainly. Let me-- we'll take it in just a minute here. Pfc. Manning, I am looking at appellate exhibit 499-- do you want me to use this statement when we go through our providence inquiry to orient me to the facts of what you are pleading guilty to?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, now-- did you read this document thoroughly before you gave it to the court to use for the purposes of you providence inquiry?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And do you understand that nobody-- you're pleading guilty in what we call in military parlance a 'naked plea', which means there is no stipulation of fact.

There is nothing to orient the court to the facts of what you are pleading guilty to.

But, that doesn't mean you have to provide a statement to the court.

I mean we could just go-- you could explain to me what the facts were.

You don't-- nobody, who pleads guilty without the stipulation of facts has to provide a voluntary statement to the court.

Are you providing this statement voluntarily?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am. I am.

Judge Lind

Now, Pfc. Manning, do you remember when I told you-- that if you told me anything that's not true your statements could be used against you later for charges of perjury or making false statements?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now that is also true with respect to this statement here, if you decide to read it as part of your providence inquiry.

Now your defense counsel has advised me that, that is what you want to do. Is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you do understand that if you do read this statement and you tell me something that is not true that the statement can be used against later for charges of perjury or making false statements.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Your counsel has asked for a brief recess-- what we are going to do is that we'll take that recess-- we will come back.

You can read your statement and then we will go over-- I'll be oriented to the facts.

We will go over each of the specifications that you are pleading guilty to at that time.

How long would you like for recess?

Defense (Coombs)

Just ten minutes your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am if we could just make it fifteen because of the number of spectators.

Judge Lind

Why don't we do that? We'll just reconvene here at eleven o'clock. Court is in recess.

ALL RISE

ALL RISE

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order let the record reflect all parties present when the court last recessed are again present in court.

Judge Lind

Pfc. Manning, you may read your statement.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I wrote this statement in the confinement facility. Start now. The following facts are provided in support of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.

Personal Facts.

I am a twenty-five year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison (USAG), Joint Base Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia.

My [exodus?] assignment I was assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY. My primary military occupational specialty or MOS is 35 Foxtrot intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real world experience and earning benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.

Facts regarding my position as an intelligence analyst.

In order to enlist in the Army I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or [ASVAB?]. My score on this battery was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted MOS position. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him that I was interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested that I consider becoming an intelligence analyst.

After researching the intelligence analyst position, I agreed that this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available choices for determining the best course of action or COA's. Although the MOS required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources in order to create products that assisted the command in its situational awareness or SA.

I accessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October 2007. I then traveled to and reported at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 2 October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT.

Once at Fort Leonard Wood I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience lasted six months instead of the normal ten weeks. Due to medical issues, I was placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained injuries to my right soldier and left foot.

Due to those injuries I was unable to continue 'basic'. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 2[8 or 20?] January 2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared and I completed training on 2 April 2008.

I then reported for the MOS specific Advanced Individual Training or AIT on 7 April 2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training where I felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in and did well. I preferred the mental challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods I was familiar with.

I graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station, Fort Drum, NY on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use the tools organic to the Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command.

The non-commissioned officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P. Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool abandoned by a previously assigned analyst, the incident tracker. The incident tracker was viewed as a back up to the Combined Information Data Network Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference to work with.

In the months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were from Afghanistan, because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.

As and analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs give a first look impression of a specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device attack or IED, small arms fire engagement or SAF, engagement with a hostile force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time.

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation (HN) media.

As I started working with SigActs I felt they were similar to a daily journal or log that a person may keep. They capture what happens on a particular day in time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated over a period of hours until final version is published on the Combined Information Data Network Exchange. Each unit has its own Standard Operating Procedure or SOP for reporting and recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison.

In garrison, a SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.

In deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the company headquarters through the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle non-commissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle NCO receives the report they will either (1) notify the battalion operations officer or S3; (2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force; or (3) record the event and report-- and further report it up the chain of command to the brigade.

The reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can either be added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division to corps. At corps level the SigAct is finalized and [missed word].

The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense-- DoD personnel-- including soldiers, civilians, and contractors support. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater-- CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.

CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle-space data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander's daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting.

As an intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct reports, and Counter IED reports, because these reports were used to create a work product I was required to published as an analyst.

In working on an assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was-- the search tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD and Intellink search engines.

Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a back up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data including SigActs to back up analysis that were based on HUMINT reporting and produce charts, graphs, and tables. I also created maps and charts to conduct predictive analysis based on statistical trends. The SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcome.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

It is my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified only because they are maintained within CIDNE-- because it is only accessible on SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was treated as classified information.

Facts regarding the storage of SigAct Reports.

As part of my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back ups of my work product. The need to create back ups was particularly acute given the relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.

The organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were Dell [missed word] laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alienware brand laptops. The [M90?] D6-A laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical problems with the laptops.

With these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information due to the multiple backups I created. I attempted to backup as much relevant information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored.

When backing up information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training:

[(1)] Physical back up. I tried to keep physical back up copies of information on paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to brief from hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.

(2) Local drive back up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and keep complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on the desktop.

[(3)] Shared drive backup. Each analyst had access to a 'T' drive-- what we called 'T' drive shared across the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. S6 operated the 'T' drive.

[(4)] Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back up. For larger datasets I saved the information onto a re-writable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy permitted us the ability to not worry about information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information from my secondary computer, the 'T' drive, or one of the CD-RWs.

If another analyst wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my published products directory on the 'T' drive or on the CD-RWs. I sorted all of my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was available to them.

During the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever computer crashed, I usually lost information but the redundancy method ensured my ability to quickly restore old backup data and add my current information to the machine when it was repaired or replaced.

I stored the backup CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or next to my workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type and not marked with classification markings. Early on in the deployment, I only saved and stored the SigActs that were within or near our operational environment.

Later I thought it would be easier to just to save all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to complete and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CD-RW. After finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open a pre-loaded spreadsheet.

This process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the background as I did other tasks.

The process took approximately a week for each table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by pulling only the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on appropriately labeled and marked CD-RWs, stored in the open.

I viewed the saved copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as both for my use and the use of anyone within the S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.

In addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports that were relevant to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and the Diyala Province of Iraq.

In order to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called 'bzip2'. The program used to compress the data is called 'WinRAR'. WinRAR is an application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR on NIPRnet and transferred it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a CD-RW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.

With the assistance of the bzip2 compression algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit all of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter IED reports onto a separate CD-RW.

Facts regarding my knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization or WLO.

I first became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, although I did not fully pay attention until the WLO released purported Short Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.

The stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.

After this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searches on both NIPRnet and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one of my searches in December 2009, I found the United States Army Counter Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After reviewing the report, I believed that this report was possibly the one that my AIT referenced in early 2008.

I may or may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing the report, I continued doing research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to exposing illegal activities and corruption.

WLO received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also, in reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on the then outdated rules of engagement for ROE in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam Hussein [missed word] government.

After seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it and collecting open source information from it. During this time period, I followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to do during AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do.

During the searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in my work product-- in my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated this information into one or more of my work products.

In addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instant Relay Chat or IRC Client called 'XChat' sometime in early January 2010.

IRC is a protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing, colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. The IRC chat rooms are designed for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a channel-- similar to a television where you can tune in or follow a channel-- so long as it is open and does not require an invite.

Once joining a specific IRC conversation, other users in the conversation can see that you have joined the room. On the Internet there are millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies. The primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity-- particularly in regards to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal.

Initially I simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on issues the particular individual may have felt strongly about.

Over a period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics, such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would describe the WL organization as almost academic in nature. In addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC channels across at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I participated in normally dealt with technical topics including with Linux and Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS's, networking, encryption algorithms and techniques, and other more political topics, such as politics and [missed word].

I normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously-- mostly publicly, but often privately. The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple conversations across different channels and servers. The screen for XChat was often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.

I really enjoyed the IRC conversations pertaining to and involving the WLO, however, at some point in late February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible. Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber server. Jabber is another internet communication [missed word] similar but more sophisticated than IRC.

The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel connected to others even when alone. They helped me pass the time and keep motivated throughout the deployment.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the SigActs.

As indicated above I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back up. However, I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believe and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents of our time.

On 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my ACU or Army Combat Uniform. At the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop. Later at the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them.

At some point prior to my mid-tour leave, I transferred the information from my computer to a Secure Digital memory card for my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also worked on my computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure manner for transport.

I began mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia to Reagan National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland and quickly got into contact with my then boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler, then a student at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, and I made plans for me to visit him [the] Boston, Massachusetts area.

I was excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to Tyler about where our relationship was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area Tyler and I seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make any plans.

I also tried raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler didn't really have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be supportive, but seemed confused by the question and its context.

I then tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to explain my dilemma, I decided just to drop the conversation. After a few days in Waltham, I began feeling that I was over staying my welcome, and I returned to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC area.

During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic, and I spent a significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt's house in Maryland. I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on the ground reality of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

At my aunt's house I debated what I should do with the SigActs-- in particular whether I should hold on to them-- or expose them through a press agency. At this point I decided it made sense to try to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local newspaper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if The Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public.

Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that The Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by the senior editors.

I then decided to contact the largest and most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on The New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu to the section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

I also briefly considered dropping into the office for the Political Commentary blog, Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to travel. After these failed efforts I had ultimately decided to submit the materials to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would actually publish the SigAct tables [missed a few words]. I was also concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media. However, based upon what I read about the WLO through my research described above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within my reach.

At my aunt's house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. However, before I could describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO website's online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to release the SigActs.

On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by a special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR clients in order to conceal the user's location and identity.

I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media websites of militia groups operating within central Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to The Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying 'It's already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information-- perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.'

After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt's house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been published by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13.

I first became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in AIT. I later learned about the Department of State or DoS Net-centric Diplomacy NCD portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2, Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim sent a section wide email to the other analysts and officers in late December 2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal along with the instructions to look at the cables contained within them and to incorporate them into our work product.

Shortly after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in products from the corps level US Forces Iraq or USF-I. Based upon Captain Lim's direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every published cable concerning Iraq.

I also began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my curiosity. It was around this time-- in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland and find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland's banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the United Kingdom's use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic assets for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.

The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything.

From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10 Reykjavik 13 I debated on whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables. Despite not knowing if the SigActs were a priority for the WLO, I decided the cable was something that would be important and I felt I might be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it onto my personal laptop.

I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, when WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving that the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video.

During the mid-February 2010 time frame the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analyst , then Specialist Jihrleah W. Showman and others discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the 'T' drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.

As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.

Using Google I searched for the event by its date general location. I found several news accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to be able to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request, they still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely 'good samaritans'. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote "dead bastards" unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew's lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see that the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew-- as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kid's into a battle" unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team crew verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body-- or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As, I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel's account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.

It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel's portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as 'payback' for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture-- his friendly intent-- only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it's all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together , and it burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period-- as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW, the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules of engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I redeployed in Summer of 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February 2010, as described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would be received by the general public.

I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public, who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled-- if not more troubled that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense and CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton a link to the video that was on our 'T' drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the Open Source Center, so she could compare them herself.

Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to made it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote Reuters FOIA REQ on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of 'Starting Out in Arabic' CD's. I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after I re-deployed , so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.

Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and the rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of 'office'-- at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I assessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO.

Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information. However, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [he pronounced it with three syllables], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange and Schmidt.

As the communications transferred from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave 'office' and later 'pressassociation' the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009.

After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work.

The anonymity that was provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO's policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life. In real life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section, the S2 section.

In my section, the S2 section and supported battalions and the 2nd Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation. Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on nearly a daily basis and I felt that we were developing a friendship.

Conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about pretty much anything, and not just the publications that the WLO was working on. In retrospect I realize that that these dynamics were artificial and were valued more by myself than Nathaniel. For me these conversations represented an opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose the respect, trust, and support I needed.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of documents related to the detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, and the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report.

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police or FP detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter, and figure out who these quote 'bad guys' unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.

Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several photos from the scene-- from the subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team than the S2 section and she forwarded them to me.

These photos included picture of the individuals, pallets of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final printed material or the printed document; and a high resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed up one [missed word] copy of a high resolution photo-- I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category two interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half an hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim, since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The documentation, as I had sensed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki's government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police's report and the interpreter's transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn't need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote "drop it" unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote "anti-Iraqi literature" unquote.

I couldn't believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work. And, as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate a situation.

I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time-- if ever.

Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, in the hope that before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down on political opponents of al-Maliki.

On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreter's hand written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the data onto my personal computer. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the WLO website's submission form. I made a Secure File Transfer Protocol or SFTP connection to a file drop box operated by the WLO.

The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory, allowed anyone with log in access to the server to view and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.

I attempted to provide the specifics, but to my disappointment, the WLO website chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting through information from the US Southern Command or SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me-- although unlikely, that I wouldn't be surprised if the individuals detained by the Federal Police might be turned over back into US custody-- and ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

As I digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly found the Detainee Assessment Briefs or DABs. I previously came across the documents before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time I was more curious during this search and I found them again.

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic and background information about a specific detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested on the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, I felt that's what we were trying to do at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

However, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.

I also recall that in early 2009 the, then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated that he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote 'moral authority' unquote.

After familiarizing myself with the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I agree. Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR's. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide a very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB's were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very important from either an intelligence or a national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DABs were of any use to anyone.

Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. He also thought that the DAB's might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently and previously held at JTF-GTMO.

After this discussion, I decided to download the DABs. I used an application called Wget to download the DABs. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my 'My Documents' directory of my user profile, on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took the list of links for the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and Wget downloaded them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them to my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center report on the WLO, into a compressed [missed word] or zip file. Zip files contain multiple files which are compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their cloud drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel that the information was in the 'x' directory, which had been designated for my own use. Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO.

As discussed above, I previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the document onto the work station before, I could not locate it. After I found the document again, I downloaded it to my work station, and saved it onto the same CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.

Although my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report. Up to this point I had sent them the following: the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs tables; the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable; the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video and the 2006-2007 rules of engagement documents; the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police; the USSOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs; a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization website.

Over the next few weeks I did not send any additional information to the WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with the WLO pressured me into giving more information. The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO and website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of other Government documents.

One 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analyst. Based on my training and the guidance of my superiors, I look at as much information as possible.

Doing so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a government entity. I read several documents from a section within this government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling. I compressed them into a zip file named blah.zip and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved the file to my personal computer.

I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy Department of State cables.

In late March of 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations decrease significantly. During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me.

I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy server. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated by the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think that the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity level of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that-- that this type of information should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State information that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States; however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.

I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net Centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them onto a CD-RW.

These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the bzip2 compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box described above.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update of the cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010 and saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. Although I intended to re-save another copy of these cables, I was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of Garani, Farah Province Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos.

In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directly on a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM for information I could use as an analyst. As described above, this was something that myself and other analysts and officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the documents I recalled the incident and what happened. The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage during the time as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians-- mostly women and children-- were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and the [missed word] annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq. However, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. Also, the conclusions of the report are even more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident.

I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions helped explain how this incident occurred, and what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.

After investigating the report and its annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations, and several other supporting documents to my D6-A workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transferred it to the personal computer in my CHU. I did later that day or the next day-- I uploaded the information to the WLO website this time using a new version of the WLO website submission form.

Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer.

Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.

Judge Lind

Alright. Looking at the time, my proposal for the way forward would be to take a recess that we were discussing earlier; go over the charged documents briefly and then recess for lunch, and then begin the rest of the providence inquiry.

Is that acceptable for both sides or would you prefer something different?

Defense (Coombs)

That is fine with the defense your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. United States asks for ten minutes for the recess.

Judge Lind

Alright. The court is in recess until twenty five minutes after twelve.

ALL RISE

ALL RISE

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order. Let the record reflect all parties are present when the court last recessed are again present in court. Now Major Fein, I understand there has been an additional appellate exhibit marked. Would you like to describe it for the record?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. Appellate exhibit-- what has been marked as appellate exhibit 501-- is a compilation-- two different binders combined of all the different charged documents for which Private First Class Manning is pleading guilty today to.

It also-- for the record-- Private First Class Manning [missed word] located in the panel box in the back row with a copy of appellate exhibit 501 and a charge sheet in front of him-- another copy of the appellate exhibit 501-- record copy is-- excuse me-- the record copy is in front of Pfc. Manning and the court has a copy in front of her as well.

Judge Lind

Alright, thank you.

Alright, Pfc. Manning what I would like to do is go through there are two binders-- do you have a copy of them in front of you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright I would like to go through appellate exhibit 501 and have you look through the binder with me when we go through this to make sure that you identify-- that you either identify or don't whether these documents are the actual charge documents that you are pleading guilty to.

Let's look at tab one.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Which would be the charged documents for Charge II, Specification 2-- which would be a video file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"-- Now you are looking at a video.

Have you had an opportunity to look at this video?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is it the video that has been charged in the Specification 2 of Charge II?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Now unlike the rest of the charges-- this one says 'a video file'.

So, is it classified or not classified?

Pfc. Manning

It is not, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, thank you. Let's look at tab two.

Please take a look at the documents and let me know when you are finished.

Pfc. Manning

I am finished, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are the pages on tab-- enclosed in tab two the charged documents in Specification 3 of Charge II which would be 'more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency'?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. And are they in fact classified?

Pfc. Manning

They are, your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

Let's look at tab three. Once again-- same procedure for all these tabs.

Just take a look through them and let me know when you are finished.

Pfc. Manning

I am finished, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Are the pages at tab three the charged documents in Specification 15, which would be 'a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization'?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

[missed word] Are they [missed word] classified as well?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor [missed a few words]. Is it possible that Private First Class Manning [I missed exact language, but essentially Manning is asked to keep the binder down in his lap because it contains classified documents, most of which incidentally is published on the internet]?

Judge Lind

Alright, I think the goal is-- just keep it down, thank you. Pfc. Manning, I know that this is making it a little bit more difficult.

Let's look at tab four.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am. Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Are you finished with the documents in tab four?

Pfc. Manning

I am, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are those the documents-- are those the charged documents for Specification 5 of Charge II, which would be 'more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database'?

Pfc. Manning

They are, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And are they classified as well?

Pfc. Manning

Yes [missed word].

Judge Lind

Alright, let's look at tab five.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, are these documents at tab five the charged documents for Specification 7 or Charge II.

That would be 'more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database'?

Pfc. Manning

They are your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright-- are they classified as well?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, let's look at tab six.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, are the documents at tab six the charged documents for Specification 9 of Charge II? That is 'more than three classified records from a United States Southern Command database'?

Pfc. Manning

It is your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are they classified as well?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. They are.

Judge Lind

Alright, let's look at tab seven.

Pfc. Manning

I am finished your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, are the documents at enclosure seven the charged documents in Specification 10 of Charge II? That would be 'more than five classified records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009'?

Pfc. Manning

They are, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are they classified as well?

Pfc. Manning

Most of it is your Honor.

Judge Lind

Look at tab eight.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is this the document that is charged in Specification 14 of Charge II-- which would be 'a classified Department of State cable titled "Reykjavik-13"'?

Pfc. Manning

It is, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is it classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright-- let's look at enclosure nine.

Pfc. Manning

I'm finished your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, are the documents at tab nine, the charged documents in Specification 13 of Charge II, which would be 'more than seventy-five classified United States Department of State cables'?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Are they-- you testified earlier that most of the Department of State cables were not classified. Are these documents in enclosure nine classified?

Pfc. Manning

These ones, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, are you convinced there's over over 70-- there's more than 75 of them?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side desire any further inquiry with respect to appellate exhibit 501?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, this appears to be a good time to break for lunch. How long would the parties like?

Unknown

14 hundred.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs. Does that work for the a--

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Prosecution (Fein)

Alright, court is in recess till 14 hundred.

ALL RISE

ALL RISE

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order. Let the record reflect all parties present when the court last recessed are again present in court.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am for the record, Private First Class Manning is back at counsel's table.

Judge Lind

Alright. Okay, Pfc. Manning let's continue on then with your providence inquiry.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright, I am going to explain the elements for which you plead guilty. By elements I mean those facts which a prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before you could be found guilty if you had pled not guilty.

When I state each element ask yourself two things. First is the element true, and second whether you want to admit that it is true.

After I list the elements for you, be prepared to talk to me about the facts regarding the offenses.

I want you to take a look at Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of Charge II as you pled them.

These specifications allege the events of-- as originally charged led to the offense of transmitting defense information in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 793(e) and Article 134, UCMJ.

Your counsel has entered a plea of guilty by exceptions and substitutions for you to the lesser included offense of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct under Article 134, clauses (1) and (2).

By pleading guilty to this offense you are admitting that the following elements are true and accurately describe what you did.

Element (1) At of near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq Specification 2 between on or about 14 February 2010 and 21 February 2010, you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over a video named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"; Specification 3 between on or about 17 March and 22 March 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over one classified memorandum produced by a United States government agency; Specification 5 between on or about 5 January 2010 and 3 February 2010, you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database; Specification 7 between on or about 5 January 2010 and 3 February 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database; Specification 9 on or about 8 March 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over more than three classified records from a United States Southern Command database; Specification 10 between on or about 10 April 2010 and 12 April 2010 you you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over more than five classified records related to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009; and Specification 15 on or about 8 March 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, control over a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization dated 18 March 2008.

Elements common to all specifications:

Element (2) that you willfully communicated the classified records, classified memorandum, videos, and files described for each specification in element (1) to a person not authorized to receive it; and

[Element] (3) that under the circumstances your conduct was the prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Alright the definitions that apply to these offenses are:

Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline is conduct which causes a reasonably direct and obvious injury to good order and discipline.

Service discrediting conduct is conduct which tends to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in public esteem.

With respect to prejudice to good order and discipline the law recognizes that almost any irregular or improper act on the part of the service member would be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense. However, only those acts in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable is punishable under this Article.

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

Under some circumstances your conduct may not be prejudicial to good order and discipline, but none the less be service discrediting. As I have explained [missed a few words], likewise depending on the circumstances, your conduct could be prejudicial to good order and discipline, but not be service discrediting.

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

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

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

If this was a-- before a trier of fact, whether the person who received the information was entitled to have it, the trier of fact would consider all that the evidence introduced at trial to include any evidence concerning the classification status of the information; any evidence relating to the laws and regulations governing classification and declassification of national security information; its handling and distributions; as well as any evidence relating to regulations governing the handling, use, and distribution of information obtained from classification systems.

For a person, and individual, firm, corporation, education institution, financial institution, government entity, or legal or other entity.

Do you understand the elements and the definitions as I read them to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions about them?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you understand that your plea of guilty admits that these elements accurately describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you believe and admit that the elements and definition correctly describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And do you understand as we talked about before that if I accept your plea to these lesser included offenses and the government decides to go forward with the greater offense, your plea is going to establish some-- the elements that we talked about earlier-- some of the elements of the greater offense-- do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright why don't we go-- we'll just go in order here. Why don't we start with Specification 2 of Charge II?

But before we get there, let's talk-- let's talk in generalities. You went over some of this in your statement. And as we go through this I may be asking you just to orient in your statement where you talk about the particular specifications involved.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

But, just in the beginning, you told me earlier-- you testified earlier that you were in the Army for about five and a half years. Is that accurate?

Pfc. Manning

Just under, yes your Honor.

Judge Lind

And were you in-- stationed at Fort Drum, NY before you deployed?

Pfc. Manning

I was in training for [missed a few words]-- well, yes your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, well just briefly walk me through then-- you came into the Army, and you said your basic training lasted a little bit longer than usual?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And then when did you go to AIT?

Pfc. Manning

That would have been April 2008, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and you were an intelligence analyst?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And just in a nut shell, what-- what as an intelligence analyst-- what do they train you to do with classified information?

Pfc. Manning

One of the first things that they teach at-- or whenever I went through training was-- one of the first thing they teach is information security, which is-- it's mostly talking about classified information specifically.

Judge Lind

Were you-- in your training did they tell you-- who get's to classify information in the United States?

Pfc. Manning

The original classification authorities. They have the actual authority although they can delegate that authority from what I understand, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and if person isn't an original classification authority or delegate, do they have the authority to classify information-- at the original level?

Pfc. Manning

At the original-- no.

Judge Lind

What about to declassify information?

Pfc. Manning

I don't know that, your Honor. I think it requires the original classification authorities approval, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So you went to AIT and you learned about information security?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And then what happened, where did you go after AIT?

Pfc. Manning

When I traveled to Fort Drum. Then I stayed there until I deployed, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you were still in a training status at that time?

Pfc. Manning

We weren't officially-- I was in garrison, your Honor. But, we spent most of our time-- I spent most of my time at Fort Drum in some kind of training, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You mean like soldierly training or [missed word] intelligence class training?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. So, we had TDY to different locations and we went to Fort Polk for two months, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, your unit was gearing up to deploy then--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Okay. And when did you deploy?

Pfc. Manning

We deployed October of 2009, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And when you deployed you said you were-- you testified that you were at FOB Hammer, and that is in Iraq?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. What was your job there?

Pfc. Manning

I was a-- I was an analyst that had-- I had a particular problem set as my assignment-- as my assignment thing that I did. It was-- we were a militia-- I was a militia expert. There's a different name for it, but [missed a few words] we didn't go by that publicly, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and I'm not trying to elicit any classified information. So, if I am heading that way, please stop me.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. So, you are in Iraq. Where do you-- when you are doing this intelligence analyst work, where are you doing it?

Pfc. Manning

We were doing it in the Temporary SCIF-- the Temporary Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility at the Brigade Headquarters building that we had at FOB Hammer, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So that is called a SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

T-SCIF, your Honor.

Judge Lind

T-SCIF. What's a SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

A SCIF is a Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility where information at higher-- than the higher level of sensitivity-- there are-- the Government has authorized these particular locations to hold this information, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Can anybody go into a SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

What are the requirements to go into a SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Generally, you need to have an SCI-- or you have to have an SCI clearance from-- caveat to your security clearance or an escort and-- you know, go-- they can-- they can lower-- you can make a SCIF 'clean'-- you can clean a SCIF for temporary visitors, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. But you worked there permanently, is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, what was your clearance level at that time?

Pfc. Manning

Top Secret, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, what is the difference between a SCIF and you said you worked at a T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

What is the difference between a SCIF and a T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

T-SCIF are locations that are assigned by a government agency to hold this information temporarily. So, they're not designed to be permanent structures or locations. So, they have some-- they don't always meet all of the requirements that a full SCIF has, because of the-- because it is in the field or something, you know.

Judge Lind

So, when you are in the SCIF and you are working, what kind of automation do you use? Do you have just a regular computer or is it something different?

Pfc. Manning

We have lots of computers, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. If you have-- well, what is a-- let's go to SIPRNET-- what is SIPRnet?

Pfc. Manning

SIPRnet is the Internet Protocol system that we have at the Secret level, where we can transfer information out to that level of information on it.

Judge Lind

Okay. Do the charged documents that we are talking about at issue-- were they all on SIPRnet?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, they didn't come from any other-- SIPRnet is a system on a particular computer, is that right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You can't have your regular computer and put-- access SIPRnet through that, can you?

Pfc. Manning

No. No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So it is a separate computer-- basically is it to hold Secret level classified information?

Pfc. Manning

Up to that level, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Pfc. Manning

It can be lower, but.

Judge Lind

Can it be unclassified?

Pfc. Manning

It can hold unclassified information on there, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, if you're working with a SCIF and you have unclassified information-- or you are working in a SCIF and you're using SIPRNet and you have unclassified information-- is on SIPRNet, are you allowed to print that out and take it with you?

Pfc. Manning

If it is unclassified--

Judge Lind

Yes.

Pfc. Manning

--and the paper has unclassified on the top and bottom, then yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now what if it has-- or there is a paragraph in it that has a Secret classification-- well first of all before we get there, can you explain to me the difference between classification levels of the Confidential level-- of the Secret level-- of the Top Secret level?

Pfc. Manning

Generally, yes, your Honor.

So the-- information at the Confidential level which the military-- which I mean, we all usually use Confidential, but-- Confidential usually involves the lower sensitivity of documents and I think you don't have to necessarily always have it in a-- in a-- you don't always have to lock it up-- you can leave-- you can leave some of it on your desk, and things like that, your Honor.

But for Secret, you can-- you have to lock it up-- and there are [missed a few words] that has control over that level and then at the TS level there is so many different-- there's a lot different types of handling instructions, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Well with Secret level-- if you are working in a T-SCIF, like you were, and you are working with Secret level documents that are-- I guess are hard copy--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

--and you finish work or you leave the SCIF to go for dinner or something like that. Do you have to store them in a particular place or the fact that they are in a SCIF is enough?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. Secret information is held in a Secret collateral area--you can keep up to Secret information-- just, and that is have it sitting around, your Honor. And, as long as it is in a SCIF or a certified T-SCIF.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, just to make sure I'm-- clear me up if I am wrong, you have information that is classified at the Secret level and you are some place other than the SCIF, does it have to be in a safe or some locked place?

Pfc. Manning

Normally yes, your Honor.

Or it-- as long as you have-- as long it is in a container, you can have-- as long as it is contained--

Judge Lind

Contained in [security?] bags--

Pfc. Manning

--secured bags and-- or, you know-- again, you could-- sometimes you have-- there are certain circumstances where you can have a Secret collateral area outdoors but it's very-- that only a field situation, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay.

But would such an area have to be designated by someone with authority to do that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you can't just decide-- can you just decide, 'Okay, I'm going to designate this area where I am putting all Secret documents out in the open'?

Pfc. Manning

Correct. You would need-- you need have authority for that, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay.

So when you then in your-- so, from your standpoint, when you are working in your T-SCIF, it's because it is a SCIF and of itself you can come and go and leave the documents or the CD-ROMs, or anything that you just discussed, basically out for other people working in the SCIF to see and use is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now let's move in then to Specification 2 of Charge II.

Can you show me where in your statement that you are talking about that?

Pfc. Manning

Your Honor, I start talking about Charge II-- or Specification 2 and it is a-- closer to the middle. It's the--

Judge Lind

Let me ask you--

Pfc. Manning

Paragraph eight at--

Judge Lind

Do you think it would be easier to get through this if we go chronologically, by-- you know, as you sort of did in your statement-- the first things you downloaded and how it evolved-- would that be easier for you? Or would--

Pfc. Manning

We could-- we could just go by specification.

Judge Lind

Alright, so just then tell me where Specification 2 is.

Pfc. Manning

Specification 2 is at page 19.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Alright, now we talked about earlier when I asked you with respect to the video of Specification 2 of Charge II.

You told me that that was not classified, is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Where did you access that video-- how did you have access to it?

Pfc. Manning

It was on the-- it was on our shared 'T' drive, your Honor, that S6 operated on SIPR.

Judge Lind

Okay, so it was on SIPR.

So tell me about how-- so you have access to that video.

Now were you authorized to give that video to anyone outside of the service who didn't have a clearance?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Why not? It wasn't classified?

Pfc. Manning

I thought it was classified.

I looked at the classification matrix for-- at the corps level-- whenever I was reviewing the video and I thought [missed a few words]-- I thought that the OCA would have said the same thing-- that it would have been classified at the Secret level, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Was it marked in any way?

Pfc. Manning

It didn't have markings your Honor, but it-- I mean going by the matrix you can-- because it didn't have marking that's why I went to the classification matrix, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now what is a classification matrix?

Pfc. Manning

It's sort of a quick-- a short hand guide for derivative classification-- for people with derivative classification to classify documents within the guidelines of the original classification authority, when you don't have an OCA there to determine specifically what it is at that time, so.

Judge Lind

So, just to make sure that I understand this.

We talked earlier about it-- if you are doing an original classification, it has to be by an OCA or its 'delegee', right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And then you-- I guess you create your own-- you create products down the road using some of that originally classified information. Is that what derivative classification is?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And who has authority to derivatively classify?

Pfc. Manning

Anybody with that level of security clearance and as long as you can point to where you are getting the authority from-- from the original classification authority, then [missed a few words].

Judge Lind

And, the matrix is where you would look to-- to see that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, in the Army-- or in the-- downrange, we have matrixes.

It's a table. It tells you what the classification level is for the acceptable type of information.

Judge Lind

Okay. So what did you do-- when did you see-- first see the video?

Pfc. Manning

This would have been in January-- or late February-- no, it was mid-February, mid-February of 2010, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and what did you-- you said that you originally saw the video--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- and some people in your office were talking about it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And this was the video that you had described as 'war porn'?

Pfc. Manning

Yes-- yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And what was going on in the video that you could talk about?

Pfc. Manning

It was a-- aerial weapons team-- it's from the-- it's from the camera onboard of an aerial weapons team aircraft that also reported the flight crew audio, your Honor.

And, there was-- in the course of duties they are engaging some-- they are engaging some targets and then there is two separate engagements, and then there is a third section to the video for a third one later.

Judge Lind

Okay, and you testified-- or you testified when you were reading your statement that some news organizations were interested in getting that video from the Freedom of Information Act?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, did you know why they were interested in getting that video?

Pfc. Manning

Just based upon what I could see online-- on some open source reporting that I was looking up, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, what did that say?

Pfc. Manning

It said that the-- that the company, Reuters, had made the request and that those request were not necessarily being denied-- but they were being-- they were receiving responses to that, but not getting the video.

Judge Lind

Okay, and what did you do with the video?

You said you did some research here to find out what the facts were with respect to the video, and that caused you to reach some conclusions and what were those conclusions that you reached?

Pfc. Manning

Conclusions-- conclusions about?

Judge Lind

Well about-- you made a decision-- did you make a decision at some point that you needed to give that video to the news media?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Probably about a week or so after first viewing it, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and did you at some point give that video-- what did you do-- did you take it out of the T-SCIF-- let's start there.

Let's start there.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I burned the video to a CD-RW, and then I took that out of the T-SCIF and put it onto my personal computer.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now is the CD-RW is a CDROM?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

It's just a disk?

Pfc. Manning

Some of them-- some of them might be DVD-RWs but I am just using compact disk in general.

Judge Lind

Okay, and so you took it out and you put it on your own personal computer.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now were you authorized to do that?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

What is the guidance given to people like you working in a T-SCIF with regard to information that comes from SIPRNet?

Pfc. Manning

If it is coming from a CD-- if it is on a CD there's- I mean there are-- there are two thoughts on how it is done, your Honor.

Some people think that if you just burn only unclassified information onto the CD and then you mark the CD as unclassified then you can-- then you can do what ever with it.

But then there is a lot-- but the more proper way of doing it would be to-- would be to verify [missed a few words] and there are some technical personnel that can actually verify that nothing-- no other digital potentially secret information might be inside of that first, before you transfer [missed a few words].

Judge Lind

So, if I am understanding you correctly-- that if you have completely unclassified information it's okay and it's verified-- it's okay to take it out of a T-SCIF and put it on your own personal computer.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. But it's-- there is different ways-- there's different ideas on how it is verified.

Some-- I've seen where you need a memorandum sometimes and I've seen where you just need somebody to-- with the right rank to say it's okay.

Judge Lind

What rank were you at the time?

Pfc. Manning

I was a specialist, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you, as a specialist at that time, authorized to verify?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, if you wanted to take information-- even the unclassified information out of the SCIF and put it on your personal computer, you would have had to go to somebody higher in the chain-- is that what I am understanding-- at a minimum, to get verification?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I would have had-- I think the S2 would have been the person I would have got guidance from, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you do that with respect to this video, before you took it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

But, did you have any authorization to take the video out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you have any authorization to put it on your personal computer?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Once it was there, what did you do with it?

Pfc. Manning

It was-- I kept it on-- I left it on the computer for a few days, your Honor.

I wasn't-- I wasn't sure what I was going to do with it.

I thought-- I mean, I think I had just come back off of mid-tour leave, your Honor.

And, I wasn't-- I thought I would just keep it and then I intended on giving-- on somehow getting it to Reuters at some point.

So, that they could see it, but I didn't know how. It took me a few days until I decided to upload it to the website, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and I believe you testified earlier how you did that, but just briefly if you could go-- recount that once again-- how you uploaded it?

Pfc. Manning

i just went to the website-- the WikiLeaks website in this case and I went-- I clicked around and I found a submission form, and I uploaded the video using the submission form, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, to your knowledge-- I mean, you were submitting at that point-- were you submitting it to a particular person or to the organization WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Just the organization, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, do you-- were any of those people cleared to your knowledge to receive those?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did anybody from WikiLeaks have a 'need to know' as defined by [missed word] government--

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- for classified information?

Pfc. Manning

Not to my knowledge, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And you believed that actually that this-- the video was classified at the time?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor, I did.

Judge Lind

Now, as I understand it from both parties, the video actually wasn't classified.

Is that correct? Government?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. After a classification review was conducted it was determined not to be classified.

Judge Lind

Please correct me, alright. And, if it ultimately was determined not to be classified, why was it wrong for you to take-- why was it unauthorized for you to take it out of the SCIF and to send it to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Well, first, your Honor, it-- well, I-- at the time I thought it was classified.

I believed it was classified.

And then, also the-- the digital method, you are suppose to have verification-- I didn't have anybody to verify and ensure that, that-- that, that information was okay to put onto a-- to downgrade its level to unclassified network, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and you had to have that authority to do that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Even if it wasn't classified, ultimately you still had to have the authority to do that with that information at the SCIF at that time-- is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor-- whether verbal or on paper [missed a few words].

Judge Lind

Okay. Now here, your element (2) is that you 'willfully communicated' the video to a person not entitled to receive it.

Was WikiLeaks entitled to receive that video?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

In your statement you talk about on page 20 that you transferred the video because you were disturbed basically by its contents and you thought it should be out in the public [missed a few words] killing kids-- [missed a few words] killed kids-- is that correct-- or, do you want to articulate that for me a little bit better?

Pfc. Manning

Just-- I found it, I mean-- I found it troubling-- I found the video troubling at the time, your Honor, and I still do, but-- it's-- it just my opinion, though.

Judge Lind

Okay. I am going to go over this just a little bit with you all the way through, but, let's start here.

There's a-- there are certain potential defenses and when we get into-- that may or may not be raised by the evidence if this case actually went into trial.

But, it goes a little with your willfulness element. If you have to be-- willfulness has to-- if you are actually willfully, you have to act intentionally with a bad purpose to disobey the law.

Now, in your case, did you know that it was not lawful to-- were you intending to violate the law when you sent that video to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I knew that. Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now there's also a potential defense-- well there is two of them. One of them is called 'justification' and what that is-- is it excuses a [missed word] if it is done in the proper performance of a legal duty.

Did you believe you had a legal duty to transmit that video-- take it to your personal computer and give it to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, so do you believe that the defense of 'justification' applies in your case?

Pfc. Manning

I do not, your Honor, no.

Judge Lind

Alright, and lastly I want to talk to you about the 'necessity' defense.

And, what that is-- it's normally recognized in the Uniform Code of Military Justice but the appellate courts have said it is a form of 'duress' defense.

What a 'duress' defense is, is when a third party-- when there's a threat of serious imminent harm to you or somebody else cause by a third party. 'Necessity' is a little bit different-- because it's the circumstances-- it's a choice of evils defense.

A typical example that is given for 'necessity' is if you have to trespass over-- there is somebody who is drowning in a pond-- and you have to trespass over somebody's yard to get to that pond to save that person-- and there is nobody else around to save that person.

So, if you don't trespass over that person's yard, that person-- that person in the pond drowns. So, that is the defense of 'necessity', basically. The 'truth of evils' defense.

So, you have to commit your crime to-- to-- because of the threat of serious, imminent harm to-- to somebody else.

Judge Lind

In your case, do you believe that the 'necessity' defense applies when you transferred that video?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. I don't believe that it applies in this case, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now the third element to this offense is that the conduct has to be prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.

Do you believe that your transmission of this video to WikiLeaks is prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Why?

Pfc. Manning

Well in the military we have rules and regulations and structures designed to safeguard sensitive information, whether it be classified or unclassified; and I circumvented those and thereby-- you know, by circumventing them by my own authority without-- you know, I'm not the right pay-grade to make these decisions or anything.

So, by doing that-- I-- you know, I violated some orders and regulations and that is prejudicial to good order and discipline, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So what you are telling me is sometimes referred to, to the law as 'self-help'.

So, if somebody else has the authority to make the rules and you don't agree with them; you elect a 'self-help' remedy to basically do this-- go against the law, because you believe personally it is for a greater good. Is that kind of describing what you did a little bit?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and you just told me that, that kind of conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline in the [military]-- because the military has a commanding structure that is established to make those rules and that people in the military need to follow them. Is that what you are telling me?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now what about service discrediting.

Do you think that your conduct in giving the video to WikiLeaks was service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Why?

Pfc. Manning

Well, there is a-- for the service discrediting it is about public perception of the military and the services, and our ability to-- and their trust in their-- their perception that we can safeguard our sensitive information for their protection.

So, by not-- by not abiding by those-- by the system, it undermines our-- our service your Honor-- and their perception of how we operate, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So basically if I understand what you are saying correctly-- people should-- the military would hope that people had confidence in the system and the people in to follow the rules, and basically if you don't have any rules, or people aren't following the rules-- I mean if there is more than one person that is doing, what your doing, then the whole system crashes?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just sort of paraphrasing what I thought that you told me. Is that--

Pfc. Manning

[missed a few words]

Judge Lind

-- a little bit in essence of what you are telling me?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

How do you know WikiLeaks wasn't entitled to receive the video?

Pfc. Manning

Well, your Honor. It wasn't over a-- I mean to start off with it wasn't using an authorized means of-- for transferring this information.

As far as I was aware, I mean this was over a non-secure network, so I have no guarantees that anybody was authorized to receive it on the other end.

And, I am not aware that-- I mean I know that they're-- I mean I am not aware of them being a US-- or a US government entity, so.

And then also, I'm not aware of any of them having any type of security clearances or anything, so.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now I know that you talked about it earlier in your statement, and I am not going to try to get you to-- you know, rehash your entire statement, but just briefly what is your understanding of WikiLeaks-- what's-- how did you discover it?

And, what did you come to think of it?

Pfc. Manning

I discovered it in November-- around the Thanksgiving time frame of 2009, when they published some SMS text messages or-- and then I did some research into them after-- after that, based upon the fact that I had-- I had heard of the website before but never visited it prior to that.

But, I was-- I became interested in it after that. And, I became familiar with-- with the organization and how it operated, and what they were publishing and all the rest of it after a few weeks of going through it-- going through stuff both on the open source Google [missed word] on my personal computer and using my-- my access to Secret documents, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. You said an 'S-M-S' text, what's that?

Pfc. Manning

It's a Short Messaging System.

It's basically whenever you text message on a cell phone those are-- that is the kind of message.

But, before-- I mean it use to be pagers-- it is the same standard that they based and updated for modern phones you have, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you said you did some intelligence and you came to learn about WikiLeaks and its organization-- what did you learn?

Pfc. Manning

I learned about how-- I learned-- well, I was trying to learn how it was structured; where their servers were; who operated it-- just for my-- because it-- it's-- they are not that open about that stuff as-- as a normal-- as normal websites and publishers are-- so, and I found that interesting, your Honor.

[Missed a few words] I don't know if I missed the question, your Honor.

Judge Lind

No. No. [Missed a few words] Did WikiLeaks ultimately release the video?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, I see in your statement here--

Pfc. Manning

-- in April.

Judge Lind

-- on 5 April?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- of 2010. Okay, I believed you already answered this. Let me just ask it one more time. Did you willfully communicate that video to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side believe anything further inquiry is required with respect to Specification 2 of Charge II?

Defense (Coombs)

Nothing further from the defense, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

One moment, please, your Honor. Ma'am just a factual clarification for the record. It might be worth the court asking if there is a difference between COS Hammer and FOB Hammer, because the two terms are being used interchangeably.

Judge Lind

What Hammer? What is the first one you said?

Prosecution (Fein)

Forward Operating Base Hammer, Ma'am, or Combined Operating Station-- Contingency Operating Station. FOB and COS Hammer.

Judge Lind

Okay. Pfc. Manning what is the difference FOB and COS Hammer?

Pfc. Manning

They're the same location, your Honor-- and we never really understood when the change was, but it was used interchangeably while we were there as well, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are they both the same place?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

They just had different names at different times?

Pfc. Manning

I believe corps came down with the change, but we didn't adopt it, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, in your-- in the charges and specifications at issue here, they're all charges happening at FOB Hammer, I believe.

Pfc. Manning

Combined Operating Station, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Oh, let's see-- hold on. I'm sorry at Contingency Operating Station-- is it Combined Operating Station or Contingency Operating Station?

Pfc. Manning

I don't-- it's Contingency Operating Station, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And was that what it was called when you were there?

Pfc. Manning

There was a lot of different names for it, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Was that one of them?

Pfc. Manning

That was one of them, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

When you look at that-- when it says-- look at-- when it says 'at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq' does that mean to you, where you were in Iraq or does that mean to you someplace else?

Pfc. Manning

That is where I was, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And for Specification 2, did you actually-- when you transferred the video what was the dates that you did that?

Pfc. Manning

That was at Contingency Operating Station Hammer.

Judge Lind

Okay, and was that between 14 February 2010 and 21 February 2010 when you transferred the video?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side believe any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Let me just ask you one thing Pfc. Manning that I should have asked you a little bit earlier. Are you on any medications today?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is there anything preventing you and I from having an intelligent back and forth dialogue?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Let's move onto Specification 3 of Charge II.

Alright, Specification 3 addresses the classified memoranda produced by a United States government intelligence agency.

Can you orient me to where in your statement that we talk about that?

Pfc. Manning

It's paragraph 10 at page five, your Honor. Sorry, 29.

Judge Lind

Page 29?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, this is a-- this document we are talking about here for Specification 3-- where did you come across that?

Pfc. Manning

I don't know if I can say your Honor.

Judge Lind

Oh, okay, well let's not. Was it in the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

It was, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Was it something that you were authorized to take out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

It was not, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Did you take it out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

How did you do that?

Pfc. Manning

Using the same method, a CD-RW or it might have been a DV-RW-- or DVD-W, sorry-- RW.

Judge Lind

Okay. And when you took it out of the SCIF, where did you take it?

Pfc. Manning

To my-- to the Compartmentalized Housing Unit-- the-- to my personal area.

Judge Lind

And what did you do with that?

Pfc. Manning

I put it onto a computer-- my personal computer, and I uploaded it using the submission form, your Honor-- the drop-- I used the drop box.

Judge Lind

And where did you-- you used the drop box to do what?

Pfc. Manning

To upload, your Honor, the documents.

Judge Lind

And whose drop box was it?

Pfc. Manning

It was-- somebody within the WikiLeaks organization-- I never got a full identification as to who-- but guided me to that-- and it resolved-- the IP address resolved to that website, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. What does that mean?

Pfc. Manning

It means that-- well, and IP address that was attached to that wasn't attached to the domain name WikiLeaks.org.

I used the IP address.

Judge Lind

So, this drop box-- would that be a place where if someone who wanted to send something to WikiLeaks they would send it there--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- and WikiLeaks would retrieve it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. As they were changing something-- I think they were changing how they were doing it, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, because you were talking to me before about some of the ways that you transmitted these-- these documents was anonymous in some wasn't.

Was that what I heard you say earlier?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. Well, I was-- I would-- I received over the IRC and then later with the Jabber.

When I would ask for how do I send something and then they would give me directions to where I needed to send it.

Although, I wouldn't say what it was, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And that was the drop box that you were talking about, right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So rather than repeat my questions for each of these specifications, what is-- when you talk about all of the specifications that you are pleading guilty to today, was WikiLeaks authorized to receive anything that you sent?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And were you authorized to send anything you sent in these specifications we are talking about, that you are pleading guilty to, to Wikileaks?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And other than specification-- the video in Specification 2 was everything else classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. Not everything-- you mean for the charged documents, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

For the charged documents, but [not certain if number was seven or seventy?] of the Department of State cables in-- I believe in Specification 13 of Charge II, you testified earlier, not all of them were classified, right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, but the charged documents that we are talking about were?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now in Specification 3, when you sent that-- the documents that we are talking about for that specification-- the two documents-- um, did you willfully transmit those documents to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you did it intentionally?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and we talked earlier you didn't have the authority to-- is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and I'll-- I asked you about conduct-- was your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline earlier with respect to Specification 2 of Charge II. Is your answer any different for this specification?

Pfc. Manning

Not really, your Honor. It's a blanket statement for all-- for all of the-- for all the specifications that I'm charged with, your Honor.

Judge Lind

For all of the specifications that you are pleading guilty to the reasons that you gave me that-- so you believe all-- do you believe all of the specifications that you are pleading guilty to-- that your conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And is that for the reasons we discussed when we talked about Specification 2 of Charge II?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you believe that all the conduct that you are pleading guilty to is prejudicial-- was service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And is that for the same reason that we talked about for Specification 2 of Charge II?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I mean--

Judge Lind

Okay, so if I ask you these questions for each specification are you going to give me an answer that is any different than you gave me for that?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. They are all going to be along the same lines, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Was there more than one classified memorandum in Specification 3 which you transmitted?

Pfc. Manning

There were two, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And when did you transmit that?

Pfc. Manning

That would have been--

Judge Lind

You can look at your statement.

Pfc. Manning

Okay. 22 March, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Of what year? [repeat after a pause] Of what year?

Pfc. Manning

2010, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And for all these specifications-- these transmissions are at least for Specification 3 is also at Contingency Operation Station Hammer?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to Specification 3 of Charge II?

Prosecution (Morrow)

Your Honor, the accused stated earlier that 'the contents of two of these documents upset me greatly, I had difficulty believing what this section was discussing.' It may be helpful just to explore the defenses again with respect to these documents?

Judge Lind

Alright. Now, you looked at these documents.

Your statement says that you-- that the contents upset you greatly. When we talked earlier about-- you know, from you-- to willfully communicated something, you have to being doing it with a bad purpose to violate the law.

Pfc. Manning

Correct.

Judge Lind

And you talked to me earlier about that you intentionally communicated these two document.

Did you know you were violating the law when you did that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. We also talked about earlier 'justification' is something that is in the proper performance of a legal duty.

Did you believe that you were acting in the proper performance of a legal duty?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And I also talked about 'necessity'. Did you believe in your case that your conduct was necessary basically your choice of evils there-- that you had to believe that your actions were necessary-- it must have been-- your belief must have been reasonable, and there must have been no other alternative to committing your crime to prevent death and imminent danger.

Is that-- do you believe that-- that necessity defense applies in this case?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I had a lot of alternatives.

Judge Lind

Okay. Maybe my question was bad. Do you believe the defense of necessity applies in your case?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you said you believe you have a lot of alternatives. What other-- just describe some of them for me.

Pfc. Manning

Well-- not-- not necessarily for this-- for that specification, but speaking generally for the other-- for 2 as well your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, why don't you speak generally and just tell me what alternatives you could have--?

Pfc. Manning

Well for a-- I have the chain of command as a first alternative.

I could have went to the chain of command and asked for guidance on how to release certain information.

I had the Public Affairs Office was-- I knew where the Public Affairs Office was, and they-- they actually have the authority to officially release sensitive information.

And-- I mean-- there is also the Freedom of Information request-- Freedom of Information Act.

Other-- there were other avenues [missed a few words].

Judge Lind

Okay. And you didn't exercise those?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Any further inquiry?

Prosecution (Morrow)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's move on then to specification-- which we are jumping now to Specification 15 of Charge II; and where in your statement is that discussed?

Pfc. Manning

Page 24, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Maybe, I'm confused. I thought that was Specification 9. Specification 15, we are talking about--

Pfc. Manning

It was a mix up your Honor. It is in this paragraph, yes, your Honor. Paragraph 9. [Missed a few words], your Honor.

Judge Lind

Oh it's in Section 9. Okay.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. But, it is first talked about earlier on in there as well-- like the contents of it as well.

Judge Lind

Okay. Where are you-- where are you-- where do you first begin to address it?

And that would be the a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence agency dated 18 March 2008.

Did that-- is that the information we are talking about in that Specification?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and where do you first address it in your statement?

Pfc. Manning

It is section 5, paragraph delta. On page 10.

Judge Lind

On page 10, okay. Alright, so-- were you working at the T-SCIF when you were-- it says you were conducting a search to look for information and you found this. Were you working in a T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and did you-- was this information classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor, it was.

Judge Lind

Okay, did you take that information-- did you take it off of the-- where you found it and put it on a CD like you did the last two pieces of information you talked about?

Pfc. Manning

It was a CD, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and did you take it out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And where did you bring it?

Pfc. Manning

Again, to my personal-- my housing area and then-- then LSA [Dragon?] [missed a word] and onto my personal computer, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay and what did you do with it?

Pfc. Manning

Then I uploaded it-- using the drop box again as I described, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay, and did you willfully and intentionally do that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you have authority to do it?

Pfc. Manning

I did not.

Judge Lind

And we already talked about-- you said for all of these specifications WikiLeaks was not an authorized receiver of any of this information-- does that apply to this too?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And we talked about earlier was your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And are the reasons we earlier discussed or for some other reason?

Pfc. Manning

Same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And that was once again-- was that at Contingency Operating Station Hammer?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And was that were you did the transmissions to the drop box?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And that was over the internet?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And what were the dates that you did that?

Pfc. Manning

That would have been 7th or 8th of March, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay so on or about 8 March of 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Fein)

May we have a moment your Honor?

Judge Lind

Yes. Mr. Coombs, while they are having their moment, does the defense [missed word]-- do you have any further inquiries required?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am the only question the government has is if the court needed to explore the willful component for this specification.

[Missed a few words] remember if he did it for all the specifications or not-- in your questioning.

Judge Lind

Okay. Pfc. Manning let's try that again. The-- I asked you earlier if your conduct was willful-- that is, intentional with intent to violate the law-- or at least was it in this case?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Did you know you were violating the law when you transmitted the information?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now is that correct for all of these specifications that we are going to discuss today?

Did you act willfully and intentionally when you transferred-- transmitted all of these-- this information?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I was familiar with how-- I was familiar with how we were suppose to be doing safeguarding this information-- and the channels and the authorities that were in place for it, yes.

Judge Lind

So, for all of this information in Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15-- did you willfully and intentionally transfer this information to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you know you were violating when you transferred all of the information in these Specifications?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And when you transferred all of the information in these specifications-- I mean we already asked the question, but I am going to ask it again-- was WikiLeaks entitled to receive any of it?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And, were any of these specifications-- was your conduct not prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

It was prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

It was-- it was all prejudicial--

Judge Lind

And--

Pfc. Manning

-- to good order and discipline, your Honor.

Judge Lind

If I asked you why, what would you tell me?

Pfc. Manning

It's prejudicial to good order and discipline again because of the rules and regulations that were in place to safeguard sensitive information, whether it be classified or not.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Same question for service discrediting for any of these specifications was-- were any of these specifications not service discrediting-- your conduct in transmitting these documents to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, and why would that be-- well it was service discrediting is what you are telling me--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- for each of these specifications. And, why would that be?

Pfc. Manning

Well it-- again you know, just-- service discrediting-- for something to be service discrediting it has to undermine the public perception as well as the service perception of itself, your Honor. And that could come-- this conduct undermined that.

Judge Lind

Okay. I guess where I am going with this government-- I could ask the same question for each specification-- but I am going to get the same answer that we just got. I don't really see the point unless you do.

Prosecution (Fein)

But-- no Ma'am. Not at all.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, your conduct through all of these specification was that you willfully acted to-- and knew you were in violation of the law is that what you are telling me?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you are telling me for all of these specifications your conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline, and service discrediting for the reasons you told me when we first discussed Specification 2 of Charge II, is that right?

Pfc. Manning

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side see any need for me to ask anymore of those willfulness or service discrediting or prejudice to good order and discipline questions with respect to when I am going through the factual predicate for the other offenses?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am. Not for the general questions.

The government might have specific ones based off of prior-- what was said in his statement per 'spec' but that was [missed word].

Judge Lind

No, my intent now-- and this is where I want to explore with the parties-- to go over with Pfc. Manning the facts regarding each of the additional transmissions-- but I don't intend to-- I'll ask just the leading question 'was it willful, was it service discrediting, and prejudicial to good order and discipline' but what I am understanding what Pfc. Manning has told me is that the same reasons apply.

All of the conduct was willful-- and the same reasons apply for prejudice to god order and discipline and service discrediting conduct as he first described it to me for Specification 2 of Charge II.

Prosecution (Fein)

Sounds good, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Alright, I guess now we are moving on then to Specification 5 of Charge II. Where will I find that?

Pfc. Manning

It is first mentioned on page 3 and then again on page [missed page number].

Judge Lind

Okay.

For Specification 5 we are talking about more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq.

Now you spent some time talking about that when you read your statement earlier in the day.

Can you just briefly describe what that database is?

Pfc. Manning

Again, your Honor, it's-- it's a database that exists at the-- on SIPR-- on SIPRNet, and it there's two-- I mean there is two separate ones-- there's one for-- there was one for each theater at the time for both Iraq and Afghanistan-- and it holds a large amount of data that is exchanged between the-- between the different units within DoD and the different sections of the different branches of the military-- or different branches of government-- different agencies of the government, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And were-- was this information found on the SIPRNet computer?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Was it classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

At what level?

Pfc. Manning

Not all of the information in-- contained within CIDNE is classified, but the information within was often classified up to Secret, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And was that information you were authorized to take out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Did you take it out of the T-SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And how did you do that?

Pfc. Manning

It was-- I had already created a back up of the entire-- for both-- for a particular section of that database-- the Significant Activities [missed word]. And, I placed them onto-- onto two separate DVD-RWs-- I believe DVD-RWs-- and stored them into the conference area of the SCIF and I physically took that from the SCIF, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Were there more than twenty records that you physically took out of the SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. They were about 100, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were there more than twenty classified records that you--

Pfc. Manning

[Missed word]. Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, the number in the charge-- in the specification is accurate then-- the one that you [missed word]?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And you took it out of the CD, you brought it-- did you bring it back to your personal computer?

Pfc. Manning

I did, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And what did you do with it?

Pfc. Manning

I took the information and I uploaded it again-- this, I mean-- this was the first thing that I ever uploaded to the WikiLeaks website.

I uploaded it using their submission form.

Judge Lind

So this was at-- out of all these specifications, even though it's in the middle for the Specification 5-- this was the first time you uploaded to WikiLeaks-- is that right?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Did you do the Afghanistan database at the same time or is it-- is there--

Pfc. Manning

They were-- yes-- I-- they were on both on the same DVD-RW that I took from the conference room in the SCIF.

Judge Lind

Okay. Well, let's-- let's talk about Specification 5 and Specification 7 together then.

Did you-- you download Afghanistan and Iraq C-I-D-N-E databases at the same time-- or?

Pfc. Manning

Yeah, it was sequential. So, I got Iraq first and then I downloaded Afghanistan, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Was it on the same CD?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, it should have been on the-- I labeled the CD CIDNE SigActs, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, now. In Specification 7 also says more than twenty classified records.

Are the records that you downloaded more than twenty classified-- or is it more than twenty records from the Afghanistan database to your CD also?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were they more than twenty classified records?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, did you take the Afghanistan records and the Iraq database records out of the T-SCIF together on one CD?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay and you said-- you testified that you went back to your personal computer and uploaded it?

Pfc. Manning

Well, I-- this wasn't immediately, no.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Pfc. Manning

This was a-- I copied it onto-- I copied it onto my-- my personal computer and then I put it onto-- well, a type of little SD card for camera.

So, I didn't have it on the laptop anymore, but I put-- I put it on there.

And then I took the actual CD that I took it from, back into the SCIF, and I set it back in the conference room.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, once you had this on that-- what did you call it-- the--

Pfc. Manning

SD card.

Judge Lind

The SD card. You said in your camera?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. What did you-- what did you do with it then?

Pfc. Manning

I took it with me on my mid-tour leave to my--

Judge Lind

And this is when you went to your aunt's house? And then you went up to Massachusetts? And then you came back and got stuck in a blizzard?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. But I didn't bring my camera case with me to Massachusetts.

Judge Lind

Okay. So you-- but you did bring your camera case with SD card to your aunt's house?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And that was in Maryland?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, did you-- what did you do with that information or SD card at your aunt's house?

Pfc. Manning

I-- after deciding what I was going to do with it.

I eventually put it onto a-- put it back onto my laptop and I uploaded it-- I uploaded it to the WikiLeaks website at some point during my mid-tour leave, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, when you were--

Pfc. Manning

At the end.

Judge Lind

When you uploaded the Iraq and Afghanistan databases to the WikiLeaks website, were you in Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq or were you at your aunt's house in Maryland?

Pfc. Manning

I think it was actually at a Barnes and Nobel's your Honor.

Judge Lind

In--? I assume there is no Barnes and Nobel in Contingency Operations-- Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, so would this be in Maryland?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. This was Rockville, Maryland.

Judge Lind

Rockville, Maryland.

Pfc. Manning

Or it could have been North Bethesda. It was right between the two, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs, I don't believe that the plea by exceptions and substitutions changed the location, did it?

Defense (Coombs)

The way that it-- and I covered this with my client.

The way we looked at the location, Ma'am was that's were he had the unauthorized possession of it and then the actual disclosure was in the United States.

However, the way that the specification is-- he has the unauthorized possession at or near Contingency Operations Station Hammer, Iraq.

I've discussed with him that the actual disclosure was in the United States.

Looking at it, I did not believe that, that would require us to do exceptions and substitutions for the location.

However, I have covered that with my client, and defense is prepared to enter by exceptions and substitutions if the court believes that's warranted.

Judge Lind

Well, I am reading it here that-- that the fact that Contingency Hammer's Station, Iraq if you had the unauthorized possession. Just to make the Specifications 5 and 7 clear-- are those, well first of all-- Pfc. Manning are those the only specifications-- Specifications 5 and 7 of Charge II, where you transmitted the data from Barnes and Nobel in Maryland-- or anywhere in Maryland?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, so all of the other transmissions were done from Contingency Operating Hammer, Iraq?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Well I am thinking it might just be prudent to say--

Defense (Coombs)

Just put in the and--?

Judge Lind

That for the-- well you are not really excepting words there though, you are adding words.

Defense (Coombs)

Correct, your Honor. So, we would not object to adding when you look at, 'at or near Contingency Operation Station, Hammer, Iraq' then just putting the and-- junction and Maryland in this case it would have been Rockville, Maryland, United States-- adding that to both Specifications 5 and 7.

Judge Lind

Alright. Government, do you have any objections if the defense modifies there plea?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am, it may even be easier if we could just amend it also the actual charge sheet-- for those two 'specs'.

Judge Lind

Alright, so I assume that the government is going forward with the greater offense that the government is going forward on that-- is those locations as well is that correct?

Prosecution (Fein)

With the greater offense-- there would be-- there would be a common element of the greater offense anyways, your Honor. So, yes.

Judge Lind

Okay. Well this is a good time for a brief recess anyway. So why don't we go ahead and take a recess and then you all discuss how you want to move ahead, and just come see me before we call the court back to session and let me know what you decided to do.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

How long are we [missed word]?

Prosecution (Fein)

Can we go at 15:30, Ma'am?

Judge Lind

Alright, court is in recess until 15:30.

ALL RISE

ALL RISE

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order. Let the record reflect all parties present when the court last recessed are again present in court. Government has-- what just happened with the charge sheet?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. The parties just discussed this issue Ma'am, and the United States, I guess-- has amended with the concurrence of the defense the two charges Specification 5 and 7 of a copy of a the original charge sheet that will become the new original. Specification 5 has been amended to say 'in that Private First Class Manning, US Army did at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq and at or near Rockville, Maryland' and then the remaining portion. And then the same-- the same amendment has occurred to Specification 7 your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Defense, do you have any objection to this amendment?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Pfc. Manning have you had an opportunity to look at the amended charge sheet?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any objections to it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. It was amended basically based on your and my dialogue and what you have in your statement to be factually correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Now, government, normally after someone has been arraigned, we don't normally-- the original charge sheet is suppose to stay the same. So, we'll do it one of two ways: either put the original charge sheet back in the record somehow--

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am it is fortuitous that we did not have the original charge sheet. So, it will remain in the record with this amended charge sheet on top of it.

Judge Lind

Okay. Great. Alright-- and the amended words are 'at or near Contingency Hammer Station, Iraq and at or near Rockville, Maryland' for Specifications 5 and 7 of Charge II. Is that the parties' understanding?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Is there anything else I need to address with this?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now, Pfc. Manning, as we discuss the charge sheet was amended based on yours and my discussion with respect to these two specifications and as I understand what you told me what's in your statement, you got the Iraq and Afghanistan databases from the T-SCIF at Contingency Operating Base Hammer, Iraq?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You put them on your CDs-- or your CD, brought it back to your CHU-- Container-- your-- your-- to your personal computer at the CHU and the you-- Containerized Housing-- what-- what-- what's the--?

Pfc. Manning

Containerized Housing Unit.

Judge Lind

Containerized Housing Unit, okay. It's been a while. Okay. So then you uploaded that onto the CD or the SD card in your camera, and then you brought that back to Maryland. Is that my understanding of your testimony-- and then in the Barnes and Noble somewhere in Rockville, Maryland you transmitted that data to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Then once again we have already asked the willful questions, did you do-- did you transmit that data-- the Iraq and Afghanistan databases to WikiLeaks willfully as well?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, was your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And would that be for the same reasons you told me before or something different?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. The same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to Specifications 5 or 7?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. Based off of page 14-- what has been-- it's based off of Private First Class Manning's statement, but page 14 paragraph, paragraph (j) at the bottom. United States believe that further inquiry-- inquiry into the potential defenses of 'necessity' and 'justification' for this-- these two specifications, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Look at page 14 there, at paragraph (i) and (j). It talks about that you began to get depressed with the situation. Now when you got depressed with the situation, that was when you were in Maryland after you had already taken these databases, is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

It's more of a general broad feeling that I had over a period of time, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now that-- when you took these databases out of Iraq-- and you took them back home with you on leave-- as I understand your statement, were you still deciding what you were going to do with them?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I was look at different-- trying to figure out different-- different people that I could possibly give this to, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay--

Pfc. Manning

I [missed a few words]

Judge Lind

-- was your plan to give it to somebody-- or had you already made that decision that you were give it to somebody?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. Before I left Iraq, I knew I was going to probably give it to some news organization, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You just-- at that point-- so, when you left Iraq did you know which news organization you were going to give it to?

Pfc. Manning

My preference would have been The Washington Post, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, [missed word] remember your statement earlier I think-- were these the-- was this the information you were trying to give to The Washington Post--

Pfc. Manning

Yes.

Judge Lind

-- or was that something different?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. That was the way it started out, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So that's what is on 15 of your statement-- that you tried to do it-- to give it to The Washington Post-- you talked to somebody there and they said well they might be interested, but they have to see it first?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. And i never-- I never went down physically to there-- but I thought-- I considered actually going to The Washington Post downtown.

Judge Lind

[Missed word] And at some point did you make a decision that, that wasn't a good idea?

Pfc. Manning

I was-- I was nervous your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

Okay, and then-- did you-- what was the next thing you were thinking about doing?

Pfc. Manning

I thought about-- well, after I made a phone call-- I made a few phone calls. I made at least one phone call to The Washington Post, and then I called the New York Times and sort of got the same response. And then, I also-- and then I also thought about going-- there is an Allbritton Communications' office where Politico operates, and I thought about going down there.

Judge Lind

Okay. And then ultimately what decision did you make?

Pfc. Manning

I-- with time running out on my-- my mid-tour leave, I decided that I was going to upload it to-- to WikiLeaks, but I decided before-- before I lost a good internet connection-- before I lost really strong broadband internet connection, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you need a really string broadband to transmit that data?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and is that why you went to Barnes and Nobel?

Pfc. Manning

There was a blizzard as well, so we lost-- we lost our-- at the house we lost our heating and our internet access. We still had some power though.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, you-- so did you actually transmit those-- the Iraq and Afghanistan databases from Maryland to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, let's go back to page 14 where it says you became depressed at the situation. What-- what situation? Are you talking about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And remember we talked earlier about-- I believe that you are also here in paragraph (j) you say you released this information to start a debate. Where you authorized to release this information to spark a debate?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. I was not.

Judge Lind

Okay. When it talks about you being depressed about this. We went over the defenses of 'justification' and 'necessity' earlier. I defined them for you. Do you want me to redefine them for you?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Do you believe that either 'justification' or 'necessity'-- those defenses apply in your case?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. Not for that.

Judge Lind

Why not?

Pfc. Manning

It is just a general feeling. It wasn't a-- it wasn't a depression, depressed. It was just a general feeling of-- of what was going on was not good generally, so.

Judge Lind

Well even if, as I remember we talked about 'self-help' before--

Pfc. Manning

Right.

Judge Lind

Even if you personally believe maybe you weren't in favor of some of the policies that were going on some of the things that were happening in Iraq and Afghanistan-- do you believe that, that gave you the authority to go ahead and download these databases and then bring them to Maryland and transmit them to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you believe it gave you authority to do that?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, in the military in the chain of command structure-- if-- or in the government structure in general-- if someone disagrees with policies that are made by senior-- people more senior to them in charge of making those policies, are you allowed just to [missed word] 'self-help' and-- and violate the rules in giving somebody classified information?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now let's talk a little bit about-- it says you became depressed. You said you were 'depressed but not depressed, depressed.' Tell me what that means.

Pfc. Manning

I wasn't like-- for the-- that general feeling that I am describing is not attached to depression as a mental issue. Although, I am not-- I'm not raising that for that portion, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay--

Pfc. Manning

But, [missed a few words.]

Judge Lind

-- well let's talk a little bit about that, because this is during the period of time when you were in Contingency Operating Station in Hammer-- at Hammer-- and back at Fort Drum too, you had received some mental health treatment for anxiety issues?

Pfc. Manning

Yes.

Judge Lind

Is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And that's come through-- we talked about the Article 13 motion and a little bit in the Speedy Trial even. Have you gone over with Mr. Coombs a defense of 'lack of mental responsibility' or 'lack of mens rea due to partial mental responsibility'?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor, we have.

Judge Lind

Okay. Mr. Coombs, have you gone over that with Pfc. Manning?

Defense (Coombs)

I have, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And there has been an investigative 706 board in this case?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And actually, a pretty extensive one?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

When the board came back, what were the report or results?

Defense (Coombs)

Short form indicated that he was not suffering from [missed term] or [missed term] either at the time of the incident or presently.

Judge Lind

Was he suffering from a serious mental disease or defect at that time?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. These offenses all require a willful intent. So, before-- so Mr. Coombs, am I hearing from you that you fully explored an issue of the lack of mental responsibility?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, you believe there is anything else left to explore with respect to that issue?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Pfc. Manning do you agree with that?

Pfc. Manning

I agree.

Judge Lind

Now, let's talk about the willful aspect of these specifications. Mr. Coombs, have you fully investigated the usual with whether Pfc. Manning suffered from a mental disease or defect or impairment or condition or character behavior disorder that prevented him from forming-- or basically willfully acting in this case?

Defense (Coombs)

I have, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, what were your conclusions from that?

Defense (Coombs)

That he was not, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Pfc. Manning do you agree with that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, now did Mr. Coombs-- or did your defense team explain to you that partial lack of mental responsibility can [missed word] the intent required for offenses we call specific intent or knowledge offenses?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, this willful intent falls within that. Okay. So, at the time you made these transmissions, were you seeing a mental health professionals at that time?

Pfc. Manning

I had seen one a few weeks before, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And, were you on any medications?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, is there any-- so you were not on any medications at the time?

Pfc. Manning

That is correct.

Judge Lind

And did you continue to perform your military-- was there anything about your state of mind that made you unable to perform your military duties at that time?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you were going to work and going home, just like everybody else?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you acting differently than you normally act during that period of time-- I mean was there anything strange? do you know if this affects your mental health [missed word]?

Pfc. Manning

Trouble sleeping, that is it your honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, do you believe that-- do you believe you were fully capable of acting willfully in making these communications?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you believe you were of sound mind, when you did that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to mental responsibility or partial mental responsibility?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. Just maybe a little bit more in-- if the court remembers and we could get these for the court dated-- the Master Sergeant Adkins memos-- they used some pretty specific details. I am not asking the court to go through that-- but some-- some behaviors that were going on concurrent with the charged misconduct and that might just be-- they are already on the record to be explored. The nature of that doesn't necessarily [missed word] to do a full [missed word].

Judge Lind

I don't--

Prosecution (Fein)

I'm sorry the question just now to Private First Class Manning was, was there-- was there any mental condition at the time that would have affected or-- or-- that would have affected the mens rea associated-- that there's documentation that-- that [missed word] could [missed word]. So, just exploring whether that mental-- his state of mind at that time, would have effected the charges.

Judge Lind

Alright. I don't have the Adkins documents in front of me. What we can do is-- can someone make a xerox copy of them and give them to me--

Prosecution (Fein)

Then we can keep going your Honor.

Judge Lind

-- We can keep going and make that happen and we'll come back to it.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, Pfc. Manning we are going to put that piece of discussion-- table it for a little while, and continue on here.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. So, any further questions with respect to Specification 5 and 7 of Charge II?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's move on to Specification 9 of Charge II. Where would I find that in your statement?

Pfc. Manning

Page 24, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now Specification 9 of Charge II involves 'more than three classified records from the United States Southern Command database'-- what-- what are those records?

Pfc. Manning

They are Detainee Assessment Briefs, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And what is that?

Pfc. Manning

They are documents that generally outline and describe detainees that were held at Joint Task Force - Guantanamo, your Honor, [missed word].

Judge Lind

Okay. Where did you find these documents?

Pfc. Manning

These were on a US Southern Command portal, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, was that portal on SIPRNet?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were they-- were these documents classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay-- and what did you do with these documents? And were there more than three of them?

Pfc. Manning

There were filed I think your Honor-- the charge.

Judge Lind

Alright. And what did you do with them?

Pfc. Manning

I-- as I was downloading-- as I was going through some things, I segregated them-- some of them and went through them, and then I downloaded them-- I downloaded all of them that I could, then I put them onto a CD and I took them to my housing unit and put it into-- put onto my personal laptop and I uploaded it using-- using the drop box that I described, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now, your statement talks about getting in interpreter and all of that-- what happened there?

Pfc. Manning

That was a separate-- that is a separate incident that happened, but it made me sort of look into detainments as a whole after-- after some detainees were found at-- down in the Karrada Peninsula, Baghdad. The Federal Police-- it was a joint operations in which 15 detainees were basically taken into-- and then they were turned over to the FPs and-- and at that-- and going-- and I was assigned to do some research into this-- into this matter, and it got me thinking about detainments and things, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. When you say it got you thinking about detainments and is that why you took those records out of the SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

It's-- it's one of the reasons that I found them-- and found them again-- and then after reviewing them I I took them, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. And in this particular case-- with these records, do you think that there was-- was your conduct willful?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you know you were violating the law when you gave those records-- when you took them out-- the classified records out of the T-SCIF and put them on your personal computer and transmitted them to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you did transmit those with WikiLeaks too?

Pfc. Manning

To the-- to the drop box that was associated with them, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. We talked about 'justification' and 'necessity' before-- do you think that you had any-- you have any 'justification' or 'necessity' defense with respect to these records?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Why not?

Pfc. Manning

I knew that I was-- I knew what I was doing, and I knew that I was breaking the rules and not going by the regulations.

Judge Lind

And when you were submitting these detainee assessments-- I mean you weren't doing that-- were you doing to save somebody in imminent danger at that time?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. Nobody was in imminent danger.

Judge Lind

And was it part of your personal military duties?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor, it was not.

Judge Lind

Does either side believe any further inquiry-- well, first of all-- was your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And was that for the same reasons we talked about before for a different reason?

Pfc. Manning

Same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and when did you make this transmission to WikiLeaks of these documents?

Pfc. Manning

This was-- it was-- I downloaded them and took them on the 7th of March. It was the election for Iraq, and then the day after whenever I uploaded them, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And then, where you authorized to transmit those documents to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were they entitled to receive them?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to specification--

Prosecution (Fein)

Can we have a moment, your Honor?

Judge Lind

Yes.

Prosecution (Morrow)

Your Honor, just for the parties' and the court [missed a few words] from the paragraphs (m) and (n). It may be beneficial for the court to explore the answers with respect to prejudice to good order and discipline with the statement made in those two paragraphs.

Judge Lind

Alright. Look at paragraphs (m) and (n) in your statement.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And it talks about here that you had always been interested in moral efficacy of the actions in JTF-GTMO; and you always understood the need to detainee and interrogate individuals who might harm the United States and allies; and you felt that, that's what we were trying to do at JTF-GTMO, but then as you became educated on the topic you believed that the United States was holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that you believed were innocent, low-level foot soldiers that didn't have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater; and then that you remember back in early 2009 the newly elected president Barack Obama said he would close JTF-GTMO; and that the facility compromised our standing in the world and diminished our moral authority and after you familiarized yourself with the DABs that you agreed.

Now, even if-- this is kind of what you are saying is you had your own personal noble motive in doing what you did. Do you believe-- and you also testified that you believed that this conduct is service discrediting and prejudicial to good order and discipline. How can that co-exist?

Pfc. Manning

Your Honor, regardless of my opinion-- or my assessment on the documents such as this-- you know, it's-- you know, it's beyond my pay-grade-- it's not my authority to make these decisions-- that there are-- again, there are channels that you are suppose to go through. And, I didn't even look at the possible channels of-- of having this information released properly, so. That's not how we do business. And, so--

Judge Lind

So, am understanding your testimony-- are you telling me that even though you personally might have a disagreement with how policy was being formed and implemented that your conduct-- to further your personal goals-- can still be prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. And just to clarify [missed a few words] from the policy standpoint-- it is not necessarily-- my issues with the policy is-- that were the driver was-- you know, my concern is about not the-- about the lack of openness about the policies, your Honor. But, regardless of my opinions on those again, I don't have the authority.

Judge Lind

Okay. And was the fact that you acted without that authority-- is that what made your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And is that what made your conduct service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

What made it service discrediting was the fact that-- the public sees that these documents have been released and then-- you know, it damages their perception and their feeling about whether the Armed Services as a whole can safeguard information at all.

Judge Lind

Alright. Does the government have any-- desire any further inquiry?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's move onto Specification 10. Where am I in your statement?

Pfc. Manning

Page 33, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright Specification 10 involves more than five classified records relating to a military operations in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May of 2009. Now, did you have authorization-- did you-- acquire unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over more than five classified records relating to that military operation?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, where did those records come from?

Pfc. Manning

Those records came from the US CENTCOM portal-- under their Judge Advocate General folder.

Judge Lind

Was that from the SIPRNet computer too?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And is-- were those more than five records classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay, and what did you do-- what-- what did they involve? If you can tell me.

Pfc. Manning

They reference and event that occurred in 2009, your Honor, in which there are reports of civilian causalities at-- at an event.

Judge Lind

Okay. And when you came across this information was it-- was it a 15-6 investigation or did that include a 15-6 investigation?

Pfc. Manning

It might have been 15-6. I think it was DoD that-- it was under DoD, but I don't remember whether it was an Army Regulation that they went by, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Well was there some kinda of-- was there some kind of investigation into this incident that you are talking about?

Pfc. Manning

It was at least a 15-6 type investigation, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And are those the records that you took or did you take some different--

Pfc. Manning

And the supporting annexes and supplements and things like that, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So that's what you got. Did you download that from the SIPRNet onto something?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And what something was it?

Pfc. Manning

First my work computer then the CD-RW, and then I uploaded-- then I placed that onto my personal computer in the CHU, and uploaded that sometime later, your Honor-- a few days later at least.

Judge Lind

To the Specification as time frames-- 'between on or about 10 April 2012 or 10 April 2010-- excuse me-- and 12 April 2010'-- are those the accurate dates?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So those are the dates that you downloaded that information and you gave it to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. So, it would have been 11 April 2010.

Judge Lind

Okay.

And you talked about something-- you didn't use the TOR 'ano-mizer' the 'anony-min-izer'-- I think I am pronouncing this right?

Pfc. Manning

It's anonymizer.

Judge Lind

Anonymizer. Okay. [Missed a few words.] So, what did you use?

Pfc. Manning

I used-- I used a new version of the form that was-- that was up on the website, because they changed the website-- how they had the website set up, and I just used the new version of that-- and it had a bar, which you could see how far-- it was downloaded, and you didn't have to use [missed word] the anonmyizer, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Did you act willfully?

Pfc. Manning

I did, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you know you were violating the law?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you- was your conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Was it service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

For the same reasons we talked about before or for different reasons?

Pfc. Manning

For the same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to Specification 10?

Prosecution (Fein)

Can we have a moment, your Honor?

Judge Lind

Yes.

Defense (Coombs)

The defense does not, your Honor.

Prosecution (Morrow)

Your honor, just a-- briefly, I think-- but a-- on page 33, paragraph (e)-- again it might be helpful for the court to explore the service discrediting-- discrediting and each [missed word] aspect of this as compared to what's in the newspaper.

Judge Lind

Alright. Pfc. Manning, first of all, just before we get there-- you weren't authorized to take any of this information out of the SCIF were you?

Pfc. Manning

No, I was not, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, were you authorized to load it on your personal computer?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized to transmit it to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were they cleared to receive it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now looking at page 33 here-- it talks about in paragraphs (a) and (b) that this information-- you said it was reported in the press here that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians were accidentally killed?

Pfc. Manning

That was just the press, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, you-- you transmitted this information to WikiLeaks, why?

Pfc. Manning

What was that your Honor?

Judge Lind

Why did you transmit this information to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

I felt-- I mean I just felt that the report was different than-- than what-- I felt that there were things within the report that might help enlighten the general public of what happened and how it happened.

Judge Lind

And, this report was classified at the time?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. It was, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. And, at least in accordance with the people who had authority to classify this report, nobody with authority to classify this report had made a determination that it should be unclassified and disseminated to the general public. Is that correct?

Pfc. Manning

That is correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

We talked earlier about-- sort of the difference of even though you think something is a good idea, people who are authorized to make those choices, don't think that's a good idea-- and you act in accordance with your personal idea that, that conduct can be prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

Certainly, your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

Do you think in this case that, that's true?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And for the same reasons we talked about before?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, what about service discrediting conduct? If you personally think that you are doing something for the greater good, but the people with the authority to make those decisions haven't made the same decision you did-- do you think that your conduct can still be service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you think that it was service discrediting in this case?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor, it was.

Judge Lind

And for this specification as well?

Pfc. Manning

For this specification, yes.

Judge Lind

Okay. And for different reasons or reasons we talked about earlier?

Pfc. Manning

For the same reasons.

Judge Lind

Alright. Government, anything else?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. Also, your Honor, the government has a copy of the Adkins memos-- although after reviewing the memos-- that inquiry that the court already had about the extensive RCM 706 board and the filings of the court should cover this material. So, it's probably not needed.

Judge Lind

Alright. Well, just a-- I don't need to see the material but Pfc. Manning, there were a couple of incidences around the time when these-- you were making these disclosures where there were maybe a little bit of outbursts behavior-- how did that impact your-- did that impact your mental state in anyway, when you were making these decisions to willfully disclose this classified information?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Were you of-- I mean, was your mind clear when you were making these decisions?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And do you think that there was anything that was influencing-- that was a-- of any kind of mental health issue or mental condition that was influencing your decisions to transmit these documents willfully?

Pfc. Manning

I think I had some issues, but I don't think it would impact my performance or my ability to perform my duties, your Honor. So, no.

Judge Lind

Alright. Any further inquiry?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And, Mr. Coombs?

Defense (Coombs)

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright. Lastly for this charge and specifications-- Let's talk about-- Oh, we already talked about Specification 15, didn't we? Alright.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

Any other remaining specifications for charges under-- the lesser included offenses for 18 United States Code Section 793(e)?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, Pfc. Manning do you admit that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq and for Specifications 5 and 7 also at or near Rockville, Maryland; for Specification 2 between on or about February 2010 and 21 February 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over a video file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you admit for Specification 3 of Charge II that between on or about 17 March 2010 and 22 March 2010, you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States intelligence agency?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

For Specification 5 do you admit that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq and at or near Rockville Maryland that you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than 20 classified records from the Combined information Data Network Exchange Iraq database?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you admit for Specification 7 that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq and at or near Rockville Maryland between on or about 5 February-- or 5 January 2010 and 3 February 2010, you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than twenty classified records from the Combined information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

For Specification 9 do you admit that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq that on or about 8 March 2010, you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than three classified records from the United States Southern Command database?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

For Specification 10, do you admit that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq between on or about 10 April 2010 and 12 April 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over more than five classified records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And for Specification 15 do you admit that at or near Contingency Operation Station Hammer, Iraq between on or about 8 March 2010 you without authorization had possession of, access to, or control over a classified record produced by a United States Army intelligence organization dated 18 March 2008?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright. For all the Specifications, do you admit that you willfully communicated the classified records, classified memorandum, videos, and files described for each specification described in element (1) to a person not entitled to receive it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And do you admit that under the circumstances your conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's move into-- Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II-- which are the lesser included offenses for the offenses charged as a violation of 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) and Article 134. Alright. Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II allege the offense of fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 1030(a)(1) and Article 134, UCMJ. Your counsel has entered a plea of guilty by exceptions and substitutions for you to the lesser included offense of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct in violation of Article 134 UCMJ clauses (1) and (2).

Now, your plea of guilty admits that the following elements are true and accurately describe what you did.

[Element] (1) That at or near Contingency Operations Station Hammer, Iraq for Specification 13 between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 4 May 2010; and for Specification 14 between on or about 14 February 2010 and 15 February 2010 you knowingly accessed a computer on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network.

Element (2) That you obtained information that has been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations to wit: Specification 13, more that 75 classified United States Department of State cables and Specification 14, a classified Department of State cable entitled Reykjavik 13

Element (3) That you communicated, delivered, transmitted, or caused to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the information to a person not entitled to receive it.

Element (4) That you acted willfully.

Element (5) That under the circumstances your conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The same definitions for prejudice to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces that I read for you for the offenses charged in Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of Charge II also apply to this defense. Would you like me to read them to you again?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. That is not necessary.

Judge Lind

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

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

The term computer means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical or arithmetic or storage function and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. But such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter or any portable handheld calculator or other similar device.

Alright. Once again-- I defined person for you earlier the same definitions apply would you like me to read that again?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, and did the-- if this is going to a trier of fact then determining whether the person who received the information was entitled to have it, the trier of fact may consider all that the evidence introduced at trial to include any evidence concerning the classification status of the information; any evidence relating to the laws and regulations governing the classification and declassification of national security information; its handling, use, and distributions; as well as any evidence relating to regulations governing the handling, use, and distribution of the information obtained from classification systems.

Do you understand the elements and definitions as I read them to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions about them?

Pfc. Manning

No, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you understand that you are pleading guilty admits that these elements accurately describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you believe and admit that the elements and definitions taken together correctly describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now, do you understand also same for this offense is the other offenses that your plea to the lesser include offenses I just read is going to to establish some of the elements for the government if they-- if they intend to proceed with the greater offenses?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, I just want to stop here and make sure that both sides agree with this-- even though I distinguished the elements with what your plea would establish and what the government had left to prove, what I neglected to say is that there is no discrepancy in the date. You plead by exceptions and substitutions to dates. So, if the government has a broader date range-- even in an element that you establish by your plea-- the government still has to prove that broader date range. Okay? Do you understand that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do both side agree with that?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Alright. Let's talk about Specification 13-- well, let's talk-- let's talk about Specification 14, first. That is the Reykjavik cable.

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. where is that in your a--

Pfc. Manning

It's page 17, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now this was the cable where I believe you were talking about-- you were beginning to get interested in this Icesave?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now, what-- this-- this cable entitled Reykjavik-- it's from the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy portal? What is that?

Pfc. Manning

It is the-- or was the SIPR-- one of the SIPR portals that the Department of State had that published I guess their-- their wide distribution cables, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you had access to SIPRNet as part of your duties?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And you were cleared to have access to that level of information?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now, you had testified earlier that you had gone to SIPRNet to get CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM and other database information-- was this Department of State site on the same SIPRNet-- you know, can you go to the Department of State just like you went to CENTCOM or SOUTHCOM?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. You just change the address that you go to, yes, [missed word].

Judge Lind

So, were you authorized to go and get that-- to access the Department of State-- to access those-- that portal?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I was actually told to go there, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, you were told by this Captain Lim to go there?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Who is Captain Lim?

Pfc. Manning

Captain Lim was originally the assistant S2, and after our-- our full time S2 was shipped to a different position--he covered down and became the Brigade S2, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, were you and the other analysts all authorized to go to this database?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And did you use it in your intelligence analyst duties?

Pfc. Manning

I did, your Honor.

Judge Lind

The information from it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now, was this information-- you testified earlier that not all of it was classified. But, was this Reykjavik cable classified?

Pfc. Manning

It was, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now, what did you do-- well you said that you were authorized for that portal to download it onto a portable media to take it to your house? Or your CHU?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. What did you do? Did you download that cable?

Pfc. Manning

I did, your Honor.

Judge Lind

On what?

Pfc. Manning

I copied-- I took the web page and I copy and pasted the data onto a text file, which I then burned to a CD containing some other things. i don't remember what, and then I took that to my CHU.

Judge Lind

And, what did you do with that when you got to your CHU?

Pfc. Manning

I put that onto my personal computer and then I uploaded using the form.

Judge Lind

Using what form?

Pfc. Manning

The website form with the WikiLeaks website.

Judge Lind

So, you uploaded that Reykjavik cable to your personal computer and then-- am I understanding your testimony that you sent that cable to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

On the form that they told senders to use?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, once again, same as the other things-- were you acting willfully?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you know you were violating the law?

Pfc. Manning

I did, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Did you-- was WikiLeaks entitled to receive this Department of State cable?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were they authorized to receive it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Were you authorized to send it?

Pfc. Manning

I was not, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized to take it out of the SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

This-- these offenses also have the element of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct. Do you believe that your conduct in sending this Reykjavik cable to WikiLeaks was prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

It was, your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

And, was it for the same reason you talked about earlier or different reasons?

Pfc. Manning

Definitely the same reasons, your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

Alright. Do you believe it was service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And for the same reasons we talked about earlier or different reasons?

Pfc. Manning

The same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And you talked about here in your-- in your statement that you basically concluded that Iceland was being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers and out of viable solutions and coming to the US for assistance, and it didn't appear that we were going to do anything. Were you in a position of authority to decide what the United States government was going to do with respect to Iceland?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did-- we talked about the defense of 'justification' and 'necessity' already. Do you believe the fact that you believe-- that you had a personal belief in this-- that, that somehow gave you and authorized military duty to send this cable to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

I did not have that belief, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So you didn't-- you had no military duty then to send those cables [missed a few words]?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And did you believe-- do you believe the defense of 'necessity' as I defined it before-- you know, were you preventing imminent harm to-- to somebody like a drowning person in the lake by sending this cable?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor. So--

Judge Lind

That's a bad question. But a-- let me ask it again in a better way. We talked about the defense of 'necessity'. We talked about trespassing over somebody's house to rescue the drowning person, because there is nobody else who can do it. When you sent this cable were you in that kind of situation?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor, I was not.

Judge Lind

Does the defense of necessity apply to your case?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. To this Specification-- the defense--

Pfc. Manning

Not this specification, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required?

Judge Lind

Except for the date of the specification, would you act on-- what is the day on the specification here? --that would be? Okay. Did you act on 15-- between 15 February and 18 February of 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. Or it was 14 February and 15 February, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Oh, I am sorry. That's right. [Missed a few words] 14 and 15 February 2010. That's the exceptions and substitutions that you made. So, your conduct here in specification 14 then is between 14 February 2010 and 15 February 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now, does either side believe any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Morrow)

Your honor on page 18, paragraph (f) the accused states, 'I felt I might be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document'-- that line in particular tends to contradict something being service discrediting and [missed word]. So, it might be something the court wants to explore just a little more.

Judge Lind

Okay. Well we went over this a little bit in and the government would like me to go over this in more detail. This is-- your statement that they are talking about here is, 'I decided the cable was something that would be important and I felt I might be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document'-- so you personally believed that you were doing a good thing, is that fair?

Pfc. Manning

I felt it could be, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, we talked about earlier that-- do you have the authority to decide to declassify a cables and send it to WikiLeaks because you think the policy is a good thing?

Pfc. Manning

Your honor-- you know, being a junior enlisted specialist, you know, in the Army, no.

Judge Lind

So, I mean they basically-- so, does somebody else get to make those decisions?

Pfc. Manning

I imagine in this case it would be the-- it would be the Department of State and their channels, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So if the Department of State determines that this cable should be classified and should not be released to WikiLeaks-- and you decide as a personal matter that you don't agree with that and you think it should be released to WikiLeaks and you do release it to WikiLeaks, the fact that you think you are doing the right thing, can that still be service discrediting?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, why?

Pfc. Manning

Because it-- if soldiers in the position that I had did that, then-- it-- I mean, it damages-- I mean it damages our perception-- the public's perception of how and whether the military and the services can safeguard information, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

So, with respect to prejudice to good order and discipline, if-- is the military and organization that follows a chain of command?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, if someone at the top of the chain of the command-- command-- makes a decision and people below decide, 'Well, I don't agree with that decision, so i am going to live off of my own moral code and not follow the rules and regulations that are set forth by the people with authority to make those rules and regulations' what happens to the organization?

Pfc. Manning

We can't operate in a-- I mean, you just have-- you would have junior ranks, you know, making decisions that contradict the orders and set up a system of seize up, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, do you think that could be prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Pfc. Manning

Absolutely, your Honor, yes.

Judge Lind

And is that sort of what you were talking to me, when you were talking to me earlier about service discrediting conduct that might cause people to lose confidence in an organization if they see it sort of disintegrating like that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. It would be [missed word], yes.

Judge Lind

Alright and you believe that your conduct in this case, you know, contributed-- I guess, to at least to a minor points of that disorganization-- that disorganization?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does the government believe that any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Morrow)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now let's look at Specification 13. Now that talks about more than 75 classified cables-- now did you have access to more than 75 classified Department of State cables?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you get those from the same portal that you got the Reykjavik cable from?

Pfc. Manning

I did your Honor.

Judge Lind

And was this also done-- was that done between 28 March 2010 and 4 May 2010?

Pfc. Manning

It was done [missed word] around the 10th of April, your Honor-- or--

Judge Lind

So is the 10th of April between 28 March 2010 and on or about 4 May 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes. Yes it is, your Honor-- April.

Judge Lind

So, would it be between those dates that-- I mean that is the way you pleading by exceptions and substitutions has those dates. Do you believe that those are accurate dates?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now where in your time line are we talking about-- or in your statement are we talking about those cables in Specification 13 of Charge II?

Pfc. Manning

It's a page 30 your Honor, section [missed].

Judge Lind

Okay. Alright, so this is-- so are these cables the last thing that you uploaded and sent?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, we are getting now into the late March timeframe. And you said in your statement that you had begun establishing a dialogue with at least one person or at least two people from WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

At least one user account-- I don't know what was on the other side your Honor, but.

Judge Lind

Okay, and I guess at some point in your statement you are talking about-- you began to look at these Department of State cables and you began to really get interested in them?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Tell me about that.

Pfc. Manning

Through the course of my duties, I previously started looking at as directed-- I had started looking at cables more specifically for the Baghdad series of cables and then-- and then things that were tagged with Iraq so general area of Iraq-- and then I moved over to Afghanistan and then I started looking just wherever my interest my interest pique, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And did you download any cables off of the SIPRNet?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, to what?

Pfc. Manning

To a-- first the-- my workstation, your Honor. And, then from the workstation onto CD-- onto a DVD-RW and then onto my personal laptop.

Judge Lind

Okay. Did you do this basically the same way-- I mean you were authorized-- were you authorized to access the portal to get the cables-- to look at the cables?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized to download them to your personal workstation?

Pfc. Manning

To my workstation, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized to download them to a CD?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized to take them out of the SCIF?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright were you authorized to put them on your personal computer?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Were you authorized-- did you transfer them to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

I redid the documents to clean them up-- and then I uploaded them.

Judge Lind

Okay. When you say you re-did the documents to clean them up, what does that mean?

Judge Lind

There was a lot of like extraneous formatting that I removed from the documents and I put it into a table, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Other than formatting, did you take any-- did you change any of the substance?

Pfc. Manning

No, substance, you know, just--

Judge Lind

So-- and what these-- more than 75 cables were classified-- the charged cables?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, did you move anything-- remove anything from those cables that would have made them unclassified?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, when you sent that to WikiLeaks were they still classified?

Pfc. Manning

They still had classification markings, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Well, if the substance isn't change with the reason that they had classification marking still be present?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So you didn't change-- you didn't change the words?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

You just changed the formatting?

Pfc. Manning

I changed how it worked-- how you accessed it, your Honor.

Judge Lind

But, the words and the substance from what you took out of the State Department portal, and what you ultimately wound up sending to WikiLeaks was the same?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you act willfully?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And was WikiLeaks entitled to receive those State Department-- those classified State Department cables?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And under the circumstances was your conduct to the prejudice of good order rand discipline in the Armed Forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor-- well, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Let me ask-- let me ask the question again. Sometimes my questions can be confusing. Was your conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Was it of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you answering yes, because of the reasons we spoke about earlier or for different reasons?

Pfc. Manning

The same reasons, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So I am-- what I hearing you tell me is then basically for all of these specifications that we talked about today-- your conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct for the same reason?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Alright. You also say here that-- you were talking about looking at the Department of State cables and how they were-- SIPDIS means it goes onto SIPRNet and a lot of people have access to SIPRNet-- when classified documents are on SIPRNet and a lot of people are clear to have access to SIPRNet, does that give you any authorization, justification, or excuse to-- does that mean those can be downloaded off of SIPRNet to personal computers and shipped to people who don't have clearances?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So, even though a lot of people have access to SIPRNet-- is it controlled access? I mean does somebody give them authority to get onto SIPRNet or can any Tom, Dick, and Harry just go onto SIPRNet?

Pfc. Manning

If you have-- at the time, you-- of you had access to a SIPRNet computer and you were on SIPRNet you had access to the Net Centric Diplomacy site, your Honor.

Judge Lind

But-- for a person to get access to SIPRNet do you have, does someone have to give you a user name and password?

Pfc. Manning

For our unit, it was the S6 that would give us that.

Judge Lind

Okay, say I walk into your unit on the Contingency Operation Base Hammer and I haven't been authorized by anybody to do anything with respect to SIPRNet and I walk into the SCIF, can I go on SIPRNet?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor. You would have to-- I mean, we wouldn't let you in.

Judge Lind

But, I guess where I am going with this is to get on the SIPRNet. I mean are there some kind of controls so I can't get on it if I walk into the SCIF at Contingency Operation Base Hammer?

Pfc. Manning

In the SCIF, yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. If there is SIPRNet anywhere other than the SCIF, are there some controls on who can get on it-- and who can have access to that information?

Pfc. Manning

Sometimes Ma'am.

Judge Lind

No, okay. So anybody can just get on and go-- go use it.

Pfc. Manning

For some workstations, yes, your Honor. Legally, no, but the reality is, yes.

Judge Lind

Okay. WikiLeaks. Did they-- did they have any authorization under any circumstances to access a SIPRNet computer?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, when you downloaded that Department of State information, and brought it to your personal computer-- and when you sent it to WikiLeaks did you have any thought in your mind that they were legally authorized to receive it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you knew what you were doing was wrong?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, you knew it was against the law?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side desire any further inquiry with respect to the more than 75 classified cables?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Did you say something about these files were corrupted and they had to be sent again-- or something of that nature?

Pfc. Manning

The- the later ones-- all those were the ones that were available up to February of 2010 and then March and April were corrupted, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Well what happened-- I thought you testified earlier that for Specification 13 of Charge II you sent them in April?

Pfc. Manning

I did send them in April. But that was the ones up to February, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Oh, okay. So-- so you said the ones after February that were not corrupted in April?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, the classified-- the more than 75 classified charged documents, were they among the corrupted or the not corrupted?

Pfc. Manning

The not corrupted, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you sent them and they made it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. And then I made an attempt to add two more months and then that-- never happened.

Judge Lind

Okay, so. So, you actually did send them more than 75 classified cables to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side believe any further inquiry is required with respect to Specification 13 and 14 of Charge II?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Pfc. Manning, then, do you admit that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq for Specification 13 between on or about 28 March and on or about 4 May 2010 that you obtained information that has been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations to wit: for Specification 13 more than 75 United States Department of State cables and you admit that at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq for Specification 14 between on or about 14 February 2010 and 15 February 2010, you knowingly accessed a computer on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network and that you obtained information that has been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations to wit: for Specification 14 a classified Department of State cable entitled Reykjavik 13?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. And for this element too, when you are talking about the information is been determined by the United States government by Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, does that mean classification?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, the fact that it is classified does that fall under that category of--

Pfc. Manning

It does, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do the parties agree?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And so you admit then for Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II that you communicated, delivered, transmitted or cause to be communicated, delivered, transmitted the information to a person not entitled to receive it?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Pfc. Manning

You admitted that you acted willfully?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And do you admit that under the circumstances your conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. We have one final specification to go. [Missed word] and that is Specification 5 of Charge III. Are the parties ready to proceed? Pfc. Manning are you ready to proceed or do you want to have a brief recess before we go into that one?

Pfc. Manning

Continue, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Now, do you have a copy? I've asked your counsel for you of the first page of Army Regulations 380-5 dated 29 September 2000, as well as paragraph 7-4-- he paragraph of your charge is violating in that regulation, and paragraph 1-21, it's entitled 'sanctions'. Do you have a copy of all three of those in front of you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's talk about Specification 5 of Charge III. In Specification 5 of Charge III you are charged for the offense of violating a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Your defense counsel has entered pleas by exceptions and substitutions to this offense as well. By pleading guilty-- but you are pleading guilty to the same offense, just different dates I believe is the exceptions and substitutions.

By pleading guilty to this offense you are admitting that the following elements accurately describe what you did:

(1) There was in existence a certain lawful general regulation and the following terms: paragraph 7-4 Army Regulation 380-5 dated 29 September 2000;

(2) That you had a duty to obey that regulation; and,

(3) That at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq between on or about 8 January 2010 and on or about 10 May 2010 you violated this [said 'wrongful', but she probably meant 'lawful'] general regulation by wrongfully storing classified information.

Alright. One minute here.

Defense (Coombs)

Ma'am the court had stated 10 May for the end date-- it's 27 May 2010.

Judge Lind

27 May-- I thought I saw that. Okay. So, let's go-- let's just change that last element here. So that would be at or near-- element (3) would be at or near Contingency Operations Station Hammer, Iraq between on or about 8 January 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010 you violated this lawful general regulation by wrongfully storing information.

Alright-- and general regulations are those regulations which are generally applicable to an armed force and which are properly published by the Secretary of the military or by the military department. General regulations also include regulations which are generally applicable to the command or the officer issuing that throughout the command or a particular subdivision in which are issued by the general officer having general court-martial jurisdiction or a general or flag officer in command or a member superior to one of those. When a general regulation prohibits certain acts except under certain conditions then your conduct-- [missed word] conduct come in-- fall with one of the exceptions to the regulation. And once again, you must have had a duty to obey that regulation.

And to do something wrongfully means to do something without justification or excuse.

Do you understand the elements and definitions as I read them to you?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions about them?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor-- or no, your Honor, I don't.

Judge Lind

Do you understand that you have pleaded guilty admits that these elements accurately describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you believe that [missed word] that the elements and definitions taken together correctly describe what you did?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright, now-- let's-- were you still at Contingency-- were you still deployed at Contingency Operation Base Hammer, Iraq on the dates that you are pleading, 8 January 2010 and 27 May 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Now you have a copy-- we talked about earlier of the front page of the Army Regulations 380-5?

Pfc. Manning

I do, your Honor.

Judge Lind

What's the title of that regulation?

Pfc. Manning

'Department of Army Information Security Program'

Judge Lind

And, who is it issued by? It's on the bottom.

Pfc. Manning

Headquarters Department of the Army.

Judge Lind

Do you believe that this is a lawful general regulation?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Next at paragraph 21-- 1-21 where it says 'sanctions'--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you believe that this-- a regulation has to be-- sometimes regulations provide guidance and sometimes they are punitive. Do you believe that AR 380-5 is a punitive regulation?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, and what's the regulation meant for to govern?

Pfc. Manning

Governs information security, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's look at-- it's chapter 7-- you also have a copy, where it talks about storage and physical security standards. And part of that in section 2 is paragraph 7-4 and that is the paragraph that you're accused of violating. Can you tell me you how you violated that paragraph?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor, by not abiding by 380-5 in this paragraph in wrongfully storing and transferring classified information-- properly classified information through out my period in Iraq.

Judge Lind

So, are you talking about-- is this information targeting-- we spent the afternoon talking about how you transferred everything from the Reykjavik cable all the way through the-- ending with the Department of State cables in each of the specifications that we just discussed--

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, when you were telling me about taking the-- downloading the information from your computer to your workstation and then to your CD and then leaving the SCIF and then uploading that to your personal computer and sending it out, basically over the 'un-secure' internet-- is that the conduct that you are talking to me about, that violates this regulation?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you allowed to under this regulation to take classified information from a SIPRNet computer and-- and take it to your home computer and upload it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you authorized to send classified information that you have taken and you've downloaded on a CD and put on your personal computer to send that over the general internet waves?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Because, when you do that does that violate paragraph 7-4 of Army Regulation 380-5?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Is it the parties' theory that the-- this is-- in this specification is violated in some other fashion?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Do the parties believe-- and this was done between the dates that we've talked about here-- between 8 January 2010 and 27 May 2010?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe that any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Morrow)

Your Honor, I may have missed this but did you diverse occasions to the accused?

Judge Lind

Do I have divers occasions on here?

Prosecution (Morrow)

It is in the specification.

Judge Lind

Oh, no. I didn't even [missed word] the element, thank you. Alright the written statement I believe I have also from you all doesn't have the words 'diverse occasions' in it-- it would be with the elements. So, Pfc. Manning when I am going over-- this is the attachment to the statement that you gave me. So, I just want to make sure that you understand what 'diverse occasions' means and that-- since you didn't except those words out what you are pleading guilty to.

You're charged with on diverse-- violating this regulation on diverse occasions between the dates we just discussed, which were 8 January 2010 and 27 May 2010. Now, diverse occasions means two or more times. So, did you violate this regulation between those dates two or more times?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Because we discussed basically that you-- is your conduct is Specification 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15-- all those specifications we just discussed involved you taking information off of the SIPRNet-- taking it out of the SIPR and loading it either onto your personal computer or your camera-- and sending those to WikiLeaks. So, the loading of the information in specifications that refers the computer-- was that in violation of AR 380-5, paragraph 7-4?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. And you did that more than two times, right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Same thing for sending the information from your personal computer to-- over the 'un-secure' internet to WikiLeaks-- you did that more than two times too, is that right?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is requires?

Prosecution (Morrow)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, Pfc. Manning, do you admit that [missed word] in existence a lawful general regulations of the following terms: paragraph 7-4 Army Regulation 380-5 dated 29 September 2000?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you admit that you had a duty to obey that regulation?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, do you admit that on divers occasions between on or about 8 January 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010 at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, you violated this lawful general regulation by wrongfully storing classified information?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Does either side believe any further inquiry is required as to any of this?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, may we ask for a short recess, before we continue-- before we answer that question?

Judge Lind

Certainly. how long would you like?

Prosecution (Fein)

15 minutes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright if we start at five after-- will 13 minutes give you enough time to do what you need to do?

Prosecution (Fein)

It will, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Alright. Court is in recess until 17:05 or 5:05pm.

ALL RISE

AUDIO IN FEED IN PRESS POOL STARTED AFTER COURT ALREADY BACK IN SESSION

Prosecution (Fein)

...the [missed word] date range but most of the-- most of the specifications are pled in between two dates. So, I guess the government was unclear what the court actually meant by--

Judge Lind

Well they are pled between two dates-- that's fine. Let's address that issue when it is ripe--

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

-- if the evidence shows that it's-- there are two broad dates and the evidence shows it's two narrow dates, the court can find by exceptions and substitutions the narrower dates. Or if they are different dates-- I don't know-- I don't know if all of the-- I haven't looked at this-- were all the lesser included offenses within the dates charges by the government with the exceptions and substitutions?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. That is what I-- so, just to make sure that the-- Private First Class Manning understands that they are all inclusive.

Defense (Coombs)

The lesser included falls within their date range. So, the government's date ranges are wider than, than what we gave [missed a few words] specific dates.

Judge Lind

Alright. So, I mean, Pfc. Manning, that is going to be a fact specific determination-- you know, for the fact finder at the time. if-- you can have a-- you can plead guilty with subset within the larger subset, if your subset is still within larger subset-- but if the-- you know, the fact finder could say well, I just assume truncate it and make it on the evidence that has been presented, so. Do you have any questions about that-- or?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Do the parties agree with my interpretation of this-- it's really a fact finding decision-- it could be excepted and substituted-- or left within the broader date range [missed a few words]?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Any further inquiry on this?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. I defer to co-counsel.

Prosecution (Overgaard)

Ma'am on Specification 13 you had explored whether or not the cables were the same when they were transmitted as when they were when they were downloaded through the SIPRNet. And, the government just wonders if the court wants to explore that with the Specifications 5 and 7 as well. Because in paragraph 16 on page 16, there is reference in the possibility that the CIDNE- I and CIDNE-A transmission had been sanitized in the downloaded transmission.

Judge Lind

Well, Pfc. Manning let's talk about-- let's-- in all of the specifications we talked about-- let's look at it specification by specification. Specification 2 of Charge II was the video altered in any way when you sent it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, you took what you got of the SIPRNet and that is what you sent?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Specification 3-- the two documents in Specification 3-- the classified memorandum-- was that changed in any way between the time you got it from the SIPRNet and the time you sent it?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Specification 5-- these are the two that the government wants to explore-- Specification 5-- Specification 5 and 7-- those are the two database-- more than twenty documents-- did you change those between the time you took them off of SIPRNet and the time you sent them to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor. I-- I removed some extraneous information that I did not feel needed to be [missed word]-- in the version that I sent to whoever I was going to send it to.

Judge Lind

When you talk about you removed extraneous information-- what extraneous information?

Pfc. Manning

Specifically, IP addresses, usernames, a lot of other information attached to the-- to the records, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Would the information that you removed-- would that have changed their status from classified to unclassified?

Pfc. Manning

I believe the extraneous information that was on there was classified-- that is my impression, and that I removed-- so I removed some classified information without changing the other information.

Judge Lind

So, if the extraneous information that you removed was classified. Were the cables-- the classified cables that are charged here that you sent--

Pfc. Manning

SigActs, your Honor.

Judge Lind

--The SigActs, I'm sorry-- were they-- did they remain classified because you took some of the classified information out?

Pfc. Manning

I did not remove the field-- the classification field-- so, I don't know what the status they are in-- because a lot of the documents don't have classification markings [missed a few words].

Judge Lind

Okay. Now, government, the charged documents that we went over at the beginning of the trial-- when Pfc. Manning was sitting over here in the panel box. Were they the charged documents as downloaded from the SIPRNet-- or where they the charged documents as released?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, the charged documents that were printed and put in the binder at appellate exhibit 501 were the exact documents printed from the SD card found Private First Class Manning's aunt's house.

Judge Lind

Okay.

Prosecution (Fein)

So-- as released.

Judge Lind

The charged documents on Specifications 5 and 7 that we looked through, were those-- did they appear when you reviewed them in the same form as they were on the SD card in your aunt's camera?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Now, was that before or after they had been changed-- any extraneous information removed?

Pfc. Manning

That is after, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, the charged documents as they appeared in that binder that you looked at-- are in a form that you had already changed and the form that was sent to WikiLeaks?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor--

Judge Lind

Were those documents as you reviewed them in that binder-- are they classified?

Pfc. Manning

Well, I would assume so, yes.

Judge Lind

Well, you are admitting here to a criminal offense that you are--

Pfc. Manning

Yes.

Judge Lind

-- transmitting classified documents. So, why don't you take a couple moments and talk to your counsel about that [missed a few words]--

Pfc. Manning

They are classified, your Honor. The original classification authority said that they are classified, so they are classified, yes.

Judge Lind

And, you are sure about that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. So at the time you sent them, they were classified?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. And, you are sure about that?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Okay. Does either side believe any further inquiry is required?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Trial counsel what do you calculate to be the maximum punishment authorized in this case based solely on Pfc. Manning's plea?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your honor, based solely on Private First Class Manning's plea, the maximum punishment is the forfeit of all pay and allowances, to be reduced to Private E-1, to be confined for twenty years, and to be dishonorably discharged fro the service.

Judge Lind

Defense counsel, do you agree?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Pfc. Manning do you understand that-- based on your plea alone this court can sentence you to be reduced to the grade of E1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for up to twenty years, and to be dishonorably discharge from the service?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Is the government interested in a fine in this case?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And a potential fine also. Do you have any question as to the maximum sentence that could be imposed as a result of your guilty plea?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, trial counsel is there any pretrial agreement in this case?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Even though counsel, there are no formal written plea trial agreements, are there any unwritten agreements or understandings in this case?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Pfc. Manning has anybody made any agreement with you or promise to you in order to get you to plead guilty?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs and the rest of the defense team, have you had enough time and opportunity to discuss this case with Pfc. Manning?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Defense (Hurley)

Yes, Ma'am.

Defense (Tooman)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. So I've asked all three of you that-- from now on I'll just take Mr. Coombs [missed word] as lead counsel then.

Pfc. Manning, have you in fact consulted fully with your defense team and received the full benefit of their advice?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you satisfied that your defense team's advice is in your best interest?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you satisfied with your defense counsel?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you pleading guilty voluntarily and of your own free will?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Has anyone made any threat-- or in anyway tried to force you to plead guilty?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you have any questions as to the meaning and effect of your guilty plea?

Pfc. Manning

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you fully understand the meaning and effect of your guilty plea?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Do you understand that even though you believe you are guilty you have a legal right to plead not guilty and place upon the government the burden of proving your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Take a moment now to consult once again with your defense team and tell me if you still want to plead guilty?

Judge Lind

Alright. Do you still want to plead guilty?

Pfc. Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, Pfc. Manning I find your plea of guilty is made voluntarily and with full knowledge of its meaning and effect. I further find you are knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived your rights against self-incrimination through a trial of the facts by a court-martial and to be confronted by the witnesses against you. Accordingly, your plea of guilty is provident and is accepted. However, I advise you-- you may request to withdraw your plea at anytime before a sentence is announced, and if you have a good reason for request, I will grant it.

Now, is the government going forward on the offense to which the accused has pled not guilty?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am. Given the seriousness of Private First Class Manning's charged conduct, United States does intend to go forward with all the charges as originally charged.

Judge Lind

Alright, in that case the court is not going to make findings, with respect to the guilty pleas at this point. Pfc. Manning as we discussed, earlier-- what that means is the government is going to go forward, with the charges as charged-- nothing you said today can be used by the government when they prove the case-- however, the elements that you have established in your plea, the government doesn't have to present any proof of those-- your plea has established those elements. So, we just have the remaining elements that are left. We have the outstanding issue that the parties are briefing with the 793(e) offenses as to the tangible intangible element that we discussed earlier-- whether it is only the intangible, but requires the reason to believe additional element; or whether both do. So, that's will be decided at the next Article 39(a) session.

Do we-- and once again [missed a few words] only findings I can make with respect to the specifications you pled guilty to-- are guilty to what you pled guilty to or guilty to the greater offenses, if the government has proven that.

Does either side believe that we need to address anything further with respect to Pfc. Manning's plea?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. Is there anything else that we need to address today, other than discussing what's going to go on tomorrow?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, Ma'am.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright. As I understand the parties and I met in an RCM 802 conference earlier today-- once again that's a conference where I talk to the parties about logistics and how the case is going to proceed. And we have a couple of things still left on the agenda. One of those is the government has filed a motion under MRE 505(i), which is our rule governing the use of classified information for and in camera closed proceeding concerning the use of certain classified information at trial. I believe the way the parties have desired to handle that would be to begin with an open session to discuss that , and then moved into a closed session-- am I correct on that?

Defense (Coombs)

That is the defense's desire, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am, but the United States is still doing some research to figure out to what extent the open session would be-- well, to what extent-- how much information would be litigated on the open session.

Judge Lind

Alright that is fine. Just at least to introduce the motion-- the redacted form and what the defense has asked the court to do--

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

--that's also in redacted form, I believe, so-- I believe we can [missed word] put that on the record.

Prosecution (Fein)

At a minimum, yeah, absolutely, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Okay. But then the court will make it's findings now with respect to the closed session.

In accordance with RCM 806(b)(2) and MRE 505(i) and the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, the court finds and rules as follows.

At the request of the court and the-- at the request-- I'm sorry. The government has moved for an in camera closed proceeding pursuant to MRE 505(i)(2) regarding the use of certain classified information at trial. The court has examined the filings by the parties as well as the ex parte and classified filings by the government, and finds that the Article 39(a) session on closure and motion to close the courtroom for specified testimony-- that the government has demonstrated that disclosure of classified information as issue could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security in the degree to warrant classification under Executive Order, statute, or regulation. Closure of the hearing is narrowly tailored to protect an overriding national security interest, and the hearing regarding this issue will be open to the maximum extent possible tomorrow to at least introduce the-- the issues. And, that there are no other alternatives other than the closed hearing-- the rule actually provides for a closed hearing in this case to discuss the use of that particular information at trial. So, the court is going to grant the government's motion for a closed hearing tomorrow in addition to the original open hearing.

Now I believe Mr. Coombs also wanted to set forth the defense view on the-- both back to the Article 104 issue that we talked about on the 'Winthrop Treatise' that the government has provided?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor. I just have a brief addition to that-- that I can add to the 505(i) open session argument.

Judge Lind

So we'll probably begin with-- we'll begin with that-- 'Winthrop'-- then we will get into the 505(i). The parties and I have agreed-- we are going to start at ten o'clock tomorrow. Is that what the agreement was--

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am

Judge Lind

--is that still what you would like to do?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, we're going to open the session at ten o'clock. The parties and I are going to meet a little bit earlier than that-- because we are going to go over the trial calendar. Some new things have been added to include the motion we just talked about for the next session. So, we are going to look at the dates and make sure that the current case calendar-- that the dates are a good idea and we could add some dates or take some dates out. We are not sure. When we open the court tomorrow at ten o'clock, what we would like to do is have a way ahead. So, we can announce that to the public and everybody knows what is going to be going on in the case.

Is there anything else that we are going to address tomorrow that I have neglected to mention?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am, just the United States also intends as we get into the 505(i), just provide more of a historical references as far as Article 104. And then also we will capture for the record-- 505(h) filing and both parties are going to meet this afternoon [missed a few words] this session closes.

Judge Lind

Is there anything else that we need to address, before we recess the court for the evening?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, court is in recess until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

ALL RISE