Top
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
DOJ WL Contract Ops
Sonic 2703d
Twitter Unseal 2703d
Dynadot 2703d
Google 2703d
2011
Twitter 2703d
Appelbaum Search & Seizure
End Charge Dates
2010
House Search & Seizure
2009
Begin Charge Dates
2008
2007
2006

alexaobrien.com | blog | interviews | audio | video | features | about | in the press | contact | archives

Other resources...

Oct 2012

7 White House | The recommendations for Government-wide policy for the deterrence, detection, and mitigation of insider threats by the Insider Threat Task Force's in coordination with the Executive Agent, due to Steering Committee for appropriate review, according to Obama White House Executive Order 13587 - Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information

Executive Order 13587

EXECUTIVE ORDER

STRUCTURAL REFORMS TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY OF CLASSIFIED NETWORKS AND THE RESPONSIBLE SHARING AND SAFEGUARDING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to ensure the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified national security information (classified information) on computer networks, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Policy. Our Nation's security requires classified information to be shared immediately with authorized users around the world but also requires sophisticated and vigilant means to ensure it is shared securely. Computer networks have individual and common vulnerabilities that require coordinated decisions on risk management.

This order directs structural reforms to ensure responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks that shall be consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. Agencies bear the primary responsibility for meeting these twin goals. These structural reforms will ensure coordinated interagency development and reliable implementation of policies and minimum standards regarding information security, personnel security, and systems security; address both internal and external security threats and vulnerabilities; and provide policies and minimum standards for sharing classified information both within and outside the Federal Government. These policies and minimum standards will address all agencies that operate or access classified computer networks, all users of classified computer networks (including contractors and others who operate or access classified computer networks controlled by the Federal Government), and all classified information on those networks.

Sec. 2. General Responsibilities of Agencies.

Sec. 2.1. The heads of agencies that operate or access classified computer networks shall have responsibility for appropriately sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks. As part of this responsibility, they shall:

(a) designate a senior official to be charged with overseeing classified information sharing and safeguarding efforts for the agency;

(b) implement an insider threat detection and prevention program consistent with guidance and standards developed by the Insider Threat Task Force established in section 6 of this order;

(c) perform self-assessments of compliance with policies and standards issued pursuant to sections 3.3, 5.2, and 6.3 of this order, as well as other applicable policies and standards, the results of which shall be reported annually to the Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee established in section 3 of this order;

(d) provide information and access, as warranted and consistent with law and section 7(d) of this order, to enable independent assessments by the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks and the Insider Threat Task Force of compliance with relevant established policies and standards; and

(e) detail or assign staff as appropriate and necessary to the Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office and the Insider Threat Task Force on an ongoing basis.

Sec. 3. Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established a Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee (Steering Committee) to exercise overall responsibility and ensure senior-level accountability for the coordinated interagency development and implementation of policies and standards regarding the sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks.

Sec. 3.2. The Steering Committee shall be co-chaired by senior representatives of the Office of Management and Budget and the National Security Staff. Members of the committee shall be officers of the United States as designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Information Security Oversight Office within the National Archives and Records Administration (ISOO), as well as such additional agencies as the co-chairs of the Steering Committee may designate.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Steering Committee shall include:

(a) establishing Government-wide classified information sharing and safeguarding goals and annually reviewing executive branch successes and shortcomings in achieving those goals;

(b) preparing within 90 days of the date of this order and at least annually thereafter, a report for the President assessing the executive branch's successes and shortcomings in sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks and discussing potential future vulnerabilities;

(c) developing program and budget recommendations to achieve Government-wide classified information sharing and safeguarding goals;

(d) coordinating the interagency development and implementation of priorities, policies, and standards for sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks;

(e) recommending overarching policies, when appropriate, for promulgation by the Office of Management and Budget or the ISOO;

(f) coordinating efforts by agencies, the Executive Agent, and the Task Force to assess compliance with established policies and standards and recommending corrective actions needed to ensure compliance;

(g) providing overall mission guidance for the Program Manager-Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) with respect to the functions to be performed by the Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office established in section 4 of this order; and

(h) referring policy and compliance issues that cannot be resolved by the Steering Committee to the Deputies Committee of the National Security Council in accordance with Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System).

Sec. 4. Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office.

Sec. 4.1. There shall be established a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office (CISSO) within and subordinate to the office of the PM-ISE to provide expert, full time, sustained focus on responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks. Staff of the CISSO shall include details, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Steering Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of CISSO shall include:

(a) providing staff support for the Steering Committee;

(b) advising the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks and the Insider Threat Task Force on the development of an effective program to monitor compliance with established policies and standards needed to achieve classified information sharing and safeguarding goals; and

(c) consulting with the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the ISOO, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and others, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with policies and standards under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, Executive Order 12829 of January 6, 1993, as amended, Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010, and Executive Order 13556 of November 4, 2010.

Sec. 5. Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense and the Director, National Security Agency, shall jointly act as the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks (the "Executive Agent"), exercising the existing authorities of the Executive Agent and National Manager for national security systems, respectively, under National Security Directive/NSD-42 of July 5, 1990, as supplemented by and subject to this order.

Sec. 5.2. The Executive Agent's responsibilities, in addition to those specified by NSD-42, shall include the following:

(a) developing effective technical safeguarding policies and standards in coordination with the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS), as re-designated by Executive Orders 13286 of February 28, 2003, and 13231 of October 16, 2001, that address the safeguarding of classified information within national security systems, as well as the safeguarding of national security systems themselves;

(b) referring to the Steering Committee for resolution any unresolved issues delaying the Executive Agent's timely development and issuance of technical policies and standards;

(c) reporting at least annually to the Steering Committee on the work of CNSS, including recommendations for any changes needed to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of that work; and

(d) conducting independent assessments of agency compliance with established safeguarding policies and standards, and reporting the results of such assessments to the Steering Committee.

Sec. 6. Insider Threat Task Force.

Sec. 6.1. There is established an interagency Insider Threat Task Force that shall develop a Government-wide program (insider threat program) for deterring, detecting, and mitigating insider threats, including the safeguarding of classified information from exploitation, compromise, or other unauthorized disclosure, taking into account risk levels, as well as the distinct needs, missions, and systems of individual agencies. This program shall include development of policies, objectives, and priorities for establishing and integrating security, counterintelligence, user audits and monitoring, and other safeguarding capabilities and practices within agencies.

Sec. 6.2. The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, or their designees. Membership on the Task Force shall be composed of officers of the United States from, and designated by the heads of, the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the ISOO, as well as such additional agencies as the co-chairs of the Task Force may designate. It shall be staffed by personnel from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), and other agencies, as determined by the co-chairs for their respective agencies and to the extent permitted by law. Such personnel must be officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States. To the extent permitted by law, ONCIX shall provide an appropriate work site and administrative support for the Task Force.

Sec. 6.3. The Task Force's responsibilities shall include the following:

(a) developing, in coordination with the Executive Agent, a Government-wide policy for the deterrence, detection, and mitigation of insider threats, which shall be submitted to the Steering Committee for appropriate review;

(b) in coordination with appropriate agencies, developing minimum standards and guidance for implementation of the insider threat program's Government-wide policy and, within 1 year of the date of this order, issuing those minimum standards and guidance, which shall be binding on the executive branch;

(c) if sufficient appropriations or authorizations are obtained, continuing in coordination with appropriate agencies after 1 year from the date of this order to add to or modify those minimum standards and guidance, as appropriate;

(d) if sufficient appropriations or authorizations are not obtained, recommending for promulgation by the Office of Management and Budget or the ISOO any additional or modified minimum standards and guidance developed more than 1 year after the date of this order;

(e) referring to the Steering Committee for resolution any unresolved issues delaying the timely development and issuance of minimum standards;

(f) conducting, in accordance with procedures to be developed by the Task Force, independent assessments of the adequacy of agency programs to implement established policies and minimum standards, and reporting the results of such assessments to the Steering Committee;

(g) providing assistance to agencies, as requested, including through the dissemination of best practices; and

(h) providing analysis of new and continuing insider threat challenges facing the United States Government. 

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word "agencies" shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to change the requirements of Executive Orders 12333 of December 4, 1981, 12829 of January 6, 1993, 12968 of August 2, 1995, 13388 of October 25, 2005, 13467 of June 30, 2008, 13526 of December 29, 2009, 13549 of August 18, 2010, and their successor orders and directives.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede or change the authorities of the Secretary of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Secretary of Defense under Executive Order 12829, as amended; the Secretary of Homeland Security under Executive Order 13549; the Secretary of State under title 22, United States Code, and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986; the Director of ISOO under Executive Orders 13526 and 12829, as amended; the PM-ISE under Executive Order 13388 or the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended; the Director, Central Intelligence Agency under NSD-42 and Executive Order 13286, as amended; the National Counterintelligence Executive, under the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002; or the Director of National Intelligence under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, NSD-42, and Executive Orders 12333, as amended, 12968, as amended, 13286, as amended, 13467, and 13526.

(d) Nothing in this order shall authorize the Steering Committee, CISSO, CNSS, or the Task Force to examine the facilities or systems of other agencies, without advance consultation with the head of such agency, nor to collect information for any purpose not provided herein.

(e) The entities created and the activities directed by this order shall not seek to deter, detect, or mitigate disclosures of information by Government employees or contractors that are lawful under and protected by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Inspector General Act of 1978, or similar statutes, regulations, or policies.

(f) With respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the Director of National Intelligence deems necessary to implement this order.

(g) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(1) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(2) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals

(h) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(i) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

 BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 7, 2011.

5 Department of State | State Department spokesperson, Mark Toner, says regarding the WikiLeaks release of Syrian government emails, that the State department doesn't need "any more internal documents of the Assad regime to know exactly about – there is ample evidence about the exact kind of violence that they’re perpetrating against their own people."

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Do you have a comment on the Wikileaks leaking of all the Syria emails?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, I’ve seen the initial news reports, as you have. My general reaction is that I don’t think we need any more internal documents of the Assad regime to know exactly about – there is ample evidence about the exact kind of violence that they’re perpetrating against their own people. So my initial reaction is that I’m not sure that any additional internal correspondence will change our perspective.

QUESTION: What do you mean by additional?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, what I’m saying is that --

QUESTION: You are in possession of internal Syrian correspondence?

MR. VENTRELL: No, what I’m saying is that it is blatantly clear to the whole world what the Assad regime is doing to its people. And so --

QUESTION: So this is not just --

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we’ve just seen the initial reports.

(Source: Department of State)

Jun 2012

25 [US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing scheduled at Forte Meade, MD]

Populating content today.

20 Department of State | AP reporter asks State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland if Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, plans to speak about Assange on her upcoming visit to Sweden. Nuland neither confirms of denies and adds, "We want to see justice served. Let’s leave it at that," and then on questioning adds, "We are obviously not involved in the process, as far as I know."

QUESTION: Any contact with Ecuador since Julian Assange’s arrival at the Embassy in London requesting asylum and perhaps a request that he be extradited to the United States on the WikiLeaks (inaudible)?

MS. NULAND: No. No.

QUESTION: On that subject, does the Administration care where Julian Assange decides he wants to spend the night? Is this a subject that keeps people up in Washington? I don’t – is it something that you have any interest in at all?

MS. NULAND: This is a UK-Ecuador-Sweden issue.

QUESTION: Well, people who – his people around him seem to think that the U.S. is some puppeteer here that’s controlling all the strings. And I just – I mean, does anyone give a second thought about Julian Assange? And maybe you can’t answer that for anyone – but I mean, are you aware of anyone who gives a fig where Julian Assange is?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we are not involved in any of these discussions.

QUESTION: Yeah, but do you care? Does anyone --

MS. NULAND: Again, you’re asking me to speak for the great mass of America.

QUESTION: Well, I mean – but in terms of – no, in terms of the – in terms of this building.

MS. NULAND: We want to see justice served. Let’s leave it at that.

QUESTION: Yeah. But that would be justice – Swedish justice.

MS. NULAND: We are obviously not involved in the process, as far as I know.

(Source: Department of Justice)

14 Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority | UK Supreme Court Rejects Julian Assange's Application to re-open appeal

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the application made by Ms Dinah Rose QC, counsel for Mr Julian Assange, seeking to re-open their appeal.

The seven Justices who heard the appeal on 1-2 February 2012 and gave judgment on 30 May 2012 have considered the appellant's written application, and the reasons for their decision are set out below. These reasons have been agreed unanimously by the seven Justices.

In addition, the Court has ordered that, with the agreement of the respondent and pursuant to section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.

Mr Assange applies to set aside the judgment that has been given against him and to re-open the appeal. The grounds of the application are that the majority of the Court decided the appeal on a ground that Ms Rose QC, Mr Assange’s counsel, had not been given a fair opportunity to address. That ground was that article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Convention”) and the principle of public international law expressed in that article rendered admissible State practice as an aid to the interpretation of the Framework Decision.

At the outset of her address to the Court Ms Rose gave five headings for the submissions that she proposed to make. The third of these was the relevance of subsequent events, other EU Instruments and the practice of EU States. A considerable volume of documentary material that had been placed before the Court related to these matters.

In the course of her submissions under her third heading, as she has accepted, Lord Brown expressly put to her that the Convention applied to the interpretation of the Framework Decision. That Convention, as Ms Rose has recognized, sets out rules of customary international law. Had Ms Rose been minded to challenge the applicability of the Convention, or the applicability of State practice as an aid to the construction of the Framework Decision, or the relevance and admissibility of the material relating to State practice, she had the opportunity to do so. She made no such challenge. Her submissions were to the effect that caution should be exercised when considering the effect of State practice.

For these reasons the Court considers that this application is without merit and it is dismissed.

Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offenses of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offenses in respect of which his extradition is sought”.

Judgment (PDF)

Press summary (PDF)

(Source: UK Supreme Court Website

14

Department of Justice | Ryan Cleary, a 20-year-old British citizen, is indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles. He stands accused of working with hacking group Lulzsec and participating in Internet attacks on Fox and PBS television networks as well as Sony's film and TV studio. Cleary is currently in custody in the UK awaiting prosecution over similar charges.

DOJ spokesperson said federal authorities would "allow the prosecution to take its course" against Cleary overseas before deciding whether to seek his extradition to the United States. He is next scheduled to be in court in the UK on June 25.

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cr-00561-UA-1 [Tags: Lulzsec]

8 Department of State | State Department is quizzed by AP reporter Matt Lee on in a thread he has been weaving for sometime about how the State Dept. will comment on emails stolen from Brett McGurk, State Department nominee for U.S. ambassador to Iraq, but will not comment on cables released by WikiLeaks which were "essentially emails."

QUESTION: On another subject, this nomination of Brett McGurk, is it in trouble? And can you confirm that the State Department is investigating allegations of these emails between him and Ms. Chon of The Wall Street Journal?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, on the subject of the emails, they’re out there for everybody to see. I’m not going to get into emails between Mr. McGurk and the woman who subsequently became his wife. With regard to Mr. McGurk’s nomination, I think you know that he spent the better part of the last decade serving our country in and out of Iraq, working for a Republican administration, a Democratic administration. He is, in our view, uniquely qualified to serve as our ambassador, and we urge the Senate to act quickly on his nomination.

QUESTION: So obviously you’re sticking with him. But can you confirm that – because there are reports – that the State Department actually has looked into these alleged emails, or the allegations that these might have compromised security or sensitive information?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to say on the emails.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because, I mean, there are rules for Foreign Service officers to not get into situations where you’re blackmailed. There’s sort of a sense that you have to act morally. There are these regulations in your guidebooks. And some people have lost security clearances over having extramarital affairs. So I wonder why it is that this doesn’t seem to be – factor at all into your decision in keeping this – keeping his nomination out there.

MS. NULAND: Again, we consider him uniquely qualified. All of the necessary things were done before his nomination, and we urge the Senate to confirm him.

Jill.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that those emails actually came from the State Department system, in – within the State Department system?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak about the emails. They’re out there for you to look at. They’re obviously very much available for anybody to read.

QUESTION: Aren’t you investigating how they were leaked? They’re from your own system.

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into our internal issues here.

QUESTION: Well, why not? You talk about WikiLeaks all the time. Those were essentially emails.

MS. NULAND: Goes to your usual point, Matt, that we speak about --

QUESTION: What, the lack of consistency?

MS. NULAND: Yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, okay, great. When – you said you did – all the necessary things were done before his nomination. What are those necessary things? Was that like a security clearance and vetting and --

MS. NULAND: All that stuff.

QUESTION: Well, I mean – no, I – what are they? I don’t know. What has to be done, not just in his case but in any nominee’s case?

MS. NULAND: His nomination was managed in the exact – with the exact same processes that we use for everyone.

QUESTION: Well, okay. What does that mean? I mean, does that mean that there’s an FBI check or --

MS. NULAND: I’m going to refer you to the White House for how they do this.

QUESTION: All right. And then --

QUESTION: Just one more on that.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: If you do – if you did do that, are you sharing this with members of Congress who have severe problems with his nomination?

MS. NULAND: We always work with Congress on our nominees, and we’re continuing to do that in this case.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that there has been at least one meeting with – on the specific issues, not on the specific issues that were about the emails, with people on the Hill?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to comment on the specifics of our conversation with Congress, but in all these nomination procedures, we work with the Hill on any --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- issues that they have as our --

QUESTION: But are you --

MS. NULAND: -- nominees are being reviewed.

QUESTION: But are you aware that this – that people from the State Department have gone to the Hill and/or have spoken to members of the committee who have raised concerns about these specific issues. And by these specific issues, I don’t mean the more specific substantive issues that senator – people like Senator McCain have raised. I’m talking specifically about the emails. Do you know if they have been – if this issue has been discussed with people on the Hill?

MS. NULAND: Beyond saying that we continue to work with appropriate members and staff on his nomination in support of it, as we do with all nominees, I’m not going to get into details.

(Source: Department of State)

8 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

Populating content today...

7 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

Populating content today...

7

WL Grand Jury | After a closed session James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director., House and Senate Intel Committee hold a press conference.

The National Security Division of the Department of Justice, which is investigating WikiLeaks, recuses itself because it was likely a source of the leaks to the media of classified info. Andrew Peterson, National Security Division lawyer is one of the main prosecutors in the WL Grand Jury.

The House and Senate Intel Committee called for new legislation as part of the Intelligence Authorization FY 2013.

"But from previous comments, they appeared to have in mind recent reports by The New York Times, The Associated Press, Newsweek and other news organizations about an intelligence agent who infiltrated the branch of Al Qaeda in Yemen and posed as a suicide bomber; President Obama’s oversight of drone strikes against terrorism suspects; and an attack using the Stuxnet computer worm designed by the United States and Israel against Iran’s nuclear program. " (Source: New York Times)

6 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

This is a transcript of the Motion Hearing held on June 6, 2012 at Fort Meade, Maryland in US v Pfc. Bradley Manning.

  • Judge: Army Col. Denise Lind

  • Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Capt. Hunter Whyte

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

09:00 a.m. R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802

10:00 a.m. Article 39(a) Session

ALL RISE

Judge Lind

Called to order. Appears the first order of business we have today is to discuss individual counsel request for Major Hurley.

Lind goes through the script of reading Pfc. Manning his rights to counsel in a Courts-Martial.

[Military counsel] is provided at no expense to you. You also have the right to be represented by military counsel of your own selection provided that the counsel that you have requested is readily available.

If you are represented by military counsel of your own selection, then your detailed military counsel will be excused. However, you can request that your detailed defense counsel continue to represent you, but that request would not have to be granted.

Do you understand that?

Bradley Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So the documents that Mr. Coombs just described were a request by you for individual military counsel?

Bradley Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

In addition to military defense counsel you have the right to be represented by civilian counsel at no expense to the Government.

Civilian counsel may represent you with military defense counsel or you can excuse your military counsel and be represented only by your civilian counsel.

Do you understand your....?

Bradley Manning

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

OK so at this point you have a detailed military defense counsel. You have requested Major Hurley as an individual military counsel and that request has been approved, and you have Mr. Coombs as you civilian defense counsel.

Are these the three attorneys that you want to represent you [Mr. Coombs, Major Thomas F. Hurley, Captain Joshua Tooman]?

Bradley Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. We can move that along?

Bradley Manning

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Judge Lind details Major Hurley.[MISSING]

And for the record that is Appellate 85, the Request for Individual Military Counsel and the subsequent [missed].

And moving along, the court notes that that an extraordinary writ has been filed in this case with the Court of Appeals.

Judge is referring to Center For Constitutional Rights Challenge to Secrecy in Manning Courts-Martial

That Court has not ordered this Court to stay these proceedings so unless...until that Court does we will proceed as scheduled with the scheduling.

Does the either side comments to add?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

The last Article 39(a) Session [these hearings are called Article 39a Sessions] was the 26th of April of 2012. A number of motions and rulings have been filed since then and I would like to state those for the record. Beginning with the Government Motion to Reconsider the Court's ruling with respect to the Department of State Damage Assessment.

Is that marked as an Appellate Exhibit?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Appellate Exhibit...

Judge Lind

Appellate Exhibit 86, which is the Ruling in the Government Motion to Reconsider the Department of State Damage Assessment. The Government Motion itself is that also an Appellate Exhibit?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. Appellate Exhibit 71.

Judge Lind

OK. The Court ordered in its 23 March 2012 ruling on the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery that the Government produce a draft Department of State Damage Assessment for in camera review to determine whether it contained discoverable evidence.

The Government had asked me on the 26th of April, which was the last day of the last Article 39(a) Session for a Motion to Reconsider that ruling.

Major Fein, can the Government to articulate its position here?

Prosecution (Fein)

One moment, your Honor.

Your Honor. The Government did not request an oral argument.

Judge Lind

OK Does the Government request to make that argument today?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

For the record, the Motion to Reconsideration is Appellate Exhibit 71, and the prosecution brief discussing the damage assessments that go along with it is Appellate Exhibit 72.

The Court has issued a ruling in this respect. The Defense, did you want to address anything with respect to position...

Defense (Coombs)

No, you Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, I [MISSING] the court as follows.

[BEGIN APPELLATE EXHIBIT 86, COURT RULING for GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR THE COURT TO RECONSIDER its 23 MARCH 2012 RULING ON THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT]

On 11 May 2012, Appellate Exhibit 86 the Government moves the Court to reconsider its 23 March 2012 ruling requiring the Government by 18 May 2012 to:

1.) Disclose to the defense the any unclassified information from the Department of State Damage Assessment that is favorable the Accused in the guilt or punishment.

2.) Disclose to the Court any additional unclassified information from the Department of State Damage Assessment not disclosed to the defense for in camera review.

3.) Identify what classified information in the Department of State Damage Assessment is favorable to the defense in the guilt and punishment.

4.) Disclose to the Court all classified information that is part of the Department of Defense Damage Assessment for in camera review in accordance with R.C.M. 701(g)(2). Or at the request of the Government in camera review for limited disclosure under MRE 505(g)(2). The Government moves the Court to rule the State Department Damage Assessment is a "draft" and therefore any information contained in it is not discoverable because it is speculative in nature. The defense opposes. The Government has provided the Court and the defense counsel with a classified letter from the Department of State with background information explaining the draft nature of the DoS Damage Assessment. The Government has also provided the Court with a classified DoS Damage Assessment for in camera review on this motion. The Court has examined both the classified letter and the classified Department of State Damage Assessment and finds that Department of State's Damage Assessment is a draft Damage Assessment. The fact that it is a draft does not make the draft speculative or not discoverable under R.C.M. 701 [See Rules for Courts-Martial, PDF].

Ruling

The Government's Motion to Reconsider the Court's ruling of 23 March 2012 with respect to Department of State Damage Assessment is granted, adding reconsidered of 23 March 2012. The Government Motion to find the Department of State Damage Assessment is not discoverable is denied.

The Government will comply with the 23 March 2012 ruling for the Court.

[END APPELLATE EXHIBIT 86, COURT RULING for GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR THE COURT TO RECONSIDER its 23 MARCH 2012 RULING ON THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT]

And, has that been available to the Court?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

[MISSING]

Judge Lind

Alright the Government requested that the Court in camera reviews of the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] Information Review Task Force File Report and the WikiLeaks Task Force Report and propose substitutions in accordance with Military Rule of Law 505(g)(2). And that prosecution [MISSING] to the Court in Appellate Exhibit 125.

The defense then moved for required non ex parte filing by the Government, which is Appellate Exhibit 106. And that was filed on 22 May 2012, and that was not a motion that was on the original trial schedule. As such, the Government requested a continuance in responding, and that was dated 23 May 2012.

The defense opposed the prosecution's request for a continuance. That is Appellate Exhibit 108. And, the Government rule on that request from the 24 May, that is Appellate Exhibit 124.

And the ruling was as follows:

[BEGIN APPELLATE EXHIBIT 124, COURT RULING on GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR LEAVE RESPONDING TO DEFENSE MOTION FOR REQUIRING NON EX PARTE FILING BY THE GOVERNMENT IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT FILING MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DIA IRTF FINAL REPORT AND CIA WTF REPORT AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY RULE OF LAW 505(g)(2)]

Government request for a Continuance in Responding to the Defense Motion for Requiring non ex parte filing by the Government in response to Government filing Motion for reviews of the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] Information Review Task Force File Report and the WikiLeaks Task Force Report and propose substitutions in accordance with Military Rule of Law 505(g)(2)

1.) On 18 May 2012 the Government made disclosures to the Court that which provided noticed of intent to MRE 505(g)(2) to file ex parte motions for the Court to conduct an in camera review to authorize the substitution of the classified DIA Information Review Task Force IRT Final Report and a substitution for the WikiLeaks Task Force Report.

2.) On 22 May 2012 defense filed a motion requesting the Court order the Government to provide a non ex parte version of this motion pursuant to MRE 505(i). This motion is not on the Court's scheduling calendar for the 6 through 8 of June 2012 motions.

3.) On 22 May 2012 via email the Court ordered the Government to respond by 24 May 2012. Also via email the Government requested leave of the Court to respond by 29 May 2012. On 23 May 2012 the Court granted the Government to request via email and also extended the deadline for the defense to respond to the Government's disclosures until 1 June 2012. On 23 May 2012 the Court ordered the Government to put their email request in a motion. One 23 May 2012 the Government filed a motion for leave to respond by 29 May 2012. Also, on 23 May 2012 the defense filed a request for closing the Motion. The Court's in camera review of the DIA Information review Task Force IRT Report and the WikiLeaks Task Force Report will not be stayed.

Ruling

The Court modifies the email grant of the Government request for an extension of time and responds as follows.

1.) The Government response is due by COV [?] 28 May 2012.

2.) The Court will rule on the defense motion on 29 May 2012.

3.) Should the Court rule in favor of the defense, the Government will give the defense a non ex parte version of this motion 30 May 2012. The defense response to the Government's motion is due on 1 June 2012. Issues regarding the DIA Review Task Force IRT Final Report and the WikiLeaks Task Force Report will be addressed at the 29 May session [?], 16 June 2012. Ordered on the 24 May 2012.

On the 28th of May 2012, the prosecution filed a response to the defense motion to require ex parte filing. On 29 May 2012 the defense replied. On 29 May the Court ruled on the issue.

[END APPELLATE EXHIBIT 124, COURT RULING on GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR LEAVE RESPONDING TO DEFENSE MOTION FOR REQUIRING NON EX PARTE FILING BY THE GOVERNMENT IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT FILING MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DIA IRTF FINAL REPORT AND CIA WTF REPORT AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY RULE OF LAW 505(g)(2)]

Does either side desire to supplement the briefs?

Defense (Coombs)

The defense does not.

Prosecution (Fein)

One moment, Ma'am. [missed Response but it was in the negative.]

Judge Lind

Alright, on the 29th of May the Court ruled on the that motion and the ruling was as follows.

[BEGIN APPELLATE EXHIBIT 128, COURT RULING ON THE DEFENSE MOTION REQUIRING NON EX PARTE FILING OF GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR 505(g)(2) REVIEW OF DIA IRTF FINAL REPORT AND CIA WTF REPORT FOR SUBSTITUTIONS; AND GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR UNDER 505(g)(2) REVIEW OF STATE DEPARTMENT, DIA IRTF, CIA WTF]

On 18 May 2012 the Government made disclosures to the Court and provided notice of intent to file ex parte motions for the Court to conduct an in camera review and offer a substitution of a classified DIA Information Review Task Force file report and substitution requests by WikiLeaks Task Force report. The Government filed the ex parte motions with the Court on 22 May 2012. The defense moved the Court to require the Government to file a non ex parte version of this affidavit by a Government MRE 505(g)(2) and MRE 505(1)(4)(a). One 28 May 2012 the Government filed an opposing response. One 29 May 2012 the defense filed a reply.

After considering the pleadings, evidence presented, and argument of counsel the Court finds and concludes as follows:

1.) MRE 505(g) disclosure of classified information to the accused provides procedures for the Government to [MISSING] voluntarily discloses classified information to the defense.

2.) MRE 505(g)(2) limited disclosure [MISSING] the military judge upon motion of the Government shall authorize:

a.) Deletion of specific items of classified information from documents to be available to an Accused.

b.) Substitutions of a portion or summary of the information from such documents.

c.) Substitution with statement admitting the relevant facts. Unless the military judge determines the disclosure of classified information itself, it is necessary to enable an Accused to prepare the trial. The Government's motion in any material submitted in support thereof shall upon request of the Government be considered by the military judge in camera and shall not be disclosed to the Accused.

3.) The defense cites the Navy Marine Court of Military Review's position in US v Lonetree 31 MJ 849 Navy Marine Court of Military Review (1990), affirmed 39MJ 396 Court of Military Appeals (1992) that the proposition that in camera review for substitutions under MRE 505(g)(2) are controlled by the procedures in MRE 505(i) Lonetree 31 MJ 857.

4.) MRE 505(g)(2) provides specified procedures when the Government voluntarily discloses classified information, but seeks a limited disclosure of that information to the defense. The Government is not required to make a claim of privilege prior to making a motion for limited disclosure in accordance with MRE 505(g)(2). Nothing in MRE 505(g)(2) states that an in camera proceeding under MRE 505(i) is required. For voluntary limited disclosure of classified information by the Government under provisions of MRE 505 identify when in camera proceedings under MRE 505 apply. See MRE 505(f), MRE 5050(i) applies when the Government has invoked a claim of privilege under MRE 505(c). MRE 505(g)(3)(b) invoking MRE 505(i) when privilege has been invoked under R.C.M. 9XX [?] [See Rules for Courts-Martial, PDF]. And, MRE 505(h)(4) prohibit any defense from disclosing classified information until the Government has been offered a reasonable opportunity to seek a determination under MRE 505(i)

5.) MRE 505(g)(2) is derived from Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) CNCN MRE(g)(2) analysis A22-24 Federal Court interpret Section 4 of CIPA as authorizing the Government via ex parte filings to the Court for limited disclosure without invoking claim of privilege. US vs. Mejia 448 F3d 436, 457 DC Circuit (2006).

6.) MRE 505(i) does not apply to voluntary limited disclosure by the Government classified information. The procedures of MRE 505(g)(2) apply. To the extent that the Navy Marine Court of Military Review in Lonetree states otherwise, the Court disagrees.

7.) The 18 May 2012 prosecution disclosure to the Court provides the defense and public with notice of what in camera motions the Government intends to file. In order to ensure that that defense and the public have notice of the general nature of the proposed substitutions proposed by the Government and the national security interests that the Government seeks to protect with substitutions the Government shall file an unclassified redacted version of its ex parte motions. The Government is not required to submit the proposed substitutions to the defense.

8.) On 14 Feb 2012 the defense filed an ex parte supplement for the Court to consider in ruling on the defense motion to compel discovery. That would be [missed] On 15 March 2012, the Court ruled that it would not consider the ex parte supplement when deciding the defense motion to compel discovery, but the Court would consider the ex parte supplement at the request of the defense when conducting an in camera reviews in accordance with MRE 505.

9.) The defense will advise the court by 1 June 2012 what the defense desires the Court to consider the ex parte supplement when conducting the MRE 505(g)(2) in camera reviews requested by the Government.

Ruling

1.) The defense motion to require the Government to require non ex parte affidavits is granted in part. The Government will provide the Court and the defense with unclassified redacted version of its ex parte filing no later than May 30, 2012 that describes the general nature of the proposed substitutions in the national security interest the Government seeks to protect with the substitutions.

2.) The defense will advise the Court no later that 1 June 2012 if the defense request the Court to consider the ex parte supplement when conducting the MRE505(g)(2) in camera reviews.

Alright, the Court did receive a response from the defense on 1 June 2012.

And, that would be, I believe, it is a separate Appellate Exhibit 116 is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct your Honor. It is Appellate Exhibit 116.

Judge Lind

[MISSING] the additional continuance requests that I granted. Alright, for the record the Government requested the continuance from the 30th May to the 31th May to provide the Court and the defense with an unclassified and redacted version of the ex parte motion DIA filing. The reasons for the request are set forth in the Government's motion.

The Government's motion is Appellate Exhibit 127. And, the ruling with the Court granting the continuance, the defense did not object, is Appellate Exhibit 126. I have defense response here as Appellate Exhibit 116. And the redacted filing by the prosecution with respect to the substitution at Appellate Exhibits 114 and 115.

Does either side desire to supplement the record for this issue?

Defense (Coombs)

Defense doesn't.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. Just one clarification for the record. There is actually three redacted versions that were submitted. There was the true original in the original filing and affidavit. The request for extension in timing with the supplemental. That would have been marked as Appellate Exhibit 115 that had an additional redacted version with less redactions.

Judge Lind

Alright, I have Appellate Exhibit 114, Appellate Exhibit 115.

Prosecution (Fein)

114 should have two. Two sets of motions with redactions.

Judge Lind

Alright. It does.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. And then 115, should have one in addition.

Judge Lind

Alright, why don't you explain to me the difference is between Appellate Exhibit 115 and 114.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. Appellate Exhibit 114 is the original disclosure the Government made to the Court and defense with the redaction that could be approved by the Court...the redactions that could be approved by the Court in suspense.

So the Government provided the most redacted version that was approved immediately. The Government requested the extension of time in order to have one more day to get the approval from the equity holder to turn over to the defense more information un-redacted, and received that approval in the next day. And in a supplemental filing, the exact same document from the day before with less information redacted.

Judge Lind

Alright. Thank you. Alright, the Court is prepared to rule on this issue unless either side has anything further to [missed]?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, the Government just has a short...would like a short moment to give the Government's position in the defense's motion.

The defense's response to the Government's Motion for Authorization and Substitution. First and foremost, the Government contends that MRE 505 and CIPA Section 4 does not contemplate the defense filing a response or contesting a Government motion under MRE 505(g)(2) versus invocation of privilege under 505(i).

The same cases cited by the Court in the Court's order to approve the ex parte un-redacted unclassified versions of the motions ...Mejia...the DC Circuit Court held that defense is absent from the ex parte review does not unfairly prejudice the Accused.

There are other in camera proceedings under CIPA Section 4 the Accused is entitled. And, especially is entitled to argue at taking in camera proceedings under 505(i)...under 585(i) with the Military [missed].

Ultimately we think it is inappropriate for the defense to be able to trial this and for the response to be considered by the Court. The only reason the Government hasn't contested this now, but prior to this moment, is because the defense was on notice based on the Court's original order 23 March for the Government to make this filing.

So they did have the ability to respond. But it is conceivable that the Government might have future filings and this case or in any other case under MRE 505 or CIPA where the information, even the fact that the Government is filing should not be disclosed to the defense unless there is information that the Court orders to be produced.

Judge Lind

Alright, defense do you have any [missed] to add?

Defense (Coombs)

Our first response will be does the Court [missed] once we have seen an evidence determination.

Judge Lind

And that would be Appellate Exhibit 116 is...

Defense (Coombs)

...is our response.

Judge Lind

Yes.

Defense (Coombs)

If you look...

Defense (Coombs)

Yes. [missed]

Judge Lind

I believe my review of Federal case law at which there is not a lot of military case law that I have seen, but Federal case law allows...well Government's Court Act, the defense does not have a right to look at the Government's submissions and look at the substitutions.

The defense does have the right to ex parte ask the Court to look at certain things with respect to what the defense theory of the case is and when conducting the in camera review look at it basically with the eye of the defense counsel which as you said the Court can.

And the Court looks at Appellate Exhibit 116 the defense has asked the Court consider a number of criteria when conducting its review and the Court...I've done that and the Court will continue to do that when conducting reviews under MRE 505(g)(3).

Anything further from either side?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No.

Judge Lind

Ruling.

1.) The defense motion to compel discovery damage assessments Department of State DIA IRTF and CIA. One 23 March 2012 the Court ruled that the Government by 18 May 2012 to disclose damage assessments by the DIA Information Review Task Force (IRTF), the Department of State (DOS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports for in camera review in accordance with R.C.M. 792 and 793 [See Rules for Courts-Martial, PDF].

2.) On 18 April 2012 the defense moved the Court to find that the above damage assessments are in the possession, custody, and control of the military authorities and discoverable as material in preparation of defense IAW R.C.M. 701(a)(2). On 26 April 2012 the Government requested the Court to reconsider its ruling with respect to the Department for State damage assessment because the damage assessment was a draft and therefore not discoverable. On 11 May 2012 the Court denied the Government's motion. On 18 May the Government filed two classified ex parte motions for the Court to authorize redactions of the DIA IRTF final report and the WikiLeaks Task Force report. On 22 May 2012 the defense moved the Court to order the Government to provide a non ex parte version of its motion and proceed under MRE 505(i). On 29 May 2012 the Court granted the defense motion in part. One 1 June 2012 the defense filed its response to the Government motion for authorization and substitute and asked the Court to consider the following factors when conducting its MRE 505(g)(2) in camera reviews:

a.) The extent of the redactions and the substitutions.

b.) Has the Government narrowly tapered the substitutions to protect the Government interest that has been clearly and specifically articulated?

c.) Does the substitution provide the defense with the ability to follow up on leads the original document would have provided?

d.) Do the substitutions accurately capture the information within the original document?

e.) Is the classified evidence necessary to rebut the element of the 22 charged offenses bearing in mind the Government's very broad reading of many of these offenses?

f.) Does the summary strip away the defenses ability to actively portray the nature of the charged leaks?

g.) Do the substitutions prevent the defense from wholly examining witnesses ?

h.) Do the substitutions prevent the defense from exploring all viable avenues for impeachment?

i.) Does the Government intend to use any of the information from the damage assessments? If so, is this information limited to the summarized document provided by the Government? Is the information intended to be used by the Government is not limited to the summarized document, does the defense in fairness need to receive the classified portions of the document to put the Government evidence in proper context?

j.) Does the original classified evidence present a more compelling sentencing case than those substitutions by the Government ?

k.) Do the proposed substitutions prevent the defense from learning names of potential witnesses?

l.) Do the substitutions make sense such that the defense would be able to understand the context?

m.) Does the original classified evidence necessary to help the defense in formulating defense strategy and making important litigation decisions in the case?

n.) Is it unfair that the Government had access to the unclassified version of the damage assessment and the defense does not ? Does that provide a tactical advantage to the Government?

After considering the pleadings, evidence presented, and argument of counsel and after conducting the in camera review of the DIA IRTF Final report and the WikiLeaks Task Force report considering the factors requested by defense the Court find and concludes the following:

1.) The Department of State damage Assessment. On or about 18 April 2012 The Government produced the Department of State damage assessment to the Court for in camera review, then requested reconsideration it 23 March 2012 order. On 11 May 2012 the Court denied the Government's request reconsideration, and on 18 May 2012 the Government advised the Court that the Government produce a draft report without redactions to the defense counsel and their security experts. As such the defense motion to compel the DOS damage assessment and find it discoverable under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) is moved.

2.) DIA Information Review Task Force IRTF. On 18 May 2012 the Government produced the IRTF final report to the Court for in camera review and substituted final report with proposed redactions IAW MRE 505(g)(2). The Court conducted an in camera review of the original IRTF final report and the proposed substitutions considering the factors requested by the defense and finds.

a.) When evaluating the substitutions under R.C.M. 701(a)(6) or R.C.M. 701(a)(2) the redacted substitute is sufficient from the defense to adequately prepare for the trial and represents an appropriate balance from the right of defense to discovery and the protection of specific national security information. The redactions are minor and limited in scope. The Government is releasing it in full, almost in its entirety. The redactions are not favorable to the Accused materials and preparation for the defense or necessary to enable the Accused to prepare for trial. Each of the redactions constitutes specific classified information and the redactions are necessary to protect specific national security [missed]. The Government has disclosed the redacted DIA IRTF report to the defense.

[To Prosecution] Will that be made available?

Prosecution (Fein)

Excuse me your Honor. The report was made available immediately your Honor, at the DIA.

Judge Lind

Alright. So if I keep in my order by close of business today that is good enough?

Prosecution (Fein)

Other than there is a geography issue, yes.

Defense (Coombs)

Just with regards to that, Ma'am. Because we do have our defense security experts here, unless there is some reason why we couldn't view the redacted DIA report that the Court currently has here with our defense security and the Government security expert.

That would make it a much more easier pass for the defense to review this document in a timely fashion. Otherwise, we would have to travel apparently to the DIA and coordinate with our security experts a time to do that, to review the document.

Judge Lind

Government, why don't you coordinate with DIA and see if that is a viable option for them.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

And advise them that the redacted version will remain in Court.

Prosecution (Fein)

I'm sorry.

Judge Lind

That the document will remain in Court.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

CIA. The Government completed a review of the CIA WikiLeaks Task Force report for evidence favorable to the Accused and material to [missed] punishment. The Government has found none. The Government has filed an ex parte motion for in camera review of the Government IAW MRE 505(g)(2) to determined whether proposed Government substitutions shall be disclosed to the defense, or whether disclosure of classified information itself is necessary to enable the Accused to prepare for trial. The Court has conducting an in camera review of the classified information considering the factors requested by the defense. The Government substitute...let me ask you a question Government...

...before I go here.

Did you find when you reviewed that document that there was Brady material in there?

Prosecution (Fein)

A moment... May we have a short recess, 5 minutes?

Judge Lind

Do you object?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright Court is in recess till five minutes to 11:00 am.

COURT IN RECESS.

ALL RISE.

Judge Lind

This Article 39(a) Session is called to order. [missed] are present when the court last recessed. [missed] Major Fein, I am looking through my notes, I believe I was advised by the Government that there was no unclassified information that constituted Brady material is that correct?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is correct, you Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. And, the classified material contains some?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, your requests was is Brady material, there is no unclassified material. The CIA hasn't approved a portion of the WTF which includes any Brady material that was found and we have identified that for the summary.

Judge Lind

OK. Alright. To continue on with the ruling.

The Government found no unclassified information in its review of the WikiLeaks Task Force report favorable to the accused or material [missed] with punishment. The Government filed an ex parte motion for the in camera by the Court IAW 505(g)(2) to determine if the proposed Government substitution shall be disclosed to the defense, or whether disclosure of classified information itself was necessary to enable the Accused to prepare for trial. The Court has conducted an in camera review of the classified information considering the factors requested by the defense. The Government substitutions disclosed in Brady and R.C.M. 701(a)(6) material, but not material under 701(a)(2). The Court does not find at this time that the proposed substitutions is sufficient. The court will meet ex parte with Government counsel in an area appropriate for review of classified information. A Court reporter will transcribe the classified proceedings.

Ruling the classified motions by the Government to voluntarily provide limited disclosure under MRE 505(g)(2) of the DIA IRTF final report is granted. The Court finds the substitutions as currently drafted as not sufficient under MRE 505(g)(2) and holds the decision in advance any of the ex parte proceeding with the Government and review of what the Government intends to introduce and not introduce in their sentencing case.

Alight, we will go ahead and report that this ruling marked.

[missed] OK. That would be Appellate Exhibit 128.

[END APPELLATE EXHIBIT 128, COURT RULING ON THE DEFENSE MOTION REQUIRING NON EX PARTE FILING OF GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR 505(g)(2) REVIEW OF DIA IRTF FINAL REPORT AND CIA WTF REPORT FOR SUBSTITUTIONS; AND GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR UNDER 505(g)(2) REVIEW OF STATE DEPARTMENT, DIA IRTF, CIA WTF]

Alright, on 30 May 2012...well first of all [missed] on that issue that I have decided?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

[missed] 30 May 2012 Government will you please describe for the record disclosures that you have given the Court between the last Article 39(a) Session and this Article 39 a session?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, you Honor. Can we have a moment?

Judge Lind

Yes, please.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. Apologize, for clarification, since the last motions hearings or since 30 May?

Judge Lind

Since the last motions hearing? I believe there was one on the 2 May?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. And...

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

[missed] Your Honor, on 2 May the United States disclosed to the Court and the defense the response that was required under the Court's order dated 23 March discovery order on whether the CIA had any forensic results or investigative files contained within the agency related to this case.

Additionally, on 30 May the prosecution made the disclosure to the defense pursuant to what we just discussed in the ex parte motions, the redacted, unclassified motions. Additionally, you Honor as just discussed, on 31 May prosecution disclosed a supplemental disclosure of the updated redactions.

And, then your Honor on...additionally on 31 May the Court provided notice for a disclosure to the Court identifying that the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] did have a draft damage assessment that qualified as a draft [missed] within the Court's order for the Department of State.

Judge Lind

Alright. This is probably a good time to the defense Motion to Compel Discovery [No.] 2. That was filed at our last session.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am that is Appellate Exhibit 96.

Judge Lind

Alright that's [missed] on 10 May 2012 Appellate Exhibit 96. 97 is the prosecution's response. 98 is the defense reply. And, the filing is the 10th of May the response is 24th of May. The reply is the 29th of May. The defense filed a supplement on the 30th May 2012. The prosecution then filed a supplement to the defense Motion to Compel Discovery on 31 May 2012, Appellate Exhibit 100. And the defense reply to the prosecution response supplement on Appellate Exhibit 101.

Part of the defense Motion to Compel Discovery [No.] 2 was asking for a witness from the Department of State in the position of that Department was that there were no other damage assessments other than the draft that was conducted. The Government asked for a telephonic R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conference to discuss to clarify some issues. And, the Court held that with the parties on 31 May 2012. Government would you like to describe for the record what you are seeking clarification of?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. In an email to the Court for the Government to produce a witness from the Department of State described in the damage assessment, the Government sought clarification because at the time we received that email, that email was sent, the Department of State had already made the damage assessment available to the prosecution to the defense.

So the Government needed clarification on that issue that was the scope of the testimony that that Department of State witness would be testifying about, and if that if that was the scope then the Government would work with the Department of State to obtain a proper witness to testify to that.

Judge Lind

Alright. And, during that telephonic R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conference where counsel for both sides, Mr. Coombs, Major Fein and, I believe, the rest of the Government team as well as Major Hurley, who, if we are on the record, Mr. Hurley got on a little bit late [missed]. The defense requested clarification. The Court advise the Government that the Court intended to do an ex parte discussion that would be recorded by a Court reporter with reference to the WikiLeaks issue [ALEXA NOTE: THE TERM "WIKILEAKS ISSUE" LIKELY RE AN EX PARTE 505(g)(2) REVIEW DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS. I THINK IT RELATES TO CIA WTF REPORT SUBSTITUTIONS].

The Court asked the defense what they intended to ask the State Department witnesses. And the defense advised that they basically wanted if the Chiefs of Mission to review materials, they would like the substance in writing for the damage assessments, if not where is it?

Their requests were based off of Ambassador Kennedy's Nov 2010 [Judge Lind make an error and the record was corrected by Prosecutor Fein. See below. Kennedy's testimony was March 10, 2011] testimony. Was there a Working Group for WikILeaks? Who proposed it? And those statements were given to Congress.

OK. The Government advised the Court that it cannot review the certain Department of State documents for Brady . They are still accumulating them. The defense had asked why the Government hadn't looked at them yet. The Government argued that "mitigation" is not relevant. And, the defense advised the Court that the Government filed supplemental filings. The Court ordered the Government to have Department of State Witnesses available.

And, the Government then advised the Court what evidence it will use for aggravation in sentencing, and where it comes from. Does either side desire to supplement what occurred at that telephonic R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 understanding that we will be able to the filings that had been filed?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor. The defense will discuss the additional [missed] in our motion.

Prosecution (Fein)

Just two points of clarification on the testimony with Ambassador Kennedy was on March 10, 2011. A subsequent defense email to the Court in March of this year. And also, your Honor, the Government does not recognize making an assertion that "mitigation is not relevant."

Judge Lind

Alright. R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conferences are conferences where the parties for the Court to bring basically to the Court attention. Based on the last R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conference the defense has filed a motion to record R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conferences. That has been marked as Defense Motion to Record and Defense Trial all R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 Conferences.

That has been marked as Appellate Exhibit 121. That motion is not part of the motions that were to be considered today in that R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conferences are obviously provided by the Rule for Court-Martial are routine in criminal trials.

The Court believes that it is appropriate to address that motion at this hearing as they will continue to happen, and the defense has objected to participate in R.C.M. [Rules for Court-Martials] 802 conferences if they are not transcribed.

Would you like to add anything the Court record?

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor, the defense's main position is that even though we recognize 802 conferences are in fact a very common occurrence within Court-Martial. Usually the 802 conferences are limited to just scheduling issues, advisement Court of what may come up in future motion hearing, or any sort for logistical problems that may come up on either side may be having.

Unfortunately, in this case the 802 conferences have become an opportunity to re-litigate a lot of the Court's rulings. And, so what happens is that we go into a great deal of substantive matters that the Court then considers from both sides. And, even though the Court correctly then does not make a ruling, we end up discussing the matter in such detail that we come back on the record, what happens is there is a very brief summary and the Court gives the parties to provide more detail, but then the Court makes its ruling.

The defense believes that the way the 802 conferences are being used both as a matter of re-litigating issues, but also even just right now...the Court recalls an 802 conference that the Government said that the "mitigation evidence would not be relevant."

That is also the defense's recollection of the Government's assertion. But normally what happens is the Government takes a position in an 802 conference or later through its motion or its oral argument takes a contrary position.

Because of the nature of the fact that things are not recorded, the defense is not in a position to say that the Government's belief is inaccurate based upon its statements.

So, for the purposes of a substantive discussion, we would request that the 802 conferences be recorded. Understanding that the way our system works is that there is a last minute logistical issue and we need get the parties on the line for logistical stuff, that normal, that understandable. The defense will participate in those. Even this morning, in the 802 conference that was perfectly acceptable.

But, to the extent that we start talking about substantive matters we would request that those matters are on the record, so there is no doubt as to what one party said. If we are re-litigating something, then there is no doubt, as to what has been advanced to the Court. And then when the Court makes its ruling, it's clear the matters in which the Court considered.

Judge Lind

Alright. Government?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, just briefly for purposes of the record, both the prosecution and the defense have petitioned the Court for 802(s) either over the telephone or even email on substantive matters.

There is no prohibition for substantive matters to be discussed. In fact, 802 clearly contemplates that if parties agree it should that, it must be put on the record.

It doesn't necessarily draw a line on substantive and procedural matters. The Government contents that there is nothing that the parties or the Court discussed in an 802 that can't be put on the record.

Of course everything could be put on the record, and that is an option. However, the purpose of R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 according to the rule is to allow conferences for the parties in order to consider matters to promote fairness and efficiencies, an expeditious trial.

Having to record 802 is not going to help achieve the purpose of an 802, which is for an expeditious trial. So, the Government objects to the recording the 802(s) and if the issue litigating substantive matters that don't go in favor of one party, and the parties don't agree then is making a part on the record is what 802 [missed].

Judge Lind

As I discussed with counsel at this morning's 802, the Court is going to consider this issue at this session, because it does impact on the procedure for the remaining duration of this trial.

And, the Court is actually prepared to rule on it. The ruling is as follows:

[BEGIN APPELLATE EXHIBIT ?, COURT RULING ON DEFENSE MOTION TO RECORD AND TRIAL ALL R.C.M 802 CONFERENCES]

The defense moves the Court to order all R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences be recorded and transcribed for the record. The Government opposes. After considering the pleadings that have been presented, and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes the following.

1.) The trial schedule developed by the Court and the parties provides for Article 39(a) Sessions to be held approximately every 5 to 6 weeks. To date their have been Article 39(a) Sessions held on 23 February, 15 and 16 March, 24 through 26 April, and the current session 4 to 6 June 2012.

2.) R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 provides that after referral the military judge may upon request of either party or sua sponte, which means by myself, order one or more conferences with the parties to consider such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. Conferences need not be made part of the record, but matters agreed upon at the conference shall be included at the record orally or in writing. Failure of a party to object at trial or failure to comply with R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 waives this requirement. No party may be prevented from any argument, objection, or motion at trial. The discussion to the rules states that the purpose of R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences is to inform the military judge of anticipate issues and to expeditiously resolve matters in which the parties can agree, and not to litigate or decide contested issues.

3.) The Court has been holding R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences with counsel during and following the Article 39(a) Sessions and by telephone on 8 February 2012, 28 March 2012, and 30 May 2012. Each of these conferences has been synopsized on the record and the Court has invited the parties to add details to the Court synopsis.

4.) Prior to the current motion dated 2 June 2012 the defense has not objected to conducting R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences.

5.) R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 are not required that such conferences be recorded or transcribed. The Court will continue to continue to hold such conferences to address administrative, logistics, and scheduling issues. If either party objects to discussion of an issue in an R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conference, the conference will be terminated and the issue will be addressed at the next Article 39(a) Session.

6.) The Court notes that the parties have raised substantive issues in the middle of the Article 39(a) scheduling periods that if not addressed expeditiously will delay the trial. Therefore, the Court in conjunction with the Parties will build in an additional Article 39(a) Session into the Court calendar. I anticipate it will be about a one day session midway between each scheduled Article 39(a) Session to address any such issues that arise. When additional substantive issues arise that require expeditious resolution the Court will schedule additional ad hoc Article 39(a) Sessions as necessary.

Ruling

1.) The defense motion record and transcribe R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences is denied.

2.) R.C.M. [Rules for Courts-Martial] 802 conferences will not be held over the objection of a party.

3.) The Court will schedule an additional Article 39(a) Session in between the currently scheduled sessions to address on the record any additional issues that arise between our scheduled sessions.

[BEGIN APPELLATE EXHIBIT ?, COURT RULING ON DEFENSE MOTION TO RECORD AND TRIAL ALL R.C.M 802 CONFERENCES]

Anything else around this issue?

Defense (Coombs)

No, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

At this time why don't we move onto the defense Motion to Compel Discovery [No.] 2?

The defense has filed an additional motion based on disclosure by the Government in, I believe, the telephonic 802 conference that we held on 30th of May. That was filed on Saturday June 2, and was not an envisioned motion that would be considered as part of the discussion.

The Government has not had an opportunity to respond to that motion.

The Court has advised the defense that the...I will let you go ahead and present the issues on the record today understanding that I am not going to make any rulings until I hear from the Government's response. And, this will be an issue that will be ripe when the first ad hoc Article 39(a) Session that we do in two or three weeks [June 25, 2012].

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am. If for the purposes of the argument, if the Court also would pull from Appellate Exhibit 119 and 120. 119 is the prosecution's notice on ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and 120 is the defense response to the prosecution notice.

Judge Lind

Alright. I have and Appellate Exhibit 119 and Appellate Exhibit 120.

Defense (Coombs)

And, Ma'am for my argument what I would like to do is...within the Compel Motion Discovery [No.] 2 we requested four reliefs. I would like to address the first, to the extent the Government would like to respond...allow the Government to respond to that. And then move onto the other three.

So, as the Court knows within the defense Compel Discovery Motion No. 2 we requested four reliefs from the Court.

First, the Court should order a full accounting of the Government's efforts to comply with its Brady obligation.

Second, that the Court should order the Government to produce in a timely fashion, all the Brady materials.

Third, that the Court should order the Government to produce all the materials that would qualify under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) to include providing un-redacted copies of those documents that would fall under 701(a)(2).

And, finally, fourth, which the Court is in the processing of doing now, ordering the Government to produce all aggravation evidence that it intends to introduce.

So, what I am going to talk about first is the Compel Due Diligence Request. The argument to have the Government produce all of its materials in its possession. The defense believes that we continue to have very serious discovery problems in this case.

What the evidence shows here is that the Government needs to provide a full accounting of its Brady search and its Brady obligations.

The defense has consistently maintained through its oral submission, its written arguments, and its conduct has illustrated that its does not understand its due diligence requirements under Brady requirements.

The defense raised this issue in the past in part of our motion to dismiss, discussing initially how the Government did not even cite 701(a)(6) in its motion.

We also raised the issue that the Government maintain that 701 [See Manual for Courts-Martial PDF] and 701(a)(6) didn't apply to classified information. We initially pointed out that the Government cited Cone v Bell for its position that Brady would not be applicable in sentencing.

And, then it maintained that the damage assessments that we were talking about were not even relevant, and then later determined that, "Yes. The damage assessments do in fact have Brady material."

I would like for the Court for a moment to step back and think how we became aware of some of the information that is now the subject of the Motion to Compel Discovery [No.] 2.

Initially, the Government stated that all of the damage assessments that we had identified as possibly existing, or just "alleged" damage assessments...that was the terminology that they used. And in Court indicated that the "alleged" would not be sufficient, they would have to in fact determine whether or not the damage assessments existed.

The Government then moved on to indicate that the Department of State, ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive], had not completed a damage assessment.

At that point the defense said we were concerned how the Government was using the term, "completed". We felt that they were playing fast and loose with that term, and it indicated that perhaps there was in fact a damage assessment.

Then the Government indicated to the Court that it was unaware of investigative files or forensic results in closely aligned agencies. And, again, the defense raised the issue that the Government cannot state that it is simply unaware. It has to go look.

During the course the Court ruled that, "Yes, the Government would in fact be required to go look to determine whether or not these files did in fact exist."

And when you look at that background, you see that if the defense had not raised an issue with regards to "unaware"; raised an issue with regarded to "had not completed"; or "alleged"; and had just accepted the Government's representations, we would not be litigating any of these issues, and would not be aware of many of the damage assessments that we are currently aware of.

But most troubling is that within the last few weeks we have additional information that shows that the Government is not been diligent in its Brady search.

The clearest form or proof of that is the HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies.] memorandum, the Headquarters of the Department of the Army memorandum.

Judge Lind

Where do you have that?

Defense (Coombs)

That is an Attachment A to the defense motion to compel discovery 2. And, if you look at that Ma'am. That memorandum was dated initially 29 July 2011.

So, we know from that is that the Government's started its Brady search within the Headquarters of the Department of the Army until almost a year after my client was placed in jail based upon these offenses. It has still not yet started their Brady search.

The incredible things from this is nine months later someone within HQDA realized that nothing had been done on the 29 July request. No action had been done for Brady information. And it wasn't the trial counsel. It was somebody up in HQDA who said, "You know what? We haven't done anything on this. We need to start this." And that is the memorandum they received dated 17 April 2012.

So as of 17 April 2012, the trial counsel in this case hadn't done anything to secure Brady information within the Department of the Army. And we found out about this, this memorandum as a fluke. We weren't even suppose to find out about this.

But, what happened was that when they realized that nothing had been done, they immediately sent out for these memorandums to the principle officers within the Department of the Army, counseling them to look for this information.

And, then unfortunately, or fortunately for the defense, one of those principle agencies is Trial and Defense Services. So these memoranda landed on the desk of my former co-counsel, Major Matthew Kemkes, and then he sent it to me.

And, I looked at it this, and that is when I realized that the trial counsel has not even done Brady search within the Department of the Army.

And, if they haven't done a Brady search within the Department of the Army, how we can have faith that they have done a due diligence Brady search at any other agency.

Clearly, we cannot.

In addition to this, during our last 802 session, the Government made a startling admission. They stated that they had not gone to the Department of State to review the Chiefs of Mission review; the WikiLeaks Working Group Review; the Mitigation Team Review; or the Department of States report to Congress on the alleged leaks.

And, their apparent justification for not doing that was, they said, we had not given them any notice until, defense Motion to Compel [Discovery No.] 2. That was the first time that they received evidence. And they also stated that, this information would not be discoverable.

Defense was dumbfounded at that response. Because, we know we have filed six previous referral Discovery Requests for information from the Department of State.

In addition to that, we moved to compel this information at the [Article] 32 [Pretrial] in front of the Investigating Officer [Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, who is a life long DOJ Prosecutor] this information from the Department of State was the subject of Discovery Motion No. 1 in front of this Court.

In addition to that, we have been seeking to depose Ambassador Patrick Kennedy for the last eight months. Trying to just sit down with Ambassador Kennedy to talk to him.

Roadblock after roadblock in front of the defense in order to do that. And as the Court knows, we filed a Motion to Depose Mr. Patrick Kennedy.

At that point, the Government indicated that it would do everything they could in order to provide him to the defense. But, we just need to submit a Touhy request.

And, that is what we did.

As the Court knows, on 23 March 2012, we did submit a Touhy request. And, that Touhy request listed specifically these groups that we are talking about. Saying that is what we wanted to talk about with Ambassador Kennedy.

In addition to that, as the Court knows, we supplied both the Court and to the Government, Mr. Kennedy's declaration in front of Congress, talking about these subgroups.

So, it is entirely disingenuous for the Government to say that they had no notice of this information until our motion to Compel Discovery No. 2 filed on 10 May. They clearly knew at the very latest that they could possibly say that they became aware of this when Ambassador Kennedy testified to this information in March 2011.

The Department of State is a closely aligned agency. The Government has a due diligence obligation to go search their documents, and do so in good faith. They cannot simply bury their head in the sand and say this stuff does not exist or you haven't given us sufficient notification for what we go look for. They were on to this. And they haven't [missed] that obligation.

Now, if the Headquarters part of the Army issue was not enough, and the Department of State issue was not enough, we now know, from a recent filing of the Government on 31 May that they are currently aware that the FBI does in fact have an impact statement. And, they state that they just discovered that the FBI had this impact statement.

The defense has been asking since the very beginning of this case in 2010 for information from the Joint Investigation done by the FBI. The fact that they could say at this point, at this juncture, that they are just now finding out that the FBI has done an impact statement... Why has the Government not found out about this before? Where was this impact statement? This is an agency that has participated in an ongoing Joint Investigation with the Department of the Army. You would think that they would know what the FBI has.

And, here they are now just saying, that the FBI has this impact statement. And, take a look at how the Government choses to give the defense and the Court notice of this impact statement. They do so in one sentence, referenced on page four of its seven page response, to our Supplement to [Compel] Discovery No. 2 Motion.

One little sentence, a throw away sentence, they indicate, "Oh...by the way, the FBI does have an impact statement."

That looks like they were just hoping to bury that information, that no one would notice that somehow.

That latest revelation show that the Government just really keeps the Court and the defense in the dark about this information until if it chooses on its own accord to get information to the defense and to the Court.

Not only that, within that, they indicate that they are going to make this impact statement from the FBI available to the defense based upon the Court calendar, which when you look at the Court's calendar for the 505 proceedings, it is clear that the Government does not envision the defense getting this information anytime soon...this impact statement. So, that is obviously problematic.

But, as if this eleventh hour revelation about the FBI impact statement was not enough, we now know that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has a damage assessment.

In its response to Discovery Motion No. 1, the Government represented that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] had not completed a damage assessment.

It recalled, they use that same terminology, "not completed a damage assessment" with regards to the Department of State. And, this Court said that that was not enough, "You had to provide greater clarification." And, so this Court asked the Government specific questions regarding the Department of State and regarding ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive], and subsequently you gave that request for specific information to the Government.

The Government replied with regards to the Department of State. The Department of State had "not completed a damage assessment." With regards to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] the Government replied that "ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has not produced any file or interim draft assessment in tis matter." That was what the Government represented to the Court and to the defense.

And, they made that representation to the Court on 21 March 2012.

Then, as you know, the Court ordered a production of the Department of State damage assessment for an in camera review, however, the Court did not on 23 March address the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment.

And, this wasn't an omission on the Court's part, this wasn't an oversight on the Court's part. The Court didn't address the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment because it hadn't been told about the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment.

You had been told that they had produced "no interim or final report." That was what you were told on 21 March. So, then at 23 March when you issued your ruling that the Department of State damage assessment, the draft damage assessment is discoverable. At that point, the Government has an obligation to come forward to the Court and say, "You know what? ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] also has one."

But, they didn't do that. They sat on that information. And then what happens is, instead of us being able to challenge them, because we couldn't challenge them on the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. All we had actually is a belief that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has something.

But, as the Court knows in basically latter part of March, early part of April, we start receiving Brady from these other 63 agencies, what the defense calls, "Our 12 pages of Brady." And, we received these 12 pages, and these 12 pages clearly indicated that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] had a damage assessment.

Because within the 12 pages, you see the agency responding to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and not only ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive], but ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence].

We still haven't heard yet of ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] has a damage assessment.

But, they were responding to both ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence].

And, ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is tasking these agencies to take a look at specific information, to access whether or not this information has cause damage to their agency.

If it has, to detail the steps that they have taken in mitigation to address that damage, and then to indicate the cost of the steps that they have taken, in response to that damage.

And, when we received the 12 pages of discovery, as the Court knows, we raised that issue with the Court and Government, saying how can the Government maintain that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] does not have a damage assessment when we are looking clearly at these documents that say ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is tasking these agencies with suspense dates. To look for this information, get this back to us with this information.

Clearly, ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has something. And, at that point the Government chose to define its way out of this inconsistency.

The Government then said, "Wait a second." There is a difference between "damage assessment", and there is a difference between "damage assessment" and "investigation". And, what the defense had been asking for is ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] may have is more akin to "working papers".

And, so the Government so far as to provide as to provide the Court with a three page memorandum detailing the difference between what is a "damage assessment", based upon their arbitrary definition; what is a "investigation", based upon their arbitrary definition; and the fact that the defense really needed to ask for "working papers".

So based upon that defense said, "We are going to file a Motion to Compel Discovery [No.] 2" referencing ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

And, we are going to ask for everything: "damage assessment", "investigation", and we will even throw in the terminology "working papers" so the Government knows exactly what we are asking for.

What is responsive to these 12 pages of Brady discovery that we have been given...and, when we did that, at that point, what does the Government say? The Government says, "Oh, now we don't understand what you were asking for. It is too broad."

But when we asked for this information, the Government knew, and knows that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has something. They had an obligation at that point to come forward and say, "You know what, Ma'am. ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] does in fact have a 'working paper draft' assessment that is ongoing that the Court may want to be aware of.

But they didn't do anything. They sat on that information.

It wasn't until, 31 May that the Government notified the Court and the defense that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] actually had a damage assessment.

And, how does the Government do that?

Take a look at that notification. They justify sitting on this information because they had asked the Court to reconsider its ruling on the Department of State damage assessment. And, they said to the Court that draft damage assessments were not discoverable for purposes of Brady. That was their position.

They filed their position on one case. A 1963 Supreme Court case citing the second concurring opinion, a throw away sentence within that second concurring opinion. And, the Government then when they filed that...the Court didn't even request that the defense needed to file a reply with them.

That was the "How much their opinion or at least their request had, as far as controlling law, had backed it up.

The Court said, "No need to file a response," and 11 May 2012 reiterated its 23 March ruling that draft damage assessments by the Department of State were discoverable.

And, at the time the Court did that on 11 May, again, knowing what the Court asked for on 21 March for information; knowing what the Court ruled on 23 March and then out on 11 May. The Government had an obligation to come forward to the Court and say, "Your Honor. ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has something." But they sat on the information again for three weeks.

And what are they doing during that time period? You see from their 31 May notification, that they go to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and they start coordinating with ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] about their draft damage assessment.

And, they unilaterally decide, that we are going to be turning your draft damage assessment over on 3 August. And, they present this whole thing to the Court that it is a done deal. No need to coordinate with the Court or the defense. We have already decided that this damage assessment is going to be turned over on 3 August.

So, at this point, a little over a month before trial. That is when they envision handing this information over.

Take a look at the 24 May 2012 memorandum, written by Major Fein, the general counsel. It states that, "On 23 March 2012 the Court ruled that the Department of State's draft damage assessment was discoverable, and did not rule on ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] draft." That is HIS wording, in his motion to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] general counsel.

The reason the Court did not rule on ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] draft was because YOU didn't know about ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] draft, how are you going to issue a ruling if you don't know about the fact that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has a draft damage assessment.

Then Major Fein makes it look like an error on the Court's part, stating that "The prosecution must notify the Court of this apparent inconsistency in the Court's order."

There is no inconsistency in the Court's order. Again, the Court was not aware that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] had anything.

And, you were not aware of that because on 21 March 2012 the Government represented to the Court and to the defense that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] "did not have any interim or final draft damage assessment." That is what they represented to this Court.

Now the defense predicts that much like what they did when we raised the 12 pages of Brady, that the Government again is going to try define its way out of this. That somehow the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment that we now know of was somehow a "pre-interim", it wasn't really an "interim"...or maybe it wasn't a "pre-working paper which of course has to be different than a damage assessment, which of course is different from an investigation, which may or may not qualify as a draft."

That is going to be the Government's position.

But, what is clear is that everyone knew what the Court was asking. Does ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] have something? And they had an obligation that at that time to tell the Court, "Yes."

And if they would have done that, the Court would have said, "Turn it over." And, you would have looked at it at the same time you looked at the Department of States draft damage assessment, and you would have made your ruling.

And, at this point if that would have been the case, we would have had ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] draft damage assessment, if the Court determined much like with the Department of State that it was discoverable.

But now we are going to have to wait, if the Government has its way until at least 3 August to even start address this issue.

Judge Lind

Well Mr. Coombs, the agency itself says their coordinated version wouldn't be available until July 13. Is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

That is correct. And you take a look at that. July 13th is when they are going to put this basically in a final format. They had something.

Judge Lind

I [missed] your point.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes.

Judge Lind

I am finding here in the law review tort thing. These things aren't together or things that are together.

Defense (Coombs)

When you take a look at that Ma'am, also take a look at the 12 pages of Brady. When did ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] start asking for this information? You will see that they started asking for this information at the end of 2010, beginning of 2011. And they were putting suspense dates for early 2011 for all this information.

So, it appears that the July 13 deadline maybe, the final report...but they certainly have a draft that the Court should have had the benefit of.

So, now looking at these latest revelations now you have to take a look at what the Government is doing with regards to the 63 or so agencies that they have indicated that they are reaching out to. If you look at that the Government admits that they initially started reaching out to these agencies in the April May 2011 time period. Again, over a year after my client has now been in pretrial confinement.

What are they doing during that time period? Clearly they are perfecting their case.

They are not doing a Brady search. And, then you would take a look at between April 2011 and February 2012. This is where it would be important if we have this as a recorded 802 session. But in February 2012 the Government represented both to the Court and to the defense. They looked at us in the eyes and they said to us, "We looked high and low for Brady from April 2011 to February 2012. We have looked for Brady, we have found nothing. We have found no Brady." [See Judge Lind's March 15, 2011 Article 39(a) Session recitation of the February R.C.M. 802 conference and Major Fein's comments following on the record for corroboration of Mr. Coombs statement.]

If the court recalls, based upon that representation by the Government, the defense started saying, "Well if you really looked and you haven't found anything, well we may do a waiver of your due diligence Brady search if represent for an accounting of what you have done in order to get this case going forward."

If you say you, because at that point they were saying that they were looking at "The Department of Agriculture for stuff." We were saying, "Well, we don't think the Department of Agriculture is going to have much. So if that is what we are really holding off this whole process for, let's see what you have done, and then we will go forward from there."

But, again the key aspect here is that in February 2012, in the 802 session they said to you, they found no Brady.

Then, strangely, shortly after our compel motion discovery no. 1 argument in the Court's 23 March ruling with regards to the fact that 701 does in fact apply to classified information. We start seeing that Government is going back to these same agencies, saying in requests to these same agencies to then produce information to them.

Look at the 12 pages of Brady and look at the other Attachment to our compel motion 2, and look at the dates in which the Government is reaching out to these agencies to work with them to produce the information that they gave to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]. It is within the last two months.

How is it that the Government is within the last two months now reaching out to these same 63 agencies that they represented to the Court and the defense in February 2012 that they hadn't found anything. That they have been looking for two years. Why are they going back and doing a relook at this point?

And, the defense would submit that they are doing a relook because they didn't understand Brady the first time around. And, they are basically doing their research for Brady under the proper standard now. And that is why even though in February 2012 that they saying that there was no Brady to be found anywhere. Now, we are getting Brady.

We are getting Brady information in dribs and drabs, slowly but surely, but we are getting it.

And that brings on the other follow up in how the Government is doing its due diligence search in this regard. Instead of going to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] directly...to the source to get all this information. They are independently recreating the wheel trying to go back to the 63 agencies. And, all they are really doing with those 63 agencies is saying, "Send us what you sent to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]."

Wouldn't it make much more sense to go directly to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and just get the information?

Now whether or not they can turn that information over and they still have to coordinate with the various agencies, that is a separate equation. I mean they certainly can adapt at that point which agencies have certainly responded to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and then it makes it much easier to go to the agency saying, "Hey. We have this. You gave it to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. [missed] Do you have anything else?"

But instead, they are doing it piecemeal. At this point, we have received less than half of the I guess...if 63 is the number...less than half of 63 agencies we have received. And, again...

Judge Lind

So, you are getting Brady from about 30 agencies at this point? Is that correct?

Defense (Coombs)

28.

And, most of this is one page or two page responses to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence], and it basically says, "No damage. No impact." Or, "Possible impact, but on another agency."

That is the general gist of what we are receiving.

So, if the Government was doing this in a diligent fashion, the defense would submit that they go directly to the source again, either ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]. So, now we see that the Government is basically re-doing its Brady search, there is another problem that we have, and that is that the Government continues to seem to not understand what Brady is, and what their obligations are under Brady.

And, for that I would like to look at three specific requests, and it is detailed in our motion to compel discovery no. 2...Requests that we submitted it to the Interagency Committee Review; the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB]; and the House of Representative's Oversight Committee.

The Government apparently believes that our requests to each of these three agencies for information is not specific enough to trigger their rulings requirement under Brady. And, if the Court will indulge me for a moment...I will read exactly for what we asked for and when we asked for it: For the Interagency Committee Review, the defense requested, "The results of any investigation or review concerning the alleged leaks in this case by Mr. Russell Travers, the National Security Staff Senior Advisor for information access and security policy. Mr. Travers was tasked with a comprehensive effort to review the alleged leaks in this case. We started asking for that in December of 2010."

The with regards to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee...

Judge Lind

Let me just ask you a question? How do you know if the interagency committee...if he is tasked?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes. that is a great question, because this is the only way we actually find out about Brady information. Is that someone from the Government indicates in a public press account or what not that this is ongoing. In this case the Interagency Committee Review, the White House indicated that they had tapped Mr. Travers to head up this Review and to look into the impact of the alleged leaks. So it's a public statement by the White House. And, based upon that, that is why we submitted out 8 December 2010 request saying hey, "We are aware of the fact that this is ongoing. So, we asked the Government, now with a specific request under No. 3 with regards to 701(a)(6) to go take a look at that information. And, again, the Government has maintained that a request like this read to you, is not specific enough to trigger the rulings requirement under Brady.

With regards to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, we asked for the results of "Any inquiry and testimony taken by the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, lead by Representative Darrell Issa. The Committee considered the alleged leaks in this case, the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the investigation of Pfc. Bradley Manning." We asked for this in 10 January 2011. And again with this, this is based upon public statements and public accounts of the fact that Representative Darrell Isa was in fact convening these reviews in order to determine what was going on at that point, both with the Department of Justice and in the investigation of my client. So, probably the Department of Defense.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs I have a question for you. I am looking at Williams, and where is the three other files designated in the defense discovery request which involved the specified type of information within the specified entity and the line we are on case by case? Where is that line? Do you ask for everything for everybody under the sun that ever touched this case? Where is the line?

Defense (Coombs)

That is a great question, because you are right. You have got to give enough specificity in order for the Government to know what you are asking for. That is why I read these two requests. These are basically, in the defense's mind, very specific. They name an individual. They name a time period. They name what is happening. It has to be something that we require from then Government, from its good faith due diligence requirement, to at least go look. And, when you take a look at the third request, which the Government does say is sufficient, and that is the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB]. We asked for "Any report, or recommendation concerning the alleged leaks in this case by Chairman Chuck Hagel or any other member of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB]."

And, then the defense in any stretch of your imagination, cannot understand how that request is specific enough in order to trigger the Williams requirement, but our other two requests are not. I mean really short of telling the Government, "What it is in a red file within Darrell Issa's third drawer, beneath his Bible, you'll find what you want." That the Government at that point is on notice for what we are asking for, and they have a good faith obligation to go look. The defense recognizes that the Williams requirement is not so vague that we can just simply say, "Give me any file of any agency at any point had addressed this case." That would be too vague. But these are specific requests.

And, the Government comes back saying, we provided no authority to suggest that these specific requests that we have asked for fall under Williams or 701(a)(6). The problem with that is that we are asking here for these records, and the Government comes back to us saying, that again "The defense has not provided sufficient requests for Brady," and they go back to whether or not these records "alleged" records.

With regards to using "alleged" records the defense believes the Government again is just playing hide the ball. These are not alleged records. These are records that we have given them sufficient specificity to trigger their good faith obligations of the ruling. And, more importantly, there is no ever requirement above beyond giving the specificity within Section 3 in detail to the Government why this information may in fact be Brady. To the extent that someone might read that in, the very nature of what was going on in these various agency is clear that Brady material may exist there, and that is the whole purpose of triggering the good faith requirement that the Government go look.

And, yet the Government is just simply saying, "No." They are content in not looking. We say apparently not looking at every agency besides the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB]. That apparently was specific enough for them.

If the Government in this case is in fact conducting due diligent Brady search, they should have nothing to hide to this Court or to the defense. They should be able to clearly lay out what they have done since the start of this case, in order to comply with evidence requirements under 701(a)(6). What the defense is asking is that this Court require the Government t do so. We would ask is that the Court suspend the hearing for two three weeks at the maximum in order for the Government to put this information together, unless they can do it quicker than that.

Judge Lind

Let me ask you a question on that. Understand that again, I am not making any rulings until I hear the Government's position, because they haven't had the chance to respond yet. But why would the proceedings have to be suspended, assuming I went completely in your favor. Why can't proceedings drive on as scheduled, and this be done ancillary?

Defense (Coombs)

The problem is that when we take a look on what is on the case calendar, on 22 June we have to give you the Court and the Government notice of our intended witnesses at trial.

Judge Lind

No, I understand that things might have to be loaded, but instructions...?

Defense (Coombs)

With regards to that: If there are ever issues that do not impact the preparations for trial such as orderly instructions for the charged offenses that are made...we have a...

Judge Lind

...Article 13

Defense (Coombs)

Exactly...and Article 13 motion. Things that do not impact case preparation then we certainly address those. The defense, however, believes that with regards to the witness lists notification, the 505(h)(1) notification, notification on what evidence that we intended to introduce, the reciprocal discovery requirements...all that information cannot be done on until the Government complies with its initial discovery obligations in this case. And, so what we are asking that the Court give the Government at a maximum, to respond to the questions that we raised in our motion. And those are: What specific agencies has the Government contacted to conduct its Brady review? When did the Government make its inquiry? How many documents did the Government review?

Judge Lind

How is that relevant?

Defense (Coombs)

It is relevant, Ma'am because if the Government is saying for example, lets go with ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. It's Brady review...if they tell the Court that they have only reviewed 15 pages of documents, we know then that they have not done a due diligence search within ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. We have a problem there, because ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has tasked all these agencies to respond back to them. So, just having the Government indicate how many pages did they review from whatever agency and then, what were the results of their review? That should not be an onerous task on the part of the Government. Brady in this case is a constitutional mandate. It is a right of the Accused in order to have this information. And the timeliness of this is as soon as practice. That is when this information needs to be provided to the defense so we can in fact incorporate it into our case. Because it could address issues of guilt and obviously issue of punishment. But the defense can't do that if we are receiving it piecemeal or if the Government is not at all complying with its Brady obligations.

Once we have a complete account of what the Government has done, then that goes to the second request of the defense to order a timely production of this Brady information. And, not in this piecemeal fashion that we are receiving now. But, get the information together and turn it over. So that we can adapt at that point start to incorporate it, where we have all the information at once. And, the defenses position would be: Once we have all of the Brady discovery, and we will argue for the motion to compel discovery 2, the 701(a)(2) discovery. Then the defense would need at least two months, to incorporate that information into its case in [MISSING]; and into its sentencing case.

And, when you look at the timing that the defense is asking for, you have to remember that the Government has had access to this information and these other agencies for over two years. When the Court takes a look at what the Government has in its aggravation case, then be clear what the Government has done as far as coordinating with other agencies: which agencies they have reached out to and used the information from. Government has been using this time to perfect its case all the while keeping the defense in the dark with regards any discovery for us to perfect our case. So, two months of additional time after they fully comply with the schedule, we have no more discovery issues, is at a bare minimum, the time period the defense would need in order to incorporate this information.

Now, this is what I like the Government to respond to the due diligence request, and then I move on to my other three requests.

Judge Lind

Well before we do that, the Government hasn't had a chance to responds to that, at least in [MISSING] filed on Saturday, the 4th of June, which was last Saturday.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

One thing I am going to ask you to do, as I said when we will address this at the interim Article 39(a) session [June 25, 2012] that was scheduled. If you would, incorporate the [MISSING] you don't know, but incorporating your best guess as to the time flow if I go in your favor...what you are anticipating the Court calendar to look like.

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am. I have been thinking if we go almost...not even just do our best guess...if we said two to three weeks from this point that we do the due diligence. Then whatever the Court thought was a reasonable amount of time for them to fully comply with their discovery and turn it over. Whatever the date that Court sets from there...60 days after that start a trial. Defense would be [MISSING].

Judge Lind

Well, remember you have to get your [MISSING] together, you have to get your classification information notices all of that needs to play out.

Defense (Coombs)

Yeah, and that actually goes back, that is part of the argument for what we raised in the motion to compel 2 as well: was that if the Government was thinking through this piece, they would have just...like they are really just waiting for the judge to control how the 505 discovery. They would have been ready at that time, to tell the judge exactly what information the OCA [Original Classification Authority] is going to ask for a privilege under 505(c), you would have a 505(i) hearing. What information an OCA [Original Classification Authority] is going to ask for a redacted version under 505(g)(2) or some substitution. They weren't ready to do that.

But this information here, this should be something that the Government is realizing like look, here is Brady. Here is information like the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and everything else. This is information that we know we are going to have to either turn over, because its Brady or we are going to have to request for substitution. So, this is stuff they should have been coordinating in advance. It shouldn't be hanging up our trial calendar. But, it is. And that is because they haven't done that. And, that is the problem on the Government.

And actually we will probably go to an Article 10 motion with regards to due diligence. But, in this instance, whatever the date is, if the Government says, 'Hey, we need x amount of days to coordinate the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] say...Brady redactions and substitutions." Well, unfortunately we have to build that in because we are beholden to whatever the OCA [Original Classification Authority] determines they are going to turn over. But that underscores the discovery violation and problems in this case. Because, the Government should know that they have to do this. But, really they didn't think that 701(a)(6) applies to us, by their own admission. We know that as a fact from their filings. So, that explains why after 23 March, when this Court made its ruling, the Government has been scrambling ever since.

Judge Lind

[To the Prosecution.] Do you want to take some time, would you like to reserve a time, or do you have any reply that you would like to address the Court with at this time?

Prosecution (Fein)

We would like to reserve a reply to the due diligence argument, because we did just receive it this past weekend. However, the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] portion...I think I know we could argue that today you Honor So, if we could.

Judge Lind

The defense did in fact from the defense motions to compel 1 and 2 so...

Judge Lind

I would like you to address that today.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

Say again.

Judge Lind

I would like you to address that today.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, I know. So what the Government is going to ask for since it is 12:10 p.m. If we could possibly go on a lunch recess right now, and during that time we will have time to finalize the Government's position for the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] filing...or the responses. The defense called [MISSING].

Judge Lind

Alright, how long is it...10 minutes after 12. How long would you like for lunch? 13 hundred, 13:30?

Prosecution (Fein)

We will do 13:30 your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

No objections, you Honor.

Judge Lind

Notice we have something scheduled later in the day. I believe at 15 hundred.

Prosecution (Fein)

We have starting at 15:00 that we could do later. [Likely an in camera review of the CIA WTF damage assessment substitutions for aggravation in the sentencing phase that Judge Lind ruled the Government needed to resubmit.]

Judge Lind

OK. The Court will be in recess until 13:30.

ALL RISE.

ALL RISE.

Judge Lind

Please be seated. This Article 39(a) Session is called to order. Major Fein [missed] and all parties since the Court last recessed are present in Court. Major Fein when we last recessed the Government was preparing to respond.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. Well, the Government is prepared to respond. I don't think. if we go down the discovery list, we can respond then, or respond immediately based off of how the Court sees proceeding in this motion.

Judge Lind

I believe the defense had just finished with a due diligence piece as well as the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] portion. I do plan to go entity by entity with both sides. Does either side desire to begin with the compel discovery with a general oral argument or do you want to rely on the briefs?

Defense (Coombs)

The defense would like an oral argument, so if the Government doesn't want to respond right now to the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] piece that aspect with due diligence then we would proceed with our argument.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am as it applied to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] we will respond to that as it gets to that portion of the motion to compel the resolution.

Judge Lind

OK. Well why don't you go ahead and begin. Before we do that, do I have the relevant Appellate Exhibits?

Defense (Coombs)

Ma'am. You should have with regards to this motion Appellate Exhibit 96, 98, 99, and 101 as far as the defense filings.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Coombs)

Again, Ma'am the defense requested not only the due diligence, as far as doing an accounting, but secondly we asked this Court to order an immediate production of Brady discovery. When you look at 701(a)(6), the rule clearly indicates that this information needs to be turned over as soon as practical. Two years into the case and we are still asking for this information, hardly qualifies as soon as practical. And, again looking at some of the agencies that we have asked for information...and I know that the Court plans to go through these agency by agency...but just taking a look at the Brady we have been specifically requesting for and the Government has not either provided the Brady or not responded in an adequate way.

With regards to Interagency Committee Review, and the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB], and the House of Representative Oversight Committee. Taking them in order. With respect to the Interagency Committee Review the Government states that the defense failed to provide any basis for its requests. And, the authority that the Government is looking for is this case is Brady

.

With regards to the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB], the Court looks at footnote four of the Government's brief...there the Government states that the prosecution is in the process of searching for discoverable information from the [President's] Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB]. Why is the Government just in the process of searching for this information. We asked for this information over seven months ago, and the Government is saying that they are not just in the process of doing this.

We are just months before trial and they haven't even apparently completed this aspect.

With respect to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, the Government maintains that two things: One, it has no knowledge of such records, and second, that the defense has not stated an adequate basis for its request. Well again, the basis that the Government is looking for is called Brady.

And, with regards to the adequate no knowledge of the records, the Court has already said, that is not an adequate response. You have to indicate that you have at least done a good faith attempt to go search for those records. So, in this regard the Government's response again their intend to not provide the Brady that the defense is requesting.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs, are any of these entities in any way involved in the prosecution of this case?

Defense (Coombs)

These entities, not the prosecution Ma'am, no. When we take a look at what these entities have done, they have taken a look at the leaks in this case, and any possible damage that may have happened, and what corrective steps were taken. So, the fact that these agencies would possibly have Brady is clear, just from the call of what the agency is doing. The agency is looking at the alleged leaks, and making a determination if any damage was done, and if so what steps need to be taken; and if not then obviously the agency would say no damage was done. That would be classic Brady material. And that is why, they are the third prong of 701(a)(6). When the defense asks for by name, and gives specificity that triggers the Government's obligation of the ruling to at least go look, and then come back after exercising good faith effort to look and indicate whether or not that information exists. They can't just simply say they have no knowledge and haven't stated the correct basis.

When you look at our motion to compel discovery 2, we believe there are huge problems with regards to Brady in this case. We still haven't received all Brady from DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency], CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM. The HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] memorandum that we pointed out with regards to due diligence. No Brady from that. Brady from the Department of State, FBI, Department of Justice, ONCIX [Office of the Counterintelligence Executive], ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence], DSS [Diplomatic Security Service with the Department of State], CIA. Brady from the sub agencies within the Department of State. The ones that we have identified, the WikiLeaks Working Group, the Mitigation Team, the Report to Congress; the identity of individuals who might be at risk.

Judge Lind

Let me stop you there for just a minute. The entire CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency], CENTCOM, and SOUTHCOM files relating to Pfc. Manning, WikiLeaks, and damage to from documents, reports, analysis, files, investigations, letters, working papers, damage assessments...

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Is it the defenses position that the Government has to search every file in the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency], CENTCOM, and SOUTHCOM?

Defense (Coombs)

With relation to this case, yes Ma'am, because these are agencies that the Court has found are within the military's custody possession and control. So this would be no different from saying I want the entire CID [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command] file. It is an agency within the military's possession, custody, and control. So, they have not only a Brady obligation, just in general. But, this is a 701(a)(2) obligation at this point. To hand over records that are material to the preparation of the defense. No Court would even question the fact that a CID [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command] case file is material to the preparation of the defense.

So, again to the extent that [Defense Intelligence Agency], DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency], CENTCOM, or SOUTHCOM have independent case files or files relating to these alleged leaks then yes, that would fall right in with the CID [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command] case file, material to the preparation of the defense. We should get the entire file, not some sort of redacted version, unless of course we are talking classified information and the Government goes through the proper procedures.

Brady from the 63 agencies. We have talked about the fact that we have just gotten now 28 so far. And, it is unclear when you look at the time period that we received these and it looks like they were done based upon a 2010 or at the very latest an early 2011 request by ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]. And the response is in that same time period. Either late 2010 or early 2011. So, it looks to me like a snap shot of the effect has it had on your agency at this point. It is unclear whether or not any of these agencies did a follow up evaluation. because now you are talking almost two years later. So, again some serious concerns about Brady with regards to the type of information that we are receiving.

So, all these outstanding questions support not only the defense's request for due diligence accounting, but also once we have the due diligence accounting we know exactly what the Government has done, what still remains to be done, then a time line for when the Government has to turn this stuff over is the next follow up step. And, I do know that in my motion earlier this morning I for due diligence, I asked the Court to request four questions of the Government. I clearly whatever the Court would deem would be appropriate to find out has the Government done its due diligence requirement for Brady, that would be perfectly acceptable with the defense. Basically what we want is just an accounting of what they have done. And, if they have nothing to hide there should be no problem with that.

So, whatever the Court believes to be appropriate for the Court to make that determination would be acceptable to the defense.

Now, third the 701(a)(2) information that we requested. The Court order of documents that falls under 701(a)(2). Documents within the possession, custody, and control and which are material to the preparation of the defense. We had the argument, they have to be relevant; but something that is within their possession, custody, or control. And, when you take a look at this area, before I get into this. I do want to highlight again the issue of definitions. The Government seems to be...their main objection to our 701(a)(2) discovery requests are they simply do not understand what we are asking for. That seems to be the main reply time and time again, and we highlighted that in our motion. And, it appears to be what they are saying is, that when we ask for damage assessments or we ask for investigations that is not the correct terminology. And, we had a little 802 session to determine what it is that the Government needed to hear in order to understand what everyone does know what we are looking for. And, that is any evidence with regard to these alleged leaks and harm or lack thereof at what cost, in order for us to prepare for case or for our trial.

Now, the Government has said again, that with regards to much of this information, that we need to use the term "working papers", and so we added that terminology. And, when we added that terminology, in order to allow the Government to see what we are looking for, again, "the documents, reports, analysis, files, investigations, letters, damage assessments, investigations, working papers"...we put all that in and renewed our request for much of this information. And now, the Government came back and said, before it was too narrow...and now it is too broad. And, it is unclear what information we have to provide the Government for them to understand what we are asking for, but it is basic. And, we have been asking for this really since the very beginning. As the Court recalls our very first 802 session, even before the Arraignment, we did a telephonic 802 and the defense alerted the Court it would be filing certain motions. Right at the very first motions hearing, we would be asking for certain things and we told the Court we have been asking for these same things since day one.

And here we are still asking for these same things. So now with that background lets take a look at what documents are within the possession, custody, and control of the trial counsel, and what are documents that are not or at least what they believe are not.

The 701(a)(2) lays out the requirement here and at least from the documents that we have asked for I would like to cover some of the things that there is no dispute are within the possession, custody, and control of the trial counsel.

The first is HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] documents. In this instance, HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] which is of course part of the Army that is clearly within the possession, custody , and control of the trial counsel. There is no question as regards to that. And, it is also self evident why we are asking for that information. The Government states that first, the defense did not put the prosecution on notice as to what the defense desires with regards to the HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army].

Second, they say that the defense has not provided an aggregate basis as to why all the information within HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] is material to the preparation of the defense. Well, taking those in turn, because their arguments don't make any sense. The defense desires what the HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] memorandum is asking for. That is what the defense desires. And with regards to material preparation of the defense, lets take a look at what the HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] memo was asking for, and again that is Attachment A to our motion.

That memorandum states that any documents or files with material pertaining to any type of investigation, working groups, resources provided to aid in rectifying the alleged compromise of Government information, damage assessments of the alleged compromise, or consideration of any remedial measures in response to alleged activities of Pfc. Manning or WikiLeaks.

That is what the HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] memorandum is asking for. So, again it is self evident as to why that would be relevant and why that would be material to the preparation of the defense.

The Government cannot say, "Hey we don't know what you desire?" or "You need to identify why this information would be material to the preparation of the defense." That is not onus on the defense. If the Government believes that some of that documentation is not material in the preparation of the defense, the Government goes to the Court, and says, "Hey. This stuff is not material to the preparation of the defense." But they don't just simply say, "Nah. We aren't going to give it to you."

By opposing discovery, especially discovery with regards to HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army], they just simply look like they are trying to hide things. Instead of doing what their ethical obligations are, and that is to produce the documentation.

Now I would like to move on to documents that the Government disputes are within their possession custody and control. The Government acknowledges that the FBI and DSS [Diplomatic Security Services of the Department of State] participated in joint investigation. And it also acknowledges that the Department of State, Department of Justice, and CIA, and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] are closely aligned with the Government in this case. The Court has found that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] in addition to all this is closely aligned. The Government still maintains that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is not.

Judge Lind

Alright. The Court has found and I did, is it the defense position that closely aligned or not?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, it is the defenses position that they are closely aligned.

Judge Lind

And, what makes them closely aligned?

Defense (Coombs)

Well, in addition to the Court's 23 March ruling...

Judge Lind

Well how do I know?

Defense (Coombs)

Well I would go as far as siding for my basis, but they are closely aligned in this case, because as you start to look and unravel the relationships between the various agencies, ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] it's clear took the lead along with ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] of contacting all the agencies that might have been impact by the Department of State releases, and they identified each of the cables that were relevant to that particular agency...and they ask them, "Take a look at the cables. Tell us if this has caused any damage or any impact on your organization and if so how. And, if you have had any impact tell us what you are doing as the remedial steps and the cost of those remedial steps." And so that information goes back to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. And it is clear that ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] are leading this based upon probably a Department of State request and the fact that the Department of State is closely aligned with DoD [Department of Defense], part of a joint Investigation. That is how all these agencies are connected. The defense also believes if you start to look at the aggravation evidence, you will see where the Government has obtained their information and how those agencies are closely aligned as well.

In addition to that, in this instance ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] clearly is the repository of what damage may have been caused by these alleged leaks. [MISSING] So, that information is being shared with the Government again, they are closely aligned.

Now the defense maintains that when you are requesting discovery from agencies that are participants in a joint investigation or who are closely aligned with the Government that this would fall under material that has been in the possession custody or control of the trial counsel under 701(a)(2). Now if we previously argued this in regards to obtaining the testimony of the Grand Jury as to why this is in the military possession, custody, or control [missed].

And the Government at that point as well as in this motion, has maintained that the correct analysis for this Court is on the turn, "military authorities". That is their "correct analysis" for their 701(a)(2). But its not. The correct analysis is what is within the possession, custody, and control. That is the term that the Court has to look at.

Judge Lind

How do you support that with the analysis of the R.C.M. 701(a)(2)?

Defense (Coombs)

In what respect Ma'am?

Judge Lind

It says, "Except for subsection (e), the rule deals with discovery in terms of disclosure of matters known to or in the possession of a party. Thus the defense is entitled to disclosure of matters known to the trial counsel or in the possession of military authorities. Except as provided in subsection (e), the defense is not entitled under this rule to disclosure of matters not possessed by military authorities or to have the trial counsel seek out and produce such matters for it. But see Mil. R. Evid. 506 concerning defense discovery of government information generally. Subsection (e) may accord the defense the right to have the Government assist the defense to secure evidence or information when not to do so would deny the defense similar access to what the prosecution would have if it were seeking the evidence or information. [See United States v. Killebrew, supra; Halfacre v. Chambers, 5 M.J. 1099 (C.M.A. 1976).]" I guess when I am looking at that I seem to be flipping over 703.

Defense (Coombs)

Your, Honor. I do understand. That analysis when you also compare that analysis with the analysis with R.C.M. 701(a)(2) as to how that rule was patterned after Rule 16, the analysis that the defense would believe that the Court has to go to first. Rule 16 and 701(a)(2) are identical in every respect besides that Rule 16 uses the word, "Government". Rules 701(a)(2) is suppose to be more expansive, not only possession of the trial counsel, but also in possession of military authorities. The analysis that the Court just read applies to possession of military authorities. And that is why 701(a)(2) and discovery in general in the military is much broader, because we say not only what is in the hands of the trial counsel but now anything that is in the hands of military authorities you have to turn over.

So, that whole analysis is spot on, the analysis you just read is totally correct with regards to military authorities. But the determination the Court has to make here is what is in the possession, custody, and control of the trial counsel? And, that is what the defense is saying, if the Court looks to Rule 16 and holds to the Federal precedent, because unfortunately there is not a lot of military...there is actually none, because these issues usually are not really litigated, but you have this same issue come up in the question of what is in the hands of the US Attorney?

And, Federal Court after Federal Court after Federal Court rules that look if the U.S. Attorney goes to agency x and takes the damage of his or her ability to get files and records form that agency, and they are part of a joint investigation, or they are closely aligned, or they get the benefit of that relationship...that U.S. Attorney cannot then say that. "Their records are not within my possession, custody, or control." They have to at that point in a matter of fairness say that if the defense is asking for records from that same agencies, those records have to be produced.

And, the Trevino case actually lays this out, and kind of a plain language, it just simply has to be true. The Trevino case says, look, "If we would allow the Government to do that: partake of working with other agencies that from a standpoint of just looking at, are clearly outside of the normal custody, control, or possession of that Government US Attorney. You allow them to do that, and then leave anything that is harmful that would in fact have to be produced to the defense, because it is material to the preparation of the defense, leave it at that other agency. Then you would be in the situation where a U.S. Attorney would have every decider to involve some other agency. The same should be true here in the military.

If the trial counsel takes advantage of a joint investigation with the FBI, with the DSS [Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State], with the Department of State, and then at other agencies, the Department of Justice, if they take advantage of going to...that is why it is going to be important to see what aggravation they have. If they take advantage of going to various agencies and cherry picking the information that is beneficial to that case, and then leaving it in the repose of those agencies anything that would be material to the preparation of the defense. Then you are in the absurd situation, an accused in the Federal system would fair better than an Accused in the military system. Because, an Accused in the Federal system could say to his civilian attorney, "Hey. Go push the judge under Rule 16 to get me possession, custody, and control of those records at those other agencies.

And time and time again, Rule 16 and the cases that we cites, judges say, "Spot on. That is correct. The Government cannot take the benefit of evidence and then turn a bling eye to your request, under Rule 16."

In the military, the military accused where he or she could not ask the military counsel or civilian counsel to say, "Hey. Force the judge to make the Government produce those records, because it isn't in the military possession, custody, or control." Couldn't do that. And that would fly in the face of just about every case that discusses discovery in the military system.

Every case says that an Accused in the military enjoys a broader right to discovery than his or her Federal or state counterpart. So, that would not be true in this case.

Judge Lind

Talk to me about is there a reasonableness aspect to it. I am looking at the [US v.] Libby case, where they wanted the entire CIA briefing book, and the judge said, 'Well. you get some, but not all of it."

Defense (Coombs)

Right. There certainly is, Ma'am. The Libby case is a great example where the Government said, "Hey." They got the full advantage of getting cooperation with the White House and other agencies to get records, and then they tried to say...the U.S. Attorney tried to say, "Hey. This is not in our possession, custody, or control." And the judge said, "No. No. No. Wait a second. You don't get the benefit of going there and then now [MISSING] down to say, 'Sorry, its in some other agencies file cabinet, not ours.'"

There certainly is a reasonable standard. And that is why, in this instance, the reasonableness defense would argue is anything that is dealing with the alleged damage or lack thereof from these leaks; anything dealing with Pfc. Manning specifically; and or anything dealing with any sort of remedial steps taken after the [MISSING], after this whole process."

So, if you take a look at why we are asking that, it is clear that that would be material to the preparation of the defense. Just for argument sake, even though the defense hasn't seen anything to that extent. But, say, there is something out there that says, "It was just terrible. End of the world damage, because of this." That clearly then influence the steps that defense may or may not take, for their preparation for trial moving on to...

On the opposite side, if all these other agencies looked at it and said no damage whatsoever, then it would have a similar impact in what we do and the decisions that were make. And so that is why that stuff has to be deemed within their possession, custody, and control, if in fact it is a Joint Investigation for a closely aligned agencies from the defenses' position.

Now, this again goes back to, and the Court is correct in saying on a lot of this stuff turns on what does the Government intend to use on aggravation. And that is the next request that the defense is asking for: that the Court order the Government to produce the evidence it intends to offer in this case issue or the sentencing that deals with evidence from these other agencies...either aggravation or an attempt to prove a particular element if they are relying on some other agency for this information.

Because, when the Court sees that then it becomes clear the extent of which the Government has had the ability to work with these other agencies to perfect its case. And for arguments sake, lets say there is something from the Department of State that they are relying upon, that they are getting. Well, you shouldn't be able to say that that agency's records are not within your possession, custody, or control; but when the defense is asking for that you say, "No. We can't" or ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence].

So that is why the defense is asking you to look at that, not only for the purposes of deciding what is in the military's possession custody or control; but the also when you are taking a look at their due diligence and their Brady, but they are 701(a)(2) responsibilities.

Because, if you see that the Government has spent all this time to the detriment of providing discovery to the defense, that again supports the need for an accounting, the need for immediate production, and possibly the need for additional time for the defense to incorporate this information.

So [MISSING] your questions.

Judge Lind

Can I see the Court calendar for just a moment please?

Unknown Male

Appellate Exhibit 112 is a closed one. The Government's is 113.

Judge Lind

[missed] while we are on the subject...Thank you. Apologize.

I am looking to see where we put in here discovery of the [MISSING] analysis. We didn't. Thank you.

Looking at Appellate Exhibit 70, which is the [MISSING].

The Government's reciprocal discovery request exposures and information. So we sort of have it going all the...on in the classified information and unclassified information. Okay.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yeah, in the proposed case calendar. The Government also has it spaced out as motion to compel discovery; production 2, 3, and then a rolling...

Judge Lind

What we don't have here then..is the motion to compel that the defense has filed in discovery coming from the Government that the defense has not involved in your merits or sentencing case at this point. Don't worry. I will address it this week.

Defense (Coombs)

Ok.

Judge Lind

Major Fein.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor very quickly so that we can then focus on each item the defense has requested. Ultimately, there are a few points that the Government would like to highlight from the [MISSING] brief.

First and foremost the defense continually requests information under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) for information that is always traditionally and before this novel argument by the defense has been set outside of military authorities. The majority [missed]. So up until the point of the actually adjudication from the Court, the Government has maintained from the very first request, that the defense has not provided a proper legal basis or factual basis for those pieces of information.

And again, we are going to go through each one, but it is going to be a common theme. As separate and apart from any type of Brady obligation, the Government has never maintained that there is any information that could be withheld for Brady material. The Government did, however, in our view in the very first motion to compel that 701(a)(2) didn't apply to classified information.

That was litigated, and absolutely 701(a)(6) does apply , but Brady is always applied. But if there is Brady material out there, it will be turned over to the defense. But, that brings me to the second point.

If there is Brady material out there, that is what the defense is entitled to, if its outside of the 701(a)(2) or a motion to compel production.

Judge Lind

Well let me ask you...well motion to compel production...let's go that way. The analysis that I read to the defense...assume 701(a)(2) doesn't apply, it's not in your custody or control...and then you go on to R.C.M. 703. So, am I getting your position correct...I believe I saw it in the defense's brief...that in 701(a)(2) doesn't apply you might want to develop the necessary [FEIN INTERRUPTED]

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. Absolutely!

Judge Lind

[missed] R.C.M. 703 order production...

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. But to improvise that any reason something is relevant and necessary and required as kind of a side note, this one novel argument under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) doesn't apply then now 703. The Government's ready to litigate all this and that is why we are here today. But, since the defense keeps trying to focus on two years of making requests for discovery request that the prosecution received was in late July of 2010 [Manning was arrested May 29, 2010]. They started rolling in September 2010, and the majority of those requests, which the defense is providing you in different exhibits and referenced all have the same canned, drawn language of every and all documents copied and pasted from 701(a)(2) of all of the following organizations.

And despite the Government's over the last year and a half stating you have not provided a proper legal basis or a factual basis. We keep getting the same requests and it's actually...in this round...although some items as we go through them, now do have some specificity.

But, what the Government hopes it does not confuse the Court and confuse the defense on this issue, is that there are different standards that apply of course. The defense has always focused on the 701(a)(2), at no point does that mean just because...that I am entitled to [MISSING] under 701(a)(2) that under a William's search obligation 701(a)(6)...that same information couldn't be discoverable. But, it's a different standard and it is only the material that is or does fall under the 701(a)(6) Brady.

Judge Lind

So is it the Government's position that information in control of another agency in line with the Government could never be material to the preparation of the defense such that it would be relevant and necessary for the production of under R.C.M. 703?

Prosecution (Fein)

Not stated that way. That is not our position, you Honor. It is just simply under 701(a)(2). So open the files, because 701(a)(2) is essentially the open file discovery that makes our system so great in American jurisprudence that we have more. We just hand them the file at [MISSING] and keep handing over documents. This prosecution the Government has done in this case except for very specific classified information, which is what the subject of litigation.

So, the defense continues to focus on 701(a)(2) in preparation of the defense within military authorities. Again, general requests even if it is within military authorities, and if it is outside continue. It wasn't until now in the Court's last ruling that now there is a last conference that says, "Oh, and by the way 703." So bottom line your Honor. The Government does acknowledge that if they make the relevant and necessity argument, and the Court rules in favor under 703, and compels production of certain material. First the Court needs to know what exactly they are asking...thus the Court will know what to order...instead of all files, all information...and then at that point...absolutely...the Government then is compelled...ordered by the Court to go forth...grab those documents...through the different processes, and if the custodian does not want to freely turn over the documents the 703(f) provides me procedures to go forth if its classified...and that is a reason not turn to over, 703(f) has those procedures built in deploy [M.R.E.] 505...then at that point, yes. The Government is going to comply. That is why we are here today. And, that is why this process is set up.

Most of these if we go through will bring right back to this point...overbroad requests...semantics do matter. This is a trial. If the defense wants a damage assessment that is what...they gave us notice...specific notice...is prosecutors...in material preparation of defense standards...the Courts have held that you have to give the prosecution enough notice of what to go find...and we have told the defense over and over again. You did not provide us adequate notice. And, once there was enough confusion on the difference between the an investigation and damage assessment, the prosecution voluntary provided the Court and the defense a legal brief, not a arbitrary brief, based off of legal citations of what the difference is between these terms to help guide the defense.

But instead the defense is trying to open up Government's spouts, by taking a standard of William's that Calf [?] held for interpreting the Brady obligations under 701(a)(6), using the term, "closely aligned"...using that definition and that terminology that we have on the record for the defense listed as a prosecution every entity we consider closely aligned, based off our relationship as prosecutors with those organizations, based off Williams or closely aligned.

Therefore, we have the obligation to search for Brady material, 701(a)(6), material in those entities. Above and beyond that requirement, the prosecution has also outlined for the Court that we have undertaken entities that we might have the additional ethical obligation to search. So, to go back to Government briefed the Court in previous motions hearing, at the end of the day there are now six ways that have come up for this information...six authorities that the defense can chose...I'm sorry...the Government has an obligation to produce material.

701(a)(2) is within military authority...a specific request. And, we litigate it if we agree, and we did it...if we don't we litigate it and the Court orders us. The next three are the Williams, the buckets of Williams, Brady Material, 701(a)(6). So, joint investigations for the prosecution, closely aligned organizations, and then finally specific requests from a specific entity for Brady material. So that is the first and then the third. The next three. The last one we have always maintained is our ethical obligation. So, if its not a specific request from the defense, it's not closely aligned with the prosecution, or it's not a joint investigation, we as attorneys could still have a good faith basis that information could exist. Therefore, we have an obligation, ethical, to find it and disclose it. If it exists and it's Brady material. And we have outlined all this in the prior filings as well...all the different organizations. And that is why the number 63 the defense keeps using.

Judge Lind

Let me ask you a question. Defense, in oral argument, advised the Court in response to reasonableness question, that they were looking for these entities of files that involved direct damage from the alleged leaks, files involving...labeled involving Pfc. Manning, and remedial steps to litigate those leaks...does the Government consider that specific enough?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, may I have a moment?

Judge Lind

Yes.

Prosecution (Fein)

I would like to pull an Appellate Exhibit. [missed] Your Honor, the Government requests the Court to please reference Appellate Exhibit 12. Appellate Exhibit 12 is the prosecutions supplement to the prosecutions proposed case calendar. And in that Appellate Exhibit, the last enclosure is a sample memorandum that the prosecution sent out to different organizations to determine who were closely aligned under the Williams case. And I think this will answer another question as well.

The prosecution in anticipation based upon [missed]. The prosecution understands the severity and the broad impact that the charged offenses have on the Government, anticipated a discovery...I guess potential discovery issues. So in order to get ahead of that, as previously described in this Appellate Exhibit, the prosecution [missed] without the defense request, sent out these memoranda. This is a sample memoranda, your Honor. And if you look at the language...I will direct you on that enclosure to the second page...the first paragraph of the second page states..."as indicated above, the prosecution requests that you, [missed] conduct an immediate and thorough provincial search of your records for the information above, and that information is a person identifying information of Private First Class Manning and other types of search terms related with this prosecution and the all [missed] investigation. So, any information identified with First Class Manning and also for any information directly concerning Private First Class Manning, including but not limited to any documents that discuss damage or harm cause by Pfc. Manning and WikiLeaks and any measures considered particularly in response the activities of Pfc. Manning and WikiLeaks."

So, the prosecution did on their own, was to submit these requests for the entities to search, finding these records, preserving these records, so the prosecution can search through them.

What the defense is trying to do at this point your Honor, is to say that because the prosecution affirmed or recognized that this might become an issue, they are using the same terms that HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] used in their execution of this request that was sent to the Department of Defense by the Army prosecutor. To suddenly say that, that drives what is material to preparation of the defense versus the most broad application of anything that could potentially that could potentially even deal with Private First Class Manning and this court martial, which was the prosecution's intent as evidence in this example, to find a population of documents and information not files, not centrally located documents organized in a manner that we easily identify, pull, search, produce...but find the information, tent the information , and then allow the prosecution to do due diligence [MISSING] at the macro level.

But what is happening it appears, is that that same process...that exact language that was used by the prosecution to do this, is now being used [missed] in preparation of the defense. Every document that deals with WikiLeaks, every document that might Private First Class Manning's name on it, doesn't necessarily make it related this court martial. And, that might sound odd at first, because it is Private First Class Manning's court-martial for compromising national security information through WikiLeaks, but it doesn't necessarily mean it all [missed]. The defense is required under the rules and the applicable [missed] rules, to submit a specific request to specific entities. And, then depending on that request we can then litigate today what they ask for, whether it is or is not disclosable.

I know that is a much longer answer, your Honor, then you were looking for but again that should not...the Government argues that this was a big point for this brief for individuals...that standard should not be used towards the preparation of the defense. That means anything that had Private First Class Manning's name on it or WikiLeaks or both would be material for preparation of defense from the Government. That is the defense's argument, that is now we have been dealing with the amount of classified information, another [MISSING] tactic.

One that hasn't necessarily been contemplated in the rules, but it definitely [missed] growth of 701(a)(2) this idea that the entire Government's files are open in our open file discovery system....meaning the defense argues that 701(a)(2) should be interpreted like Rule 16 and starting [missed] have just now the Court was the two are the same, BUT and then skips over the "but". If as the discussion state 701(a)(2) was developed to mirror Rule 16 then the drafter specifically chose to not use the word Government and chose military authorities. So, any analysis of Rule 16, the Government offers, is inapplicable to 701(a)(2), because they are completely separate rules when it comes to this issue. Military authorities, not military authorities and if its not military authorities then showing relevance and necessity, not material to the production of defense. That is how you compel production.

That is if you have any general questions your Honor I am ready to go through these.

Judge Lind

Ok. Lets go through them.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you find you have them organized in a certain fashion or does either side want me to go step name by name?

Defense (Coombs)

The defense has no problem with the Court identifying...

Prosecution (Fein)

Same, you Honor. Whatever is easier for you...

Judge Lind

Alright. Let's start with the Government. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Prosecution (Fein)

[missed]

Judge Lind

Certainly. Do you consider it an aligned entity?

Prosecution (Fein)

I am sorry Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Do you consider it an aligned entity?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am the Federal Bureau of Investigation we do consider an closely aligned entity for Williams, Brady purposes.

Judge Lind

Was there a joint investigation for the FBI and the [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division] CID?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

What files do they have pertaining to Pfc. Manning?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, Ma'am, if I may. There is one distinction that needs to be made. That is, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is very large agency of the Federal Government. There is a law enforcement arm and then there is the main FBI headquarters. The reason we define this is because, all one entity does, does not necessarily equate to what another does as well. And this will come in to play when we talk about an impact statement the FBI has created, and it is ready to be filed with the Court under 505(g)(2) by the Government. But to quickly answer the question, there as a law enforcement investigation that included Private First Class Manning. There is one that exists. There are files because of the law enforcement investigation just like the Army CID has a case file. That case file has been reviewed up to the date of our disclosure to the defense. The entire file that directly related to Private First Class Manning has been reviewed by the prosecution. And, any documents in that file that were identified containing potentially Brady information, and that would include any information that is favorable to the accused, and material to guilt or punishment or sentencing has been turned over.

Judge Lind

[missed]

Prosecution (Fein)

It has been turned over with redactions and material that does not fall within the Brady standard. But, in addition the prosecution has also received approval to turn over other information that would really focus...would be similar to Section 3 [This could be concerning Article III, Section 3. Treason.] type files. Statements that have individuals might have made based off of Pfc. Manning making them to them.

Judge Lind

You said this was a joint investigation with [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command] CID. Do they mirror each other or are they the same?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. They do not. Each agency, the Diplomatic Security Services, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Army CID each had their own purpose although it was coded as a joint investigation because they would share certain information, and that what was done. Army CID only had certain authorities, and their focus was of course on the charged misconduct of Private First Class Manning downrange and back home. And, FBI had and has an ongoing investigation that also include Private First Class Manning.

Judge Lind

So if there is a investigation that is a criminal investigating Pfc. Manning how would that not be relevant and necessary for production.

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, your Honor.

Judge Lind

[missed] in parts? That is not material that, that is not something the defense can show necessity or relevance.

Prosecution (Fein)

More, than likely your Honor. And, in addition to the question of what you are asking, the prosecution from the very beginning, that is why in every response being given on Brady in that file, the Prosecution maintained that we have turned over at a minimum Brady material. We have also turned over all material as it directly related to Private First Class Manning. An example, we used in a previous session was returns from Grand Jury subpoenas. That is in the FBI file, we have turned those over. Private First Class Manning base [?] records and phone records. If don't intend to use those at trial [NB Fein said "If"]. And, if we were only following the Brady standard than keen to that expression.

Judge Lind

So what is left in the file that hasn't been turned over to the defense as germane to Pfc. Manning? Are you telling me there is a broader file and this is a piece of it?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. Private First Class Manning is a piece of the FBI file, yes.

Judge Lind

And, of that piece how much has been turned over. What remains that has not been turned over to the defense?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am, can we have a moment? [missed] exact.

Ma'am. Your Honor. The FBI law enforcement file investigation is much broader than Private First Class Manning. We have turned over all the documentation that is germane to Private First Class Manning for any witnesses that we would have identified or we suspect to put on our witness list.

Judge Lind

So, all these...? I guess I am going to interrupt you for just a second to ask the defense...the discovery that you got, what percentage of it is redacted?

Defense (Coombs)

A very large percentage of it Ma'am. In fact, I could give you now an example of an unclassified redacted [missed] information that we have received that is from the FBI, that also the defense would also ask the Government to provide to the Court, just two examples bates numbers 447635, 447640 that is five pages there, and 447608 through 447626 just give you an example of the type of information that we are receiving from the Government form the FBI file. Normally, what happens is we receive pages that the lion share of it is simply black, the entire page is black. And, those goes to our identification of Brady information for the motion that Captain Tooman will be arguing. But also it goes to the problem of the Government now saying that we are redacting the FBI file because we don't believe it is material to the preparation of the defense or it falls under our Brady obligation. It is no different if they went to the [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division] CID file and said, "We are going to redact this, its not all that important to you." They interview some witness that was unrelated, "So, we are not going to give you this." They chose to redact the FBI file based upon their view of what is important to us. And, because this is a joint investigation, that can't be acceptable.

They should hand over the investigative file that deal with my client. I apologize in advance for giving this to the Court as the example. And I know the Court reporter so...that will not be too friendly but this is the Grand Jury information that...

Prosecution (Fein)

[Frantically jumps up.] Your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

...the Government has provided that is unclassified. We ask that this be marked as the next Appellate Exhibit.

Judge Lind

Is that the Grand Jury testimony?

Defense (Coombs)

[Coombs holds up a thick file.] It is the Grand Jury testimony that they provided from the FBI, Ma'am. And, you will see there are pages of...basically 30 pages running where it is just complete black.

Judge Lind

Why would this be the size of the Grand Jury? I want to know more on that.

Defense (Coombs)

Well this is an example of stuff coming from the FBI, so that you also have the two bates ranges that we have given you. The FBI file they put as classified as far as their investigative file. So, from that standpoint. That is why we are asking that you look at the two bates number ranges, so you see that this is a prime example of a type of information that we received from the Government. Heavily redacted to the point that it is very difficult even to put information in context, let alone understand what may be Brady, and what may not be Brady. The Government goes then to say, well we are giving you at least Brady. And, they provide the redacted format like this, which is very similar to what we see in the bates number ranges. And, again, those bates number ranges are 447635, 447640, 447608, and 447625. Just two very small examples...if the Court even looked at the entire FBI file that the Government produced, and then the way they produced this to us is not with some index, where they say here is what you have. They give us bates numbers instead of Manning's name, BM Manning, and then bates number range, kind of like what I just provided to you in fives...in some cases with no particular order. As you go through these, you just see page after page of just all blacked out information. And then you get a few lines on one page...and you get page after page of blacked out information. And, that is really what is driving the defenses' request for the Government to have to identify precisely what is Brady within the files that they are providing us, heavily redacted.

But then also underscores our motion to compel discovery that the Government should provide an un-redacted version of the investigative files [missed] my client. So, then again it is no different than taking the [U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command] CID files of the original investigation and just redacting huge portions of it, saying "This is just not important to you." That is the problem the defense has with what the Government has provided.

So, they say they have provided the entire FBI case file, it doesn't appear that...to be that way for the defense. And, certainly is not an informed [missed] the defense can doing anything with because it is heavily redacted to the point that it really doesn't have any context.

Judge Lind

Major Fein. How long was the FBI investigation?

Prosecution (Fein)

You, Honor. I will have to get back to you on the entire page count. But the page count that the prosecution has produced to the defense is 8, 871 pages...636 documents. Your Honor that does not include the Grand Jury testimony, and just the reason I stood up is that Grand Jury has in open court is currently under your protective order and an Article 3 Judge's protective order and should be sealed and not held around in Court, and should be stamped as such.

Judge Lind

It is?

Prosecution (Fein)

On subsequent pages your Honor. You might take a look at it or...but it was provided under your protective order and your direction based off the disclosure protective order and the Article 3 Judge's protective order, and the defense has acknowledge that.

Judge Lind

Mr. Coombs?

Defense (Coombs)

This is provided in unclassified discovery. They provided classified portions of the Grand Jury testimony. That is not anything within that. This is the unclassified discovery that they promised in the email so I haven't shared this with anyone, other than to ask my legal support, Chief Santiago, to print it up and bring it up here, and hand it to me, and now I am providing it to the Court.

Judge Lind

I would let the Court Security Officer take a look at that...

Prosecution (Fein)

[Jumps up and interrupts.] Uh...your Honor, to clarify its not classified...its Grand Jury testimony information protected. And, we will provide the Court the protective order that Mr. Coombs and the whole defense counsel had signed based on off your previous order on the Grand Jury testimony. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys went to a Federal Judge to have it approved to be turned over for limited purposes. So, that should at least in our Court be filed under seal.

Judge Lind

Alright. So if I am considering it as part of this then it will be considered in camera then...

Prosecution (Fein)

Correct your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, as long as we are not discussing any specifics on what is in it...

Prosecution (Fein)

Correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. So you disclosed about eight thousand pages. Do you have any idea of what percentage of the total file that might be?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. It is hard to estimate right now. It is probably around 50 percent. I get that is a very rough estimation, and we can get you a number by the end of the today. In fact, I will provide a number before we close this session.

Judge Lind

I guess why I am confused on this is that when we were disclosing the portions of the FBI file, understanding the Grand Jury is a separate issue, but the other pieces of that file, are they as heavily redacted as this [missed].

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. There are some documents that are heavily redacted from the FBI file. The FBI file is much broader than just Private First Class Manning and directly related to Private First Class Manning, and it is also classified information the majority of it. So, there is multiple authorities to being pulling back. To answer you question before to how its relevant and necessary, and how it is not, is that the defense has not made a showing in their motions in how the redacted portions would be portions would be relevant and necessary. So, yes we can litigate that, and I suspect we are going to have to litigate that but it has been a 701(a)(2) motion up to this point.

Judge Lind

[Lind interrupts Fein.] Let...lets assume for purposes of this litigation...

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

That the ruling that I made before that evidence that is material to the preparation of defense can be relevant and necessary under R.C.M. 703. Not always is, I grant you that, but it can be. So, when we are talking about an investigation by a law enforcement entity against an Accused, I guess I am having trouble thinking about how that is not relevant and necessary.

Prosecution (Fein)

The Government would agree with you for portions...agree that bar relevant and necessary to the Accused. I am not trying to be flippant with this circular argument but for the portions that are relevant and necessary to the Accused, we agree.

Judge Lind

Well, how is he going to make particularized assertions when he doesn't know what is in the redacted portions of the file?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. He at least has to make an assertion. The Government has produced its required Brady, while its protecting an ongoing national security investigation , and protecting national security information...those two items and we have turned over the Constitutional protected information. So it leads us to today, this litigation. The defense makes the showing, and the Court orders all relevant and necessary portions. Then, the prosecution would assume...or would ask the defense what is going to happen...that the prosecution at least gather, or be able to file under 701(g)(2) , and 505(g)(2), or 505(i), the privilege must be invoked...to turn over that portion. But, we then endeavor to turn over anything that would be considered relevant and necessary. The only reason I am using that standard is because that was not the standard that was not the standard we used when we reviewed the documents. But probably the majority of the information un-redacted is what is relevant and necessary.

Judge Lind

OK. Are you calling any FBI as witnesses?

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor we are not. But, your Honor we do not anticipate doing this, because again the defense would run the burden then even making [missed] So the Government would ask if the defense is not saying we want the information behind the redactions under 703, here's why. Then we would ask that that Court give leave to the prosecution for at least a day, to determine if we would call a witness or not, or me to call a witness.

Judge Lind

OK. I am confusing here. I am certainly not asking you to run right out and get an FBI agent here to testify right now. I am saying try.

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor. Other than possibly for the purposes of authentication. But not for any other purpose. And, your Honor, as we have stated in previous filings and previous sessions...the only standard we are currently focusing on, because of the format of discovery is 701, 703, Brady, but also 914 if we go with someone testify, and of counsel any statement in any record the Government looked at that we know exists need to be turned over if they have been adopted by the Army witnesses that we are calling, and others if we qualify them as an expert, on the basis their opinion. So, there is the other rules that might apply to that [missed] tracking primacy of.

But, as far as the case in chief...or even the at this point the case and chief or possibly the synthesis case, once the Witness List is due we do not anticipate authentication issues to have an FBI agent that focused on Private First Class Manning called as a witness.

Judge Lind

What kind of access has the Government had to those files?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. The only access that the Government has been given is solely to look for Brady material.

Judge Lind

Is there an unclassified piece to that or is it all classified?

Prosecution (Fein)

The entire file is classified, but I am sure that there are portions within a classified document that might unclassified.

Judge Lind

Is there anything that the Government would like to address with respect to the FBI files?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. First we start...got the FBI law enforcement investigation, the FBI headquarters through their intelligence organization, also conducted an impact assessment. The prosecution...once the prosecution became aware of that started working through the authorities to turn over the material...the information that favorable to the Accused for guilt or punishment...the Brady material...and we have gotten to a final point where now the Government just needs to file a 505(g)(2) motion. As we stated in our file and footnote...it is not that we are withholding it...we are ready to file it. We just need to wait for our case calendar or to have this discussion now. What the Government proposes based off this quick 802 on the record now is that the Government comes across classified information such as Brady material that exist, that we file immediately those 505(g)(2) requests to the Court. So, that that information can keep churning, instead of keeping it all to a certain point. So, for instance, we have the FBI approval, we have a summary that has been created, we just have to put the motion together and file it, based off the Court's [missed].

Judge Lind

Defense, any objections to having rolling 505(g)(2)s?

Defense (Coombs)

Well again, talking about thousand dollar questions, when did the Government become aware of the FBI impact statement. Once they became aware of it, why didn't they notify the Court? So if they are saying they just became aware of it recently then again, when we asked for any sort of damage assessment, or any sort of analysis of these leaks by the FBI why didn't the Government ask for this information and obtain it at that time? So, in this instance, the rolling 505(g)(2)...the problem with this is going to become, unless we build in time at the end to allow us them incorporate whatever information we get...but this information is going to fall on our laps shortly before trial baring an extension...

Judge Lind

Well rolling 505(g)(2) doesn't fall all in your lap as opposed to...

Defense (Coombs)

No. I agree. And, so down that road, the further that we go down that road the closer we are to trial, assuming the current trial date remains the same. And the more difficult it becomes for the defense to even incorporate any of the information into our case. So that's the problem with this...of the Government saying, again I would like to know when they were aware of it, and why they weren't aware of it before. Now, we go back to the request for the due diligence, for them to lay out what they have done.

Judge Lind

Oh. I understand that Mr. Coombs. And, Mr. Coombs, for the record the Court is certainly willing to entertain any good cause motions for continuance, I am not interested in trying this case before the defense has had a chance to prepare.

Defense (Coombs)

And, that is exactly what we have asked for in our motion to compel discovery 2. What we are asking is that the Court if the Court does order the due diligence give the Government three or four weeks to do that, we can continue with the case calendar that does not impact the actual trial...perhaps with witnesses, the 505(h)(1)...and then once we get that discovery give us two or three months to incorporate it.

Judge Lind

Alright, we are addressing that aspect of the motion at the next session [June 25, 2012]. I understand the defense argument.

Government, are you prepared to tell me when you did learn of this impact statement?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, the Government would at least have the chance to argue the due diligence first and then answer that depending on the Court's order. But what the Government would say is that the defense seems to confuse the issue on what it has asked. [missed] referral they asked for any impact or damage assessment in the FBI general request, under 701(a)(2), the Government replied you are not entitled to it under that proper authority or proper legal basis or factual basis. So, once the Government learned of it, then we started working the approvals. But the Government is prepared to say, because I happen to know that answer your Honor, that it was just a few weeks ago...in fact I think it was three weeks ago...now again I said I think...I can confirm it at another time...that we received approval based off of our post summaries to turn over to the defense. The time of the day that we received it...I think it was the 18 May...that was the day we filed our 505(g)(2) for the other two damage assessment. That was the day we received the approval, and then the next two days defense started objecting into this procedure already litigated about disclosure of ex parte or not. At that point we needed to notify the FBI like every other entity that might entertain getting approval under 505(g)(2) that this is the procedure that might likely occur. So then they can weight that decision on how this works in handling information in the future and how they are going to disclose that. So, since then your Honor, we have had the approval to turn it over. It written in our motion. The defense even cited it before. 701(a)(6) says as soon as practical, as we cited in our motion. The moment this prosecution sees approval to turn over information unclassified, classified...as soon as possible turn it over to the defense...so once we get it, we start working on it. This is an example we didn't have a process in place we notified the defense and the Court in our filing...it's there, plus we have a process once we know how the Court wants to handle these...we are ready to go. And, we can keep being ready to go.

Judge Lind

Defense?

Defense (Coombs)

I guess if the Government is saying they found out about the FBI impact statement prior to or right at the time of their 18 May 2012 disclosure to this Court, then we have additional problems based upon what the Government said about the FBI in that disclosure to the Court, indicated that they had produced all classified and unclassified documents under 505(g)(1) that are relevant in this case with regards to the FBI. This goes back to the Government deciding on its own when its going to enlighten the Court or the defense putting certain information out there.

The Government became aware, apparently, from what he just said...the Government became aware of or had approval to release this information on 18 May. So, it still begs the question when they found out about it, but why are they not at the very least...they have to tell the defense, they have to be alerting the Court to the existence of this information. But they are representing to the Court on 18 May is that they reviewed everything that is favorable to the Accused and material to guilt and punishment, and they turn over everything. THAT is what they were representing on 18 May. If they were aware...obviously they were aware of this impact statement , they just didn't have authority to turn it over, but they should have stated in there, "Oh, by the way Ma'am...the FBI has an impact statement. We are currently working the process for approval to turn this over."

Judge Lind

Alright Government, what is your position on that?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, we are trying to find the [missed] schedule ?

Defense (Coombs)

18 May 2012. "Prosecution Disclosure to the Court."

Judge Lind

[Talking to the side. missed]

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. We just need...

Judge Lind

[Talking to the side. Reviewing a document.] Well it is the same...hold on.

OK. That is fine. Why don't you just take it and the Appellate [missed] itself...

Unknown

OK.

Judge Lind

[missed] please announce for the record what Appellate Exhibit it is.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, you Honor...your Honor I have just handed Appellate Exhibit 125. I am also holding...so your Honor, I was just handed Appellate Exhibit 125, which is "Prosecution's Disclosure to the Court" on 18 May 2012. I am also holding is this folder. It is a consistent application with what the Government has been saying. Um..the prosecution's response to supplemented defense motion to compel discovery no.2 date 31 May 2012, which is Appellate Exhibit 100. Now I am looking at page four from Appellate Exhibit 100, and page two from Appellate Exhibit 125.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, in both of these the focus is the Court's Order was to turn over forensic results and investigative files. This gets back to the issue that was already litigated last session. Investigative files have a specific terminology. We complied with the Court's order and we disclosed it. As noted, to ensure the Court was properly informed and the defense, in Appellate Exhibit 100 [May 31 2012] on page four, the prosecution even gave notice notification about law enforcement files, and then in the second paragraph we also put in a request that they search their entire record to disclose to the Court this information. It goes back to general requests and words do matter your Honor. The Government is not trying to play fast and loose with terminology. We are trying to execute specifically what the defense is requesting. It makes it much easier if we [missed].

And, only once in three referrals discovery, as I have stated before, in a mass request was under 701(a)(2) "any impact or damage from these organizations." We replied did not have adequate basis or legal basis...factual or legal basis. You are not entitled to it. It was never re-addressed. We were on notice for Brady purposes and started looking into it, we found it, we got approval, we notified on 18 May...um excuse me on 31 May in this filing. And, the prosecution is standing here today to saying we are ready to actually turn over the summary to the defense, ONCE the Court reviews it, and IF the Court authorizes the substitution. But IT [FBI damage assessment] is NOT an investigative file. And, although it is understandable that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a very large organization...it is a very LARGE organization within the executive branch. The investigators are not directly tied to it, IN FACT we were told by FBI headquarters what the damage assessment...excuse me impact statement that the investigating office, the field office within the FBI had NO input or even contact with any aspect of the impact statement. It was a complete and separate function.

Unknown

I am returning the [missed your Honor] probably through 114.

Judge Lind

Government, from now on when you have these 505(g) requests, don't wait till next session. File them immediately...

Judge Lind

...and file redacted copies like we did last time.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Is the Government going to use any evidence or any information from this FBI impact statement in their case in chief, rebuttal, or sentencing?

Prosecution (Fein)

Not as case in chief, your Honor...and more than likely there will be a witness that will testify about information that is contained within that assessment during the sentencing phase.

Judge Lind

Is that information being turned over to the defense?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. It is going to be used...what we turn over to the defense.

Judge Lind

As far as...?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes. you Honor.

Judge Lind

...this is an ongoing review...?

Prosecution (Fein)

Absolutely your Honor.

Judge Lind

Well the pieces of it that you are going to or intending on using...be identified for me when I am doing my 505(g)(2) with you.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, that was not the Government's intent because the issue is that...the Government does not intend to use the document ITSELF, but call an expert witness. And, if the expert witness uses it as the basis of opinion, that is how it would be discoverable. So, bottom line is, is that if there is information in it, then no that information will not be used by the Government in any regard on sentencing.

Judge Lind

So, is this expert witness going to be familiar with the entire assessment.

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, if they are your Honor, then they cannot testify cause that would be used as the basis of their opinion, and if we are not turning over and making it available to the defense then, no. Very long is, no, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. Now, I'm confused. We have an EXPERT witness that may make opinions based on a piece of this assessment?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. So, what you are telling me is that a piece of the assessment plus the Brady 701(a)(6) is what you are proposing in the substitutions?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, you Honor.

Judge Lind

And you are not going to identify for me that piece in there?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, essentially your Honor it would be easier understanding because I am not particularly...this well...is that. Whatever expert witness is taking the stand on sentencing...would only be basing their opinion on that material and nothing else. And, if it is anything else then that information will be produced to the defense. But it will not be from that damage assessment unless it is provided to the defense. So, a damage assessment as you have seen from the Department of State, and you have seen probably from others you have reviewed...typically they are consolidated from multiple organizations, so it is conceivable that a certain witness could be from one organization testifying about that information that also is included in the consolidated document. It does not necessarily mean that that individual understood or knew information that was part of the consolidated document. But the bottom line your Honor, there will not be any expert witness testifying on sentencing that basis of their opinion will not be produced in some form to the defense.

Judge Lind

Alright...

Defense (Coombs)

Just a point of clarification. The Government not more than five minutes ago had indicated that they are not calling anyone from the FBI and that now apparently they are calling a sentencing witness from the FBI.

Judge Lind

Is this expert from the FBI?

Prosecution (Fein)

First, your Honor. The question was, do we intend to call an FBI Agent to the stand for case in chief or in sentencing. No, we do not. [See above, in fact the Judge has asked "Are you calling any FBI as witnesses?"]

Judge Lind

Alright. Let me broaden that. [annoyed] Do you intend to call anyone from the FBI that is familiar with either the investigation from the law enforcement end of it or the impact statement from the headquarters end of it?

Prosecution (Fein)

We will know for sure your Honor if it is an analyst or someone who is part of the impact assessment by 22 June [When the witness lists are due.]

Judge Lind

OK. That is the...

Prosecution (Fein)

That is the current scheduled date for the witness lists to be exchanged.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Prosecution (Fein)

Whatever that date is on our [missed] calendar, your Honor by the time we submit a witness list that is when that determination will be made.

Judge Lind

Yes.

Defense (Coombs)

The problem is the Court's question is wanting to know who they are going to be calling from the FBI to determine what portion of the FBI file may either fall under 701(a)(2) or be relevant and necessary for the purposes of 703. And so that is the basis for the Court's question if [missed] understands it correctly. So, the Government waited until 22 June or some other date to indicate which witnesses it intends to call from the FBI it intends to call from the FBI then basically frustrates the request of the defense to get a un-redacted copy of the law enforcement file.

Judge Lind

Well, now we are talking about the impact statement, not the law enforcement file I am understanding?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is what I thought so...

Judge Lind

What I would like in my 505(g)(2) reviews is to include, I don't care if you know the exact name...if it is Witness A or Witness B testified to the same thing, but what is the portion of...would you intend to disclose...that the Government intends to have a witness come in and testify about.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, that way I can have a more intelligent opportunity to do a 505(g)(2) review in light of the criteria that I consider on that half of the point.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. To answer your question about the size of the FBI file that would be germane to this Court Martial. It is 42,000 pages total, my estimation of 50 percent was not correct. So, 3, 475 documents. And the number again that we produced to the defense, was 8, 741 pages, 636 different documents.

Judge Lind

Did the documents...

Prosecution (Fein)

I'm sorry. 636 documents, 8, 741 pages.

Judge Lind

And how many big is the FBI file did you say?

Prosecution (Fein)

3, 475 [documents] your Honor, and 42, 135 pages.

Judge Lind

So we are not nearly at 50 percent [missed]?

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor, I grossly underestimated.

Judge Lind

Anything else with respect to the FBI file?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK. Let's move on to DSS.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. Your Honor, I admit the Government has...able to produce all files from DSS that relate to Private First Class Manning and WikiLeaks.

Judge Lind

What files exist?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. There was a law enforcement file at the law enforcement organization and we asked for everything, they gave us everything that they claimed...the remit list said it was everything...and we have produced all of that to the defense in one production. On 6 December 2011, it was 79 pages, 26 documents.

Judge Lind

OK. Defense do you contest that?

Defense (Coombs)

Well again if the Government is representing to open Court that the Department of State's investigative file into the alleged leaks of 255,000 cables comprises of 79 pages then obviously we are not in a position to challenge that. It just, that doesn't strike the defense as being common sense. You would just that the investigative file would be larger than 79 pages.

Judge Lind

[To prosecution] OK. So will you ask them?

Prosecution (Fein)

We have ask, we've looked your Honor and that is what it is.

Judge Lind

And, do you consider it an aligned organization?

Prosecution (Fein)

A joint...yes, your Honor. DSS.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. May we have a moment?

And just for clarity purposes your Honor, we are talking about the DSS "investigative file" so. The rest of the Department of State is the law enforcement arm...

Judge Lind

[annoyed] Does the law enforcement arm of the Department of State contain any other file other than the law enforcement investigative file pertaining to Pfc. Manning?

Prosecution (Fein)

Not...no, your Honor. Not an "investigative file". They could have other information that we have not reviewed, but not part of the investigative file. We have reviewed the entire investigative file. The folder that says, "WikiLeaks" or "Manning". However, they categorize it and organize it, we have all the documents, we produced those.

Judge Lind

Alright. The Department of State as a whole?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, the Government maintains that the Department of State is not part of the Department of Defense therefore not within military authorities, so the 701(a)(2) does not apply.

Judge Lind

Do you consider them aligned?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor we do consider them closely aligned for William's purposes.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

As far as knowledge an access, your Honor. The prosecution in meetings gains knowledge. The prosecution does not have access, except for whatever information we have been given, and we have not been able to get, although we have been coordinating to review their files and have been accumulating them. But as for the filing that you have received from the Government...the enclosure to our response. In the Government's response to the defense's supplement to the defenses' motion to compel discovery 2, provided a almost PRIMER on the organization and function of the Department of State...a very large organization, and they are currently accumulating their files for us to review for Brady material 701(a)(6).

Judge Lind

OK. Any position to tell me when you asked them to do that?

Prosecution (Fein)

We would argue your Honor, that that should be presented during the [missed]...

Judge Lind

Alright. That is fine.

Prosecution (Fein)

...the due diligence argument.

Your Honor, so the Department of State as a whole...that is the Government's position...there are specific...now in this last motion to compel...there are some specific information and entities that we could also discuss.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

The Government does agree that it has made specific requests when it comes to the categories of subjects, the litigation team, the WikiLeaks Working Group, the Chiefs of Mission cables [Cables sent in to DoS re impact/damage review], and certain Department of State reporting to Congress as evidenced by the defenses submission of Ambassador Kennedy's testimony of March 2011. That information is still not within military authorities. This prosecution doesn't have the information doesn't have access to it for any purpose. The Department of State does intend to provide that material to the prosecution to review for Brady material and as we have noted before, the Department of State is providing witnesses to the defense tomorrow to explain what does and what does not exist.

Judge Lind

Alright. Does the Government intend to use any evidence from any of these...you have already turned over the one piece of evidence, but the other evidence that you have already been reviewing, does the Government using any of that in its case in chief, rebuttal, or aggravation?

Prosecution (Fein)

Not our case and chief, your Honor, because we haven't seen any information...so at this point I couldn't say we are going to be using any of it in aggravation...sentencing. We don't know, your Honor, because we have not been able to review it.

Judge Lind

So at this point do you know if you are calling any witnesses from the Department of State who are familiar with these documents?

Prosecution (Fein)

We more than likely are, your Honor and if we do call them and they are testifying to any subjects on that matter and they use it as basis. If they qualify as an expert, and they use as basis of opinion then it will be described...and it will be produced in some form to the defense.

Judge Lind

Alright. Anything further with the Department of State from either side?

Defense (Coombs)

No Ma'am, other than what we highlighted as the due diligence requirements for these other sub organizations. Nothing in addition to that.

Judge Lind

Alright. Department of Justice.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. The Department of Justice again, not...it's a separate department...not Department of Defense, does not fall within military authorities.

Judge Lind

Is this where you draw the line for William's purposes?

Prosecution (Fein)

We do your Honor. And we define as we have done in our five multiple filings for the purposes of clarity for the defense and the Court...the Department of Justice to be "Main" Justice, the headquarters, the immediate subordinate organizations in the headquarters, and the US Attorneys offices, NOT the subordinate agencies like the FBI and others for this purpose.

We have produced any...any...there is no damage assessments. We asked. There aren't any.

Judge Lind

What files are there...concerning Pfc. Manning?

Prosecution (Fein)

The only files there would be is prosecutorial files, your Honor, and Grand Jury testimony, which we have produced the Brady information from the Grand Jury testimony.

Judge Lind

Alright. So, no investigative files, no damage assessment, no...?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. That is left to the FBI as we have been told by the Department of Justice.

Judge Lind

So there is nothing...you were telling me there is nothing you are searching in the Department of Justice?

Prosecution (Fein)

We have been told...that is correct your Honor....we have been told that anything the Department of Justice would have that would fall under the criteria we submitted is in the FBI file, except the Grand Jury...we did that separately.

Judge Lind

OK. Defense, anything?

Prosecution (Fein)

Again we are in the position of taking the Government's representations. So, if the Department of Justice has nothing in addition to the Grand Jury, then we just simply ask that you take a look at least at the unclassified version of the Grand Jury testimony that we presented to show you the amount of information the Government has chosen to share with the defense, and now it is really essentially useless when you look at the amount of redactions.

Judge Lind

Now, we have already addressed the major issues ok.

CIA.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor the Government first argued that they are not...do not fall under military authority...an intelligence agency therefor 701(a)(2) does not apply. We do consider them closely aligned for Williams purposes. We have started and continue to review their files for Brady material. We have not completed that. It is an ongoing process as well. There damage assessment or report has been produced to the Court and subject currently to Court's order or future order.

Judge Lind

Are there other files that are germane?

Prosecution (Fein)

There are investigative files which we recently...or we previously spoke about...and those forensic results or investigative files have been produced to the defense.

Judge Lind

So what is left for the review?

Prosecution (Fein)

Excuse me your Honor. The Brady material of that file has been produced.

Your Honor. The only thing left to review are other documents that have been accumulated pursuant...that would fall under the similar requests that we have highlighted as an example for the Court.

Judge Lind

Will there be any witnesses from this entity that will be testifying in the Government's case in chief, rebuttal, or sentencing?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes your Honor on both...and the underlying information that they would be testifying to has been or will be provided to the defense depending if it is on merits or it is on sentencing.

Judge Lind

Will any of them be testifying about what I just reviewed?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Anything from the defense?

Defense (Coombs)

Just based upon the Government's statements that they are just now reviewing certain documentation...the CIA...why it hasn't been done before, I would go back to due diligence. And, the fact that there are certain documents apparently that these whatever they call them the CIA will be testifying to that have not yet been produced to the defense. So, unless it is this information that they are seeking some sort of protective order for under 505(g)(2) or privileges have been invoke, why hasn't this information been turned over to the defense at this time.

Judge Lind

Mr. Fein?

Prosecution (Fein)

Absolutely, your Honor. First to clarify, I did not...the Government did not say right now that we are just starting to review documents. [See above Fein said, "We have started and continue to review their files for Brady material."] We have been and we continue to review documents. Its a massive amount of documents your honor. It takes time. Um...especially based of the charged offenses. Um...the first the merits. The defense has had the evidence that the witnesses on the merits will be testifying about since about 8 November 2011 when we handed over all of the majority of the classified evidence and will continue to do so in the case. So any information that would come from the CIA in whatever form and whatever...they have had in their possession for them and any of their experts to review. So really my answer was focused on sentencing any experts and any experts that are qualified who rely on any information...that information just like I have spoken about the others will be provided to the defense, IF they are ready to RELY on documentation. And, the documents that you have reviewed your Honor, although contain...your Honor, in reference to your documents, the documents that you have reviewed...any information that could be aggravating, we do not intend to use.

Judge Lind

So, this witness that you are going to call on sentencing...from this organization is not basing his or her testimony on anything that I review?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is absolutely correct, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Yes?

Defense (Coombs)

Again it seems as if Major Fein is saying the witness is going to be testifying on the basis of that witness' testimony will be provided to the defense. So the question is, IS the basis of that expert testimony information that they have already provided, or is it somehow some other information that they are going to be providing to the defense? And, then if the answer is the latter, there is some other information they are going to be providing to the defense, when the time for providing that is NOW. This is the discovery stage. So, that is the issue we need clarification on.

Judge Lind

Well I am looking here, as the Government has stated. Government the witness list exchange is scheduled for the 22 of June is that correct?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes. It is correctly scheduled your Honor.

Judge Lind

There may be a discrepancy here on when the Government witnesses come out...are disclosed, and when the defense witnesses are disclosed base on the discovery timelines that we have here. Is the Government...I will give you some time to think about this...I would like to continue on with the 22 June disclosure of the Government's witnesses so we have all these issues flushed out as I am doing these reviews [505(g)(2) reviews for classified discovery info] along the way...rather than doing a second review 505(g)(2) reviews for classified discovery info] prior to the trial when these theories are developed, so... I plan to keep the Government on track on 22 June.

Prosecution (Fein)

Well your Honor, also I think what could help the Court for this is..really the Government offers the real question to be answered is would we not intend to use stops with what we intend to use. Cause if we intend to use something the rules us require to give access and hand over the defense. So, what would probably help more...

Judge Lind

The Court will want to review is that I have to look at the document as a WHOLE and decide if the snippet that you intend to use is sufficient to allow the defense an opportunity to cross examine the witness...

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

...and all that kind of thing. And I can't do that if I don't know what witnesses that the Government going to introduce.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. Um...well. What the Government is confident on is there isn't really that much that is not going to be approved for use. Um..and our filing...whatever it is the Court decides on how we notify the Court on the type of aggravation that we are going to be allowed to use...versus all the aggravation we are not going to be allowed to use about the impact of this case. Um...on the national security. I think when we provide that to the Court, it will be very clear cause there are very specific categories, and very specific sources of information that are so sensitive that they can't be used, and that is what we will likely propose that we provide you in some form...once we discuss it with the Court on the record...whenever that will be. And, discuss it with the equity holders who own the information, given authority.

Judge Lind

OK. ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. The Government considers first ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] is not part of the Department of Defense, military authorities under 701(a)(2). We do consider ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] a closely aligned organization, because they have provided information that the defense have in their possession since on about 8 November 2011 that they intend to use on their case in chief. So we consider them closely aligned. ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] is a parent organization of multiple independent organizations, such as ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. So, as I have noted in our filings we just like DOJ, consider ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] "Main" ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence], and not its subordinate organizations. So, we have started and are almost finished, reviewing ODNI's [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for any Brady material.

Judge Lind

Alright, you talk to me about whatever you are using in your case in chief, has already been given to the defense?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, what other files are you reviewing for Brady material?

Prosecution (Fein)

Under our general due diligence requirements your Honor, based off of the criteria we have given you as an example of this massive population of possible documents just to make sure that there is nothing that could be Brady material.

Judge Lind

Are there specified types of files that you reviewed? ...

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am...

Judge Lind

Or do you just walk in and say let me review all your files?...

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am.

Judge Lind

What are you targeting?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am the categories that we are targeting are in that example that we...I briefed earlier um...it is specific information concerning Private First Class Manning, identifying information such as usernames and IP addresses, any type of impact information or damage, and of course if it is mitigating it is discoverable.

Judge Lind

[To defense.] Yes?

Defense (Coombs)

With regards to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and then...I would like to have the Government respond to the first question on whether or not ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] has any damage assessment, investigation, working paper, however you want to define that, similar to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

Judge Lind

Not ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] one a separate one?

Defense (Coombs)

Correct, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Can you answer the...

Prosecution (Fein)

Absolutely, your Honor...

Judge Lind

...question?

Prosecution (Fein)

...it's actually on page [off to the side...] What is it? [Back to Judge] Your Honor, the prosecution's response to the defense motion to compel discover no. 2 dated 24 May 2012 compel exhibit 97...

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

Bottom of page 12, footnote one. ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] does not maintain investigative files and is only closely aligned under Williams and contribute evidence for the merits. They do not have a centralized file. This is part of what I described before a due diligence search that we are doing, because they have provided evidence that we intend to use on the merits. And, we have asked them based off of that criteria to accumulate some records for us to look for Brady material.

Judge Lind

Do they have a damage assessment?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, they do not have a damage assessment your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

...Or law enforcement files or forensic results.

Judge Lind

[To defense] Are you sure you made your question from some Brady material as part of your suit?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes, Ma'am. The 12 pages of Brady information...some of that is directly responsive to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and other information is directly responsive to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]. So, it appears...

Judge Lind

Can you point that to me in the [missed]..?

Defense (Coombs)

That should be Attachment A to your motion to compel. And, as well as that, with regards to the motion to dismiss...it should be attached to that.

Judge Lind

The motion to compel [missed] ?

Defense (Coombs)

I believe so, Ma'am. Yes. And then also...

Judge Lind

OK. I have...oh I see...no...I have Attachment A as 17 April 2011...I did see it in one of these...

Defense (Coombs)

It should be maybe 31...

Unknown

I have Appellate Exhibit 31.

Judge Lind

Why don't we do this...we been at this for quite some time...why don't we take a brief about ten minute recess...is that good for everybody? Does anyone want longer than ten minutes or is ten minutes fine?

Defense (Coombs)

10 minutes is fine with the defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

[Affirmative]

Judge Lind

Alright, Court is in recess until 25 minutes to two.

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. We just broke at 2:40 today. Alright. Are we finished with ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]?

Defense (Coombs)

Just the Appellate Exhibit 43, Ma'am was the Appellate Exhibit I wanted you to take a look at...this was the two pages of Brady which we received [missed] highlighted areas was one of the memorandums...and it looks to me to be addressed to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and there maybe, because ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is a sub organization under ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and maybe also addressed to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]...so that was the reason the defense believes that ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] may have some things responsive to our request.

Judge Lind

Alright. Mr. Fein are you sure you are on the same enclosure to Appellate Exhibit 43 that I am?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. I have looked at it.

Judge Lind

OK, is this going back to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] as a sub-entity of ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]...

Prosecution (Fein)

That is correct. So, it looks like that Robert Bryant address had ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] on it and then ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. I assume that is the proper address and convention for whoever sent that letter. But Robert Bryant was the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] presidential appointee, the National Counterintelligence Executive. His office is ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

Judge Lind

So there is one damage assessment and it is ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is correct your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] does not have any damage assessment or any record that would reflect that. It is ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

Defense (Coombs)

And, that was the reason why defense included that as a possibility.

Judge Lind

We move to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Let me start off by asking you a question. I ruled on the 23 of March that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] was an aligned entity, the Government in the response, I don't remember which one said you disagree with me but you are not challenging that ruling. If ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] is a closely aligned, and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is a sub-entity...I guess I am confused as to how they are not closely aligned?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, your Honor..uh..the Government has tried in all of its filings to explain to the Court and the defense that it would place the Government probably in an untenable position...to assume that the parent organization of a department or agency that has subordinate departments and agencies are fall or...are almost imputed with our determination of it being closely aligned or not. So we, as the prosecutors, have assessed that facts of our relationship with them, information sharing with them or whether we are using charge documents that exist or not, and all these other factors that make that determination whether they are closely aligned.

So just like the Department of Justice, FBI and all the other organizations under the Department of Justice, we define ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] versus ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] . ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] has provided a classification review that the defense has had, but that is located in Appellate Exhibit 97. Or, we referenced that in Appellate Exhibit 97, page 8, footnote 11 including the bates numbers of the two documents. So, because ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] has provided classification review and authority for us to use evidence on merits, they consider ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] a closely aligned organization for William's purposes....for us to do our due diligence, to search their department...their files...their information to determine if there is any Brady material...versus ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] who we have no relationship, other than we had an ethical obligation from the beginning, and then based off the discovery request with the defense additionally a Williams bucket three requirement to obtain that information. But, NOT...

Judge Lind

There isn't a damage assessment for ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is that right?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is what we have been told your Honor, based off a filing, we now know. Correct.

Judge Lind

OK. Really so at the end of the day does it matter if they are rolling or not if we are going to do the same review?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, they...they...no your Honor, we are doing a Brady review. The only reason we are defining in a particular area on what obligations we have is because it is whether it is based off a defense's request or not, or whether we are basing it off our ethical obligations. The only reason we haven't defined this, is only because this 701(a)(2) argument and the way it has morphed that is why...at the end of the day your Honor, your question...if there is Brady material we are searching for it...

Judge Lind

So for ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] you...other than going and asking them for this damage assessment for Brady material, what other relationship do you have with them?

Prosecution (Fein)

um...

Judge Lind

[Annoyed] Other than asking them to review this damage assessment what other relationships have you had with them, have they provided any evidence..?

Prosecution (Fein)

None. No other relationship your Honor.

Judge Lind

Is there any other...are there any additional files that were going to review when we do the damage assessment?

Prosecution (Fein)

We have submitted the same form of a request that we have discussed already on the record, a more macro level request than the other documents...but it should only be those documents that lead up to the damage assessment that is believed to be there, so...

Judge Lind

So I understand this correctly, you haven't reviewed it yet..

Prosecution (Fein)

That is correct your Honor.

Judge Lind

So, at this point are you in a position to tell me whether you are going to use any evidence at trial or call any witnesses pertaining to it?

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor. We don't even know...other than what information might from other independent organizations have fed into it..based on what defense has already referenced, the 28 different...the more than 20 different damage assessments, impact statements, or any other variation of damage that has occurred that we produced to the defense as we get approval and turn them over...other than THAT...because as the defense pointed out...most of those were done pursuant to the request by ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] . There is nothing else that we know of.

Judge Lind

I guess I am confused. If you don't enough of the review of that assessment to determine where the Brady material, how did you not review the rest of it?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. I apologize. That is not what I intended to relate. The ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] as explained in the Government's filing to explain the difference between assessments and investigations. The ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is chartered to do a national level national counterintelligence review, damage assessment, at the national level. That is what there ah...the Counter Espionage Act...excuse me...Counter Intelligence Act set up. We briefed that in our filing. That is their charter. They do a Government [missed]. They received inputs from different Government organizations. What the defense has already referenced, and what we produced to the defense are different entities that submitted their information to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. We have not reviewed any document that belongs to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. Here. What we have done is we have gone to the originator, the owner of the information that was submitted to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive], the original entities to request approval to review their material and if discoverable turn it over to the defense. And, that is what the defense has been receiving. Um...specifically...the ultimate source of these documents is not ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. The source of the documents that the defense has received in discovery are the actual agencies. So, it was mentioned earlier on the record today that the Department of Agriculture or any of the executive departments that the defense has received those organization independently did their own, and submitted them. We have gone to those agencies for efficiency purposes, we have acquired the documents, or we are attempting to finalize acquiring all the documents, and then once we obtain them or review them, get approval to turn them over, if they are discoverable, and then give them to the defense immediately, once we get that approval.

Judge Lind

Why did you tell me back on the 21 of March that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] had no damage assessment? Those aren't the exact words that you used, but...

Prosecution (Fein)

Correct your Honor. You are right. Frankly, because we do not have access or even knowledge absent us asking the question and receiving it to these files, because of the nature of this type of assessment. They [defense I assume] ask the questions, they stop at the defense discovery requests...specifically your Honor, if it may please the Court, to kind of lay out a time line. This is somewhat reflected in the defense's motion from Saturday. But 16 February 2012, was the defense's motion to compel discovery, their first motion. On 28 February 2012, the first 802 telephonic conference...after 16 February 2012 motion to compel, we approached at some point, I don't have that date ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and said, "You know, we are required to produce the following...here is an example of what it is. What do you have?" And then the response of course given was that "ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has not completed a damage assessment. To date they have not produced any interim or final damage assessment in this matter." That is what they gave us and told us.

Judge Lind

Did they give that orally or what?

Prosecution (Fein)

Orally, your Honor. And so, by us writing that down, and inquiring this all you have, is this what it is? This is the response that we received. That is ultimately what we..fast forward at motions hearing on the record, and for the 802 conference after the motions hearing, and on the email inquiry on 21 March, when asked, as you will notice from the Court's motion to compel discovery dated 23 March 2012...the Court documented the email questions...and those email questions were, "Does the damage assessment and such exist with ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]...or excuse me...ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] ?" And we responded in email, "ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has not produced any interim or final damage assessment" to that.

We asked them the questions, we don't have any other access to the files. They answered it. So at that point we relayed that to the Court. We relayed it to the defense. The Court ruled.

Judge Lind

Is it...at that time is it the Government's belief that they did have it?

Prosecution (Fein)

Correct your Honor. It was our belief at that point that they were compiling these other assessments that we knew about because we started reaching out, once they told us about...to go get those. But, then they had no other documentation that would be subject to discovery based off this response. So, yes we did know that their individual [missed] organizations were submitting them, and that is why we went out to those orbit, those independent organizations, to get them approval and disclose them.

Judge Lind

You understand that the purpose of the questions from the Court is to discover what is out there?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. And, the prosecution did exactly that your, Honor. Even after the email from the Court, prosecution reached out to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] to ask the question again, and this was the response that we received. And it goes back to the military authorities line of inquiry. The military prosecutor and a Department of Justice prosecutor doesn't necessarily have access to walk in any government building and search the files. We ask the question. We give them the relevant cases...[missed]. We show them the discovery requests and any other order, and then they give us the answer or give us access, and we go search for these. In this case, they gave us the answer, and we relayed that to the Court.

Judge Lind

But you knew that other entities in your request were submitting documents to them?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. We went after those documents.

Judge Lind

Did you ask any follow up questions, like why are you collecting these documents?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. We did. And, we were told that they were compiling documents to do a damage assessment. We asked, "What is the state of the damage assessment so we can relay it to the Court?" And this is the exact wording we were given.

And so, going forward your Honor. After that ruling and then after we re-litigated the Department of State. Then he sent that and said, "Listen"...essentially as we have outlined in our memo to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] on behalf of ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and in the response back...on 11 May the Court ruled that even a "draft damage assessment" from the Department of State is discoverable in that form. We re-litigated that, "Does this information apply to y'all based off of what you had previously told us?" And, at that point they said we need to have a meeting. We had the meeting within a week, and then within a week we figured out the way forward as a prosecution, submitted the request and then as you can tell from the memos in Court and defense [missed].

If we had access we could we could review the files, look at them, and go from their your Honor.

Judge Lind

You mean now or then?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, today we still don't have access, you Honor. Although, we are beginning to access pursuant to memos we received. But, then if we had access we could have inspected the files, and made a first hand account to the Court.

Judge Lind

Alright. Defense, anything else? I know you set forth in your original discussion.

Defense (Coombs)

Just one request Ma'am. With regards to what the Government is representing, as far as their question that they had asked and the answer they respond, and what they conveyed to the Court. It is clear that they never conveyed that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] was collecting something, and putting something together or what was said, "Submit whatever you got." Take a look at page four of the damage assessment that defense has recently identified from the Department of State. Look in the middle of page four, you will clearly say why the Government can clearly not say what they just said. They were on [missed] that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] was creating a damage assessment. So, not only look at that page, but also the date of the Department of State's damage assessment, and that will clearly tell the Court what information the Government should have been aware of. Cause at the end of the day it is the Government asking itself what does it have?

Judge Lind

[Long emphatic] Well...Mr. Coombs, even in Federal cases don't say that the one entity has knowledge of the entire Government's files.

Defense (Coombs)

No. And I wouldn't say that. But it is the Government asking itself this information, so unless they were cryptic with Major Fein to where again the follow up question that you asked, "Like, why are bunting this...?" you know, "Doing something with it?" "Well we are putting together a damage assessment?" Well, maybe that would have been a good piece of information for Major Fein to share with the Court that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is putting together a damage assessment. They don't believe that they have it right now, in a particular format that is finalized or interim or whatever. But at least to share with the Court that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is putting together a damage assessment. You look at the reference that there is an assessment, look at you will see why they should have been...why you didn't put that notice at their doorstep.

Judge Lind

Alright, Mr. Fein, when did you first have access to the Department of State damage assessment?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, we received access to the Department of State damage assessment within I think it was a day or two of giving it to the Court, prior to the last...prior to the reconsideration motion. Um...then will have to [missed. MUMBLING]...uh..I have it right here. We will look at page four. Um..but the Government never maintained that we didn't know that they weren't doing it. That is their entire purpose...ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]'s. We inquired into what the document they had that we could report on whether they have a draft damage assessment, and they reported back, again, "Today ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] is not producing any interim or final damage assessment," and it is adamant when we asked them the question. So, the Government's positions isn't that we didn't know that they weren't in the process of creating a damage assessment, but we were unaware if they had any other documentation created that would even qualify as a "draft". Once we received the Court's order on 11 May, we had them re-look and re-assess, and that is when we started this process.

Judge Lind

So the Government's position [missed] of theirs, you saw a distinction between the Department of State, which you told me Department of State had not completed a damage assessment...and I guess what is the difference between what the Department of State's position was at that time and what ONCIX's [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] was at that time?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, to be honest, the Government doesn't necessarily know. We ask the question. This is what we are given and we relayed it to the Court. To us, there is a difference between a "draft" and an "interim". A "draft" is an ongoing document. An "interim" is something produced as a snapshot in time to immortalize that information. So, we did have discussion with both entities on what the differences could be, but at the end of the day we asked, "Do you have any documentation or do you have a damage assessment and if not what do you have?" And, these are the responses you were given, and that we relayed to the Court. So, again...it...we have never been able...we don't know they weren't doing it. In fact, I think it was publicly announced, and the defense has notified the Court of that in one of the very first filings, it was publicly announced that they were doing one, but to the extent of what they did...the prosecution has no clue, we had to rely on what we were told. And, as we remedied it, the moment we realized that...we attempted to remedy it once we realized and asked them to reassess their position based off of the Court's order on 11 May. But they had to come back to us and say, 'Yes. What we read actually means that we have something like that. Now, not necessarily what we told you before. Of course, everything is changing as time moves on." So, once they told us, we then went through the procedures and we are here.

Judge Lind

OK. Anything else with respect to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]?

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor, just to ask you to review the memo from Major Fein to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. That doesn't entirely coincide with the way the text from ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]...

Judge Lind

What memo are you talking about?

Defense (Coombs)

The memorandum dated 24 May 2012 is part of the prosecution's notice on the ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment. And, reading that memorandum it is clear that Major Fein is basically making the determination that based upon the Court's ruling that we now need to disclosed that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has a damage assessment. And this is in response to the Court's 11 May determination that "draft damage assessments are not speculative regarding their nature and are still subject to discovery." So when you look at that memorandum, it is the prosecution at that point...and let's even for argument sake say they found out maybe a week before this or what not...that this ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has something. They still sat on this for three weeks, without even notifying the Court anything about the presence ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] damage assessment. So, when you look at the tenor of this email...it's basically based upon the Court's ruling on 11 May now we need to come clean on ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and we need you to start reviewing. They write back and say, "OK. We will have this done by 3 July." And, Major Fein and ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] make the determination 3 August is a mighty fine day to produce this.

Judge Lind

Right. Isn't that the date on the Court calendar?

Defense (Coombs)

It may be Ma'am, but that is on the Court calendar for information that the Court was aware of. It wasn't for the damage assessment for ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. So, the Court made that ruling based upon information that the Court was aware of 23 March determination. So, at this point, what the Government's obligation should have been was to immediately alert the Court and defense that, "You know what...even though our wording was that they hadn't done interim or draft damage assessment. There is a damage assessment." And, alert the Court to that and then the Court then the Court can make the determination as to the date and time that that needs to be produced.

But, this seems to be again a play on the words. I mean you have to ask the exact right question in order to get a response, and it is clear what the Court was asking for when it made its questions on 21 March. And, so the answer...and the upfront answer, especially when the Government now is saying that they always knew there was a damage assessment ongoing, would be to tell the Court that fact. To say, "There is a damage assessment ongoing, and we believe that it's not quite an interim, or its not quite a completed damage assessment or its not quite this." But to tell you that. And, then you can make the determination back in March when you were considering the Department of State, whether you could even be done. Not to where now we are becoming aware of it here, and at the very latest, I know the Government's schedule will be 3 August, at the very earliest it may be with the Court...

Judge Lind

Well, Mr. Coombs considering with the fact that the...[missed] efficiency perspective, I don't see any point in examining a draft damage assessment when their is going to be a complete one in the beginning of July. Um..

Defense (Coombs)

See that whole analysis of knowing that there is a draft one should have been told to the Court at that time. And then if we find out that their is a draft one and they are actually they are going to complete it in July, well ok. We can look at the draft and then look at the completed one, because it may be that the completed one is just checking the i's and the t's, as opposed of actual substantive changes. But, the more important thing is that we would have been aware of it at that time. And, then could have dealt with it appropriately. At this point, again that pushes the can further down the road, when we should have been dealing with this early on.

Judge Lind

Alright. I understand your point.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. If I may clarify exactly what I just said, and more importantly, what the defense has conveniently not referenced in the motion itself. The referencing the letter that was sent to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] from the prosecution team, signed by me, but in the filing, what I just testified...I'm sorry proffered to the Court, the filing itself, if you reference paragraph two, I will read it for the record, "On 11 May the Court held the Department of State's draft damage assessment was subject to the Court's previous ruling, see Appellate Exhibit..." so and so forth, "In response the prosecution shared that ruling with ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and subsequently met with their attorneys on 17 May 2012". So within six days of sharing we met with them in a meeting to discuss the issue of draft documents. "During that meeting ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] notified the prosecution on 17 May that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] has compiled a draft damage assessment which is likely similar to form to the DOS assessment, and thus would have fallen under the 11 May ruling." It was from that meeting on 17 May that the prosecution did go back to our offices, we met at the exact same...at first there is a week in there, 18 May was a filing date, a weekend, and then the next part of the week, we figured out the best way forward to notify the Court and figure out what is going on with ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]. We then submitted a letter to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence], they responded, we notified the Court. That is what we outlined in the written version and what I described earlier. That is the first point, you Honor.

The second point is we even recognize in our letter to ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] that this is of course up to the military judge. Although we said, either we recommend...we anticipate in some of our letter 3 August, and we ask that you have it ready by 3 August is based off the Court's calendar, and the very on page two...at the very last paragraph we even state to put them on notice as always, "Information requirements stated about are subject to change based off future Court rulings and order." So, we even put them on notice based off of us notifying the Court and defense. So, if the Court was to rule sooner than 3 August, then they are going to need to respond, or we are going to need to respond based off their input.

And then the final point your Honor, and this is only for a point of clarification. In the letter from ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence], they said that they anticipate having it done by...the final by July 13, but if not, then the most recent one without comment will be made available to make the 3 August deadline.

So, they are endeavoring to have it completed for that review. But, if they don't they will make it available by then or whatever date the Court sets.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Defense (Coombs)

Now again based upon Major Fein's representation, it appears that he is saying that 17 May is the first time the Government became aware of anything from ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive]. Previously he stated that they knew that that was the mission of ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and that they knew that they were always creating a damage assessment. So I don't know which one that is: Whether they always knew that or they just found that out on 17 May? If that fact were true: the 17 May revelation were true then you would expect to see that somewhere within the 24 May memo to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] saying, "Hey, we just found out you have a draft damage assessment. We need to take a look at that." 17 May is never referenced there. So, again this goes back to candor to the Court. If Major Fein is saying they were always aware that ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] was creating a damage assessment they should have told that to the Court. If they are saying now that the only first became aware of that on 17 May then that is inconsistent with his previous statements and it is also inconsistent with the 24 May memorandum written to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive].

Judge Lind

Alright, well I think I understand what happened on both sides.

I do have concern that if the questions that I asked on the 21 of March who had any damage assessments, and the Government, what I am hearing from you, is that you took exactly what they told you and told me?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is correct your Honor.

Judge Lind

But you did know that the other agencies were submitting documents to ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] and that they had a mission to do that damage assessment?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. And we were working also to obtain those other ones.

Judge Lind

I guess I wonder why didn't you tell me that when I asked you the question on the 21rst?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, Ma'am our interpretation...the question was based off the defense's discovery request so it was based off of those entities they were requesting. Um..if we were to share with the defense every piece of information we have...I draw the line between answering questions of the Court and the defense, then again it goes to a fishing expedition. They could just ask an open ended question of course the Court at us. So we answer the questions the Court asks and we answer with what we have approval to answer based off of security, based off other concerns, and what we have access to.

Judge Lind

Alright. Lets move on to DIA.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am, the Defense Intelligence Agency is within military authorities, and the Government maintains and has since the first request from the defense that they have not provided an adequate basis...or..legal basis, or adequate factual basis for the request. This really gets down to starting points...a "specific request".

Judge Lind

What files have they asked for?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, they have asked for...one moment your Honor.

There have been multiple requests your Honor. The most recent in the motion to compel discovery is "whole investigative file related to Pfc. Manning, WikiLeaks, or the damage occasioned by the alleged leaks to be produced". There are no investigative files. We said that on the record last time the Court asked us over email...or excuse me...through the Court's order 23 March. We disclosed that, "There are no investigative files."

Judge Lind

Are there any other files that the Government is aware of?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. There are documents that exist within the Defense Intelligence Agency that relate to WikiLeaks.

Judge Lind

WikILeaks or Pfc. Manning or both?

Prosecution (Fein)

It is possible both, more than likely just WikiLeaks.

Judge Lind

It's possible both? Are you...?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. We have started...also...we started a while back, and we continue to review those documents. So, it is possible, that we have not found anything that relate to Private First Class Manning.

Judge Lind

And to WikiLeaks?

Prosecution (Fein)

And the Defense Intelligence Agency was the agency proponent of the Information Review Task Force. But the issue here the Government contends, your Honor, is been a broad request for everything. What type...what specific information from DIA is the defense requesting...we will go out and looking at that. We are reviewing it as closely aligned organization for Brady material under 701(a)(6) and if defense can articulate a very specific request to get information from, then we will...

Judge Lind

[Exasperated.] How are they going to do that, if they don't know what is there?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, your Honor it goes back to their fishing expedition. "I want everything from a Government organization within DoD. I want everything [missed] files. I want..." It should be a very specific request, and the cases support that.

Judge Lind

Well, can you tell me what kind of files that they have that you are reviewing?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. It would range from internal memoranda, product papers. This is an analytic organization, so it would be product papers, briefings, notification type memoranda...that is probably a good cross section, your Honor.

Judge Lind

No investigations?

Prosecution (Fein)

For the purposes of WikiLeaks and Private First Class Manning, they do not have any investigative files. They sough that response, they query it, they came back.

Judge Lind

OK. And what kind of assets have you had with respect to the files?

Prosecution (Fein)

When it comes to the Information Review Task Force, your Honor, we have been given access to review it for Brady material as well.

Judge Lind

Alright, and that is the file I just ordered released, right?

Prosecution (Fein)

That is the impact statement or assessment, your Honor, that would be the correlating document of the life of that organization that was stood up as a task force. That was the final product, there complete. That is what you reviewed for the Court. So it would be any other products being produced prior to that final product.

Judge Lind

OK. And you calling any witnesses from this organization?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, we are your Honor.

Judge Lind

On merits or sentencing?

Prosecution (Fein)

Both your Honor.

Judge Lind

And what [missed] on your relying on for the testimony for [missed] ?

Prosecution (Fein)

For sentencing purposes, yes your Honor. But, well, your Honor vis a vis the assessment you have reviewed.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

And again that is on sentencing and not on the merits.

Judge Lind

Alright, anything else for the defense?

Defense (Coombs)

The only thing on that Ma'am is that it is obviously within their possession, custody, and control; and what the defense is aware of is that DIA was basically tasked to stand up the Information Review Task Force in order to do the comprehensive view of all the information that was alleged to have been leaked in this case, and so that was the information that the defense was aware of, and that is the only way we could ask for it. And, again, because it is within the military's custody, possession, and control, then at that point, the Government has an obligation to go look. So if they are saying that the only thing that is there is the Information Review Task Force, that is one thing. But, if DIA has done other things that we are not aware of just because it has not been made public, then this is the only way the defense can be made aware of it, by asking for it in discovery.

Judge Lind

Alright. [To prosecution] So when you are doing these review then are you looking at these review for both 701(a)(6) and 701(a)(2)?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am for DIA information we have been reviewing for 701(a)(2) in anticipation if the Court does rule in favor based off this specific request from the defense. So, we do not have to review the documents again.

Judge Lind

OK. Let's go a little bit more broadly here. When you are reviewing the documents for 701(a)(2) if the Government is alerted that this is material that could be to the defense the Government has an obligation to turn those over.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. The Government at least argues that it's not just the documents themselves that are material, it would be certain information within...just like the defense is arguing...or proffered to the Court in their response to the ex parte motions of the 505(g)(2). Here are the categories of information. The prosecution makes the initial determination to show preparation for the defense, and then the defense argues...provides as they have done, and then it is like, OK, that is now what we are on notice of...so we are absolutely on notice that any "type of damage that resulted" for instance material to the preparation of the defense based off of the year and a half of requests. So, as each discovery request comes in, we process it...we add it to our databank of what we are reviewing, and we start again churning the review of these documents. But we have maintained still based off today's litigation that those documents still are not 701(a)(2)...subject to the Court's order, but because it is not a specific request...it's "all documents from DIA"...with some caveats...no anything directed at a certain type of information.

I mean the defense is in the best position of anyone to know exactly what was or wasn't compromised from their client. They could be making specific requests of what type of information they are looking for. So, it is not that the defense is in an odd position of not being aware of what could be out there. As the defense just stated on the record, if the Information Review Task Force, which it was, was started to review all the possible compromised documents, then they should know what was compromised. We would know from reviewing the files what is there, and they could make specific requests.

But it goes back to. It is a generic request copy and pasted from 701(a)(2) for pretty much every type of document out there.

Judge Lind

What volume of information are we talking about?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor...keep going but I will be able to get you that information before we close the Court today.

Judge Lind

[To defense.] Yes?

Defense (Coombs)

The attachments to our initial motion to compel discovery no. 1 give the Court every one of our discovery motions. Our motions are not cut and paste from the Manual [For Court Martial]. We made specific requests when we had information. But, here 701(1)(2) just requires us to make the request for documents that are within the Government's possession, custody, and control. It is the Government at that point that has the obligation to look at the documents in their possession and turn over anything that is material to the preparation of the defense. Major Fein seems to read in an additional requirement for us to then indicate what documents we haven't seen yet, how those documents may be material to the preparation of the defense. That is not within 701(a)(2). That is not a requirement of 701(a)(2). And, again unless I am not hearing Major Fein correctly, it sounds like they have done a search of 701(a)(2) and have potentially information that is material to the preparation of the defense, but they are not turning it over because they haven't received a specific request, unless the Court orders them to do so. And, if that is the case then they need just to turn that stuff over right now if they have in fact identified stuff.

Prosecution (Fein)

If the Court is willing to accept the defense's argument that any document that is in the possession, custody, or control of military authorities...that they simply request, and make no other showing, then you are entitled to inspect. Your Honor, especially doing classified information goes back to...this is a tactic to essentially slow this prosecution down, slow this Court Martial down...where on the one hand arguing that for instance, an upcoming Brady motion, if you give them too much information, "I have identified something," now they want everything, just because he made a request. We have maintain...the prosecution has maintained from the very first request...provide us specific request...and adequate basis...and a specific factual basis...and we will be able to process it. All documents from DIA or IRTF [Information Review Task Force] is not sufficient. Yes, we have prepared, because we do want to move this case, and we do not want to have unneeded delay. In order to do this...and I have to review THOUSANDS of pages of documents again. But again, these are classified documents, and the defense knows that, and yet they STILL maintain general requests. Just because they make a request, then it MUST be material to the preparation of the defense with no other [missed].

Judge Lind

I understand that Major Fein, but when the Government is reviewing these documents the Government has an obligation under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) to disclose material to the preparation of the defense. So if the Government while observing...looking through these documents sees something, if you think it is material to the preparation of the defense, and you are not turning it over, because they didn't ask for it, I am going to order everything turned over to me for in camera review.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am.

Judge Lind

Is the Government going to look at this with an eye of defense counsel?

Prosecution (Fein)

We absolutely will, Ma'am, and turn over material based off of what defense gives us, or what they consider material to the preparation of the defense. We will review the documents for THAT. Cause then that would qualify as a specific request, and we would do it.

Judge Lind

[Annoyed] We are having a circular argument again. If you are looking at documents and you say, as Major Fein, boy if I was a defense counsel I would find this material to the preparation of the defense, are you going to hold onto it till they request it?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor, we are not.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Coombs)

OK. Well that seems to finally be the correct answer because even within the analysis [Within the Manual for Court Martial each rule is followed by analysis] it indicates when the trial counsel sees something that is clearly material to the preparation of the defense, even without requests from the defense the discussion says you should turn it over. And, now that we have actually identified an organization and said, give us stuff that is material to the preparation of the defense, again, he has an obligation to hand it over. If I didn't understand him correctly, but I believe he said, "We have documentation that we have identified as material to the preparation of the defense, and we are prepared if the Court orders us to hand it over to the defense, but until we receive specific requests we are not doing so." And, now based up the Court's exchange with Major Fein, he now realizes, "OK. Yeah, we need to turn this over." And that is the clarification that the defense would like to nail down. Does he have documents right now that are material to the preparation of the defense that he has been holding onto, because he believes we needed to make a specific request for.

Judge Lind

I will ask you that question then.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. I would ask that we could get back to the Court, because we would clearly have to go look at our computer system. We will be able to answer your question.

Judge Lind

OK. Alright moving on. DISA [Defense Information System Agency].

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. The Defense Information System Agency is a Department of Defense entity. It is within the possession and custody of any documents they have. We have submitted a request to review their documents and we are in the process of reviewing them. That should be probably very shortly...there are very few documents.

Judge Lind

So a few documents?

Prosecution (Fein)

It's...it's...I think it's...this. I think it is under 60 total documents, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Any idea what kind of documents?

Prosecution (Fein)

Most of it, your Honor is going to be administrative documents...mostly background documents dealing with information that we have turned over to the defense that we intend to use on case in chief.

Judge Lind

OK. So you have already turned in...over evidence...

Prosecution (Fein)

...the evidence. Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

...from this entity. And, do you have witness that you are going to be calling from this entity?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

And, whatever are they are going to be relying on this material for the defense?

Prosecution (Fein)

Well, if they are offered as an expert, then yes, your Honor. I mean they are more than a factor with us.

Judge Lind

OK. So whatever documents they are going to be relying on will get them turned over to the defense?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. The evidence has already been turned over to the defense.

Defense (Coombs)

And, then this is another point of clarification based upon what Major Fein said, He indicated they are in the process of still reviewing certain documentation, so and then he said everything has been turned over to the defense, so there is an internal disconnect there. Additionally, we have been asking for this information for an extended period of time, so if they are still in the process of reviewing information then that goes back to the due diligence request of the defense.

Judge Lind

Then will be litigating this...

Defense (Coombs)

Correct, so the first area here is are their documents they are in the process of reviewing, that they have not turned over to the defense, because it seemed like the second statement made was we turned everything over to the defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. All the evidence that we intend to use at trial was turned over to the defense. They have been in possession of the EVIDENCE we intend to use at trial.

Judge Lind

So...

Prosecution (Fein)

...The only documents we have had to review are from these same requests that we submitted to any other entities that we have talked about and that comes to about 60 whole documents that we just need to review.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Coombs)

So that is Brady information or material to the defense type of information that they are reviewing or...what are they reviewing?

Judge Lind

Well I think...and Government I will put this on the record, when you are reviewing these military entitles be sure to give and eye for if you find something material to the preparation of the defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor, because it is a military authority. We still maintain, your Honor, specific requests. Even for the DISA. If this is a never-ending...

GROANS IN THE COURT ROOM.

Prosecution (Fein)

...Your Honor, not to re-litigate this circular argument for this yes, but what precedence this is setting is now the defense can and will be able to list every Department of Defense entity and just log it to the wall and say, 'Now we are required them to look at the documents."

Judge Lind

And I am saying right now he has specific entities that you have...

Prosecution (Fein)

...Yes your Honor...

Judge Lind

...identified documents to look at...

Prosecution (Fein)

...Yes your Honor...

Prosecution (Fein)

...if you see any documents that are material to the preparation of the defense that you believe that, having looked at it, even if you don't have a specific request that piece of information, disclose it.

Prosecution (Fein)

[Emphatically] Yes, your Honor. The Government is not contesting with you directly. That will happen. The unfortunate affect that has, is that right after this..today's motions hearing, defense can now request every DoD entity...documents...and that will somehow create a burden on the Government to have to review it all.

Judge Lind

No, there is reasonableness and overreaching involved in that the Court will certainly address if presented with anything like that.

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor. Is that...I mean...that...I think this is what was lost here...that is what we continued...by focusing on the specific requests for instance for the IRTF [Information Review Task Force] and DIA documents. We reasonably rely on the specific requests line of litigation is this wrong request is unreasonable. It is simply saying, "I want you to look at everything, and then you haven't done it fast enough, and now I am going to somehow say that affects the Accused's right to a fair trial." But, if the defense can keep making broad requests the Government is going to be required to keep reviewing these. I mean even at this point. 449,000 pages have been produced in discovery, which means the prosecutions review at a minimum 439,000 pages. If you just...simple math...this is a great tactic for the defense. Plus, your Honor, when it is all classified, and they know this...it ends up being [Sounds like Grainmill] issue, because they sit their making the requests, a broad request, for every document, and it binds up to have to look for it, and then turn it over if it is material to the preparation of the defense. Simply because they ask for it...without any reason. They articulate no reason for the DISA documents, and that is what we are currently talking about. None.

Judge Lind

If there is no reason, why are you examining them?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, because...it goes back to...the defense seems to be using our...the prosecutions willingness to disclose to the Court and the defense those organizations we consider closely aligned for William's purposes. If they are listing those and now say, I want to use those organizations for 701(a)(2) purposes, that is when this request first came in. So, if you look at the timing. The prosecution discloses to the Court for William's purposes we have reviewed our ethical obligation...and William's obligation to search records for Brady material. Defense uses that information to say, I want that information under 701(a)(2). So, again this will become a vicious circle and we won't know where the end is. So, I guess so long as the defense is...knowing the outcome of this...that is going to be fine, because that means that the prosecution is going to have to start reviewing all these documents, under 701(a)(2), and if we find...simply for a request, tipped off by us...and if that happens, then we have to review them, get the approval to turn them over, and start this entire 505 process...assuming...

Judge Lind

OK. That is how a classified...works.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes. Your Honor. Yes Your Honor. But the point they don't have any independent basis for this. The defense has articulated none. They are basing it off of our William's defined closely aligned organizations, and that is their whole basis. Don't agree on that part for DIA, your Honor, because the defense knew about IRTF [Information Review Task Force] independently based on public statements. But for DISA, next is CENTCOM, next is SOUTHCOM, so go back to, they have not provided any basis other than "It is a military authority, therefore I get to look at it."

Judge Lind

If it is material to the preparation of the defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. Got it your Honor.

Judge Lind

[missed]

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor. Again, looking at the attachments in the motion to compel discovery 1, you will see all of our discovery requests. When, the defense alerted the Court prior to even the Arraignment that we were asking for specific items, we listed those specific items. Major Fein is just mistaken when he says that we are somehow, relied upon...they were telling us, who they believe is closely aligned. Not only again, it seems like Major Fein still does not understand that when it is an entity that is within its possession, custody, or control of the trial counsel, there is no other obligation other than giving the documentation that is material to the preparation of the defense. So, again that seems to be the problem that the Government even though they are now saying, "Yes, we understand." They don't appear to be understanding. The defense has not gone on and named every Federal agency. We have named very specific Federal agencies, based upon the information that we have received. Like it or not, that is how discovery works. We receive information and we follow up on leads. That is what a defense counsel does. And, in this instance now we have identified several times, the same exact agencies of information we are looking for. And, it appears to me right now, the first time the Government understanding that if it is an agency within its military possession, custody, and control that all is required is a request for documentation. Any request...that is it. And then they have to look, and if they see something that is material to the preparation of the defense, they need to turn it over.

Judge Lind

Well, I am not sure I would go quite that broadly, but...

Defense (Coombs)

If it is within your organization and is material to the preparation of the defense in DIA, in CENTCOM, in SOUTHCOM...they act like they are just now figuring out CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM is involved with this. Of course we knew they were involved with this based upon the charge documents, and that is why we asked for any report, damage assessment, any sort of investigation done by that agency. And so, as they...and again...we named CID, DIA, DISA, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM.

The sky is not falling for the Government. Those are the agencies we named. And, we said if their are documents that are material to the preparation of the defense in the possession of these agencies, we want them. The Government has consistently come back with. You haven't given us a basis. And, they have argued that here, in a Court that has consistently said, "No. If you look at it as the Government, and you say to yourself. I would really like to have this if I were a defense counsel." That should tip you off that it is material to the preparation of the defense, and you should hand it over.

The discussions of the rule is that even without a request if you saw that stuff you have to hand it over. The Government is now going down some other radical of us now apparently going on an alphabetical list of all the Federal agencies. These are the agencies we are aware of. These are the agencies we are asking for, and it is important for the Government to at least acknowledge at this point that if it is material to the preparation of the defense, they need to hand it over, there is no additional justification they need...other than to hand it over.

Judge Lind

Alright, Government just look at when you are going through these documents, just look at the analysis to R.C.M. 701(a). It sets forth what the drafters intended with that. Says, "It should be a specific request. If there are reasons that your are looking at some document, the ruling is, when obviously discoverable material in the trial counsels possession, trial counsel should provide it to the defense without a request." Our [missed] is looking at the anyway...

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Prosecution (Fein)

...if you see something that is obviously material to the preparation of the defense.

Judge Lind

Yes, your Honor. The Government would ask for..so these requests, guys were looking at it anyways. So, for the subsequent future request, even going back to the Court's order on 23 March, discovery, 23 March 2012, cites Grainer, ultimately discovery rules under MRE 701...excuse me R.C.M. 701 have these production rules, they are subject to [missed] and relevance, materiality. A simple request with no other basis, and that is ultimately what we are arguing by these specific requests. We do not. We are going to do exactly as you directed right now, but in future requests, this is necessarily, we would maintain precedence for this Court Martial. If this is all it is, we got nothing. We have already obtained the documents and we are starting to review them. So, we have to look for Brady.

Defense (Coombs)

And, Grainer, as you well know deals with documents outside of the military's possession, custody, and control.

Judge Lind

Well, it does but it leaves 701 and 703.

Defense (Coombs)

Mistakenly so. It goes through that whole little process. But, the documents they are trying to get, where not within the Department of Defense, and so that was the whole issue there.

Judge Lind

Are we going back to that rule there has to be no relevance for when you are asking for requested discovery?

Defense (Coombs)

No, Ma'am. You list the agency as I say. You have got to list the agency, and some basis for why you are asking for that agency, and then that triggers the Government to take a look at the information. There is something material to the preparation of the defense, then he can handed over. We have listed agencies, not based upon a whim. If we did, we would be looking at a lot more agencies than just the five that are listed here. We have listed agencies, and it is clear to any one looking this, that we listed those agencies based upon information we received. That these are the agencies that are involved in this case. And so, we are not out on a fishing expedition, as much as the Government likes to use that terminology. We have listed agencies that are part of this case, are within the military's possession, custody, and control; and they have an obligation at that point to turn the information over. So, again even with the trial council agency it appears, he is again trying to read some further obligation to turn over information that is definitely by any stretch of the imagination material to the preparation of the defense. There is no obligation for that...the Court correctly directed the Government to the discussion, and when you see it, and you think it is material, you have to hand it over.

Judge Lind

OK. I think we have litigated that to death.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. I think I put it in the same list, CENTCOM/SOUTHCOM are next and it is the exact same.

Judge Lind

OK. CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM exact same 701(a)(2)

Prosecution (Fein)

Same as DISA they are within military authorities.

Judge Lind

Closely aligned?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor for William's purposes.

Judge Lind

OK and...

Prosecution (Fein)

We will review those documents for Brady material, we will also be identifying for 701(a)(2) material for the preparation of the defense.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

And, we will also review what we have already looked at.

Judge Lind

Alright.

Defense (Coombs)

So, is the Government saying that they haven't reviewed the documents, or they are still on going reviewing the documents? Have they produced all the documents they intend to rely upon?

Judge Lind

Are CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM...are documents from those two entities, or lets go one by one? You have turned over to the defense that are going to merits or sentencing in [missed] case?

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am we have turned over the evidence that we intend to use at trial on merits. We are not aware of any of the files that we have that we still have to review, that we intend to use on merits or for sentencing.

Judge Lind

So the files that you are reviewing now are the same type that you are talking about for DISA...I mean...for yeah...DISA...for

Prosecution (Fein)

...actually for DIA, your Honor.

Judge Lind

for DIA...

Prosecution (Fein)

DISA was...

Judge Lind

...the smaller one.

Prosecution (Fein)

...yes, your Honor. It is essentially the internal correspondence is by memoranda, PowerPoint briefings, POP ordnance (sp.), general military type documents...[missed

Judge Lind

Just to be clear Government, understand, I am not saying everything that mentions the word "Bradley Manning" and the asserted Government offense...I am just saying if you come across something...you come across anything...and say, "Boy, I would love this if I was defense counsel. I could certainly use it."

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, Ma'am. It is actually much easier for us to turn it all over, so, than check...

Judge Lind

Alright. President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

Prosecution (Fein)

Ma'am the President's Intelligence Advisory Board there is actually three organizations that are grouped in the same area. I think they are one is the Interagency Committee, the...

Judge Lind

...Is that the House Oversight Committee?

Prosecution (Fein)

...House Oversight Committee, Interagency Committee, and the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] are...the Government's position and general argument is the same for all three. So, if it would please the Court, I will explain that and then talk about and exception for the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board]. The Government contends that those three organizations, the defense's requests does not essentially qualify as a 701(a)(6) Brady request. It is essentially goes to the same line of argument for 701(a)(2): They have not provided any basis on why there could be Brady material at these three organizations. They have provided some information about what might exist there, but not have any showing that would put us on notice for what type of Brady material.

Any time of information that is favorable to the accused or material to the guilt or punishment.

Judge Lind

Have you accessed any of these files in any of these entities?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Are you using any of these witnesses for case in chief or sentencing, or rebuttal?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Have you given any discovery from any of these entities?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

Have you been involved in anyway with any these entities?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor, that essentially is the end of the common argument among all three of those entities. We have never even communicated with individual within those entities, and we not on any notice as the prosecution for any information that would be Brady or could even be reasonable Brady that would exits in those organizations with one exception, and that is why we footnoted the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] but we are not contesting our Brady search of the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board]. Independently, we do have an ethical obligation to search the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] for other information that we received.

Judge Lind

Why?

Prosecution (Fein)

Because, based on meetings we have been to, or documents that we have read from other organizations we do have a good faith basis there is potentially Brady material at the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board]. So the reason we have footnoted that in the response...and it would otherwise possibly seem confusing is that the argument for all three is that defense has not given adequate Brady requests, for 701(a)(6) under Williams...to require the Government to go search. For the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] we are doing it anyways, under different requirement.

Judge Lind

Defense?

Defense (Coombs)

Ma'am, the defense would request that the Court take a look at our specific request which was outlined in our defense motion to compel discovery, but at the same time when you look at that. We put as much detail as we could, as to where this information could be found. We named people. We named agencies. The Government would add to that requirement, some sort of additional specificity that is no where required by Williams. As almost we can somehow predict what information is found in these agencies. That is the whole point of the Brady requirement, under 701(a)(6). Take a look at US v Triguerous 69 MJ 604. In that case, Ma'am the Court found the following to be a specific request under Williams: "Copies of any and all records maintained by any healthcare provider to include mental care for any sessions with either Ms. JLC or Ms. ECR" That was the request. Specificity. "Copies of any and all records maintained by any healthcare provider." They didn't even name healthcare provider. Just said, any old records for these two people, and that was enough for the Brady considered request enough to invoke Williams obligation by the defense, and that is what the Army Court of Criminal Appeals found.

Now you compare and contrast that to what we ask for. "The result of any investigation or review concerning the alleged leaks in this case by Mr. Russell Travers, National Security Staff Senior Advisor for information Access and Security Policy. Mr. Travers was tasked to lead a comprehensive effort to review the alleged leaks in this case." Comparing those two, if what was found by Army Court of Criminal Appeals to be a specific request, this is clearly a specific request. The Government...

Judge Lind

Looking at your case law you cited to me. If there are Federal and state entities involved in certain investigations...the case law that I read said that the Federal entity, unless there is an [missed] state entity doesn't have to go and do a Williams Brady search. So, if defense argument to me is, if the defense just says, "OK I want state A, B, C, D, and E's files" You basically go to any entity you want to.

Defense (Coombs)

No, I mean I think when you take at the Army Criminal Court of Appeals opinion that I cited to you, it indicates that you do have to have a specific request in order to trigger the third prong within 701(a)(6) requirements of the trial counsel. And, now question becomes specificity, and that is specificity to trigger the trial counsel to have a good faith obligation to go look. By its very nature there are going to be files outside the possession, custody, and control of the trial counsel. So, if you take a look at what is requested in US v Triguerous, the Court there found that was a specific request. Here, there is no doubt that these three requests are specific request. Again, the nightmare scenarios of the Government of us just saying, go to this agency, go to that agency doesn't exist. We have named three specific agencies for very specific reasons. That we had information that these three things: the Interagency Committee Review, the President's Intelligence Advisory Board [PIAB], and the House Oversight Committee had done some sort of damage assessment or assessment of these leaks, and at that point when they were pulling in information, Mr. Travers apparently was task to [missed] review all the alleged leaks, the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] apparently tasked to report recommendations concerning the alleged leaks, the House of Representatives Oversight Committee again, was tasked to take a look at my client, the investigation of my client, and apparently the alleged leaks. If you look at 69 MJ 604, that is a specific request. And so not all that is required is that the Government has to at least exercise good faith an attempt to go see if their is information there. That is their requirement. There is no additional burden that the Government now believes somehow has to be satisfied what the defense is saying now saying, "Hey will you go look at that file, that I never had the opportunity to see. Here are the following Brady materials that you are going to find." Because, I pull out my magic eight ball and figured out what was there.

There is no way to do that. But, you have to give enough specificity to give the guideline as to where they need to go look. Then they just have to use good faith effort to go look. And, if they go their and do not find anything, fine. But, this is not a fishing expedition. This is not a, "Hey look at any and all agencies within the United States Government for files relating to Pfc. Manning." That would be a good response for the Government then to say, "That is not specific enough." I am naming the exact agency, and in each case I am naming the point of contact, and what they were doing. That is pretty specific. They should at least go look and then report back whether or not PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] or [missed] have anything. That would qualify as Brady.

Prosecution (Fein)

Very quickly...

Judge Lind

Yes.

Prosecution (Fein)

To just provide context to the trigger of the case. This was a rape victim, and her medical records were at issue, and it was a general request all medical records. She took the stand and they doubted her credibility. And some medical records produced, and not others are reviewed. So there is context to what ACCA [Army Court of Criminal Appeals] ruled then, and again, the context is, we knew or the Court knew the credibility was an issue, and they said that more generalized request was specific enough for that issue...additionally in Williams, Calf (sp.) held at the end of their decision so right before the last two lines of the case...so I guess it would be...page 44...excuse me your Honor...50 MJ 443 is Williams...I quote, "In summary, neither Article 46, nor the Brady line of cases requires the prosecution to review records that are not directly related to the investigation of the matter that is subject to the prosecution, absent a specific defense requests identifying the any type of records and the type of information." And they do footnote...footnote seven...that they issue when the prosecution properly may ask for more particularize type of information, "Showing relevance is a separate matter we do not address." So the Court recognize that this could be an issue, they don't directly address it. The only thing that the prosecution is offering to the Court is if the defense comes up with a more particularized showing of why Brady material would be there, then absolutely...the Prosecution will go reach out to the other entity and go find it. And absent that, or a Court's order we stand by. There are two entities, because PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] we are already reaching out to.

Judge Lind

Alright. The 17 April 2012 memo?

Defense (Coombs)

Actually Ma'am. Before we go on, just to respond directly to what Mr. Fein just said, apparently...first of all Williams is not as limited as Mr. Fein would like the Court to believe...it actually looked at the request and said that it was sufficient under ruling. The other aspect to this is that Major Fein has said, we are looking at the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board], because they are aware that there is some Brady. How are they aware that there is some Brady? We made the same request? Why is the request under the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] is somehow sufficient, but our other two request are not? Because they are virtually identical as far as the format. We have identified an organization. We have identified a person within that organization, and we have indicated what that organization was tasked to do. So, apparently at the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] they are aware or have been made aware of Brady. How do you do that if you do not go as the trial counsel and use your good faith obligation and contact and find out. If that is how we did it that is exactly what they need to do with the other two agencies. And, if they came back and said, "We don't have anything," or "Here is what we have," and they looked at it and there's no Brady, then there you go. But, why is it the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] somehow any different than the other two agencies that we have identified? And why is our request at least with the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] enough to trigger them to look at Brady and the other two are not?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. We maintain that the defense's request to look at PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board] is not sufficient. It is an independent obligation. And, it not from a discussion we have had with the PIAB [President's Intelligence Advisory Board]. It would be much easier if it was that easy. This would mean we would have obtained material and done our review. We don't know if there is Brady. It is our obligation to search for Brady. So we in good faith basis based off of independently learned information that the prosecution has a good faith basis to go search. It is a search requirement. And, then if their is Brady its a disclosure requirement. So, we don't know if they have it, but we do know we need to go look.

Judge Lind

Alright. Seven. That is all the entities that I have. Are there any more out there that you want go into until the 17 April 2012 memo?

Defense (Coombs)

No Ma'am, we were going to talk about the [missed] for the Department of State but the Government has already indicated they haven't seen any of that stuff yet. So we will talk the witnesses tomorrow on that. But, no, other than the HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies] memo, no, there is nothing else.

Prosecution (Fein)

The Government recommends to the Court and the defense that we probably take up that portion of the HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies after the witnesses testify, that way if the defense calls these witnesses they will be able to get the information they need...

Judge Lind

Do you mean the Department of State piece or the 17 April 2012?

Prosecution (Fein)

I'm sorry, I meant the Department of State piece.

Judge Lind

OK. That's fine.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor the Government maintains that first, the information that the defense...we think the defense...

Judge Lind

Yeah...let me interrupt you right there... [To defense] What are you requesting? I got the memo attached.

Defense (Coombs)

Take a look at the HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested.] And, again it should be no secret then as to what the defense is asking for...because if you take a look at what the memorandum basically requests all their principles to come back to them with any documents with material pertaining to any type of investigation, working group, resources provided to aid and rectifying any alleged compromise of Government information, damage assessments of alleged compromise, or consideration of any remedial measures in response to an [missed] of Pfc. Manning or WikiLeaks.

Judge Lind

What is the attachment attached to?

Defense (Coombs)

It should be attached to our motion to compel discovery no. 2 or our response. It is attached to the our response.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Coombs)

So Appellate Exhibit 96.

Judge Lind

Attached to Appellate Exhibit 96.

Defense (Coombs)

So if you look Ma'am you will see a cover memorandum dated 17 April 2012 that is when HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] realized that nothing had been done on the initial requests, and they put out a suspense for 23 April 2012.

The follow on page is the Army Staffing Corp and it encased there that key points of US Army's prosecutor of Pfc. Manning. "The Army's prosecutors are requesting the preservation and production of records."

We know that basically this is their memorandum that they started sending out. And then says here: "It was only recently determined that [missed] been taking on requests that was dated 29 July 2011."

So, somebody apparently within HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] clued in that nothing was done, and then put out this suspense memorandum to get a response. And, then the response were apparently provided her response to [missed]

Judge Lind

So you are looking for the information that this [missed]?

Defense (Coombs)

Yes. This would then be information that we would then order requesting under 701(a)(2) material that is in the possession, custody, control Department of Defense with regards to our client. And in fact, I almost venture to guess that if defense had made a discovery request that sounded very similar to this, it would be deemed not specific enough. But that is what we are asking for...any documents material to any type of investigation, working group, or any effort to rectify any alleged compromise. Any damage assessment, any consideration of any remedial measure. So, not only is that what we are asking for, that is what we desire...when the Government says, "We don't understand what they desire." But then you take a look as to why this would be relevant, it self evident why this would be relevant...that it would not only fall under 701(a)(2), but more than likely if there is anything in here that indicates that there was some damage or what not it could also be 701(a)(6), Brady material.

Judge Lind

I noticed the memorandum has a suspense date of 23rd of April 2012, so have the entities that got the memo reported back?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. Headquarters [missed] out beyond the date of suspense. We have received at this point...we received all of the documents that were sent to OUR request to DoD and HQDA [Headquarters Department of the Army] that this is attached to do what we asked them to do. This goes back to exact same type of request that we given examples to the Court that was filed some time ago and of counsel when we litigate the due diligence argument, and the defense says...this might come up or might not...but the bottom line on what the defense has provided your Honor. The key point is the actual routing slip from Headquarters [missed] form. The third box bulleted. It was only determined that no action had been taken by HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] pursuant to the 29 July 2011 memo from DoD OGC [Office of the General Counsel] and then forwarded explaining what the prosecutors are requesting. So, here is another example...or a better example of the prosecution going above and beyond its legal obligations to do a due diligence search even the HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] office. Army prosecutors asking even the Department of the Army to search their files for these topics which come right off the same memo you have an example of.

Judge Lind

This says provide...Department response for the production of records related response by 23 April 2012. Has anybody responded?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. We have received these sometime in the last month. All the responses we have received as the prosecution. And we started reviewing those as well.

Judge Lind

Ah, that is what I am asking. Those files have been received pursuant to this memorandum

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. Documents. I mean there are no centralized file in any HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] organization about WikiLeaks or Private Manning other than Army CID or Defense entities we have already had.

And the other, the Second Army [U.S. Army Cyber Command] 15-6 that was done directly by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army...that was already produced in discovery to the defense. Three military intelligence investigations that were produced to the defense. Two different [US Army Criminal Investigation Division] CID investigations that were produced to the defense. One USFI (US Forces Iraq) 15-6 has already been produced to the defense. One 1st AD [1st Armored Division] 15-6 that was produced to the defense. So Department of the Army files that are being produced to the defense, especially anything within our actual prosecutorial files that we intend to use at trial both on merits and sentencing. This is HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] staff documents based on our due diligence request that we just received in the last thirty days, or since defense filed their initial motion...that we are now starting to review originally for Brady purposes. And again, you know how these documents...material to the preparation of the defense, and we have them now, and we will start reviewing them as well. If we find anything material to the preparation of the defense we will turn it over to the defense.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Coombs)

Again, this would be the addition of the discuss for the due diligence but it the timing not only when you made the initial request, but did you follow up when you didn't receive anything back? And it is clear here that if we did not receive this memorandum we wouldn't know that HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested] did ask or didn't respond back to the request. This went out to all the principles, this wasn't just HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested]. This was all the principles within HQDA [HQDA is composed of the Office of the Secretary of the Army; Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; the Army Staff; and specifically designated staff support agencies memo and it lays out exactly what is being requested], and that is how it landed on DS's desk.

So it is not an indication of the Government's diligence, it is just the opposite. It is an indication of the Government's non-diligence.

Judge Lind

Well...let's litigate that piece of it next time.

Defense (Coombs)

Understood.

Judge Lind

Alright, anything else with respect to the motion to compel discovery?

Prosecution (Fein)

Other than the remaining issues for the Department of State witnesses tomorrow, no your Honor.

Judge Lind

Alright, we have one last discovery motion, and that is to identify the Brady do we want to do this this afternoon? I will leave it up to you.

Defense (Coombs)

We will do it now Ma'am.

Judge Lind

The motion itself is Appellate Exhibit 93. The prosecutions response is Appellate Exhibit 94. And, the defense reply is Appellate Exhibit 95.

Defense (Tooman)

Your Honor it is the defense's contention and the circumstances in this case warrant and justify the Government specifically identifying Brady information for the defense. If you look the [US v.] Hsia case decided by the defense. If you look at that case, they do no analysis. They look at the discovery in that case, there are 600,000 files and Government you got to identify the Brady. You can't expect the defense to sift through that and find the Brady material.

So there is case law to support the defense's position on this. This is an appropriate remedy without any other analysis other than shear volume.

Judge Lind

Captain Tooman right now, we aren't really talking about the FBI files.

Defense (Tooman)

Well, intentionally we are not, but what is clear the Government has not understood their Brady obligations.

Judge Lind

Well, what other files are we talking about?

Defense (Tooman)

Well we have over 150,000 pages of discovery. There could be Brady in there as well.

Judge Lind

So, you want to Government to go through everything they have given from day one to see if there is Brady? To separate the Brady from the non-Brady?

Defense (Tooman)

Well it is the defense's position your Honor that and I think this will come out in the due diligence argument that if the Government had been doing theory due diligence with the Brady, they would have been keeping track of what material was Brady. The defense's position is also going forward we would request that they specifically identify that. That would be the main request.

Judge Lind

So you have a witness statement for example, and paragraph two is exculpatory, and paragraph one is not, are they going to be highlighting that paragraph for you?

Defense (Tooman)

Well, we think that moving forward that would be an appropriate remedy. As they are going through discovery, they are reviewing, they are making a determination whether something is Brady material. It would not be unduly onerous for them to pick up a highlighter and say, "That is Brady." We don't know how much discovery is left out there. And we think the circumstances of this case, and now we are talking about the [US v] Salyer case, where they talk about a number of factors that would justify that sort of remedy to the defense.

And, those factors are enumerated in the defense motion, but one of the key factors, and probably the key factor is the defense access to discovery. And in every case the Government cited, that was kind of the factor that turned the decision one way or another. In the cases cited by the Government, the defense had equal access, equal opportunity to view all of the discovery. That is clearly not the case with Pfc. Manning's situation.

As the motion discusses we are geographically separated as a defense team. We do not all have equal access to the discovery material. There are a number of pieces of classified discovery, where we need to coordinate with our security experts, or go to a certain place. So, we don't have equal access. And, the individual who particularly doesn't have equal access is Pfc. Manning. He cannot see a large portion of his discovery.

Judge Lind

Wasn't that the purpose of the protective order, that he can't see it?

Defense (Tooman)

Some of it is because of the protective order your Honor, but also all the unclassified discovery is also difficult for him to see. He is in confinement. There is no means for him to view his discovery in the JRCF [Joint Regional Correctional Facility]. When we go visit him at the JRCF [Joint Regional Correctional Facility] there is not a computer there where we can take disks in to show him discovery and discuss his case with him. It is clear from defense's reply motion in the Attachment is: It is not so easy to bring Pfc. Manning out to visit us at TS (?) offices Fort Leavenworth. The Government [missed] on that pretty hard. They don't like to do that because there are a lot of moving parts. And, so Pfc. Manning is in a situation where he can't actively participate in his defense. And, your Honor is absolutely correct. Some of that is because of protective orders, but it is also the case for the lion share of the evidence. He can't look at it. As defense counsel we cannot print 450,000 pages of discovery and carry it with us into the JRCF [Joint Regional Correctional Facility]. And, even if we did that, the JRCF [Joint Regional Correctional Facility] is set up such that the escorts are sitting right outside the door. They often times can hear the conversations that are taking place within the room where we meet. And so, discussing, and getting into the nitty gritty or Pfc. Manning's case with him is well not possible. And so, that factor swings heavily in the favor of defense. The other factors are that he has no corporate assistance. There is no parallel civil litigation, where there is sort of a entity, or another reason why he would be looking at it, or other attorneys working on it. And the other big factor considered by is that when you look at the size of the defense team in relation to the size of the Government. Well here the Government has four maybe five attorneys on this case full time. Whereas the defense has three individuals. There is three individuals. There is Mr. Coombs. There is myself, and Major Hurley. And, at least in the case of Major Hurley and myself we have other obligations, we have other clients. We have other Court Martials. We are not dedicated solely to Pfc. Manning. And, so when you look at the imbalance between the size of the Government and the size of the defense, that weighs in favor the Government having to specifically identify Brady material. Plus the other factor is the discovery is voluminous.

We have 7,000 pages...make that closer to 8,000 pages of FBI material, but as we learned today. That is only 20 percent of the file...or roughly 20 percent of the file. That is a 45,000 or 40,000 page file that we may of may not need to go through. Plus any other Brady material or any other files that may come up. Now, the Government cites the [US v.] Skilling case as their main authority. While it says the Government doesn't need specifically to identify Brady. They identify three circumstances where that would be an appropriate remedy. It is the defense's position that each of those circumstances is applicable to Pfc. Manning's case.

The first situation is having the files. What is clear here is, as we heard the Government assert, they talk about handing over to the defense, what amount to "at least Brady."

Judge Lind

Didn't you ask them more than Brady?

Defense (Tooman)

Yes.

Judge Lind

OK.

Defense (Tooman)

Yes. And the other issue with the padding is the late hour that we are getting this discovery.

Judge Lind

So is the defense's position that the Government is handing over more than the Brady and the FBI file is basically padding the file so you can't find the Brady?

Defense (Tooman)

We think that its appropriate for the Government to identify the Brady as they are already doing as they are identifying these documents. So all the defense is requesting is that they pick up a highlighter, and highlight it, so that we can go right to it.

The other factor that [US v] Skilling contemplates is that the discovery is unduly onerous on the defense, and what the defense thinks ties in directly to that is the factors from the Salyer Court is that you look at the size of the defense team as well as the access that were important. The arguments that we made as far as access and size of the defense team, we think apply to the unduly onerous sort of situation with [US v] Skilling.

And, finally the last scenario that [US v] Skilling contemplates is has the Government been acting with bad faith, then if so, they need to be specifically identifying Brady. And, we think that the Government has been.

Judge Lind

How do you think the Government has been acting in bad faith?

Defense (Tooman)

Well, you Honor, we would at some point in the future we are going to discuss the due diligence, certainly the due diligence argument that Mr. Coombs set forth earlier today, we think ties into a bad faith. We think the way the Government answer what seems to be very clear questions from this Court, in sort of elusive ways amounts to bad faith. What we talked about today with ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive] where the Court asked a very clear question: Is there anything from ONCIX [Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive], and the Government says , "No," and they play semantics, when it is clear what the Court is asking. When the Court asks the Government is there any one from the FBI testifying, "Yes for sentencing or to maybe authenticate a document," and then ten minutes later they talk about someone testifying from sentencing, but they don't talk about that with your original query, because that person is technically not an agent. It is clear what the Court is asking. And so, this is the sort of attitude the Government has had throughout this case. It is clear. We don't check common sense at the door your Honor. It is clear what is being requested, and the Government just isn't [missed]. And finally, just the fundamental misunderstanding, the Government has had throughout this case, for basic issue for basic principles of discovery. A couple months ago, this Court ruled that the Government didn't understand Brady obligations. And now today the Government, two years after this trial started is explaining to the Government basic principles of 701(a)(2).

We think all those things combined together is amount to bad faith, you Honor. And finally, the last point, again, the Government is already reviewing these materials. There already making a determination when they read these things, that something is or is not Brady. If they are already doing that, then it is not unduly onerous for the Government to highlight it, and say, "This is Brady."

Prosecution (Fein)

First and foremost, the Government contends that there is no authority on the defenses cited or is found to order the Government to identify Brady material.

Judge Lind

Let me ask you that. I know just reading case law that both parties have supplied neither Federal rule request, criminal procedure is I believe [Rule] 16 that was applicable or R.C.M. 701, properly identifying Brady material. Cases that did it did it so inherent power of the Court for housekeeping if you will, case management, I believe that is the way they put it.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes.

Judge Lind

Is the Government contesting that I have the ability to do that in case management?

Prosecution (Fein)

No. So, there is no direct authority. There is inherent. First of all you Honor, the line of cases that the defense is relying on aren't even really applicable to this case. We aren't talking about the [missed] thousand pages of information...about 600 documents to date.

Judge Lind

Are you talking about just the FBI file?

Prosecution (Fein)

We are. But what they have ben produced so far...just what have to at minimum for Brady.

Defense (Tooman)

I think I just heard Captain Tooman say they want you to go back through everything and produce it.

Prosecution (Fein)

They do, your Honor. But I am sticking to what is in the motion...about 7,000. But after the motion we produced the final...that was the FBI law enforcement investigation and it came out to probably 9,000 pages. So, the majority of these cases, all of the cases, deal with an extreme amount of discovery. The Government isn't trying to contends that in a normal military justice case the fact that we have turned over 400,000 pages would seem extreme. But, these cases focused on 600,000 documents. Millions of pages. And, it is not applicable to this case. Additionally, and more importantly, the defenses is contending that the prosecution prepare the defense's case by highlighting certain information which is Brady. The requirement is disclosing Brady under 701(a)(6) as soon as practical, once we get approval, as soon as possible, we turn it over to the defense. What isn't happening, and is that somebody highlighted in the version we turn over we delete, we simply in order to expedite the process of document reviewing, and getting the documents to the defense, we identify something that qualifies as Brady, we identify the document and then we move on, after we go through an approval process.

Judge Lind

Let me ask you a question then. You said...make sure I have understood you correctly. When you highlighted a document that says Brady, the Government has some kind of a record on we highlighted this document, this document, this document, this document?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. We determine if the document is discoverable or not, and if it is discoverable under multiple standards, including Brady, then we annotate that, and then get approval to get approval [second "to get approval" is not a typo], if we don't then we turn it over as soon as possible.

Judge Lind

OK

Prosecution (Fein)

Now. Some of the point just for oral argument. First, the [missed] our case, this case is not analogous to the cases specifically to the facts around us...700,000 document, millions of pages [He is referring to the case law cited by defense.] Second, defense's access to discovery, us identifying Brady, wouldn't cure unfortunately Pfc. Manning's access to the documents, because of the CHARGES, he is in pretrial confinement. So, if defense is wanting to take documents to him, they have to chose what documents. It wouldn't matter if Brady were identified or not. And the Government every time...

Judge Lind

Wait...If Brady is identified, couldn't you say, I am going to take these Brady documents...

Prosecution (Fein)

You could, your Honor. But you could also identify every witness for them and highlight that, and then say, "I want to take Witness Five documents today to Private First Class Manning, if we are doing the job for them, then they could take Witness Five and take that to the Pretrial Confinement Center. So, absolutely your Honor. That would help the defense prepare their case.

Judge Lind

Let me just ask you a question here. We are going a little bit aside here. But Captain Tooman has represented that Pfc. Manning it is difficult for him to get documents to Fort Leavenworth. Maybe is there a possibility that these Article 39(a) Sessions need to be extended for a certain period of time, in order to do that.

Prosecution (Fein)

Even more, to answer that question. Every military counsel has been issued a courier card to move classified information. Every military defense counsel on this case, prior to Captain Tooman and even Major Hurley coming on board have safes in their offices to classified information.

The second Private First Class Manning was moved to Fort Leavenworth, Captain Tooman, was detailed to the case as local counsel. They moved a safe to his office, the Government based off of defense's request for them to use it. In fact, defense requested immediately to be able to pull Private First Class Manning out of confinement, out of pretrial confinement to have whole meetings in the defense's office in order to discuss documents and prepare the case.

So there is nothing preventing them. Sure, there is a minor bureaucratic process. The request has to be submitted, and at this point no request has ever been denied for that. Now the original request did have to be processed through again a very bureaucratic process, but that was figured out, once Private First Class Manning was moved to Fort Leavenworth.

Judge Lind

So, my understanding that he has the same accesses at Fort Leavenworth that he would here?

Prosecution (Fein)

Absolutely, your Honor.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

The issue is pulling out of confinement under normal Army Confinement Command Procedures.

So, the issue is...is he physically located there are the TS (?) office near him or is he in the local area at this DF office at Myers, when he was at a previous confinement facility, he was moved to Fort Myers out of Major Kempkes' office with a safe. So everywhere the defense counsel that he held ITDS on the [missed]. They been granted security clearances. They have been granted safes. They have even safes in their offices. Big five four safe to hole whatever it is. They have been given computers. Stand alone, classified computers, three of them...to be able to use them in any manner, essentially under the protective order. They see fit. If they wanted the ability to move on to Fort Leavenworth, they can do that. If they want the Government to send information to Fort Leavenworth, as we requested when they Captain Tooman came on board, they opted not to have that happen. They opted for the material to stay in the local area. The only time the Government, to the best of my recollection, has denied initially a request for resources, was setting up a Government facility for the civilian in this counsel, Mr. Coombs, near his office, in Providence Rhode Island. They had discussions with the Court, the defense protective order, the Government even set up a facility within 30 minutes drive for Mr. Coombs to prepare. So, every defense counsel, including a civilian, can prepare the case. The Government has a Fed Ex Account to move classified information. The thing is available, we just have to be asked. And, at this point, other than pulling Private First Class Manning out of confinement, for the original meeting, we have never not been able to execute a reasonable request or any other request at this point. That resources your Honor, and Private First Class Manning's access to information.

Corporate assistance. It is essentially the same issue. Private Firm Class Manning chose to hire a civilian defense counsel. If the law firm of Mr. Coombs needs more help, they can hire more people. All they have to do from the Government's perspective is to provide notification to the Court, get a security clearance, and we can have more people working on this case.

If they need more military defense counsel they need to ask PDX. And, to the best of my recollection no one has asked. But, no one has addressed that with the Government, to help with that. So, they can have more resources, they haven't asked. So the defense counsel can hire more people, but that has not occurred. So, again this is just a way for the defense to have the Government prepare its case in order to defend Private First Class Manning, instead of taking the time that they have to review the documents, that we have already reviewed and turned over.

Ask any of other questions, your Honor. We rely on the main portion [missed]

Defense (Tooman)

Your Honor. At issue right now today, may be 7,000 pages. But, we don't know what is going to be at issue a week from now, or two weeks from now, or a month, or two months from now. So, while the case has been cites, maybe have pointed to cases where there is lots and lots of discovery, it is not out of the realm of possibility that that could be the case here. And, so we are trying to get out in front of that. Here, the Government knows the defense theory. That has been pretty clear over the last few 39a sessions that there is no damage. So, the Government saying they have to do the defense case for them, prepare the defense case for it, in fact one of the cases cited, talks about how in order for the Government to identify Brady, the defense needs to tell the Government the theory. Well the Government knows the theory. The theory is that this week these alleged leaks haven't done any damage. So, the Government is well aware of that.

Now the Government talked about ID'ing Brady and they say, "OK this is something we have to turn over." What is clear from each of these 39a sessions is the Government's obviously doing more than just ID'ing Brady. They are ID'ing Brady, they are ID'ing things that are material, and then they are redacting a lot. So, it is not just a matter of looking at a piece of paper, you got to give it to us. They are doing a lot more with this discovery than just ID'ing this Brady.

Now there is no question that the defense has access to discovery or a lot of the discovery in this case. We have access. But the factor considered by the Court's is, is it equal access. It is very clearly not equal access. Very clearly not equal access. And, one of the other factors considered by the Courts in the cases the Government points out...in several of those cases they said you don't need to identify this Brady, because you are already indexed discovery when you get it to the defense. We don't receive indexed discovery. We receive CD's with a range of bates numbers and then we have to figure out what is on them. And so, we are not presented with bates number 1 to 100 is the CID file, and 101 to 300 is this other file. So, there is no indexing here and that is another factor that the Court's cited by the Government look to. What are you giving the defense? Here we are getting discovery, but it is not indexed. We have to figure out where things are.

And, finally your Honor. There is not authority. There is no case law that says, your Honor, has to do this. It is absolutely 100 percent up to your discretion, and we think that under the circumstance that is an appropriate ruling.

Judge Lind

Government I do have a question. Discovery that goes to the defense its bates number is there any other...is it just like one big dump and they have to look through it? Or is there some kind of indexing?

Prosecution (Fein)

There is no indexing, your Honor. We receive documents as they come in. We read the document. We look to a process to keep track of it by bates number, and then we produce that document in PDF.

Judge Lind

There is nothing that says, 'Bates number 1 through 1005 is the CID report. Bates number 1005 through..."

Prosecution (Fein)

The only thing that exists, your Honor, is our work product in us going through too and making that. Sometimes documents do show up with filenames, sometimes they don't. Most of the filenames have no meaning, because it is a scanned document, we just scan the documents in, and then we process them, and then we keep our own track and our own log. So, in the end, if we were to give that information, we would have literally done their job for them. Cause we don't receive again...this is...

Judge Lind

You already have a working index that you are not sending to defense in discovery?

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. We have our own that we have created as we have review documents. Like we get a document. We put it through our system, and then if it is something relevant, we then pull it, and then we index it that way. So if have the for instance, the 400,000 pages, but only 10,000 we are going to use for olsman (sp.) 500, for elements, for Charge I in Specification, then we pull those documents separately, we create our own internal process of tracking those. But, as far as once we get information in and we go through it, no. Not at that point. We have an automated system, but again it is not based on file names or what it is. It is based off the source from where we got the information. Then that is it.

Judge Lind

So, the source...I mean that is where I am confused. Is there any kind of index at all to index...I am not suggesting your index for your work product would..in the case of an organizing your elements, but there is nothing that says, 'These are the following documents we got from entity A, B, C, D, and E and they looking at bates number such and such; such and such; such and such...?

Prosecution (Fein)

Your, Honor. Our automated system can do that after we input that information. So, we have to review the document, and then we input that. And, now we have that, yes. So, I guess where I am drawing a distinction is that we don't get the information, and then somehow receive an index with it. We internally index stuff, after we review them, and then after that we work off of them. So, if we were to provide that index, we are providing the defense, what we produce. Most of the information we get it from emails. So we literally scan. We drag and drop it out of our email. And, then we put it into our system. We review the document. We call it something, and then it gets, for all intents and purposes, tagged, a certain type of document. And, then we decide if it is discoverable or not, and if it is, then we produce it with bates numbers.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

So the index that we produce is based off of our review of the documents. It is not some external we receive, so we know what we are getting. We only get what we receive based off of the source. So, for instance. We just talked about the Headquarter DA [Department of the Army] response to our request. We got a bunch of CD's with a heck of a lot of files. So, we start putting those into our system, and then we..once we start reviewing them, if something is discoverable, we produce it to the defense, we figure that out, and then we produce it to the defense. At that point, we also have to figure out what it is. Cause it could range from any type of document or information that you could have on your computer.

Judge Lind

So, when you give it to the defense, does it have something like, 'Here are FBI files. Here are such and such.."

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. It is by bates numbers. Now when we give them the information by bates numbers to the defense, we submit emails, so we give them an example on our response to the Court. We don't have any Brady, but we do identify the type of information that we are sending them. So, there is context. We don't just say, "There is a CD in the mail. Good Luck." It is "It's a CD in the mail with these bates numbers and here is the general categories of information." So, "Here is miscellaneous CID documents." "Here is a damage assessment and a report of some sort." And then, "Here is the bates range of what we are giving..." And, again that information is determined by [missed] our review of the information you Honor.

Defense (Coombs)

Your Honor. With regards to Major Fein's last assertion, sending an email telling the defense what is on a particular CD that he is sending. That has happened on occasion, but that is not the standard. In fact, there most recent email to me just indicated, they sent a CD to me. And I asked them, "What is the bates range?" "Can you tell me what is on it?" I didn't receive a response to that. But, there have been sometimes the Government said, yes, "We are sending you some stuff, it is going to be FBI documents." "Or we are sending you some stuff, it is going to be damage assessments." And that is what they said, often times it's, "We sent you a CD. Bates number from this to this. Here is the tracking number." And then I receive it, I download it, and I have to go through it, and I done my best to go through every page.

Judge Lind

OK.

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. The one email he is talking about was sent I think on Monday, for this motions hearing and it was also from a previous email that said, 'We are going to be sending you this type of information" that they affirmed. So, yes we probably, but as you'll see to give a sampling of the different emails, and example is "Put a CD in the mail today with classified discovery. Bates this range." "This CD contains multiple pretrial confinement documents from the confinement facilities. Copies being delivered to Major Kemkes" is what we do.

Judge Lind

Anything else that we need to address today?

Defense (Coombs)

Nothing from defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor.

Judge Lind

I do have one thing. The sentencing...the evidence that we discussed earlier [CIA WTF damage assessment. Lind rejected the Government's substitutions in a 505(g)(2) review] that we discussed to use or not use for sentencing, when am I going to see it?

Prosecution (Fein)

I think from our perspective, I think the outstanding question is, is the form or method that we submit that to the Court. The Prosecutions would offer that we submit it ex parte under 701(g)(2) in order to show our work product, how we intend to prosecute our case. It should be ex parte because it is our work product.

Judge Lind

Well what about the 701(a)(5)? I mean we are going to have to disclose that at some point?

Prosecution (Fein)

Absolutely, your Honor. But, 701(a)(5) only requires the documents that the Government intends to use on sentencing.

Judge Lind

But you are talking about your theory of the case?

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. From the Government's perspective the question to the Court was [missed] what type of evidence does the Government intend to use in aggravation in order to assist the Court in making discovery determinations on otherwise aggravating evidence. And so, what the prosecution argues is that we submit this under 701(g)(2) ex parte. We give you the theory of the case. We can lay out the categories of aggravation we intend to use, and even more importantly and probably more helpful to the Court would be very specific categories, and the equity holder of that information that would we absolutely never intend to use based on how severe the damage was and how sensitive it is, and can't be used in Court.

Judge Lind

Defense?

Defense (Coombs)

On this was a discussion in the 802 and this may be just the defense not understanding [missed] it was the evidence that the Government intended to use on the case in chief and on sentencing that would qualify as aggravation and that was evidence from these other entities. So that the Court would then look to see, what is the Government using and what in fairness should the defense receive. With regards to their theory or their work product. Defense doesn't need the Government to tell us how they are going to try their case. But, with regards to the evidence they intend to produce, that shouldn't be ex parte, if they are in fact saying that this is the evidence that we are trying to introduce on merits. This is the evidence that we are trying to introduce on sentencing. Then that shouldn't be ex parte because then we can argue why based upon that information the defense needs to see..let's say they are going to offer a portion of some document that they haven't shared with us yet. That would be, well in fairness, we can't cross examine whatever witness they are going to call or we can't try to undercut whatever information of evidence they are trying to introduce, without having the ability to see the whole document. So, again this may be just the defense not understanding what the Court wanted, but I would say that there are two parts to this. The Government provides what information they are going to offer in merits and in sentencing to both the Court and the defense. And, then with regards to their theory, of they think that is helpful, then sure they can file that ex parte, that is not a problem. With regard to other evidence that is so damaging they never want to reference it, that really has nothing to do with the information that we are looking at, at that point.

If that information really truly does exist. So, the defense would ask for clarification as to what the Court is wanting the Government to do, and then at that point, the Government then is [missed] the Court.

Judge Lind

I asked the Government to prepare the evidence that it was going to...advise the Court of the evidence that you were going to use in sentencing, and what you were relying on to that. And, I would like in furtherance of my 505(g)(2) reviews. At this point, I am going to do it ex parte. I am going to see it first, before I make any further determinations...

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor.

Judge Lind

...and the same thing for the one's you are not going to use.

Prosecution (Fein)

Yes, your Honor. If it may please the Court we could...we could make phone calls tomorrow about approvals to provide classified information in this regard. I don't think that will be much of an issue. And hopefully, they will provide it by Friday, so [missed] afternoon. I think we will be able to get the approval by Friday.

Judge Lind

So, let me ask you one more question. Government has already submitted a motion to preclude to mentioning actual damage on the merits. I have that motion, I am taking it under advisement. And, I plan to ask this at the end of this Article 39(a) Session, but maybe I can ask it now. I would like more targeted briefs from the parties on that issue. Primarily with respect to what the defense said they were going to use the information for. And particularly with response to the example that you gave on [missed] means likely. In that kind of scenario, the defendant would be, you would look at the injury. The person could see the fists caused that injury, and what I am looking for is case law...one way or another...ideally on the offenses issue. But if not on similar type offenses. I didn't see anything on the submissions on either side that really addressed that issue. So, if I could get you to do a little more digging to see if there is anything out there, basically as a result of the "What happened?" being relevant to "What could happen?"

Prosecution (Fein)

Your Honor. We got that for the next motion hearing.

Judge Lind

Yes. I am not suggesting that we are going to be doing that this time. That would allow the Court to make a more informed decision. That said, is the Government, since you precluded mention of that actual damage of merit, is the Government making a claim of producing and actual damage evidence on the merits.

Prosecution (Fein)

No, your Honor. None.

(30 second pause.)

Your Honor. May I clarify from the perspective of damage assessments? Then, "No." But, depending on the definition of damage, we do have prove prejudicial, discipline, certainly it is discrediting. So it could be seeing immediate damage to the unit, or perceptions of the Army or the unit that could fall under the umbrella of damage. So under Clause 1, 2 of Article 134...what would normally be any other Court Martial, then yes. But, not damage or damage assessments that would go to actual harm of national security. We will definitely put that in our brief.

Judge Lind

Anything else we need to address before we recess the Court?

Defense (Coombs)

Nothing for defense.

Prosecution (Fein)

No your Honor.

Judge Lind

Court is in recess.

5 Senate Record | Senator from Arizona, John McCain calls for an Independent Counsel to investigate Obama administration leaks to the media. McCain says the fact that the Obama administration is aggressively pursuing a 22 year old Private while leaking classified information to the press is "unacceptable" and also that there is a difference from leaks by a private with low level access to agencies versus high level confirmed leaks by White House officials.

See McCain Calls for Special Counsel to Investigate Leaks

Video 1

(Source: CSPAN)

Video 2

(Source: CSPAN)

McCain's comments in the Congressional Record:

The fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks perpetrated by a 22-year-old Army private in the Wikileaks matter and former CIA employees in other leaks cases but apparently sanction leaks made by senior administration officials for political purposes is simply unacceptable. It also calls for the need for a special counsel to investigate what happened.

...

In my view, the administration should be taking these leaks, apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials, as seriously as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel such as the Army private in the WikiLeaks matter or the former CIA employee who provided the New York Times with classified information about U.S. attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. The failure of the administration to do so would confirm what today is only an inference--that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the administration to serve a pure political purpose.

...

I guess the most disturbing part--and I would ask my friend--it is one thing to have a private, in the WikiLeaks matter, who had access to it, low-level members of certain agencies, one in the CIA who I know was prosecuted, but this is, according to the articles that are written, the highest levels in the White House are confirming this classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know. (Source: )

May 2012

31

Prime Minister Gillard tells Parliament: "At this stage we do not have any advice from the United States that there is an indictment against Mr Assange or that the United States has decided to seek his extradition."

US ambassador Jeff Bleich saying the US had "no interest whatsoever" in Assange's extradition to Sweden, which was "simply a matter for the UK and Sweden." Bleich also rejected as "an invention" claims that the US had issued a "secret warrant" for the arrest of Mr Assange. "There is no such thing as a secret warrant. Period. They don't exist," Bleich said.

(Source: watoday.com.au)

30 Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority | UK Supreme Court denies Julian Assange's appeal but he is granted leave to apply to re-open the case on the grounds that his defense had not argued the Vienna Convention

30 Asked in a Senate estimates committee hearing whether the Austrian Government had any knowledge of a secret US indictment, reported in a leaked email from the private US intelligence company Stratfor, Australian Foreign Minister Carr similarly asserted: "We have seen no evidence such a sealed indictment exists." Australian Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Dennis Richardson dismissed the report as unconfirmed speculation.

(Source: watoday.com.au)

29

Department of State | AP writer Matthew Lee asks State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland about WikiLeaks concerns regarding Secretary of States' upcoming trip to Sweden and Julian Assange's impending extradition.

Nuland says, "To my knowledge, it is not in her plans. We’ll have to see what the actual day brings."

When asked if Secretary of State has ever brought up Julian Assange's case, Nuland responds, "To my knowledge, she has not."

Full Transcript

Full Video

QUESTION: All right. And then the WikiLeaks people are saying --

MS. NULAND: I love stories – the questions that start with “the WikiLeaks people are saying.” (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. They are pointing out that the Secretary is going to be in Sweden coming up soon.

MS. NULAND: True.

QUESTION: And that it would be quote/unquote “fanciful” not to imagine that the subject of Mr. Assange is raised by the Secretary with Swedish authorities, considering this is going to be apparently a couple of days after a decision is made on his extradition. I’m wondering, one, if that is correct, if it would – or if – is – do you know if she has any intention to raise his case with Swedish authorities? And if she is, why would she? And then number two, since you have had this position are you aware of her ever bringing his – this case up or even mentioning Mr. Assange’s name in meetings with foreign officials?

MS. NULAND: No and no.

QUESTION: So – okay. So it will not – you can say, no, it’s definitely not going to come up, it’s not on her agenda as even the last or below last, i.e. if there’s time I might – at the end of the meeting, I might raise it? (Laughter.) I’m just trying to get a sense of where – I mean, they seem to think that Mr. Assange is on the top of everyone’s – his name is on the tip of everyone’s tongue and that it would be ridiculous to assume that she doesn’t bring up this case. But I just want to get a sense from you of where he would be on the agenda in a meeting between Secretary Clinton and the Swedes.

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, she does not plan to spend her valuable time in Sweden on that matter.

QUESTION: All right. Even mentioning it?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, it is not in her plans. We’ll have to see what the actual day brings.

QUESTION: All right. And then the second part of your no, or the second no, to your knowledge, while you’ve been in this job, she has not ever raised his name with any foreign official?

MS. NULAND: Affirmatively raised it in terms of --

QUESTION: Yes. In terms of brought up his case specifically, not the Bradley Manning case, not --

MS. NULAND: Right. To my knowledge, she has not.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

(Source: Department of State)

29 Australia | Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon claims in a letter to one of Assange's legal representatives that the Australian Government has "no information from the United States to indicate that it has laid, or is about to lay, any charges against Mr Assange."

(Source: watoday.com.au)

24

Department of State | The same Bureau at the Department of State responsible for the WikiLeaks Person's at Risk Group, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), also publishes the State Department's Human Rights Reports.

Reporting on Human Rights in Grenada for 2011, the State Department for the "Status of Freedom of Speech and Press" states, "Some journalists avoided coverage of Wikileaks-sourced material as a result of legal or political uncertainties regarding its use."

[Tags: WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group]

Status of Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.

Censorship or Content Restrictions: The government did not penalize anyone for publishing items counter to government guidelines, but the media practiced occasional self-censorship. In July, local and regional media criticized the Media Workers Association of Grenada for stifling a story about an editor who was arrested for being verbally abusive to a magistrate. Some journalists avoided coverage of Wikileaks-sourced material as a result of legal or political uncertainties regarding its use.

(Source: Department of State, 2011 Human Rights Reports: Grenada)

10 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion to Compel Identification of Brady Materials

10 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 15 of Charge II

10 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion For Instructions on Lesser Included Offense (LIO)

10 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion to Discmiss For Failure to State an Offense: Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II

10 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion to Compel Discovery Number 2

Mar Department of State | In Report Number ISP-I-12-16A, March 2012, of the inspection of Embassy Vienna, Austria by United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General Office of Inspections, "Embassy officers have made progress in restoring trust and key relationships that were damaged by the Wikileaks disclosures."

Reporting, Analysis, and Advocacy

Embassy Vienna reports well on key developments. Its advocacy was instrumental in concluding two agreements in 2011: one on information sharing related to terrorism and another on combating corruption and serious crime. The embassy also closely engaged the Austrian Parliament in the ratification process to allow these agreements to enter into force.

Political and economic reporting aligns with the embassy’s strategic goals, including combating crime and terrorism, strengthening Austria’s contributions to regional and global stability, and enhancing European energy security. Embassy reporting, while succinct and consisting mostly of spot reports, usually draws upon multiple sources. Reporting typically provides Washington users with useful context and commentary, as well as biographical information on key figures. Recent examples include reports on European financial issues, nuclear energy, and climate change, as well as several reports on Austria’s connections to the evolving situations in Libya and Syria. Washington consumers give embassy reporting high marks for timeliness and responsiveness and for anticipating Washington’s needs for specific information. Embassy officers have made progress in restoring trust and key relationships that were damaged by the Wikileaks disclosures.

(Source: Department of State,)

Apr 2012

26 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

Populating Content...

25 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

Populating Content...

24 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

Populating Content...

26 Department of State | AP reporter Matthew Lee asks State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland whether or not the State Department has complied with the order to release the documents that evidence U.S. national security interests were harmed by the disclosure of these cables. Nuland, neither confirms or denies the State Department has filed motions related to the release of the documents, and says the State Department is "cooperating with the proceedings based on the way the proceedings are laid out."

Full Transcript

Full Video

QUESTION: I got just a couple of housekeeping things. One, the other day, you were asked about WikiLeaks – the case and the judge’s order for the State Department to – has that happened yet? Have you complied with the order to release the documents or the evidence that U.S. national security interests were harmed by the disclosure of these cables?

MS. NULAND: Well, Matt, I think this is going to be somewhat frustrating to you, but given the fact that we have a criminal prosecution in a military tribunal underway, I am extremely limited in what I can say in this regard. What I will say is that the State Department is cooperating in these proceedings, but I would also remind you that the Defense Department has the lead, so I would refer you to them.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that you – that this Department is complying with that order, though?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak about individual motions, individual orders in this case – this is an ongoing criminal prosecution – beyond saying that we are cooperating in the proceedings.

QUESTION: But – well, does that mean that you have no objections to anything that’s been ordered so far?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into the details of the case. There are motions being thrown back and forth all over the place, and we’re not going to get into specifics.

QUESTION: To your knowledge, has the Department contested or appealed the ruling?

MS. NULAND: Again, I am not going to get into any of our specific motions in this case, and DOD has the lead. So I would ask you to speak to them.

QUESTION: So --

MS. NULAND: Matt, it’s a criminal case.

QUESTION: No, I understand that. But --

MS. NULAND: You know that we’re restricted.

QUESTION: Well, yeah. But, I mean, I think you would be able to say whether you’re complying with a motion or not, or if you’re disputing it somehow.

MS. NULAND: Again, much of this involves classified information. Some of the proceedings are classified.

QUESTION: I don’t see how any of that is classified.

MS. NULAND: I understand. But beyond saying that we are cooperating with the case, I’m sorry to tell you that’s as far as I can go.

QUESTION: Well, when you say you’re cooperating with the case, does that mean you’re cooperating with the judge?

MS. NULAND: We are cooperating with the proceedings based on the way the proceedings are laid out.

(Source: Department of State)

24 Department of State | At a press briefing, State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland is asked about the State Department's response to US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, especially Judge Lind's ruling that the State Department turn over documents to Manning's defense.

Nuland says that the State Department's "view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects [with regard to the national security of the United States]," but Nuland would neither confirm or deny that neither diplomats nor other nation states or sources were less candid. Nuget says, "There was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals."

Full Transcript

Full Video

QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?

MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.

...

QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?

MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.

QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.

Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?

MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.

QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --

MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.

QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --

MS. NULAND: Matt --

QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?

MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.

QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --

MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?

QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.

MS. NULAND: I understand. And --

QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?

MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.

QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.

Michel.

QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?

MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.

(Source: Department of State)

20 US v PFC Manning | The Government responds to the court ruling dated March 23, 2012 that the DIA does not have any investigative files relevant to the case. In its Ruling, (Appellate Exhibit XXXI [31]), on March 23, 2012 the Court in US v PFC Manning ordered the US Government to report on whether DIA (among others) had any "investigative files relevant to this case."

6. In its Ruling on 23 March 2012 (Appellate Exhibit XXXI [31]), the Court ordered the Government to report on whether DIA (among others) had any "investigative files relevant to this case." The Government responded on 20 April 2012 that DIA did not have any investigative files relevant to this case. This was surprising to the Defense given that the 12 pages of Brady material that the Government had provided a week earlier revealed that the DIA did have what the Defense would consider "an investigation" into the alleged leaks. (Source: Defense Discovery Request No. 2 of May 10 2012)

17 US v PFC Manning | HQDA [executive part of the Department of the Army at the seat of Government] file dated April 17, 2012.

See Def. Motion to Compel Discovery, dated 10 May 2012:

Further, that the HQDA [Headquarters, Department of the Army is the executive part of the Department of the Army at the seat of Government] file related to the 17 April 2012 request be produced under R.C.M. 701(a)(2) and 701(a)(6).

...

3. The Defense does not request any witnesses be produced for this motion. [FOOTNOTE 1 The Defense requests the testimony of Ambassador Patrick Kennedy for the purposes of this motion if the Government maintains that the damage assessment items listed for the DOS within paragraph 16, infra, do not exist.] The Defense requests that this Court consider the following evidence in support of this motion:

a. Appellate Exhibits VIII [8], XXVI [26] XXXI [31], XXXVI [36], XLIX [49], XLVIII [49], and LXVIII [68] b. Unofficial Transcript, 23 February 2012 c. Attachment A (Department of the Army Memorandum dated 17 April 2012) d. Attachment B (Email from Ashden Fein, 17 April 2012)(Source: Defense Discovery Request No. 2 of May 10 2012)

b/w
9-13
US v PFC Manning | US Government provides the Defense 12 pages of Brady material revealing that the DIA did have "what the Defense would consider 'an investigation' into the alleged leaks."

6. In its Ruling on 23 March 2012 (Appellate Exhibit XXXI [31]), the Court ordered the Government to report on whether DIA (among others) had any "investigative files relevant to this case." The Government responded on 20 April 2012 that DIA did not have any investigative files relevant to this case. This was surprising to the Defense given that the 12 pages of Brady material that the Government had provided a week earlier revealed that the DIA did have what the Defense would consider "an investigation" into the alleged leaks. (Source: Defense Discovery Request No. 2 of May 10 2012)

6

Department of Justice | Accused LulzSec hacker Cody Kretsinger pleaded guilty on Thursday in federal court in California to charges of taking part in a breach of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Kretsinger, 24, pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer in a deal with prosecutors. LulzSec, an offshoot of the international hacking group Anonymous, has taken credit for hacking attacks on government and private sector websites.

The plea agreement is under seal. His sentencing is scheduled for July 26. [Tag: Lulsec]

(Source: Reuters)

5 Department of Justice | Former CIA officer John Kiriakou is indicted for allegedly repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities. Kiriakou was charged in a five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, after he was initially charged in a criminal complaint and arrested in January 2012.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was indicted today for allegedly repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities, Justice Department officials announced. Kiriakou was charged in a five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, after he was initially charged in a criminal complaint and arrested in January 2012.

The indictment charges Kiriakou with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for allegedly illegally disclosing the identity of a covert officer and with three counts of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly illegally disclosing national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it. The indictment also charges him with one count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA in an unsuccessful attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to include classified information in a book he was seeking to publish.

Kiriakou, 47, of Arlington, Va., was a CIA intelligence officer between 1990 and 2004, serving at headquarters and in various classified overseas assignments. He remains free on bond and is expected to be arraigned on April 13, 2012, in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va.

The charges result from an investigation that was triggered by a classified defense filing in January 2009, which contained classified information the defense had not been given through official government channels, and, in part, by the discovery in the spring of 2009 of photographs of certain government employees and contractors in the materials of high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The investigation revealed that, on multiple occasions, one of the journalists to whom Kiriakou is alleged to have illegally disclosed classified information, in turn, disclosed that information to a defense team investigator, and that this information was reflected in the classified defense filing and enabled the defense team to take or obtain surveillance photographs of government personnel. There are no allegations of criminal activity by any members of the defense team for the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The indictment alleges that Kiriakou made illegal disclosures about two CIA employees and their involvement in classified operations to two journalists on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2009. In one case, by revealing an employee’s name as a CIA officer, Kiriakou allegedly disclosed classified information – as the employee was and remains covert (identified in the indictment as “Covert Officer A”). In the second case, Kiriakou allegedly disclosed the name and contact information of another CIA employee, identified in the indictment as “Officer B,” whose participation in an operation to capture terrorism subject Abu Zubaydah in 2002 was then classified. Kiriakou’s alleged disclosures occurred prior to a June 2008 front-page story in The New York Times disclosing Officer B’s alleged role in the Abu Zubaydah operation.

The indictment was announced by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who was appointed Special Attorney in 2010 to supervise the investigation. He announced the charges with James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the FBI. Together, they thanked the CIA for its very substantial assistance in the investigation, as well as the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for its significant assistance.

The Justice Department’s National Security Division, working with the FBI, began the investigation. To avoid the risk of encountering a conflict of interest because of the pending prosecutions of some of the high-value detainees, Mr. Fitzgerald was assigned to supervise the investigation conducted by a team of attorneys from the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois and the Counterespionage Section of the National Security Division who were not involved in pending prosecutions of the detainees.

The count charging violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as well as each count of violating the Espionage Act, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000. If convicted, the court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal sentencing statutes and the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

An indictment contains only allegations and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government is being represented in court by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Iris Lan (Southern District of New York) and Mark E. Schneider (Northern District of Illinois), and Trial Attorney Ryan Fayhee, of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Owings (Eastern District of Virginia) will assist in the matter under local court rules.

(Source: Department of Justice Web site)

Mar 2012

23 US v PFC Manning | (Appellate Exhibit XXXI [31]), Court orders the US Government to report on whether DIA (among others) had any "investigative files relevant to this case.

6. In its Ruling on 23 March 2012 (Appellate Exhibit XXXI [31]), the Court ordered the Government to report on whether DIA (among others) had any "investigative files relevant to this case." The Government responded on 20 April 2012 that DIA did not have any investigative files relevant to this case. This was surprising to the Defense given that the 12 pages of Brady material that the Government had provided a week earlier revealed that the DIA did have what the Defense would consider "an investigation" into the alleged leaks. (Source: Defense Discovery Request No. 2 of May 10 2012)

16

US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

[NEED TO INPUT DATES INTO TIMELINE AND FINISH TWO OCA WITNESS PROFILES AND ORIGINAL PRETRIAL WITNESS LIST AND APPELLATE EXHIBITS]

This transcript was typed from the press pool at Bradley Manning's motion hearing on March 16, 2012 at Fort Meade, MD.

This transcript may have errors and is incomplete in that there was no way for me to capture every word, or every sentence.

Bradley Manning's motion hearing is held in same court room as his Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

Names:

  • General Court Martial Convening Authority: Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington
  • Commander of the U.S. Army Garrison, joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall: Col. Carl R. Coffman
  • Commander of U.S. Army Headquarters Command Battalion: Lt. Col. Eric Fleming
  • Military Judge: Col. Denise R. Lind
  • Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Capt. Hunter Whyte
  • Defense: Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard

Proceedings were delayed until 13:00 because Defense and Prosecution were in Chambers with Judge Denise Lind hashing out a Court Protective Order.

All Rise.

Court is called to order.

Judge Lind We are starting late today, because the parties and Court were going over a Protective Order regarding the handling of classified information. Both parties had filed orders marked as Appellate Exhibits...

...

Judge Lind: Looking at Appellate Exhibit 4, under MRE 505...Appellate Exhibit 5 [The Prosecution's Motion for Protective Order] and I believe supplements as well... Alright, I am looking at Appellate Exhibit 22, Supplement for Military Relief...Supplement for Prosecution...Appellate Exhibit 18 is the Supplement...Appellate Exhibit 23...any additional Government response to 505?

Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein: Yes, the Prosecution's...

Judge Lind: Appellate Exhibit 13, under MRE 505...

Fein (Prosecution): Appellate Exhibit 22, Supplement to MRE505... Also Appellate Exhibit 18, Supplement to the Prosecution's Motion for Protection...

Judge Lind: I have 18...Appellate Exhibit 18, 13, 22, and 23...correct?

Fein (Prosecution): Yes.

Defense: Mr. David Coombs: Yes.

Judge Lind: As I said earlier, we have spent a good part of day going over all of these motions for Protective Orders, as well as Protective Orders proposed by both sides, and we have finalized a Protective Order that I believe best balances protection of classified info for national security and the rights of the accused.

Secretary hands Judge Lind a document.

Judge Lind: I need to sign it. That would be Appellate Exhibit 32. The other two outstanding things are a ruling on Motion to Compel Depositions, the Motion to Compel Discovery is under advisement. Defense is submitting further evidence...send it via email to parties...and it will be addressed in open court at next session. Other evidence...?

Fein (Prosecution): Government might also submit evidence.

Judge Lind: Defense Moves to Compel Deposition...

Judge Lind reads her ruling which is broken down into sections that explain the motion, the defense argument, and her ruling.

[Judge Lind reads very quickly and so I could not type out every word or sentence that she said. Here is what I captured:

Defense has asked for the oral deposition of the following individuals:

The Judge continues reading background information in her ruling.

Judge concludes by denying Defense Motion to Compel Depositions.

  • Line rules that the Investigating Officer's determination of the witnesses reasonable availability in Article 32 Pretrial was not Improper, as the defense had argued.
  • Lind says she bases her own ruling on the Pretrial Article 32 rules in that the Investigating Officer, Paul Almanza, performed the "correct balance test, depositions only allowed in cases used to preserve essential testimony."
  • Lind says that affidavits can be considered sworn statements under Section 28, 1746.

Judge Lind continues:

Judge Lind: Government had offered OCA by telephonic. Regarding Discovery Request for three civilian witnesses [missed]...Regarding Defenses request of 1 February 2012, Defense received on 29 Feb 2012 the contact info of Mr. Betts....Defense disputes 2E applies...Article 9, R.C.M. 702...in the interest of justice the motion is denied.

Judge Lind concludes with business of the Court:

  • Date for next proceeding is April 24 to 26 at 9:00 a.m. at Fort Meade, MD.
  • Lind says that "what is to be worked on there not decided" but based on her previous remarks this day concerning the Motion to Compel Discovery:

    Motion to Compel Discovery is under advisement. Defense is submitting further evidence...send it via email to parties...and will be addressed in open court at next session."

    It is, therefore reasonable to assume that will in fact take place at the next session. A spokesperson for Public Affairs Office at Fort Meade said in Q&A that would mean Manning might testify concerning the Quantico video of his interrogation and stripping that Defense files a preservation request on January 19, 2011; but that Prosecution claims does not exist.

    Notes on the Quantico Video of Manning Stripping and Interrogation:

    • January 18, 2010: Defense alleges that PFC Manning is interrogated and stripped by Guards at Quantico, and that the incident is videotaped. (See Manning Defense Request for Evidence and Article 138 Complaint and Article 138 Complaint Rebuttal)
    • "4.) On 18 January 2011, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter [BRIG PSYCHIATRIST] and the defense psychiatrist, Capt. Brian Moore, [FORMER QUANTICO BRIG COMMANDER] CWO4 Averhart placed me under suicide risk. The suicide risk means that I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that I am reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, my glasses are returned to me. Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside my cell watching me at all times." (Source: Bradley Manning, Article 138 Complaint)

    • January 19, 2011: Defense files preservation of evidence request with the government and a request for the production of the video of Manning being stripped and interrogated. (See: Manning Defense Request for Evidence and Defense Compel the Production of Evidence for Manning Article 32
    • "On January 18, 2011, defense was notified that PFC Manning at the direction of XXXXXXXXXX[FORMER QUANTICO BRIG COMMANDER] [CWO4 AVERHART], was placed in suicide risk. This decision was made over the recommendations of XXXXXXXXXX [CAPT. HOCTER] [BRIG PSYCHIATRIST] and the defense appointed XXXXXXXXXX [PSYCHIATRIST] [CAPT. BRIAN MOORE]. When PFC Manning was being ordered to surrender his clothes as part of the unnecessary suicide risk, the Brig made the decision to videotape this event along with an interrogation of PFC Manning by XXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] and others. On 19 January 2011, the defense filed a preservation of evidence request with the government and a request for the production of the video. The government has yet to respond to the defense request. The defense believes the video will support PFC Manning's claim of unlawful pretrial punishment." (Source: Manning Defense Request for Evidence)

    • November 30, 2011: Government responds to request for Quantico video that it "will provide all matters requested that are it is possession no later than 2 December 2011."
    • "a. The video of PFC Manning being ordered to surrender his clothing at the direction of and his subsequent interrogation on 18 January 2011. Given the fact the defense filed a preservation of evidence request on 19 January 201 1 - nearly one year ago - the government has no excuse for not providing the video . See Appendix A. The video is clearly within the possession of the government and should have already been produced. The government has responded that it 'will provide all matters requested that are it is possession no later than 2 December 201 1.'" (Source: Defense Compel the Production of Evidence for Manning Article 32)

    • March 15, 2012: At the Motion Hearing, we learn that the Government provided two videos to Defense, but that according to Defense they are not the right videos.
    • [April 24 to 26, 2012]: The Court will take up the issue of the Quantico video:
    • Judge Lind: Government says Quantico video doesn't exist.

      Coombs (Defense): How my client was treated, we believe the relevancy. Does not exhaust. We believe it does exist. Being video taped at the time this was happened. Government says we were provided two video, but we were not provided the correct videos.

      Judge Lind: Now I don't have any evidence.

      Coombs (Defense): We can provide evidence your Honor...

      In discussions after this proceeding in the Press Pool, there was discussion with the Forte Meade, MD Public Affairs Officer about Manning taking the stand in this particular instance.

      Judge Lind: I can't order something to be produced that the Government says doesn't exists.

      The matter is put for later review by the presiding Judge. (Source: Full Transcript March 15, 2012, Motion Hearing, Day One)

    • March 16, 2012: Judge Lind says that the Motion to Compel Discovery which concerns the Quantico video is under advisement (See above).
    • Judge Lind: Motion to Compel Discovery is under advisement. Defense is submitting further evidence...send it via email to parties...and will be addressed in open court at next session. Other evidence...?

      Fein (Prosecution): Government might also submit evidence....

    Other Notes:

    • The Government chose Fort Meade, MD as the location of the Manning legal proceedings. "The government's claim that the cost and burden is too great to require the production and personal appearance of relevant and necessary witnesses is not justified. It was the government's decision to conduct this Article 32 investigation at Fort Meade." (Source: Request to Compel the Production of the Witnesses)

    This transcript was published concurrently on WL Central

  • This transcript was published concurrently on WL Central

    15 US v PFC Manning | Article 39(a) Motion Hearing at Forte Meade, MD

    [NEED TO INPUT DATES INTO TIMELINE AND APPELLATE EXHIBITS]

    This transcript was typed from the press pool at Bradley Manning's motion hearing on March 15, 2012 at Fort Meade, MD.

    This transcript may have errors and is incomplete in that there was no way for me to capture every word, or every sentence.

    An AFP reporter informed me that the room where the press pool views the legal proceedings, Smallwood Hall, at Fort Meade, MD is also the location where Press views Guantanamo (GTMO) military tribunals via satellite.

    Names:

    • General Court Martial Convening Authority: Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington
    • Commander of the U.S. Army Garrison, joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall: Col. Carl R. Coffman
    • Commander of U.S. Army Headquarters Command Battalion: Lt. Col. Eric Fleming
    • Military Judge: Col. Denise R. Lind
    • Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Capt. Hunter Whyte
    • Defense: Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard

    9:38 a.m. proceedings begin.

    All Rise.

    Judge Lind: Please be seated. Court is called to order. It appears that all parties are present with the exception of Major Matthew Kemkes [Defense]. Is that correct?

    Defense (Coombs): That is correct.

    Judge Lind asks PFC Bradley Manning about his consent concerning counsel [which does not changed since Manning identified David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard as his counsel at the Arraignment]. Lind asks, and Manning consents to Major Matthew Kemkes absence today.

    Judge Lind: All right. I would like to begin by doing a little house keeping. Some of the things that have occurred is that we met in chambers for an R.C.M. [Rules for Court Martial] 802 conference, which concern logistics and issues, which we will now synopsize for the record.

    At the R.C.M. 802 parties agreed to review the Court Publicity Order; Defense Motion for Deposition; Government's Due Diligence under Brady... Government says it will take additional time because of the voluminous amount of documents involved in the disclosure... Defense advised regarding Speedy Trial... Any one want to supplement regarding what happened?

    Fein (Prosecution): No, your Honor.

    Coombs (Defense): No, your Honor.

    ... [This symbol indicates missed transcription.]

    Judge Lind continues her recitation of the R.C.M. 802 conference for entry into the Court record.

    Judge Lind: When the Government spoke about Brady search, the Government said they had not found any Brady material even though they looked for a year.

    Fein (Prosecution): Correct. Evolving...

    Judge Lind: Next up Publicity Order, which is Appellant Exhibit 11. Is that correct? Any objection to Appellant Exhibit 11?

    Explanation of Publicity Order which sets parameters for counsel during trial around the press.

    Judge Lind discusses what was spoken of in the R.C.M. 802 meetings. Namely, Government and Defense Protective Orders; a Bill of Particulars; Defense Motion to Compel Discovery; and a Defense Motion to Compel Deposition.

    Judge Lind: After the arraignment the Government learned that it had not been receiving emails [See Arraignment Transcript]. And the Court notes, Government will use an alternate email address. Government had a server issue. Captain Ashden Fein (Prosecution) please explain.

    Fein (Prosecution): After realizing that the Prosecution did not receive emails, we contacted and worked with the IT department. Certain emails were blocked because they were marked as spam. The spam filter is now checked every day before 10:00 a.m.

    Fein (Prosecution) explains specifics regarding a regime for spam filter checking.

    Judge Lind: Protective Order for Classified Information, the email has been marked Appellate Exhibit 18. Parties agreed to confer to mutually acceptable Protective Orders. Both sides had proposed Protective Orders. Defense requested a Protective Order, and then went through its request regarding due diligence under Brady. Want to add anything?

    Coombs (Defense): Just M'am that once we understood the Government's position on what they did, then we removed our request that Government show a list of what they had done in order to do due diligence regarding understanding of Brady...was no ability that Government complied with due diligence.

    Fein (Prosecution): Government would be able to proffer motion...

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): Defense is not willing to waive Bradey due diligence.

    Judge Lind: All these emails are being captured by the Government and will be part of the record. Government was advise that it must provide a Bill of Particulars. Government did with the exception of three.

    Judge Lind continues her recitation of the R.C.M 802 conferences regarding logistics, and asks for Supplements from Defense and Prosecution regarding her record for the court.

    Judge Lind: Government did not receive before the Arraignment a legal rational for the Court to consider an ex parte Supplement at arraignment...Government was asked if it objected in a March 6th telephonic R.C.M 802 at Government's request...following issues: Bill of Particulars; Response to an ex parte Supplement; discussion of Case Management Order; and Protective Order(s)

    Next a discussion of classified info.

    Judge Lind: This case deals with classified info. There are over three million pages of documentation in this case. Has the classified information been disclosed to Defense?

    Coombs (Defense): Government has indicated charge documents. We have not received...

    Fein (Prosecution): Defense has received... There are a few pieces of information not disclosed, but they do not fall within those number to properly protect.

    Judge Lind: Does the Government intend to provide all the information?

    Fein (Prosecution): Yes, with the exception for information that is classified.

    Judge Lind: Are there other disclosure issues with classified information?

    Fein (Prosecution): Yes, your Honor.

    Judge Lind: The Government has a calendar for three phases. Do you plan to invoke 505 privilege?

    Fein (Prosecution): ...do not intend to invoke privilege...

    An exchange takes place regarding this issue of 505 privilege. [505 refers to "Evidentiary privilege. Military Rule of Evidence 505 (Mil. R. Evid. 505) covers situations where classified information may be an issue in a case. The rules sets out specific notice and handling requirements when classified information may become an issue and how to handle evidentiary hearings. Also, the Services have developed regulations for the appointment of a Court Security Officer, courtroom security requirements, and access to closed sessions of court. Here is a summary of an article about this complicated rule of evidence."]

    ...

    Judge Lind: Government in camera review request...use of classified info. I don't see a provision in your time line. When does the Defense envision that occurs?

    Coombs (Defense): Defense sent you an email explaining that, namely when Government provides discovery. At that point. The in camera review depends on Government.

    Judge Lind: ...extended response you gave me....also asked Government, does the Government know if the evidence intended to compel is classified or not?

    Fein (Prosecution): Yes. Some of it is classified. The Encase forensic images of hard drives in TSCIF. Government did identify some drives that have not been turned over, because they were used in a classified TSCIF. So, they are considered classified.

    Judge Lind: In camera...both gave two weeks for review. Is that realistic considering the volume?

    Fein (Prosecution): Don't think its reasonable.

    Judge Lind: How long...?

    Coombs (Defense): Believe if the Government actually produced...must have over thirty days... You would have thirty days...

    Judge Lind: Where will I need to travel to ?

    Fein (Prosecution): Offices and SCIFS in D.C.

    Judge Lind: Anything else parties wish to put on record...?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    Fein (Prosecution): Wait a minute... (Looks at his papers.) No, your Honor.

    Judge Lind: Let us move now to Defense Motion for Bill of Particulars. Defense Motion and Government response. Defense replied. We have those marked as the next Appellate Exhibit. Defense...

    There is a discussion of the trial schedule.

    I am going to build in time into Court calendar for briefs. I need more than a day to go through filings.

    Coombs (Defense): Filed 802...your Honor talked about that Defense could file a reply. Something we could talk about...built in time frame...if you can specify which Motions. Motion hearings take a month. Too much time and would impact my client who has already been in Pretrial confinement...

    Judge Lind: I am sensitive of Pretrial confinement...very concern about his [Bradley Manning] right. We can't hand voluminous filings that the Court needs to address. If their are going to be fillings, I need to build in times...

    Coombs (Defense): Which Motions are realistic things...?

    Judge Lind: I am not in any way wishing to constrain filings. I just need to build in time. O.K. Defense request for Bill of Particulars, and if everyone has responded lets go through that. PFC Manning has been charged...

    Lind enumerates the charges and types of charges and explains what a Bill of Particulars is.

    Judge Lind: Bill of Particulars. Nature of charges to prepare for trial. Purpose of Bill of Particulars, is that it should not be used for discovery. Government responded to all of the Defense request of Bill of Particular except three items: Response was as follows...appears to be one...the Government submitted two documents in response to Defense's Bill of Particulars...Enclosures one through three...[to Prosecution] I would like all Enclosures filed along with the motion. Do you have those...?

    ...

    Judge Lind: Going to go through Bill of Particulars. [Lind spoke very quickly, so I will summarize...]

    • Defense Question, "Who is the alleged enemy?" Prosecution Answer: "Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula."
    • Defense Question, "What was the indirect means?" Prosecution Answer: WikiLeaks Web site.
    • Defense Question: "How did he communicate to the enemy? Prosecution Answer: "Indirectly through the WikiLeaks Web site."
    • Defense Question: "What is the unauthorized software? Prosecution Answer: "WGET"
    • [Missed Question.] Prosecution Answer: "Accused attempted FTP USER Account Password"
    • Defense Question: "Which computer?" Prosecution: "22.225.41.22....on SIPRNET"
    • Defense Question: "How did he use the system improperly?" Prosecution Answer: "Downloaded Global Address List using SIPRNET."

    [Remaining specifics obtained from Fort Meade Public Affairs spokesman afterwards.]

    • Spec 5 charge 2, 52 records. Spec 7, charge 2, 37 records. Spec 9 of charge 2, 5 records.
    • Spec 10, 13 records. Spec 13 at 16 records
    • Spec 4, 6, 8, 16...all dealing with 641. That is steal, purloined, and converted theory. Government has to come back and rely on one or all three.

    Lind continues and she reads the Government's Bill of Particulars: "Bill of Particulars" believe Government disputes answering 13 and 14 of Charge 2.

    Prosecution gives Judge Lind a redacted Charge Sheet.

    Judge Lind: Specification number 13 regards "knowingly exceeded unauthorized access...obtained info...more than 75 State Cables" Specification number 14...Feb 2010..."knowingly exceeded unauthorized access concerning Reykjavik 13" [to Defense] Does the Government have to prove how?

    Coombs (Defense): We are not looking for legal theory. We are looking for facts. We ask how he committed offense, we are not asking for theory, we are asking for facts. For example, are they saying he hack into Net Centric Diplomacy database?

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): By means of such conduct? Whatever such conduct is?

    Judge Lind: Is the Government alleging any particular way this occurred?

    Prosecution: Defense is looking for legal theory or when he logged into SIPRNET computer.

    Coombs (Defense): By means of such conduct. in the Article 32 testimony...PFC Manning, as 35 Fox, his boss gave him location to Net Centric database. When they allege "by means of such conduct," what are they alleging? So that we understand what we are defending against? If it's just that he went to the Net Centric database... or is it, "No, we have prove that he cracked in." And, then presumably by expert testimony. Defense is in the position of not being able to prepare. We would have to see what evidence in order to prepare to address a charge. It is a fundamental precept to tell the accused what he did that was a violation of the law. No different than Article 104, namely "indirect means" Well what does that mean? Which they did answer, saying "by giving the information to WikiLeaks."

    Judge Lind: O.K. Government do you have a theory of means?

    Prosecution: Manning had name and password. On the certain occasion that he obtain these documents he was exceeding authorized access. There is no means. No mystery how he got on. Mr. Coombs is focusing on Net Centric... When he [Manning] access to do certain things, not by means...

    Judge Lind: So your means is that he accessed computer to do certain things...?

    Prosecution: They are part of the specification of obtaining these cables and transmitting to WikiLeaks.

    Judge Lind: Spec 2 and 3 "adding unauthorized software" How is the Government alleging the software added? You are not asking what...you are asking how?

    Coombs (Defense): So, I am not asking for mechanism. We have our own forensic expert who can talk about how, which is limited by the forensic information given by the Government. We believe this same program would be on other computers. Are they saying he hacked into the administrative privileges in order to add the software? Or that he ran the program from a CD, and "that" is added? Or that he put it on the desktop, and therefore that is how? Again, this goes back to being able to prepare the Defense. So, all I want to know...in what manner are you saying that he added the unauthorized software? Added the software to computers...are you saying he used an external CD, but the actual act of adding untag software goes back to unfair surprise. We are not asking for entire proof, but when they say he added...?

    Judge Lind: Is that an element the Government has to prove...?

    Coombs (Defense): Yes, they have to prove it has not been authorized.

    Judge Lind: Do they have to prove how or that is was added...?

    Coombs (Defense): That is what they have to prove. How are they saying it was added?

    Judge Lind: Government, do you know that...?

    Prosecution: I don't think we can provide mechanics of how it was added. Again, we are not required to show how. Only that it was there.

    Judge Lind: Do you know how he did it?

    Prosecution: No, I don't think we do. But we do know that it was physically present on the computer.

    Coombs (Defense): Are they saying is that is actually on the computer? So they charged my client with adding unauthorized software. There is a computer with WGET. Is it really on the computer? If it shows that it was run from a CD or the program is sitting on the desktop as executable file...?

    Prosecution: Your Honor, there is a forensic report on this. It was cited...00211037 accused primary computer.

    Judge Lind: Do you have the base report?

    Coombs (Defense): Yes.

    Judge Lind: If you have it on the forensic report, then you don't need it in Bill of Particulars?

    Coombs (Defense): The nature how they say it was added...

    Judge Lind: Government does the forensic report address that...

    Prosecution: Don't know.

    Judge Lind: Is that expert available to the Defense? Can Defense call this expert...?

    Prosecution: Yes.

    Judge Lind: Not adding to Bill of Particulars. Next. Manning..."converted"...question was, "What theory is the theory Government relying on?" [to Defense] Want to elaborate?

    Coombs (Defense): 641 under three theories "steal, purloin, and knowingly convert" Government seem to limit to steal or knowingly convert. We are asking what they are alleging. That he stole and knowingly converted? Does it apply to each of the offenses? 22 separate charges for one act? If purloin is different that stealing? If they do in fact have an allegation, so we know what to prepare against. Or the requirements for knowingly converting? Building difference for required proof. If the Government is in fact saying...If their theory that they are saying is that he stole these items, don't hide the ball. Let the Defense know what is alleged.

    Judge Lind: I looked at the various...and looking at them they seemed to...

    Coombs (Defense): There is case law for purloined... I can provide that later. Purloined is stealing through deception.

    Judge Lind: What about steal or convert? Meaning, take money or profit for someone else. That seems to make the definition the same.

    Coombs (Defense): 5th circuit is not a good circuit. Federal case law to show conversion. Goes to common law tort of conversion. Show that the person is taking property so that owner is deprived of use and value of it.

    Judge Lind: Government, is there a difference?

    Prosecution: In 5th circuit there is. Instructions...we will get to that later on.

    Judge Lind: Does the Government have a particular theory...?

    Prosecution: We would consider steal and purloin to be the same.

    Judge Lind: The case law...if you would provide that to Government, and if there is a clear theory on which you are proceeding let the Defense know. If it's one theory for one specification, please let the defense know.

    Prosecution: I think this could probably be resolved with constructions.

    Judge Lind: If its is like in the military where steal as taking, holding, or obtaining...three different theories...

    Lind explains differences.

    Judge Lind: Perhaps by 23 of March.

    Prosecution: Yes, M'am.

    Coombs (Defense): Yes, M'am.

    ...

    Judge Lind: Anything else on Bill of Particulars? Let's move on to the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery. Let's begin with the ex parte filing. Mr. Coombs please first of all announce for record...ex parte means Government doesn't get to see it [because it might reveal Defense legal theory].

    Coombs (Defense): With regards to ex parte, Defense filed an ex parte giving evidence that we are filing... Government sought clarification if it was a Motion or Supplement. We gave them information. Then Government asked for clarity that it was Supplement, also that the Court Secretary would review. Then, that it did not contain classified information. We then asked Government if they objected. Fein said, "No objection." Afterwards we figured out that the Government's email was blocked because of the word "WikiLeaks" The Government did not receive that email. Email was about if I can consider an ex parte filing. The Government was not prejudiced by that. What we were providing and how we were providing, not sure if the Court could consider. So now they want you to revisit. That the Government provide justification to revisit why you should not consider ex parte...

    [Summary of Coombs argument:

    • Failed to file justification for you to revisit ruling.
    • Inexplicable authority for your request.
    • They acknowledge that either are considerations for you to concede the ex parte filing...

    ]

    ...

    Judge Lind: Government?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): We would have objected. We did not get those emails. We did know they were filing. The Government thought they were filing the how instead of the why? Encase forensic images. The "why" would be to show materiality or evidence. The "why" the Defense is going to use when Government did not object. So the Government is not objecting to the legal theory...well the Government would based on caselaw...Defense needs to make a preliminary showing of materiality or evidence.

    Judge Lind: Defense?

    Coombs (Defense): Government never filed. Are you asking under Brady or under a specific item...?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): if I may in point number six. They did not want to say how each request is relevant or necessary. It doesn't give Government opportunity to object.

    Judge Lind goes on and cites case law. Gives both the Defense and Prosecution argument. Lind denies the ex parte supplement to the discovery motion that at this point is still being considered.

    Judge Lind: Defense Motion to Compel Discovery, Appellate 8. Prosecution Response, Appellate 15, eight Enclosures. And the Defense Reply to Prosecution Response to Defense Discovery Request, Appellate 26.

    Prosecution: Additionally U.S. gave Court reporter a Supplement that should have been included in the disclosure.

    Judge Lind: Any objection?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    Judge Lind: Copy for me?

    Prosecution: Yes, M'am.

    Judge Lind: Sworn Statement Master Sergeant Brian Paki (sp.) Appellant Exhibit 16. Alright Defense lets begin saying for record what are you request...?

    Coombs (Defense): For the Defense's Motion indicate both R.C.M. 701 A2 items requested that you compel discovery of...

    Judge Lind: I don't mean to interrupt you... I need the Manual for Court Martial.

    Coombs (Defense): Under R.C.M. 701... Asked for Court to Compel Discovery under 701 A2. That would be "helpful" for pretrial of Defense 701 A6. Military version of Brady. We detailed those in Motion to Compel Discovery. Give the Court the 12 separate discovery request...

    Judge Lind: Proceed...

    Coombs (Defense): The Government does not seem to understand the discovery obligations under Brady... Second...

    Coombs starts to cite Rules For Court Martial and case law around discovery versus production rules.

    Coombs (Defense): With regards to first.. Brady requires under R.C.M. 701 A6, based on Government's response, military Brady is broader than military standard. Trial must provide information even favorable to the accused or that might reduce punishment. We are asking for damage assessments.

    Judge Lind: What is the evidentiary basis?

    Coombs (Defense): And, also the ex parte filing.

    Coombs (Defense): On the issue of Brady requirement. Look at public statements of both Secretary Clinton and Gates that "no sources have been compromised"

    Judge Lind: What enclosure was that?

    Coombs (Defense): Motion to Compel Discovery...? Don't have it in front of me.

    Judge Lind: I do. It is enclosure articles...Washington Post...

    Coombs (Defense): And, even if you set aside damage assessment. In our R.C.M. 802 [Conference], the Prosecution says they have been "looking high and low for Brady" "Even going to the Department of Agriculture"... They have stated here they haven't found any Brady material. They think it is the smoking gun. And, that is not the standard in the federal case law. Under R.C.M. 701 A2 Government must disclose material. Case law in this instance means "helpful". I have included a timely article by Aaron Carpenter (sp.) who wrote about discovery obligations under R.C.M. 701 and 703. All that is is required that it is "helpful" to adequately prepare. Under 12 separate discovery request Government continually denied, saying "the US will not provide" Authority is R.C.M 701 A2 for file a motion to compel discovery. Why have they not provided...? They site 703 and indicate that it is not relevant, but THAT is a production rule for trial, not a discovery rule for Pretrial. Government is holding us to 703. If the Government says, "We want to be relieved of our obligation," they haven't done that. Relying on wrong rule under 701A 2 they must produce that item, or any item that may assist us in preparing our case...

    Judge Lind: I want to hear from the Defense. What is your position on other agencies?

    Coombs (Defense): This is not some random agency, and, so therefore requirement for Brady is to go to that Agency for Brady search. There is a Brady obligation laid on the Government's doorstep. A lot of these items give a more onerous requirement, but again the Government reply on 703. That explains why they haven't found any Brady material. They rely on an appellate standard for Brady. Third aspect, namely Government doesn't understand basic requirement for classified information either. Hard drives collected from SCIF say whether they are discoverable.

    Judge Lind: Are they controlled by the Department of Defense?

    Coombs (Defense): Yes. If they don't want to turn over...

    Coombs cites case law and argument.

    Coombs (Defense): They say looking for production and not discovery. The Government doesn't do that because they are taking the constitution...Article 46...access to witnesses in evidence...statutory requirements. We have been in discovery for two years.

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): The discovery rule shall provide this. It is open, broad, and liberal. How can you say don't have specificity, and then say its not relevant? They say Department of State has not completed damage assessment, but "that" is not their obligation. If it is there and you asked for it... They say we never finish damage assessment. Government is just avoiding discovery obligation. Third page 12 to 14..."We are unaware of forensic evidence." They never state that they looked. The Government continues to hide behind complexity and working with multiple agencies. We cannot overlook impact that has had. The Government doesn't understand Brady. The Government doesn't understand R.C.M. 701 A2. And, the Government doesn't seem to be doing... They say in Case Management Order is gonna take 45 to 60 days with the OCA to do classification review. That should have been done a long time ago. They should be coordinating with the OCA. "Defense is asking...do you have it?" They are actually still at the stage where they have to go back to agency, which they roughly estimate; and then they have to determine if their is a privilege. if the Government understood how classified information worked...could give something that should have been done in advance. I don't know what the Government could say. They then say we provided over X thousand pages of discovery. It is not about amount...

    Coombs cites case law

    Coombs (Defense): Yesterday, at 7:35 p.m., Government says we notified civilian counsel that we dropped a CD with discovery. Look at the timing...impeachment info [Refers to information that questions credibility of witness.] on Adrian Lamo..for twelve pages.
    ...

    Judge Lind: Please remember I just joined this case. Who is Adrian Lamo...?

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): R.C.M. 701 F is production. 701 isn't just classified. Doesn't mandate that you actually give this.

    There is a discussion regarding the Rules for Court Martial and the Manual of Court Martial

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): Two years into this case... Take the Encase forensic images. They have given classified info. They have given images with my clients user profile on it. Our computer forensic experts need at least 3 months, and within my motion, I ask that they preserve it. CCIU asked for these images to be preserved. And, so they spotted this as a source of info, but again the information, they cite 703, namely asking is there purpose for that and that is a problem.

    Judge Lind: Coombs a few questions has to be material...FOIA request...what evidence do I have?

    Coombs (Defense): Going to go into ex parte issues... What I specifically requested you cannot ignore... Material means "helpful", and it doesn't have to be "helpful"...

    Judge Lind: US versus Graner (sp.) does not say that.... What did the government give you regarding FOIA?

    Coombs (Defense): Any FOIA requests for that same information...helpful (regards Apache video)...is that it would assist in our theory and presentation of the case...could go into detail...but ex parte... And, I asked the court... Even the Graner (sp.) case... Look at the requirement and standards...

    Judge Lind: That means everything is discoverable...

    Coombs (Defense): When you go to a specifically requested item...disclose to the defense Brady standard...

    ...

    There is a discussion between Coombs and Lind regarding case law for discovery versus production of evidence, then there is an exchange with Coombs over the idea of "custody and control" regarding the interagency multi investigation as it related to this case and discovery.

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): If they give us the discovery that we have been asking for, we would need six months to review, and for two years they have been ruling incorrectly...

    Judge Lind: FOIA Specification 2, Charge 2... R.C.M. 701 G discussion...how favorable to Defense?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    Judge Lind: This evidence is relevant, material, or favorable. Production of the standpoint to compel...then you need to show me...what is that with the FOIA requests.

    Prosecution: We produced the the FOIA requests.

    Coombs (Defense): This is something we have been asking for.

    Judge Lind: The Government is telling me they gave it to you.

    ...

    Judge Lind: Government says Quantico video doesn't exist.

    Coombs (Defense): How my client was treated, we believe the relevancy. Does not exhaust. We believe it does exist. Being video taped at the time this was happened. Government says we were provided two video, but we were not provided the correct videos.

    Judge Lind: Now I don't have any evidence.

    Coombs (Defense): We can provide evidence your Honor...

    In discussions after this proceeding in the Press Pool, there was discussion with the Fort Meade, MD Public Affairs Officer about Manning taking the stand in this particular instance.

    Judge Lind: I can't order something to be produced that the Government says doesn't exists.

    The matter is put for later review by the presiding Judge.

    Judge Lind: Encase forensic images relevance materiality?

    Coombs (Defense): Materiality in this case means "helpful". These other computers or the computers of other 35 Foxes. It is a common practice to supplement machines with other programs. During Article 32, witness testimony said that they added mIRC chat, which was unauthorized. But also added other software. A common practice to add various programs that were not authorized that were considered command mission essential and WGET was one of them. So the program would be found on other computers that did not have.

    Judge Lind: Now what evidence do I have of that...?

    Coombs (Defense): Your Honor again, it would it be helpful to the defense...various witnesses said they aded mIRC chat... Mr. Milliman is a D6A. He would say that mIRC was unauthorized, but again here this is not a relevancy of having the information be admission able. Having these Encase images would be helpful to verify. We believe it would be common to see WGET as executable file. Not added as a software. Like you don't need user authorization. He had authorization to put it would be direct defense to the charge...

    Judge Lind: That program and other programs?

    Coombs (Defense): Done by direction of S2 and OIC...our E6 and does...mission essential... Milliman says that is common.

    Judge Lind: Can I have a transcript?

    Coombs (Defense): There is no transcript.

    Judge Lind: Summary transcript.

    Judge Lind: Doesn't exist.

    Judge Lind: I am willing to listen to the tapes.

    Coombs (Defense): That would be fine your Honor.

    Judge Lind: [to Prosecution] Do you dispute this testimony?

    Prosecution (Fein): Yes.

    Fein (Prosecution) argues that the authorization came from the chain of command, not evidence of software on computers.

    ...

    Judge Lind: I'll listen to it. [Audio Recording.]

    Coombs (Defense): Again, Encase images...even if those Encase didn't have mIRC chat, then this would be helpful to defense. Again, 701 A2 trial counsel. Other people had added mIRC chat...

    Judge Lind: What is mIRC chat...?

    ...

    Judge Lind: From when to when?

    Coombs (Defense): Oct 2009 to May 2010.

    Judge Lind: Approximately 20 to 30 computers?

    Coombs (Defense): Yes.

    Judge Lind: Anything else with the Encase forensic images?

    ...

    Judge Lind: Let's move onto Damage Assessments. Let's go through each article you had had. Let's go through relevance and materiality.

    Coombs (Defense): What would be "helpful" to have those damage assessments to know what they say?

    Judge Lind: Why?

    Coombs (Defense): Minimal... Helpful to defense merits. If it is helpful to prove information could cause damage. And, we cite it within our motion. They are not determined that, that element of satisfied. So the Government would probably do thorough and Official Classification Authority (OCA) of the damage assessment. Position from our expert could not caused damage. So then you would have opinion. Relevant if presented to a panel. You have dueling experts. But you have a damage assessment done by the Original Classification Authority. Risks associated with that information.

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): Gates indicates no sources and methods were compromised from SIGACT release. You have clearly Brady over the hurdle. Helpful to preparation of Defense. And, again I don't want to beat a dead horse. The issue at this point is that this is an argument to compel discovery. If the Government understood what has been missed; what they asked for in their Case Management Order...they need 45 to 60 days. Equity orders and that is indicative a much larger failure of discovery. This so adversely prejudice my client there is really no way to fix that. And, again without hearing their reasons. Once I hear that a motion to dismiss or some other relief.

    Judge Lind: Anything else?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    Prosecution: We agree with defense, but if its classified it pitfalls outside 706. We are required through Brady progeny to find exculpatory; search any information...and further under Gabriel (sp.). But exculpatory...701 A6 does not apply to classified information, and today is the first time we have been in front of a Judge.

    Judge Lind: What is your authority regarding 505 and 701 ?

    Prosecution: 701. Information is not subject to disclosure...gives the Government the option to voluntarily disclose information...there is an unjust result...then the Government says we are not withholding Brady material...if it is unclassified...then absolutely...US Army Crimes Investigative Division (CID); Department of State Diplomatic Service (DSS); FBI...US has turned over the information...even some that is classified, including the CID case files. We asked DSS to turn over their files. FBI any material pertaining to accused, but if that info is classified requires 505, and then we needed judge. MRE 505 void doesn't have gatekeeper function built in. When you are dealing with voluminous classified material, we can't respond to every request.

    A discussion ensues as to standard for relevance required to disclose classified information.

    Prosecution: Encase forensic images requested by Defense is within Department of Defense, but it is classified. Some factual showing for materiality total drives reason. The unit redeployed July 2010, and, pulled from the redeployment all computers with a user profile of Bradley Manning. Any of those drives they collected. Then the unit was free to discard and DX all the procedures post deployment any additional drives in September 2010. Defense request to preserve Encase was made in September 2011 when the unit was down range. Keeps all theater equipment. We notified CID, FBI, and 2/10 Mountain. Identified 181 hard-drives. And out of those serial numbers 13 hard drives that were in the SCIF when the unit was deployed. CID had one other drive. We had not given to Defense because it is classified. Would have to be reviewed by OCA. Then authority granted to turn over based on if you rule it is relevant and necessary. Based on your ruling we will get the approval for 505.

    Judge Lind: Damage assessments?

    Prosecution: As we have provided in case management order...Government has provided as enclosure...as search and preserve...outside military authority and classified. If it is Brady we have to turn it over, adjudicate when we are going to litigate classified evidence....damage assessments themselves they are living documents...doesn't mean that that damage can't happen the next day. Defense has asked for four damage assessments... Department of State has not completed damage assessment.

    Judge Lind: Is that what you are asking...?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    ...

    Prosecution: Department of State (DoS) has not completed. CIA and the WikiLeaks Task Force have completed theirs, but they are classified outside Department of Defense authority. Information Review Task Force (IRTF)...DIA has completed damage but it is classified.

    Judge Lind: DOJ?

    Prosecution: Doesn't exists.

    Judge Lind: Do you dispute that?

    Coombs (Defense): If the Department of State hasn't done anything...in review of information...was part of the later investigation since late 2009 time frame.

    Judge Lind: Anything else?

    Prosecution: FBI... Defense Requested Discovery... We do intend to and are ready to hand Defense after we get a Protective Order...

    Judge Lind: Gathered...?

    Prosecution: Yes. Office of National Intelligence (ONI) agency or department. In the event I looked a the proposal for six weeks. So that hasn't been done... So the US has maintained that it is not relevant.

    ...

    Judge Lind: 505 E1...

    Discussion of Prosecution's theory of 505 Privilege related to classified information.

    ...

    Judge Lind: Standard in MRE 505 F...? Talks about relevant and necessary, but says nothing about sentencing?

    Prosecution: I need a moment to review. The standard is higher under 505 I4D because it is for use at trial.

    Judge Lind: How do you get there...?

    Prosecution: We are making a more liberal determination...if the Defense gives 505 H. We are only talking about the access to the Defense to get the information.

    Judge Lind: Anything else...?

    Coombs (Defense): Government response clearly indicates they do not understand... They say it is classified then relevant and necessary. They say they provided plenty of classified information and that classified information trumps all Brady. That may be for the Brady aspect. That Brady standard, the other 90 pages. The information Defense would need is a fundamental precept, and discovery is done by Government under 701. 701 still controls Bradley under 701 A6. A2 guidance control is classified. Then they have to go to correct procedure. Well OCA is gonna invoke privilege. We understand requirements. We now are going to tell your Honor we are invoking privilege any of that in their reply motion. They try to piece meal, but the one clear factor... I think the damage assessment...they haven't even thought through the loops to get through the Defense. We started this process in the 2010 time frame...over a year for this 45 to 60 days. The other aspect...Why did you set appellate for Brady the Government has so helplessly messed up that prejudiced my client. Defense is filing Motion to Dismiss all Charges with Prejudice based on Prosecutions messing up discovery so horribly.

    ...

    ...special magistrate...

    Judge Lind: Who has the authority?

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): Other problem...is that this is beyond two years under wrong standard.

    Prosecution: Defense is relying on open file discovery rules. We were waiting to deal with a Judge for classified MRE 505GI. We can disclose information, and that is the only information we are talking about, because it is classified.

    Recess called.

    Judge Lind: Motion to Compel Deposition.

    Coombs (Defense): You have everything but [the letter] C, in ex parte.

    Judge Lind: Appellate Exhibit 15...are you talking about Reply or...?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): No, M'am.

    ...

    Coombs (Defense): Defense requested each OCA's as an essential witnesses. They were improperly denied at the Article 32. Government impeded access. They were essential witnesses at Article 32 hearing, because for over a year trial was delayed on getting OCA determinations. Once we had that Article 32 began. We had to obtain OCA...vital.

    Judge Lind: How so?

    Coombs (Defense): Government doesn't recognize Diaz decision and Morrison decision..controlling on how matter is held...what procedures they needed to invoke...either knew or should have known could caused damage. So when you take a look at the OCA determinations. these were determinations to base privileges on, but also identify damage. We as Defense should have access to those. If the OCA's can articulate why it would cause damage, then Defense would like to cross examine, and should have been able to at the Article 32, rather than waiting for trial. These are things the Government fought hard for the presentation of their case. They cannot fight hard on one hand and not on the other.

    We should have been able to have equal access. Second, we should have had access to them and the Article 32 Investigating Officer said they were relevant but were unavailable, and ruled that the cost outweighed their testimony. Two of the OCA were located at the Fort Meade. So, when they made determinations, we should have equal access to them. They gave classification determination based upon evidence in this case. These witnesses were not even inquired if they could attend. Investigating Officer just took the Government's position that witnesses were unavailable. Again, we cannot bring these witnesses because they were too important. Investigating Officer says, no reason to do deposition because they are available for trial.

    Coombs then cites Chestnut, and goes through a list of all the requests denied.

    So here we are now at the Pretrial stages, with a substantial Pretrial right of PFC Manning. There can be no doubt it is vital of Government's case, then vital to the Defense. We went to Government after second denial and asked, "Please give us contact info for civilian OCA's" Government said, "No." I said, can you please explain your response in light of Article 36. They then said, "Sure." We waited a month...then nothing. Then it was a point of contact you would have to work through. Attachment C to our motion... You may have two requirements then another hurdle. We have to go through "regulations for the civilian witnesses" Specify, what we want to talk to them about. Then run it up the flag pole to see if granted...then after another added hurdle...at least one Federal court...Federal district case...Government came back...2A would apply if just Defense trying to reach out. I ask the Government to provide me with whatever requirement these OCA's would have.

    Judge Lind: When did you ask?

    Judge Lind: About two weeks ago with regards to civilian OCA to even have access to them. Each one of them: example, Captain James [Kulky] (sp.), these are not the type of people you just pick up the phone and call. In my motion I say, these are interviews that are going to have to take place, based upon the subject matter, and Defense will be forced travel.

    Judge Lind: Telephone...?

    Coombs (Defense): No telephone allowed.

    Judge Lind: Secure line...?

    Coombs (Defense): Also need documents. With the Department of Atate OCA we need to take each of the 166 charge documents and talk about those documents. Has he seen anything...ask deposition for all OCA's...get done particular location in this general...Board 6 envisions. Clearly important witnesses related to charges.

    Prosecution (Overgaard): The Investigating Officer ruled that significance did not outweigh difficulty.

    Judge Lind: If Defense request for trial...impediment?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): No impediment...addressing specific arguments...standard at Article 32... IO use the proper standard in Ledbetter... His reasons for determining...

    Judge Lind: So, these witnesses...classification now or time at offense?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): At time of classification. Executive Order 13526 specific individuals are authorized to do these classification reviews. So they are simply they have nothing to do with input. They are reviews if the document is classified based on an executive order.

    Judge Lind: What is the Government's position re U.S. v Diaz?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): Defense cites...to talk about mens rea...793FO...willful...transmit or cause to be communicated...how to establish mens rea.

    Overgaard (Prosecution) goes on to say that Defense could have had telephonic, provided they were available. She says that Defense had contact information. That these individials were high ranking individuals, so coordination with individuals does take time. Overgaard says, initially, the Government states they were not witnesses, because these witnesses are not individuals, they are witnesses by position as OCA's

    Judge Lind: Why would position preclude...?

    Prosecution (Overgaard): For efficiency purposes. The Government will get the contact info for all relevant individuals.

    ...

    Prosecution (Fein): Centralized decision making... House keeping rules for court martial processes, means all Government officials are under special notice...to the Motion to Compel Discovery.

    Judge Lind: So of all of the witnesses...the Department of Defense witnesses doesn't apply...?

    Prosecution (Fein): Those Donegan [RADM Donegan, USCENTCOM], Schmidle [Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., U.S. Cyber Command deputy commander], Woods [Rear Adm. David B. Woods
    Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo] , and two remaining OCA's ...they fall outside authority of Department of Defense. 2E regulations, not a method...an administrative rule. Should the Defense...we will champion. If you order depositions, they would follow house keeping rules. If that is the route they want to go...they prepare the request...after they submit the request...

    Judge Lind: That involves two witnesses?

    Prosecution (Fein): Not witnesses. Proponents.

    Judge Lind: Anything else from either side...?

    Coombs (Defense): No.

    Judge Lind: Is there anything else that I need to address today, before we recess...?

    A discussion occurs as to time of proceedings next day. Results in it being set one hour ahead at 10:00 a.m. following day.

    15 Department of State | AP reporter, Matt Lee, asks the State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, why she will comment on "stolen" emails from Assand and attest to their veracity, but not on "stolen' U.S. State Department cables, to which Nuland replies, "They were classified government cables, and we’re obviously not going to comment on them."

    Full Video

    Full Transcript

    QUESTION: So on the first anniversary of the protests – it’s exactly a year ago – do you believe that U.S. policy toward Syria and what’s going on in Syria has been on target, lacking, or ambitious? How do you characterize it?

    MS. NULAND: You’re asking me to give a grade --

    QUESTION: I mean, I’m asking you as the – this is the top diplomatic entity in this town and they’re the ones that conduct foreign policy toward all parts of the world. So how do you assess your policy towards Syria thus far?

    MS. NULAND: I think the more appropriate point to be making on this one year anniversary -- and as you know, there was some upheaval before a year ago today, but we think about this as the anniversary because it was a particularly horrific and violent day. It was the one – today’s the one year anniversary of the beginning of the peaceful political protest that followed the killing of school children in Daraa for the crime of writing some anti-Assad graffiti on the walls.

    So what have we seen in this year? As the peaceful protests have grown, the Assad regime has become more and more bloody and violent vis-a-vis its own people, has gone into town after town trying to suppress the violence with guns rather than sitting and talking with its own people.

    So the international community has responded. And you’ve seen over these months, more and more countries increase their sanctions on Iran – on Syria. Just today – well, more and more countries closing the noose on Syria, refusing to trade, refusing to conduct normal diplomacy, refusing to allow normal flights and commerce, et cetera. We’re seeing the impact on the Syrian economy. We’re seeing the impact on the increasing isolation of Syria. We are going to keep up the pressure until the Syrian people achieve their objectives.

    Nicole.

    QUESTION: Does the Administration have any comment on the alleged Assad emails that were printed in the Guardian newspaper? And did the Administration have access to them before they were published?

    MS. NULAND: On your last question, I think the answer is no. I don’t have any information to indicate that we saw them before they were published. But we don’t have any reason to believe that they’re anything but authentic. And they really tell an amazing tale. Far from being detached from what his military is doing, Assad seems to take pride in the viciousness of his own security forces. And he seems to make fun of the idea of actually sitting down and talking with his people. So it really illustrates the character of this guy who – and why he has lost legitimacy not only in the eyes of his people, but in the eyes of the international community.

    I’m getting the high sign.

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. NULAND: Let’s do one more.

    [START MATT LEE] QUESTION: I got a few more. First of all, on that one: Since you’re willing to comment now on the substance of stolen documents, I’d like for you to talk about some WikiLeaks cables. Will you be willing to do that?

    MS. NULAND: I will not.

    QUESTION: Why is it that you’re willing to draw conclusions from emails that were clearly stolen from the people who were writing the back and forth to each other in this case and not on something – I mean, do you agree that these were stolen?

    MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to how the Guardian acquired them. I would send you to the Guardian on that.

    QUESTION: Right. Well, you know, WikiLeaks didn’t speak to how they acquired their documents.

    MS. NULAND: They were classified government cables, and we’re obviously not going to comment on them.

    (Source: State Department)

    7 FBI | Before the House Appropriations Committee, Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller uses Anonymous' support of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as justification for FBI Budget FY2013 for cyberthreats.

    Cyber: Cyber attacks and crimes are becoming more commonplace, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. The scope and targets of these attacks and crimes encompass the full range and scope of the FBI’s national security and criminal investigative missions. Our national security secrets are regularly targeted by foreign and domestic actors; our children are targeted by sexual predators and traffickers; our citizens are targeted for fraud and identity theft; our companies are targeted for insider information; and our universities and national laboratories are targeted for their research and development.

    Since 2002, the FBI has seen an 84 percent increase in the number of computer intrusions investigations opened. Hackers – whether state sponsored, criminal enterprises, or individuals – constantly test and probe networks, computer software, and computers to identify and exploit vulnerabilities.

    Just as the FBI has transformed its counterterrorism program to deal with an evolving and adapting threat, the Bureau is enhancing its cyber program and capabilities. To counter the cyber threat, the FBI has cyber squads in each of our 56 field offices. The FBI now has more than 1,000 specially trained agents, analysts, and digital forensic examiners that run complex undercover operations and examine digital evidence. Along with 20 law enforcement and intelligence agency partners, the FBI is the executive agent of the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. The task force operates through Threat Focus Cells—smaller groups of agents, officers, and analysts from different agencies, focused on particular threats.

    In April of this year, the FBI brought down an international ―botnet‖ known as Coreflood. Botnets are networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by an attacker. To shut down Coreflood, the FBI took control of five servers the hackers had used to infect some two million computers with malware. In an unprecedented step, after obtaining court approval, 4 we responded to the signals sent from the infected computers in the United States, and sent a command that stopped the malware, preventing harm to hundreds of thousands of users.

    Over the past year, the FBI and our partners have also pursued members of Anonymous, who are alleged to have coordinated and executed distributed denial of service attacks against various Internet companies. To date, 16 individuals have been arrested and charged in more than 10 states as part of this ongoing investigation. According to the indictment, the Anonymous group referred to the DDoS attacks as ― Operation Avenge Assange and allegedly conducted the attacks in support of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The defendants are charged with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage to a protected computer.

    U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities, along with our international and private sector partners, are making progress. Technological advancements and the Internet's expansion continue to provide malicious cyber actors the opportunity to harm U.S. national security and the economy. Given the consequences of such attacks, the FBI must be able to keep pace with this rapidly developing and diverse threat.

    (Source: FBI Director, Robert Mueller Testimony. See also FBI)

    6 Department of Justice | US Attorney for the Southern District of New York announces five computer hackers in the United States and abroad were charged, and a sixth pled guilty, for computer hacking and other crimes. The six hackers identified themselves as aligned with the group Anonymous, which is a loose confederation of computer hackers and others, and/or offshoot groups related to Anonymous, including “Internet Feds,” “LulzSec,” and “AntiSec.”

    (Source: Department of Justice March 6, 2012 Press Release (PDF))

    RYAN ACKROYD, a/k/a “kayla,” a/k/a “lol,” a/k/a “lolspoon,” JAKE DAVIS, a/k/a “topiary,” a/k/a “atopiary,” DARREN MARTYN, a/k/a “pwnsauce,” a/k/a “raepsauce,” a/k/a “networkkitten,” and DONNCHA O’CEARRBHAIL, a/k/a “palladium,” who identified themselves as members of Anonymous, Internet Feds, and/or LulzSec, were charged in an Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court with computer hacking conspiracy involving the hacks of Fox Broadcasting Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and the Public Broadcasting Service (“PBS”). O’CEARRBHAIL is also charged in a separate criminal Complaint with intentionally disclosing an unlawfully intercepted wire communication.

    HECTOR XAVIER MONSEGUR, a/k/a “Sabu,” a/k/a “Xavier DeLeon,” a/k/a “Leon,” who also identified himself as a member of Anonymous, Internet Feds and LulzSec, pled guilty on August 15, 2011 in U.S. District Court to a 12-count information charging him with computer hacking conspiracies and other crimes. MONSEGUR’S Information and guilty plea were unsealed today. The crimes to which MONSEGUR pled guilty include computer hacking conspiracy charges initially filed in the Southern District of New York. He also pled guilty to the following charges: a substantive hacking charge initially filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of California related to the hacks of HBGary, Inc. and HBGary Federal LLC; a substantive hacking charge initially filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California related to the hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment and Fox Broadcasting Company; a substantive hacking charge initially filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Georgia related to the hack of Infragard Members Alliance; a substantive hacking charge initially filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia related to the hack of PBS, all of which were transferred to the Southern District of New York, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in coordination with the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (“CCIPS”) in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

    Late yesterday, JEREMY HAMMOND, a/k/a “Anarchaos,” a/k/a “sup_g,” a/k/a “burn,” a/k/a “yohoho,” a/k/a “POW,” a/k/a “tylerknowsthis,” a/k/a “crediblethreat,” who identified himself as a member of AntiSec, was arrested in Chicago, Illinois and charged in a criminal Complaint with crimes relating to the December 2011 hack of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (“Stratfor”), a global intelligence firm in Austin, Texas, which may have affected approximately 860,000 victims. In publicizing the Stratfor hack, members of AntiSec reaffirmed their connection to Anonymous and other related groups, including LulzSec. For example, AntiSec members published a document with links to the stolen Stratfor data entitled: “Anonymous Lulzxmas rooting you proud” on a file sharing website.

    The following allegations are based on the Indictment, the Information, the Complaints and statements made at MONSEGUR’s guilty plea:

    Hacks by Anonymous, Internet Feds, and LulzSec

    Since at least 2008, Anonymous has been a loose confederation of computer hackers and others. MONSEGUR and other members of Anonymous took responsibility for a number of cyber attacks between December 2010 and June 2011, including denial of service (“DoS”) attacks against the websites of Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal, as retaliation for the refusal of these companies to process donations to Wikileaks, as well as hacks or DoS attacks on foreign government computer systems.

    Between December 2010 and May 2011, members of Internet Feds similarly waged a deliberate campaign of online destruction, intimidation, and criminality. Members of Internet Feds engaged in a series of cyber attacks that included breaking into computer systems, stealing confidential information, publicly disclosing stolen confidential information, hijacking victims’ email and Twitter accounts, and defacing victims’ Internet websites. Specifically, ACKROYD, DAVIS, MARTYN, O’CEARRBHAIL, and MONSEGUR, as members of InternetFeds, conspired to commit computer hacks including: the hack of the website of Fine Gael, a political party in Ireland; the hack of computer systems used by security firms HBGary, Inc. and its affiliate HBGary Federal, LLC, from which Internet Feds stole confidential data pertaining to 80,000 user accounts; and the hack of computer systems used by Fox Broadcasting Company, from which Internet Feds stole confidential data relating to more than 70,000 potential contestants on “X-Factor,” a Fox television show.

    In May 2011, following the publicity that they had generated as a result of their hacks, including those of Fine Gael and HBGary, ACKROYD, DAVIS, MARTYN, and MONSEGUR formed and became the principal members of a new hacking group called “Lulz Security” or “LulzSec.” Like Internet Feds, LulzSec undertook a campaign of malicious cyber assaults on the websites and computer systems of various business and governmental entities in the United States and throughout the world. Specifically, ACKROYD, DAVIS, MARTYN, and MONSEGUR, as members of LulzSec, conspired to commit computer hacks including the hacks of computer systems used by the PBS, in retaliation for what LulzSec perceived to be unfavorable news coverage in an episode of the news program “Frontline”; Sony Pictures Entertainment, in which LulzSec stole confidential data concerning approximately 100,000 users of Sony’s website; and Bethesda Softworks, a video game company based in Maryland, in which LulzSec stole confidential information for approximately 200,000 users of Bethesda’s website.

    The Stratfor Hack

    In December 2011, HAMMOND conspired to hack into computer systems used by Stratfor, a private firm that provides governments and others with independent geopolitical analysis. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators, as members of AntiSec, stole confidential information from those computer systems, including Stratfor employees’ emails as well as account information for approximately 860,000 Stratfor subscribers or clients. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators stole credit card information for approximately 60,000 credit card users and used some of the stolen data to make unauthorized charges exceeding $700,000. HAMMOND and his co-conspirators also publicly disclosed some of the confidential information they had stolen.

    The Hack of International Law Enforcement

    In January 2012, O’CEARRBHAIL hacked into the personal email account of an officer with Ireland’s national police service, the An Garda Siochana (the “Garda”). Because the Garda officer had forwarded work emails to a personal account, O’CEARRBHAIL learned information about how to access a conference call that the Garda, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies were planning to hold on January 17, 2012, regarding international investigations of Anonymous and other hacking groups. O’CEARRBHAIL then accessed and secretly recorded the January 17 international law enforcement conference call, and then disseminated the illegally-obtained recording to others.

    * * *

    MONSEGUR, 28, of New York, New York, pled guilty to three counts of computer hacking conspiracy, five counts of computer hacking, one count of computer hacking in furtherance of fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. He faces a maximum sentence of 124 years and six months in prison.

    ACKROYD, 23, of Doncaster, United Kingdom, DAVIS, 29, of Lerwick, Shetland Islands, United Kingdom, MARTYN, 25 of Galway, Ireland, each are charged with two counts of computer hacking conspiracy. Each conspiracy count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    O’CEARRBHAIL, 19, of Birr, Ireland is charged in the Indictment with one count of computer hacking conspiracy, for which he faces 10 years in prison. He is also charged in the Complaint with one count of intentionally disclosing an unlawfully intercepted wire communication, for which he faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

    HAMMOND, 27, of Chicago, Illinois, is charged with one count of computer hacking conspiracy, one count of computer hacking, and one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    DAVIS is separately facing criminal charges in the United Kingdom, which remain pending, and ACKROYD is being interviewed today by the Police Central e-crime Unit in the United Kingdom. O'CEARRBHAIL was arrested today by the Garda.

    The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The investigation was initiated and led by the FBI, and its New York Cyber Crime Task Force, which is a federal, state and local law enforcement task force combating cybercrime, with assistance from the PCeU; a unit of New Scotland Yard's Specialist Crime Directorate, SCD6; the Garda; the Criminal Division’s CCIPS; and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern District of California, the Central District of California, the Northern District of Georgia, and the Eastern District of Virginia; as well as the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs.

    The charges contained in the Indictment and Complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

    (Source: Department of Justice Press Release)

    5 Department of Justice | Hammond is arrested and charged in a criminal Complaint with crimes relating to the December 2011 hack of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (“Stratfor”), a global intelligence firm in Austin, Texas.

    Late yesterday, JEREMY HAMMOND, a/k/a “Anarchaos,” a/k/a “sup_g,” a/k/a “burn,” a/k/a “yohoho,” a/k/a “POW,” a/k/a “tylerknowsthis,” a/k/a “crediblethreat,” who identified himself as a member of AntiSec, was arrested in Chicago, Illinois and charged in a criminal Complaint with crimes relating to the December 2011 hack of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (“Stratfor”), a global intelligence firm in Austin, Texas, which may have affected approximately 860,000 victims. In publicizing the Stratfor hack, members of AntiSec reaffirmed their connection to Anonymous and other related groups, including LulzSec. For example, AntiSec members published a document with links to the stolen Stratfor data entitled: “Anonymous Lulzxmas rooting you proud” on a file sharing website. (Source: Department of Justice March 6, 2012 Press Release (PDF))

    5 UN special rapporteur on torture Juan Ernesto Mendez tells AFP, "I believe Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico."

    GENEVA — US authorities' treatment of WikiLeaks suspect Private Bradley Manning was "cruel and degrading," the UN special rapporteur on torture Juan Ernesto Mendez said Monday.

    "I believe Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico," he told AFP, referring to the US military prison near Washington.

    Mendez said that "fortunately" the alleged mistreatment ended when Manning was transferred from Quantico to another prison in Kansas.

    "But the explanation I was given for those eight months was not convincing for me," he said, speaking on the sidelines of a UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva.

    (Source: AFP)

    Feb 2012

    29 US v PFC Manning | Judge Lind says that defense received the contact information for Mr. Betts on February 29. Defense requests contact information for Mr. Betts, the Original Classification Authority of alleged chat logs and the information contained therein.

    Excerpt from transcript of March 16 Motion Hearing:

    Judge concludes by denying Defense Motion to Compel Depositions.

    • Line rules that the Investigating Officer's determination of the witnesses reasonable availability in Article 32 Pretrial was not Improper, as the defense had argued.
    • Lind says she bases her own ruling on the Pretrial Article 32 rules in that the Investigating Officer, Paul Almanza, performed the "correct balance test, depositions only allowed in cases used to preserve essential testimony."
    • Lind says that affidavits can be considered sworn statements under Section 28, 1746.

    Judge Lind continues:

    Judge Lind: Government had offered OCA by telephonic. Regarding Discovery Request for three civilian witnesses [missed]...Regarding Defenses request of 1 February 2012, Defense received on 29 Feb 2012 the contact info of Mr. Betts....Defense disputes 2E applies...Article 9, R.C.M. 702...in the interest of justice the motion is denied.

    (Source: Full Transcript of Motion Hearing March 16, 2012)

    24 Department of State | USAID publishes its FY2011 management challenges, which includes its response to the November 28, 2010 memo by the Executive Office of Management and Budget concerning, "Memo for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding WikiLeaks - Mishandling of Classified Information"

    In response to a November 2010 OMB memorandum that noted the "significant damage to our national security" caused by WikiLeaks disclosures, USAID conducted: (1) a self-assessment of the Agency's handling of classified material; (2) an external review by the Information Security Oversight Office and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX); and (3) a review by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). All three of these efforts noted areas for improvement in safeguarding classified material.

    Challenge Safeguarding Classified Material. In response to a November 2010 OMB memorandum that noted the "significant damage to our national security" caused by WikiLeaks disclosures, USAID conducted: (1) a self-assessment of the Agency's handling of classified material; (2) an external review by the Information Security Oversight Office and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCE); and (3) a review by the OIG. All three of these efforts noted areas for improvement in safeguarding classified material.
    Actions Taken

    Policy. The recommendations of the ONCE to improve the policy, standards, operating procedures, processes and guidelines for classified operations were embraced by USAID. As a result USAID drafted new management policies for classified operations, communications security, cable room operations, conducting secure meetings and conferences, and personal electronic device management.

    Safeguard and Protection. To assure secure system baselines, USAID re-imaged 131 classified system hard drives to the latest DOS ClassNet operating system baseline, between July and October 2011. Further, all system hard drive antivirus signatures were validated and current. The software was validated to ensure it actively monitors ClassNet systems. USAID performed an internal assessment of current infrastructure against future requirements. This assessment spanned user-classified processing systems, secure video telecommunications, secure voice, and controlled, secure print capability and protected distribution systems at future planned secure operations locations to harden protective capabilities of physical connections. USAID planned, researched, and invested in thin client infrastructure, personal identification number (PIN)-secured networked print devices, TEMPEST-certified secure video teleconference with TEMPEST-certified secure Voice Over Internet Phone (VOIP) for both Secret and Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmented Information environments. USAID also purchased encryption device upgrades with appropriate administrative training packages to reinforce proper administrative capability within the Agency. USAID plans to be fully migrated to a thin client-managed environment by June 2012. In addition, USAID is developing a local model that adopts and mirrors the Defense Information System Agency safeguard and protective measures, to include implementation of minimum required, limited, designated Agency "trusted agents," who will be authorized to reproduce classified documentation, and will be accountable for tracking, documenting, transferring to internal and external bureaus and/or agencies, and dispositioning media on behalf of USAID.

    Continuity of Operations Program. USAID has initiated actions to fully implement thin client infrastructure to support classified computer processing and upgrade to Internet Protocol-based secure video telecommunications and voice capability no later than March 2012. The protected distribution systems will be installed to protect classified computing connections during non-operations hours.

    Accountability. USAID developed a local inventory and labeling mechanism that resulted in 100 percent accountability of classified hardware, printers, and hard disk drives. All stand-alone computing devices were removed from the operational environment in July 2011.

    Training and Awareness. The Chief Information Security Office and the Office of Security training coordinators jointly revamped initial and annual refresher training and tracking mechanisms. A baseline, automated training program will be developed, customized and implemented throughout the Agency, aimed at increasing awareness, automating annual training, and tracking and sending training reminders to users.

    Information Security. Under Executive Order 13526, training has been developed for Original Classification Authorities (OCA). The training is designed to ensure OCAs are familiar with their roles and responsibilities in the classification, safeguarding, and declassification of classified national security information. Individuals authorized to hand-carry classified materials must carry with them a Form AID500-7, and a Courier Authorization Card. To ensure the safeguarding, control, and accountability of classified material and courier cards, effectively October 15, 2011, the Office of Security is the only office authorized to issue Courier Authorization Cards to USAID-designated couriers.

    Portable Electronic Devices (PED). USAID developed a new policy which encompasses a risk-management approach that combines the use of security technology products with user awareness and procedural controls and measures to minimize the vulnerabilities inherent with PEDs.

    Counterintelligence and Insider Threat. As outlined in Executive Order 13587, USAID developed an Insider Threat program called Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information.

    Actions Remaining

    Culture. In response to assessments by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and OIG, USAID formed a steering committee to oversee, recommend, and guide the Agency's unified activities to address, direct and improve protection, safeguard, administration, accountability, inventory, and effective use of classified information and systems. The target completion date is June 2012.

    Capability. USAID is soliciting expertise and input from all Agency security offices, business units, and bureaus to assure policies, culture, and activities support Agency business goals and objectives, encompass all 10 security domains, and result in well-rounded, vetted, and unified actions across the Agency.

    Competency. USAID is reviewing strategy to align with Department of Defense 8570 Information Assurance training requirements to increase, train, and retain well-qualified, knowledgeable information assurance and IT staff. Classified equipment issue, safeguard, and protection responsibility will be assigned at the highest level in each USAID bureau. The target implementation date is June 2012. Agency policies related to personnel, physical, and industrial security programs; counterintelligence program; and PEDs are under technical review. USAID expects to formally approve them by June 2012. In addition, USAID will implement an Insider Threat Detection and Prevention program under Executive Order 13587.

    (Source: Department of State and PDF)

    See also November 28, 2010, Jacob Lew Director of the Office of Budget and Management published his "Memo for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding WikiLeaks - Mishandling of Classified Information", saying, "significant irresponsible disclosure by WikiLeaks has resulted in significant damage to our national security." Memo (M-II-06)

    23 US v PFC Manning | Arraignment for Bradley Manning, 01:00 PM EST, Fort Meade, MD  

    This transcript was taken by hand at Bradley Manning's arraignment on February 23, 2012 at 1:00 p.m., Fort Meade, MD.

    Bradley Manning's arraignment was held in same court room as his Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

    The courtroom for Bradley Manning's arraignment is lit dramatically with incandescent parabolic reflectors, and not fluorescent lights as was his Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

    Military personnel are dressed in full armed service uniforms. They had worn camos during the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

    Many of the same individuals from the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing, like Lt. Hughes, are guarding the arraignment proceeding.

    Captain John Haberland, a spokesman for the Military District of Washington (MDW), sat behind me taking notes and coughing. He had also been at the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing. (I would have brought a hearing aid, but, alas, they don't allow electronic devices in courtroom.)

    Military judge Col. Denise R. Lind is presiding. She is middle aged, with blondish coiffed hair, spectacles, and a long black robe.

    Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow and Captain Angel Overgaard.

    Defense is Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard.

    Mr. David Coombs sits to the right of Bradley Manning.

    Right of the prosecution table is a small corner desk. Last time I was in this court room (during the the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing), the desk was occupied by an MP named Bradley, not Manning. On his desk stood a router looking device with a enormous antenna. Today the the desk is occupied by a middle age bearded man in a civilian suit with polarizing spectacles. He was also in attendance at Bradley Manning's pretrial hearing. My instincts tell me is court security. In fact the entire campus of Fort Meade is populated with middle aged sunken faces in SUV's and luxury vehicles, or polite, suspicious young military personnel.

    Up front, behind Judge Col. Denise Lind's raised bench stand the US Flag, the Army Flag, and the flag for JAG. The chord and tassels indicate they are martial flags. At her right and below sits a young male in armed service uniform. Seated in the jury pews on the prosecution side of the court is a young female in camos, her hair in a bun.

    Compared to the Pretrial Hearing, the gallery does not have as many dark suited men with copies of the Washington Post. Today the gallery is filled with youngish journalists. A casually dressed Veteran for Peace and a linen suited David Eberhart, from Code Pink, sit on the defense side of the gallery. I am in the back row of the defense side of the gallery opposite a female representative from the Australian embassy, who was also present Manning's Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.

    Most of language today is legal and procedural. The hearing lasted about 50 minutes.

    Judge Lindopens the proceedings.

    Captain Ashden Fein (prosecution) states the procedural history of the US charge's against Bradley Manning from original accuser Cameron Leikerthru the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing to today's arraignment.

    Fein (Prosecution): Prosecution is ready to proceed.

    Fein (Prosecution) then names each member of the prosecution and defense team, confirming that the individuals named have been "detailed" to the court.

    Fein (Prosecution): Fein..Morrow...Overgaard...for the defense...Coombs...Kempkes...Bouchard...Hunter White...Patricia Williams...court reporter...Cory Brother (speling).

    Fein (Prosecution) then states that all members of the prosecution are certified and qualified under UCMJ (Unified Code of Military Justice).

    Military judge Col. Denise R. Lind reads Bradley Manning his rights. As in the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing script, her statement details the defendant's rights, as well as parameters around the military appointed defense counsel. Her statement also advises Manning what his rights are should he request other military counsel than those already provided.

    Judge Lindasked Bradley Manning if he understood his rights.

    Bradley Manning: Yes, M'am.

    Judge Lind then asks Bradley Manning who will represent him.

    Bradley Manning: Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, (He glances quickly down table.) and Captain Paul Bouchard.

    David Coombs (civilian defense) rises and states that all members of the defense are "detailed and certified."

    Judge Lind asks Coombs (defense) to state his qualifications. He does, and says he has no conflicts of interest. Coombs (defense) is sworn in by Judge Lind.

    Next up Judge Lind asks if there are any challenges to her presiding in the case of Bradley ManningFein (prosecution) declines. Coombs (defense) asks if he might ask her some questions.

    Coombs (defense): What prior knowledge do you have of this case?

    Judge Lind: I knew there was case. I knew the case involved classified info. I knew it involved a person named PFC Manning.

    Coombs (defense) : Did you view any material related to this case?

    Judge Lind answers either "No," or, "Not that I can recall." (I am not sure of her exact words.)

    Coombs (defense) : What impressions, if any, do you have of this case?

    Judge Lind: None.

    Coombs (defense) : Any discussions?

    Judge Lind: Not that I can recall.

    Coombs (defense) : Formed any opinions about the case?

    Judge Lind: None.

    Coombs (defense) asks Judge Lind for her credentials.

    Coombs (defense): Did you teach at the National Defense University?

    Judge Lind said she took (a ?) class(es ?) from 2006 to 2007 at National Defense University and then "I taught at the National Defense University from 2007 to 2008."

    Coombs (defense): What courses did she teach?

    Judge Lind says taught national security strategy, law of armed conflict. She states she was part of a "think tank, and since I was co-chair some sort of Australia, New Zealand...regional studies."

    Coombs (defense): Ever deal with classified information?

    Judge Lind: She pauses. She says she thinks two cases either at college or as a military judge, "but I had to have received training on classified information to become a judge...short courses...Army Judge Advocate General School."

    Coombs (defense): I taught there. Did you ever take any of my courses? Do you recall me teaching any classes?

    Judge Lind pauses. "I think you might have (taught me). You look familiar."

    Coombs (defense): Do you have any impressions of me?

    Judge Lind to Coombs (defense) politely embarrassed, laughs and states that she "doesn't really remember the class." and "No."

    Coombs (defense): No further questions.

    Fein (prosecution) then reads charges as groups. e.g. this many violations under Article 134...Fein (prosecution) starts with "aiding the enemy" at another point he states that unauthorized software was put on "two separate systems." Fein (prosecution) describes the procedural aspects of the charges. First accuser was Cameron Leiker. He states after Leiker was the first convening authority...then for MD, Carl Coffman...then for MDW, Linnington.

    Judge Lind then explains to Manning what his options are regarding the form of his court martial, by military judge or by jury of officers. (Please refer to the Manual for Court Martial). Judge Lind then describes various rules for jury of officers, "None can be junior to you." She describes that two thirds are required for guilt and sentence, and three fourths if the sentence carries more than ten years of confinement. She concludes, "or a military judge alone can rule and determine sentence."

    Coombs (defense) rises and states that Manning defers form (trial by judge or jury of officers) selection.

    Fein (prosecution) rises and asks if Bradley Manning will waive the recitation of charges.

    Coombs (defense) waives.

    Fein (prosecution) goes into procedural history of the US charges against Bradley Manningagain, "Cameron Leiker sworn before someone certified to administer oaths...Linnington, convening authority, MDW"

    Judge Lind then states for the court record that an R.C.M. 802 meeting with counsel took place telephonically on February 8, 2012. Judge Lind explains to Manning and for the court that the telephonic meeting was to deal with scheduling and logistical matters. She explains that when an Electronic Docketing Request is received the court is required to solicit dates from the defense and prosecution for the arraignment and trial.

    Judge Lind then asks the defense and prosecution if they agree. They answer, "Yes, M'am" and "Yes, your Honor"

    Judge Lind states for the court record that at the R.C.M. 802 meeting the US prosecution requested army service uniforms. Defense had no objection. Judge Lind states for the court record that both sides provided possible trial schedules. Judge Lind states at the R.C.M. 802 conducted telephonically February 8, 2012 was followed with email correspondence. Judge Lindstates for court record that the R.C.M. 802 telephonic meeting with counsel also concerned motions that would be filed at the arraignment. If I am correct, Judge Lind states that there was a question as to how to file motions (meaning by submission or grouped).

    The next part relates to a series of correspondences between defense, Judge Lind and prosecution regarding defense motions.

    Judge Lind states that the R.C.M. 802 meeting and subsequent email correspondence also concerned a defense motion to compel discovery, a defense motion to compel deposition, and bill of particulars.

    Coombs (defense) says that when the defense requested discovery, prosecution said it needed more time, namely three weeks.

    Coombs (defense) says in an "email dated February 15, 2012 "the court advised the Government that their request for continuance is denied"

    (I missed Judge Lind exact question to prosecution.)

    Fein (prosecution) rises and states, "We didn't receive that email."

    Coombs (defense) rises and says to Judge Lind "in a prosecution email dated February 21, 2012, prosecution again requested a three week continuance...the email (thread) has your denial."

    Fein (prosecution): "We will look at that."

    Judge Lind then states that prior to today, defense and prosecution discussed that the next court session was to be March 15 and 16. She states that the date is not firm. The date, she says could be week of March 15 and 16 and would be "solidified next week."

    Next up the prosecution raises the issue of "classification spillage" when defense filed original motions.

    Fein (prosecution): When the defense filed the original motions there was spillage of classified info. We had to seek clarification from the original classification authorities (OCAs)...only 2 out of three (not sure if this refers to motions or...?).

    Coombs (defense): The Government alleges "spillage". Our experts determined there was "no spillage." Based upon...protective order which defense (filed?) the Government unilaterally determines there is "spillage." Coombs (defense) continues and proposes that the court security officer have the ultimate authority, and can consult the OCAs himself.

    Judge Lind says the matter will be addressed at the next session. Judge Lind brings up the matter of the trial publicity order, a court modified draft of which has been being proposed to counsel. Judge Lind says the trial publicity order "will be resolved by tomorrow."

    Judge Lind acknowledges the order proposing the court security officer (not signed). (I have in my notes that this individual is EB. I also have in my notes that defense mentions the individual Prather (spelling?) related to the protective order.)

    Judge Lind then tells defense: Please refrain from ex parte,/em> filing until next session March 15 or 16. She explains to the court that ex parte,/em> filings are where only the judge get to see the motion.

    There is a discussion concerning defense filing a motion to compel discovery. The defense's ex parte is for the filing, not the motion. This was clarified in court discussion.

    The defense motion to compel discovery was enormous when passed later from Judge Lind to a hand hidden behind a cubical desk in front of bench.

    Judge Lind then asks Fein (prosecution) if he wants to address the ex parte filing. FFein (prosecution) has no objection.

    I believe Judge Lind then says court will counsel on the ex parte filing.

    Coombs (defense) then brings up the matter of the Government not properly disclosing what evidence it will specifically use against Bradley Manning as required under R.C.M. 304 (D1 I believe) and 311 (Needs verification). He describes how that evidence was provided to defense counsel by the prosecution. He states the ranges are not precise, "There are 29 pages of bates numbers. Three pages of bates number ranges. The requirements are that the Government indicate content (statements etc.) they will use. Giving ranges is not proper disclosure...also requirement is to detail items seized that the Government intends to introduce."

    Fein (prosecution) rises and states they have complied under 304D1. Mentions there are 41, 821 documents, "Because of the amount of information... most efficient was (their system of finding info). He states that the documents that prosecution included contain statements from "AR from CID." Then he says, there is "no meaningful way to identify these documents so we have ascribed bates numbers...there are 41,000 documents to look at those statements. He continues and states (if I am not mistaken) prosecution did not make exception for duplicates. He says, "US provided individual pieces of seized property by item number from the chain of custody...by bates number...precisely what piece we intend to use."

    Coombs (defense): That is not the case.

    Coombs (defense) then gives two examples, "random samples...none of these indicate what the prosecution will introduced of the 29 pages of bates numbers. The Government should be forced to be clear on what statements...what evidence."

    Judge Lind then says that, "It seems to comply," but she leaves it open for review, "Well I won't say now."

    Fein (prosecution) then goes through a description of how seized items are identified. "We will provide as much clarity as we can."

    Judge Lind tells defense that they can raise that issue (namely, the prosecution's vague numbering system, lack of specificity) at another date.

    Judge Lind then asks the prosecution and defense if they want to supplement court record regarding the R.C.M. 802 meeting, and she brings up seating plans.

    Fein (prosecution): Moment M'am...

    Judge Lind: Yes.

    Fein (prosecution) brings up question of how documents will be marked.

    Judge Lind then says something regarding document marks and their being made part of the appellate record.

    Next segment in court concerns the filings by the prosecution and defense, as well as Judge Lind's entry of the filings into the court record

    Defense lists it's filings. They include: Case Management Order, Protective Order, Motion for Publicity, Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion to Compel Deposition, Bill of Particulars, Ex partefiling in supplement to Motion to Compel Discovery.

    Judge Lind asks the defense about the court security officer being introduced to the record of the trial. She then asks Government what they are filing.

    Fein (prosecution) lists filings: US Proposed Trial Calendar, and Protective Order.

    Judge Lind then says she will handle the filings and then take Bradley Manning's plea.

    Judge Lind calls the numbers and title for each filings one through nine, and staples them. After each she passes them to a hand in a hidden cubicle in front of bench. The hand passes them back. The hand belongs to a young thirty something African American woman in civilian garb who was also present in the same spot for the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing. I didn't write down the number of each corresponding filing. I do know that number nine was the defense's ex partefiling for supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery.

    Next up Judge states that the defense requests an open file of email correspondence related and subsequent to the telephonic R.C.M. 802 meeting on February 8, 2012

    Fein (prosecution) rises and says he will keep a file.

    Coombs (defense) rises and states that defense would object to a trial schedule after June 2012 Prosecution has suggested August 3, 2012. Coombs (defense) states the fact that his client has been in pretrial confinement for 635 days, and how many days Bradley Manning will have been in confinement if the proceeding were to occur in August 2012. He states, "Defense has already demanded speedy trial several times. The Government is constantly citing the case's novelty, scale, and difficulty coordinating various agencies." Coombs (defense) then gives an example of when the Government turn around is in 24 hours regarding its own interests.Coombs (defense) states the need for timely progression and his client's due process rights. He concludes, "There is a problem."

    Fein (prosecution) rises and mentions "realistic trial scheduling."

    Judge Lind then asks if there is anything else before taking Manning plea.

    Coombs (defense) rises and stats that Bradley Manning will defer his plea.

    Judge Lind orders the court in recess till March 15 or 16. As court closes, guards surround the front of the gallery blocking the public from Bradley Manning At that moment David Eberhart, from Code Pink, asks loudly, "Judge, isn't a soldier required to report a war crime?"

    16 US v PFC Manning | Defense Motion to Compel Discovery

    13 Department of Justice | Budget FY2013 released and included details for the National Security Division whose attorneys are part of the WikiLeaks grand jury and the Congressional Submission of the FY2013 Performance Budget for Information Sharing Technology

    National Security

    Defending national security from both internal and external threats remains the Department of Justice’s highest priority. The FY 2013 Budget request provides a total of $4 billion to maintain critical counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs and sustain recent increases for intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities.

    The administration supports critical national security programs within the department, including those led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Division (NSD). In FY 2011, the FBI dedicated approximately 4,200 agents to investigate more than 33,000 national security cases. NSD has continued to carry out its primary functions to prevent acts of terrorism and espionage in the United States and to facilitate the collection of information regarding the activities of foreign agents and powers.

    Investigating cybercrime and protecting our nation’s critical network infrastructure is a top priority of the department. The President’s FY 2013 Budget request maintains recent increases for the FBI’s cyber terrorism investigations, the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF) and the forensic examination of digital evidence. In addition, other department components have made critical investments to protect U.S. citizens and secure our homeland, and these components will continue their efforts in FY 2013. (Source: Department of Justice Press Release)

    See also:

    a. Insider Threat

    The 2010 WikiLeaks incident and other recent data leakage occurrences highlight the fact that insider threats pose one of the greatest risks to government information systems. Employees are trusted with sensitive and/or classified information and there is often little oversight or security governing that access. Implementing strong, flexible, and scalable measures to prevent insider attacks from succeeding is vital. The recent agency-wide Information Security Assessment revealed significant security weaknesses throughout the government and within the Department. Of primary concern are the control and monitoring of removable media, insider threat behavior monitoring and detection, and prevention of data leaks on all sensitive and classified information systems.

    To counter insider threats, the increase will be used to design a defense plan and acquire and implement hardware infrastructure and software tools to monitor, detect, and respond to insider threats. (Source: U.S. Department of Justice FY 2013 PERFORMANCE BUDGET, Congressional Submission, Justice Information Sharing Technology)

    National Security Fact Sheet

    4 PJ Crowley, former spokesman for the Department of State, now tweets "While supporting the #BradleyManning prosecution, it's hard to credibly argue as we exit #Iraq and #Afghanistan that he "aided the enemy.""

    3 US v PFC Manning | Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, commander of the Military District of Washington orders the court martial of Bradley Manning on all charges. The U.S. Army Trial Judiciary will now assign a military judge, who will set a date for Manning's arraignment, motion hearings and trial.

    [Major General Michael Linnington, Commander of the US Military District of Washington, pictured to the left.] "The commander of the Military District of Washington has ordered a court-martial for Pfc. Bradley E. Manning...Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington made the decision...There was no word on whether the as-yet-unscheduled court-martial would also be held at Fort Meade, one of three installations within the military district equipped to host such a proceeding...The U.S. Army Trial Judiciary will now assign a military judge, who will set a date for Manning's arraignment, motion hearings and trial." (Source: Baltimore Sun)

     

    2 Julian Assange v. Swedish Judicial Authority | Seven justices of the UK Supreme Court hear the extradition appeal day two

    Julian Assange's UK Supreme Court Submission

    Video from the Appeal Hearing:

    1 Julian Assange v. Swedish Judicial Authority | Seven justices of the UK Supreme Court hear the extradition appeal, day one

    Julian Assange’s UK Supreme Court Submission

    Video from the Appeal Hearing:

    "Mr Assange's barrister Dinah Rose QC told the court that the prosecutor was not a "judicial authority", as required by British law, and therefore the warrant for Mr Assange is invalid.

    However Clare Montgomery QC representing Swedish authorities said the warrant is valid and that others issued by prosecutors across Europe have resulted in the extradition of individuals." (Source: theaustralian.con

    1 US v PFC Manning | Defense requests contact information for Mr. Betts, the Original Classification Authority of alleged chat logs and the information contained therein. Judge Lind says that defense received the contact information for Mr. Betts on February 29.

    Excerpt from transcript of March 16 Motion Hearing:

    Judge concludes by denying Defense Motion to Compel Depositions.

    • Line rules that the Investigating Officer's determination of the witnesses reasonable availability in Article 32 Pretrial was not Improper, as the defense had argued.
    • Lind says she bases her own ruling on the Pretrial Article 32 rules in that the Investigating Officer, Paul Almanza, performed the "correct balance test, depositions only allowed in cases used to preserve essential testimony."
    • Lind says that affidavits can be considered sworn statements under Section 28, 1746.

    Judge Lind continues:

    Judge Lind: Government had offered OCA by telephonic. Regarding Discovery Request for three civilian witnesses [missed]...Regarding Defenses request of 1 February 2012, Defense received on 29 Feb 2012 the contact info of Mr. Betts....Defense disputes 2E applies...Article 9, R.C.M. 702...in the interest of justice the motion is denied.

    (Source: Full Transcript of Motion Hearing March 16, 2012)

    Jan 2012

    26 Office of the Director of National Intelligence | James Clapper, Director, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, talks about intelligence, information sharing and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He addresses WikiLeaks.

    (Source: CSPAN)

    NEED TO TRANSCRIBE 2 COMMENTS ~23:15 and 45:00

    23

    Department of State | In a interview entitled "21st Century Statecraft", Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation at the State Department comments on the WikiLeaks Grand Jury 2703(d) "lawful" intercept of WikiLeaks associates, including a member of the Icelandic parliament, saying among other things, "What these laws for what we call lawful intercept apply to specifically is investigations regarding the conduct of a crime."

    Full Transcripts

    Full Video

    MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes IDG News Service, Raffaella Menichini: Can you comment on the recent decision by the Virginia District Court that allows the Justice Department to access records of the Twitter accounts used by WikiLeaks associates? Isn’t that a form of violation of privacy on social media, something that the State Department maintains as a basic value?

    MR. ROSS: Yeah. No. There’s – absolutely not. In the United States, we have rules for what we call lawful intercept. If there is reason to believe that somebody is committing a crime, for the last decades there is a legal process, a transparent legal process, through which the Justice Department can get, for example, phone records. The news that’s been made where the Justice Department can do the same thing, for example, with Twitter records is no different than that which happens hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of time a year and has been happening for decades with the phone.

    So the only difference is that we’re talking about digital communications versus traditional telephone, but the transparent rule of law and the due process in the United States is the same. So what applies to the telephone applies to social media. And so if you are planning a crime or conducting a crime using the phone, it’s not okay, and if you are planning a crime and conducting a crime using social media, similarly it’s not okay.

    The difference in the United States versus other places is that we do this without sacrificing universal rights. So people have freedom of expression. They have the ability to exercise peaceful, political dissent. They have the ability to communicate however they see fit. What these laws for what we call lawful intercept apply to specifically is investigations regarding the conduct of a crime.

    MS. JENSEN: I just want to make a quick correction. The last question came from the Repubblica.

    (Source: Department of State)

    23 Department of Justice | DOJ charges a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, with four felony counts, two of which were under the Espionage Act of 1917, for having allegedly disclosed classified information to reporters about the CIA's interrogation program.

    "First, the Justice Department yesterday charged a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, with four felony counts for having allegedly disclosed classified information to reporters about the CIA’s interrogation program. Included among those charges are two counts under the Espionage Act of 1917, based on the allegation that he disclosed information which he “had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Kiriakou made news in 2007 when he told ABC News that he led the team that captured accused Terrorist Abu Zubaydah and that the techniques to which Zubaydah was subjected, including waterboarding, clearly constituted “torture,” though he claimed they were effective and arguably justifiable. He’s also accused of being the source for a 2008 New York Times article that disclosed the name of one of Zubaydah’s CIA interrogators." (Source: Glen Greenwald)

    See also Department of Justice Press Release

    20 WikiLeaks Grand Jury | Appeal of Secrecy Ruling In Twitter Secret 2703(d) order regarding Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggriijp, Birgitta Jonsdottir, and Twitter.

    20 Department of Justice | Matthew David Howard Smith, 24, of Raleigh, N.C., was sentenced today in Alexandria, Va., to 14 months in prison for his role in founding NinjaVideo.net, a website that provided millions of users with the ability to download high-quality copies of copyright-protected movies and television programs, announced the Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    20 US v PFC Manning | Defense Files for Discovery Request. 'Thus far, the government has failed to provide this information to the defense.'

    The defense filed another discovery request today seeking information regarding the numerous damage assessments completed by the government. Thus far, the government has failed to provide this information to the defense. (Source: David Coombs)

    "UNITED STATES V.MANNING, Bradley E., PFC U.S. Army, xxx-xx-9504 Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, YA 22211

    DEFENSE DISCOVERY REQUEST
    DATED: 20 January 2012

    1 . In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other applicable law, request for discovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E,. Manning.

    2. The Defense requests that the Government respond to each item listed in its previous discovery requests of 29 October2010, 15 November 2010, 8 December 2010, 10 January 2011, 19 January 2011, 16 February 2011, 13 May 2011, 13 October 2011, 15 November 2011, and 16 November 2011 and to also respond to the following additional discovery:

    a.) Complete contact information for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?] Classification Advisory Officer;

    b.) Complete contact information for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?];

    c.) Complete contact information for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHO IS THIS?].

    d.) d) Complete contact information for the individual that completed the Classification Review for the item charged in Specification 15 of Charge II [WHAT IS THIS CHARGE]. The Defense also requests a copy of the Classification Review for the item charged in Specification 15 of Charge II [WHAT IS THIS CHARGE].

    3.) The Defense requests that the Government respond to the following additional questions regarding previously requested discover:

    a) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment or recommendation by the WikiLeaks Task Force or any other XXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?] concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

    b.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation as a result of any joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or any other governmental agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

    c.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Information Review Task Force (IRTF) concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items:

    d.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Department of Justice concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

    e.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Department of State concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no,, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

    f.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items;

    g.) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Defense Intelligence Agency concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items; and

    h) Does the Government possess any report, damage assessment, or recommendation by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive concerning the alleged leaks in this case? If yes, please indicate why these items have not been provided to the Defense. If no, please indicate why the Government has failed to secure these items.

    4. The Defense requests that the Government provide notice in writing if it does not intend to comply with any specific provision of this request.
    5. It is understood that this is a continuing request. 6. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on20 January 2012.

    /s/
    DAVID EDWARD COOMBS

    Civilian Defense Counsel"

    (Source: Defense Discovery Request)

    18 US v PFB Manning | Col. Carl R. Coffman denies access to key defense witnesses and concurs with Lt. Col Almanza, Investigating Officer at Manning's Article 32 Pretrial Hearing, recommending Manning for general court martial on 22 counts, including 'aiding the enemy'.

    [Col. Carl R Coffman, Commander of Joint Base Myer pictured to the left. See also Col. Carl R. Coffman's bio.]

    "Earlier today, Colonel Carl R. Coffman Jr., denied the defense's request to conduct oral depositions of nine essential witnesses. These same witnesses were requested by the defense at the Article 32 hearing, but denied by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza. Each of the requested witnesses would have testified concerning whether the charged information was or was not classified and whether there was any harm to national security from this information becoming public.

    Colonel Coffman determined that the difficulty, expense, and/or effect on military operations outweighed the significance of the expected testimony. This determination is difficult to comprehend given the nature of the charges against PFC Manning. Today's decision is yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense's access to essential witnesses.

    Based upon Colonel Coffman's decision, the defense intends to renew its request to depose these witnesses with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, Major General Michael S. Linnington, and, if necessary, with the military judge." (Source: David Coombs)

     

    "The Army says Col. Carl Coffman sent his recommendation Wednesday to Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington, commander of the Military District of Washington. Linnington will decide whether to order a trial for Pfc. Bradley Manning.

    Coffman concurred with the presiding officer at Manning's preliminary hearing last month. The 24-year-old Crescent, Okla., native faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy." (Source: therepublic.com)

    17 Department of Justice claims "Full Denial" on FOIA requests for "Any and all records pertaining to WikiLeaks Organization," citing exemption (b)(7)(A) saying, "Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings"

    (Source: Department of Justice January 2012 FOIA Log PDF)

    16 US v PFC Manning | Defense Supplemental Deposition Request. The government had not acted on the deposition request filed on January 12, 2012.

    (Source: David Coombs)

    "MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, US Army Military District of Washington, 210 A. Street, Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5013

    [Col. Carl R. Coffman, Commander of Joint Base Myer, pictured to the left. See also Col. R. Coffman's bio.]

    FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myser, VA 22211-1199

    Subject: Request for Oral Depositions United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

    1. The defense, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)702 requests that an oral deposition of the below listed individuals be conducted prior to trial. United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1978); United States v. Chestnut,2 M.J. 84 (C.M.A. 1976).

    a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of five document, totaling twenty-two pages. XXXXXXXXXX will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXX was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

    b. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX will testify concerning his review of two memoranda produced by a United States government intelligence agency. XXXXXXXXXX will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the XXXXXXXXXX not being produced by the government at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

    c. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX [DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT release did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq who was harmed due to the documents released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were "Fairly significantly overwrought." He will also testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly govern to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IDTF, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmed that the alleged leaks represent a low to, at best moderate risk to national security. Specifically, he will testify that all the information allegedly leaked was ether dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and known due to previous public disclosures. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.

    d. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] will testify that she has raised the issue of disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders "in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing." [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] will also testify that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would continue to work with the United States or would continue to discuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] will testify that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, she concurs with XXXXXXXXXX opinion that they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.

    3. In accordance with R.C.M. 702(c)(3XC) the defense requests that the government promptly inform the defense of the action on the request. If the request is denied, the defense requests that the government comply with the rule by providing the reasons for the denial so that a motion to compel can be properly filed with the military judge.

    ..." (Source: David Coombs,Defense Redacted Supplemental Request for Deposition, January 16, 2012 )

    13 US v PFC Manning | Pentagon Press Release announces that Lt. Col. Paul Almanza has recommended a general court martial of Bradley Manning

    Press Release

    By Donna Miles
    American Forces Press Service

    FORT MEADE, Md., Jan. 13, 2012 – The investigating officer has recommended that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning face a general court-martial for charges of leaking classified documents, Military District of Washington officials announced yesterday.

    Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza issued his recommendation yesterday, concluding that reasonable grounds exist to believe that Manning committed the alleged offenses, officials said.

    The 24-year-old intelligence analyst is suspected of leaking military and diplomatic documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks in what officials believe is the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

    WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website last year.

    Manning faces more than 20 charges alleging he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

    Almanza’s report concluded that the charges and specifications are in proper form for the case to move forward, officials said.

    His recommendation follows eight days of pretrial proceedings during Manning’s Article 32 hearing, with both prosecution and defense delivering their closing statements Dec. 22.

    An Article 32 hearing, often compared to a civilian grand jury, is a pretrial hearing to determine if grounds exist for a general court-martial, the most serious of courts-martial.

    The special court-martial convening authority, Army Col. Carl Coffman, will now review Almanza’s report, officials said. He will determine if the charges should be handled at his level or forwarded to Army Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, the general court-martial convening authority.

    If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and could face forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge, officials said.

    12 US v PFC Manning | Defense Memorandum Deposition Request

    "MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, 210 A. Street, Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5013

    FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 22211- 1199

    SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

    1. The defense, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)702 requests that an oral deposition of the below listed individuals be conducted prior to trial. United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1978); United States v. Chestnut,2 M.J. 84 (C.M.A. 1976).

    2. In accordance with the requirements of R.C.M.702(c)(2), defense provides the following information:

    a. XXXXXXXXXX [JAMES CULKY, 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2] . He will testify about his classification review of the three Apache gun videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM. Specifically, he will testify that the videos were not classified at the time of their alleged release. However, he will testify that he believes that videos should have been classified. He will also testify regarding his classification determination. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [JAMES CULKY, 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing.XXXXXXXXX [JAMES CULKY, 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2] was an essential witness and should have been available at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the factXXXXXXXXXX [JAMES CULKY, 4TH CALVARY DIVISION, BRIGADE S2] believes the matter that the defense wishes to discuss with him is classified, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

    b. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, USCENTCOM, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS]. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, USCENTCOM, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS] conducted classification reviews on two PowerPoint slide presentations of official reports originated by USCENTCOM. The PowerPoint presentations are the subject of Specification 10 of Charge II. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, USCENTCOM, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS] will testify regarding his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security due to the release of the information. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigation Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, USCENTCOM, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS]was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, USCENTCOM, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, govern the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense request that an oral deposition be conducted.

    c. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ] will testify about his classification determination concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [ ALLEGED CHAT LOGS ]. Specifically, he will testify about his classification assessment of the information discussed in XXXXXXXXXX [ THE ALLEGED CHAT LOGS]. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigation Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense request that an oral deposition be conducted. [See Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses, December 2, 2011 for redacted phrases "alleged chat logs" and "the alleged chat logs."]

    d. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?]. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBER COMMAND], is the Original Classification Authority (OCA) over the information discussed by XXXXXXXXXX [ WHO IS THIS? ]. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBER COMMAND] will testify that he concurs with the classification determination and impact statements made byXXXXXXXXXX [MR. BETTS, US CYBER COMMAND, CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER]. The defense would like to question him regarding his declaration and the basis for his belief. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBER COMMAND] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CYBER COMMAND] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted. [See March 16, 2011 Motion Hearing Transcript for name disclosure. "Robert E. Schmidle, Deputy Commander, U. S. Cyber Command who concurs with the classification made by Mr. Betts declaration concerning "the alleged chat logs"."]

    e. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?]. XXXXXXXXXX [VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM)] will testify concerning his classification review and classification determination concerning the CIDNE Afghanistan Events, CIDNE Iraq Events, other briefings and the BE22PAX.wmv video [Garani airstrike video]. Specifically, XXXXXXXXXX [VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM)], will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief of the impact on national security from having this information released to the public. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that XXXXXXXXXX [VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM)] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing.XXXXXXXXXX [VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT S. HARWARD, DEPUTY COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMANDER, US CENTRAL COMMAND (USCENTCOM)] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, govern the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense request that an oral deposition be conducted. [See March 16, 2011 Motion Hearing Transcript for name disclosure. "Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, deputy commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), responsible for the classification review of the CIDNE Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Acts (SIGACTS) and video, BE2PAX.zip (Garani Airstrike Video) " See Special Agent Mark Mander, CCIU, December 17, 2011 Article 32 Pretrial Hearingfor disclosure of BE2PAX.zip as Garani airstrike video:]

    f. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [WHAT IS THIS?]. XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE] will testify concerning his review of the disclosure of Department of State Diplomatic Cables stored within the Net_Centric Diplomacy server and part of SIPDIS. XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE] will testify concerning his classification determination and the impact of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination thatXXXXXXXXXX [ PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing.XXXXXXXXXX [PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ] was an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given the classified nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense request that an oral deposition be conducted. [See March 16, 2011 Motion Hearing Transcript for name disclosure. "Mr. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary, MANAGEMENT, Department of State."

    3. In accordance with R.C.M. 702©(3)© the defense request that the government promptly inform the defense of the action on the request. If the request is denied, the defense requests that the government comply with the rule by providing the reasons for the denial so that a motion to compel can be properly filed with the military judge.

    DAVID EDWARDS COOMBS
    Civilian Defense Counsel " (Source: Civilian Defense Counsel, David Coombs, Defense Deposition Request, January 12, 2012)

    12 US v PFC Manning | Article 32 Pretrial Hearing Investigating Officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, recommends a general court martial for Bradley Manning on 22 counts, including aiding the enemy. His recommendation was sent to Col. Carl R. Coffman.

    "News Release

    The U.S. Army Military District of Washington Guardian of the Nation’s Capital

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE #12-01 DATE: January 12, 2012

    Investigating Officer Provides Recommendation in the Article 32 Hearing – U.S. Government vs. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning

    FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC – The investigating officer assigned to the Article 32 Hearing for Pfc. Bradley E. Manning forwarded his recommendation to Col. Carl R. Coffman, the Special Court Martial Convening Authority, on Jan. 12, 2012. The investigating officer concluded that the charges and specifications are in the proper form and that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused committed the offenses alleged. He recommended that the charges be referred to a general court martial.

    The Special Court Martial Convening Authority will now review the investigating officer’s report and determine whether the charges should be disposed of at his level or be forwarded to Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, the General Court Martial Convening Authority for disposition at his level.

    Pfc. Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers; and for violating Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

    If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade, E-1; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement for life; and a dishonorable discharge.

    Media queries may be emailed to the U.S. Army Military District of Washington Public Affairs Office at mediadesk@jfhqncr.northcom.mil" (Source: idahostateman.com)

    [Col. Carl R. Coffman, Commander of Joint Base Myer, pictured to the left. See also Col. Carl R. Coffman's bio.]

    Lt. Col. Paul Almanza [ARTICLE 32 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATING OFFICER and CAREER DOJ PROSECUTOR], will now draw a report of recommendations of what charges, if any, Manning should face in a court martial. That report, which has to be completed by Jan. 16, will go to the special court-martial convening authority Col. Carl R. Coffman, commander of Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall who will then make a recommendation to the general convening authority, Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington, commander of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, who will make the final decision." (Source: Kim Zetter, Wired, Army Piles on Evidence in Final Arguments in WikiLeaks Hearing)

    [Major General Michael Linnington, Commander of the US Military District of Washington, pictured to the left.]

    11 US v PFC Manning | US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Washington, D.C. denies the petition of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange defense seeking guaranteed access by WikiLeaks and Assange counsel to the proceedings against Private Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade by Lt. Col. Paul Almanza.

    "On consideration of the writ-appeal petition; the motion filed by Baher Azmy, Esq., to appear pro hac vice; Appellant's motion to supplement the record; the motion for leave to file a joint appendix; and Appellee's motion to attach affidavit, it is, by the Court, this 11th day of January 2012,

    ORDERED:
    That said motions are hereby granted; and
    That said writ-appeal petition is hereby denied.

    For the Court,

    /s/ William A. DeCicco
    Clerk of the Court" (Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Washington, D.C., PDF via politico.com)

    9 Department of Justice | DOJ Charges Megaupload with Widespread Online Copyright Infringement. The investigation was initiated and led by the FBI at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), with assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. Substantial and critical assistance was provided by the New Zealand Police, the Organized and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ), the Crown Law Office of New Zealand and the Office of the Solicitor General for New Zealand; Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong Department of Justice; the Netherlands Police Agency and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Serious Fraud and Environmental Crime in Rotterdam; London’s Metropolitan Police Service; Germany’s Bundeskriminalamt and the German Public Prosecutors; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Federal Enforcement Section and the Integrated Technological Crime Unit and the Canadian Department of Justice’s International Assistance Group. Authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia and the Philippines also provided assistance.

    4 WikiLeaks Grand Jury | MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court concludes that a stay and injunction are not appropriate at this time. Petitioners' motion is therefore DENIED. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012.

    ORDERED that Petitioners' Motion to Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal 89 be and is hereby DENIED. Because resolution of this motion requires no argument, the Clerk shall remove the hearing set for 1/13/2011 from the calendar. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Twitter, Inc. Petitioners' Motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court concludes that a stay and injunction are not appropriate at this time. Petitioners' motion is therefore DENIED. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012. File not available. (Source: web archive)

    ORDERED that Petitioners' Motion to Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal 89 be and is hereby DENIED. Because resolution of this motion requires no argument, the Clerk shall remove the hearing set for 1/13/2011 from the calendar. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012. File not available. (Source: web archive)

    MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Twitter, Inc. Petitioners' Motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/4/2012. File not available. (Source: web archive)

    alexaobrien.com | blog | interviews | audio | video | features | about | in the press | contact | archives