Day 5 of Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing: In-depth notes from the Art. 32 courtroom

December 20, 2011: Bradley Manning Support Network sent a representative into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow.  Notes were taken by Rainey Reitman, any omissions or inaccuracies are entirely her fault and not reflective of the Support Network positions. Please send corrections to [email protected]

Officials at the pre-trial hearing believe it could be months before an official transcript is made available. We believe people around the world have a right to be in the courtroom seeing history unfold, so we’re doing our best to document as much as possible for the historical record and to shine a light on this trial. We urge citizen journalists to join our efforts and help us document the pretrial and any future proceedings as closely as possible.

See:
DayOne
DayTwo
DayThree
DayFour

Getting to the Courtroom

This morning there were a number of people seeking access to the courtroom. As typical, they insisted on having us go through a security trailer in order to go through metal detectors and have our bags searched.

Of note, the overflow theater was closed. There were two individuals who came in from Occupy DC this morning who weren’t able to get into the courtroom because it had no additional designated room for spectators. I requested to speak to an officer about this issue and heard from her that they were not going to open the theater. I asked if this issue could be reconsidered. She said she would bring it up in a meeting this afternoon.

Additionally, I circled back with a Public Affairs Office (PAO) representative who asked that he only be referred to as “defense spokesperson.” I followed up on the questions I had asked yesterday: how many people were denied press passes? How many people had press passes issued and revoked? Why had Nathan of the Bradley Manning Support Network had a press pass issued and revoked? The PAO said again that he would follow up on these issues and had no answers currently. I asked for a phone number and he was unable to provide one. He stated he would be unable to answer my questions today.

The Article 32

We were allowed into the courtroom at 9:12 AM. At the time, Coombs and two members of the prosecution were in a meeting in a backroom, while Manning sat in the court room with his back facing the public. Then it was announced that there would be an additional 10 minute delay. The attorneys appeared briefly, and then they and Manning exited.

At 9:32 all of the parties were again at their desks. Almanza called the meeting to order, reminding spectators about the need to respect the decorum of the court and reminding individuals that no cellular devices were allowed in the court.

Jihrleah Showman

[Note: took spelling of name from the Guardianblog] The prosecution began by calling Ms. Leah Showman. She appeared telephonically. She was sworn in and then confirmed that she was in a location where she was alone and could speak freely. She was reminded not to have notes about the case in front of her and to alert the investigating officer if she felt she needed to disclose classified information to answer a question.

Under questioning, Ms. Showman testified that she had left the army on 6/25/11 after serving there a bit over 4 years. She achieved the rank of specialist before leaving the army. For a time period, she served as the team leader for Manning. They met in early March 2009. Like Manning, Showman was a 35F analyst. She attended AIT in July 2007.

When asked to describe what she learned in her training at AIT, Ms. Showman began by stating that they had learned how to handle, disseminate and destroy classified information and that they had been instructed as to the impact of disclosing classified data. She also mentioned that they learned computer programs. Showman said that one needed a secret interim clearance at a minimum in order to attend AIT training. She stated that she was in DCIGs training with Manning for about a week.

She believed that Manning was with her on GRTC rotation for Iraq. While Showman received no additional training, Manning received 2 separate TDYs – at Fort Drumm and in Washington, DC.

On 11 October 2009, Showman deployed with Manning to Iraq and they both worked in the brigade SCIF, which served as a fusion center.

Showman worked directly with Manning when they were first in Iraq, serving as his direct supervisor for one or two months. Then they were on different shifts for a while, and then they were working together again.

Showman testified that Manning was a Shia analyst, and that this entailed mostly data mining on anything related to the Shia people group. She also explained that there were special programs on the DCIGs machines that allowed them to conduct keyword searches for specific things. The search terms could be any part of a name or incident (like the date) could be used as input. She said that much of this information was gathered from the Humat (sp?) and that they had information for every individual they encountered. This information was then placed on the brigade shared drive. It was designed to show enemy involvement in the area. In addition to the Humat, Showman talked about CPOC (sp), which was a tool used to communicate.

Upon questioning, Showman stated that she did not know what wget was and had never used it. She testified that Manning had problems with his computer if not weekly then biweekly. Manning left the brigade SCIF on May 9th, the morning after he allegedly attacks Showman.

Showman described the altercation with Manning. She stated that he punched her in the face, unprovoked, and displayed uncontrollable behavior.

Upon questioning, she reiterated that she was his supervisor for 1 or 2 months at the beginning of the deployment.

At this point, the hearing was closed to the press and public. The defense requested a closed hearing to present information to have the IO decide on whether to allow a portion of Showman’s testimony to be provided in a closed session. We left the courtroom and went outside to sit on folding chairs in a trailer.

We returned at 10:09 AM.Almanza called the hearing to order. He explained that during the closed session, he had determined that it was necessary to close a small portion of the trial in order to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial. They had then conducted a brief portion of Showman’s testimony under this closed session. Almanza reported that Showman’s closed testimony lasted about 5 minutes.

Showman was placed back on speakerphone. The investigating officer announced that the hearing was open to the public again, and admonished Showman not to discuss information that had been discussed in the closed portion of the trial.

At this point, the government had finished questioning. David Coombs approached. As had become the standard for beginning to question telephonic interviews, Coombs started off by expressing remorse that the witness wasn’t able to join in person. He reviewed some of the history that the prosecution had covered a second time. Coombs asked if she had become Manning’s supervisor in late April or early May 2009, but she corrected him and said it was actually March. [NB: my notes on this sentence are unclear; if you have clear notes, please email me what she said about starting as Manning’s supervisor to [email protected]]

Showman had daily contact with Manning.

Under questioning, she related an incident in which Manning had been absent from PT formations. She went to the barracks herself to find Manning. She knocked on the door, he opened the door, and he appeared to her as if he had just gotten up. At this point she was not yelling at him, she just said “You need to get dressed and get downstairs right now.” She escorted him back to the formations together. On the walk back, Manning was quiet. She asked him questions about why he wasn’t in formation. Did he have alarm problems? Did he have no desire to be there? But he was very quiet in response.

When they approached and saw Adkins. Showman was explaining that she would be counseling Manning. Then Manning started screaming and jumping up and down and waving his hands around. Saliva was coming out of his mouth. Asked about how loud Manning was screaming, Showman stated that she thought it was as loud as he possibly could. This went on for several seconds. Even after this stopped, he still showed aggressive body language.

When Adkins approached, Manning stopped jumping around, though he continued to make grunting noises in frustration and his fists were still clenched. He said something about how he could take messing up.

After this incident, Showman recommended to Adkins that Manning be given an Article 15 due to his disrespectful manner toward her and his loss of military bearing. Coombs began to explain what a military bearing meant, but Almanza interrupted to say he knew what it was.

To Showman’s knowledge, Adkins did not follow her recommendations.

Manning was required to call behavioral health. However, to Showman’s knowledge, Adkins did not alert his commander or the chain of command about the issue.

Showman then testified that she felt Manning was a “threat to himself and a “threat to others.” She didn’t feel he should be deployed or allowed to handle classified information.

At this point the Coombs asked a question which I believe was whether Adkins had taken any remedial actions against Manning. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the exact question down.

The prosecution objected on foundation. Coombs responded at length, explaining that the government had provided the investigating officer with a lot of stuff about how things happened, and the defense was trying to explain why things happened. He cited RCM4051A and case law.

The prosecution responded, stating that the case law in question did not provide the defense with unfettered cross examination rights. The investigating officer has the right to curtail questioning that is redundant. The investigating officer, in his soft voice, allowed the questioning to continue.

Coombs asked whether Showman knew if Adkins had informed the company commander of the issue? She did not. Upon questioning, Showman explained that she thought Manning was unstable.

She then related an incident in which she’d seen him freeze when asked a question by a lieutenant. He seemed nonresponsive. She asked him what was wrong and he gave no response. After this incident, she again told Adkins about the issue.

Adkins and Showman had a joint conversation with Manning at this point. Manning related to them that he constantly felt paranoid, like people were listening to conversations, like he couldn’t trust anyone. He was not suicidal and he did not hear voices. Showman did ask him about hearing voices because she wanted to determine if he had psychotic [note: this might have been ‘psychiatric’ or ‘psychological’] issues. She did this because she was the team leader and it was her job to take care of the team. Manning said he was suffering from a “very elevated level of paranoia” and that he was not functioning well. He did not get work tasks done the way he used to.

When Showman confronted Manning about not finished work tasks the way he used to, he said that he was being tasked by others of being asked to do cleaning.

Showman made additional recommendations that Adkins revoke Manning’s security clearance and not deploy. Adkins said that he had spoken to somebody about the issue.

Showman was aware of the process of directing someone to get a behavioral health evaluation. When it is a command-directed behavioral health evaluation, the army gets to know what is going on with the soldier. When a soldier self-refers to a behavioral health evaluation, the commanders aren’t in the loop and don’t hear back. This is why Showman suggested a command-directed behavioral health evaluation.

When Showman saw that Manning was on the deployment list, she was not happy. In fact, she was furious. When she brought the issue up, she was told that the decision had been made and she just had to deal with it.

When they deployed in October, Showman served as the night shift NCOC (non commissioned officer on command). But she was not a non commissioned officer. In fact, Adkins was the one who made most of the decisions. He decided who were on which shifts. Showman found the leadership restrictive. The assigned leaders had little control; everything had to go through Adkins, including trainings and counselings. Adkins was in charge of the equipment and the soldiers. And soldiers were not being counseling as they should have been.

Showman was replaced by another specialist as the NCOC for the night shift.

Showman testified that Major Clausen was rarely at the SCIF. He didn’t really exercise control over the soldiers in the S2 section.

Showman also noted that everything managerial was controlled. CW2 Hat did not have the authority to counsel her. And in fact, she stopped fighting for counseling in the unit based on her experiences.

Showman was aware of an incident that occurred between Manning and Specialist Pageant on 12/20/09. However, she didn’t remember the exact date. Coombs noted that “if you were here I’d show you your sworn statement.” In the incident, she heard Manning screaming and walked to the door of her office to see what was going on. Manning was sitting across the table from Specialist Pageant. Showman saw Manning flip the table, and the computer on it fell to the floor. She later learned the computer was damaged. Pageant stood up and Manning went toward him. Pageant stuck out his hands, and appeared to be trying to talk Manning down. Then Manning began looking around the room. There was an M4 in the room.

At the point Coombs asked what an M4 was. Almanza objected that he already knew what an M4 was, but Coombs pointed out that he didn’t want to assume it was known. After all, the prosecution’s witnesses had explained what a SCIF was. Showman then explained that an M4 was a rifle that was very commonly used, sort of like an M16 only with a shorter barrel.

Showman testified that she thought Manning was going to go for the M4. But CW4 Airsman grabbed Manning from behind, sort of like in a headlock like the way someone would get grabbed in a wrestling match. [Note: she might have said it was more around the shoulders than the neck; there was a quick back and forth between Showman and Coombs about it.] Airsman dragged Manning a little bit away and then sat him down.

Showman said that to her knowledge, Manning had not received an Article 15 as a result of this incident. She told Adkins about what she saw. She also told Adkins that Manning had no business being in the T-SCIF. But Manning was not removed from the T-SCIF at that time.

At that point, Showman explained what a Derog was. It is a derogatory [record] placed in one’s file that could [would?] then limit or cancel one’s security clearance. Showman assisted the commanding officer in filing the Derog against Manning when he was removed. She explained the process of writing out the paperwork for the Derog and specifically noted that there was a checkbox to keep or lose one’s security clearance. [Note: I did not catch all of the options available for affecting the security clearance.] After it’s completed, it goes to the Brigade S2. Then it becomes the responsibility of the Security Manager. At the time, Showman was the acting security manager. Previously it had been Lt. Peels (sp?).

Showman noted that the issues didn’t reach the company level; they were kept internally. The first sergeant found out about the issue because CW2 Hat hold him about it. Adkins did not relay the information.

The first sergeant had Showman and Manning come in and meet with him. Showman again reiterated that she though Manning should never have deployed. She said that she was not surprised it had gotten to this point.

She also described finding Manning curled in the fetal position. It was around May 7th. She found him in the conference room of the SCIF just as she was finishing her shift. It was sometime between 8 and 10 PM. Showman left the conference room and informed CW2 Airsman about what she had seen. She told him “be ready for something to happen again.” She saw Airsman go into the conference room to talk to Manning, but she left because her shift was over. But she was called back to the T-SCIF around 12 or 1 AM. It was during her off hours because she was on the day shift; she was woken up. When she got there, Manning attacked her and hit her. She stood up and pinned him to the ground.

Coombs asked if Showman recalled Manning saying “I’m tired of this, I’m tired of this,” during the incident. She said that she did not recall that. Coombs asked if she remembered him saying that he was tired of everyone watching him all the time and trying to fix him. She did not recall.

Showman testified that Manning shared a great deal of personal information with her. In fact, she remembered on occasion in which he told her that if behavioral health knew the truth about him, then he’d have to leave the army.

Showman testified that she did see individuals had music and movies in the SCIF. She noted that the DCIGs machines were only used by analysts.

She said that there was a chat client on these machines. The baseline chat client was called SyJabber [Note: this is phonetic. Please find the correct name and me a correction to [email protected]] However, everyone preferred mIRC Chat. She considered it mission essential. She stated that it could be pulled from the shared drive and placed on a desk top, though she seemed a little unclear as to whether that meant it was installed on the desktop. She stated “I’m not very computer savvy.” Showman testified that she had a soldier put mIRC Chat on her computer. She said that she went to a soldier and not Milliman, the FOB Hammer Field software engineer that had been tasked with installing new software. .

Showman testified that she had found the video of the Apache helicopter attack commonly referred o as Collateral Murder. She discovered it when she was reviewing folders that belonged to the fire section as part of a career development exercise. She said there was “no reason in particular for that video specifically” to be accessed.

Showman went on to watch the video about four or five times. She said that others saw the video as well – 3 or 4 offices as well as 1 other solder. There was discussion while watching the video about what was going on to try to hone in on why the military took specific tactics. They did not discuss the rules of engagement. But there was a question about why the van in the video was fired upon.

At this point, Coombs was finished asking questions and returned to his seat. The prosecution stood for some redirect questions.

Upon questioning, Showman clarified that the individual who had installed mIRC chat for her was Manning. She chose him because he was the most knowledgeable person on the shift about computers. She said that she used mIRC Chat for official purposes.

Showman didn’t know if Manning shared all of his problems with her, though he shared a few. When asked whether Manning had told her he was chatting with Julian Assange, she said no. When asked whether Manning had told her that he stores hundreds of thousands of state department cables on his computer, and she replied no. But he did say that if Behavioral Health services knew the truth, he’d be out of the army.

Showman testified that both she and Manning signed nondisclosure agreements. She mentioned that these agreements meant you couldn’t share data for 80-100 years. When asked whose job it was to protect classified information, she said it was every person with a security clearance.

The prosecution had no further questions, but Coombs stood with a follow-up question. He asked her to confirm her statement about nondisclosure agreements stating that documents could not be shared for 80-100 years. She hesitated, and said that this was her understanding but perhaps it wasn’t specifically in the nondisclosure agreement but someplace else.

At this point, Showman was permanently excused and there was a brief recess.

Peter Bigalow

At 11:04 AM, the hearing was called to order. Staff Sergeant Peter Bigalow was called by the prosecution. He appeared telephonically. He was sworn in and asked if he was in a place that he could speak freely. He stated that “I’m in my bedroom in my house with the door locked and it’s just myself” – eliciting chuckles from the gallery. He spoke with a drawl and came across as playful and brash.

Bigalow is currently in the army element of Nato forces in the AFSelf Battalion [not sure this is correct] in Naples. Previously he served in Iraq with the 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division with Manning. Manning came to work with him in the AJC [?] supply room after the altercation with Showman. Manning worked with Bigalow from perhaps April until late May. Bigalow wasn’t certain of the exact date he started, but knew it was right after the altercation with Showman. He remembered the last day with Manning because it was not only the day Manning was arrested but also the beginning of Bigalow’s leave; Bigalow mentioned that he was on the same plane as Manning when he was being escorted [presumably to Kuwait for pre-trial confinement] by 2 NCOs.

In the supply room, Bigalow had several computers: a SIPR computer, a NIPR computer, a personal laptop and his clerk’s computer. He noted that he had gotten Iraqi Internet service in order to be able to access sites that would be unavailable on the SIPRnet.

The prosecution asked if Bigalow had ever logged into Manning’s Amazon, gmail, or other accounts? Bigalow said no. The prosecution asked if Bigalow knew any of Manning’s passwords, and he stated he did not.

The prosecution asked if he had ever searched for or loaded the Wikileaks.org website. He hadn’t. Questioned whether he had searched for Julian Assange, he said that he had “never heard of that person.” On questioning, he also stated he hasn’t searched for the Global Address List. He had also not not downloaded every email on an Iraqi .mil domain. [note: I believe prosecution actually said “email” and not “email address” here, but I assume it was a mistake. Also there may have been something said right before “.mil” that I missed. It will be good to compare this with the official translation in a few months.]

The prosecution was finished with Bigalow, and David Coombs approached the phone.

Coombs first asked about whether Bigalow’s personal laptop was password protected. Bigalow said it was not. But Bigalow was hesitant to agree with Coombs that when he wasn’t there anyone could access it. He did tell Manning that “you will not download any crazy things on my laptop” and told him not to visit sites that would get him in trouble, such as porn sites. But he did allow Manning to use the computer to check email and such. He didn’t know if his clerk used the laptop, but he suspected not because she had a NIPR computer and also a personal laptop [elsewhere]. But he did not know if she used the computer when he wasn’t there precisely because he wasn’t there to see.

The defense had no further questions. This witness was then permanently excused. It was 11:17AM.

Alfred Williamson

The prosecution then called and swore in Special Agent Alfred Williamson. Williamson had worked with the Army Computer Crime Investigative Unit (CCIU) since September 2006. He worked as a digital forensic examiner and reporter to Shaver. Prior to joining CCIU, he had worked from 2002-2006 with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from 1992-2002 he’d been a law enforcement officer [and forensic examiner, I think he said] in Texas.

The prosecution briefly went through his training in forensics. He’d taken the Treasury’s 9 week training course in computer forensics while at DHS. He had several certifications.

Williamson was charged with examining the supply annex NIPR computer. He began by verifying the working copy of the evidence was intact and correct using the tool EnCase. He then conducted an initial search looking for a user account associated with Bradley Manning and examining Internet history. He found a Manning user account created on May 21, 2010. Associated with this account he found Google searches conducted for “open close article 15” and “wikileaks.” He also found a history of web pages related to article 15. Additionally, he found evidence that Manning’s gmail account had been accessed.

At the prompting of his supervisors, Williamson did a more extensive search, focusing this time on information relating to the Global Address List (GAL) for Iraq. He searched for a keyword string related to 2BCT10MNT. [missed a few things here]

He used EnCase to search for related to text files found in the Bigalow user account. He found extracts from the Iraq GAL in 5 or 6 text files. Information in these text files contained .mil email address, domain names, unit names, and names of individuals. While he could give a size estimation for the files, he said that three of the files he discovered would have been 2,000 page printed (each of the three, not all three together).

One of the documents he discovered was in My Docs. The rest were in the recycle bin. The recycle bin also had zip files that followed the same naming convention of the found extracts of the GAL.

He found a file called Tmp.pdf which was 18 pages of scanned documents including information about UCMJ statements.

Additionally, Williamson stated that searches had been conducted for the keywords Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Global Address List, [missed something here] Macro outlook, BBA Outlook [missed something here]. Williamson believed that, based on this evidence, the user was doing research on how to extract data from the GAL to an exportable format.

In the index.dat file, he found that Manning’s Army Knowledge Online account have been logged into. [NB: see Lamo’s testimony later RE: receiving Army Knowledge Online credentials from BradAss87.]

Williamson also discovered cached webpages showing: gmail account where the user logged in was [email protected]; an Amazon account where the user logged in was Bradley Manning and billing information was associated with Manning and the shipping address was the van Alstyne address in Potomac.

Williamson also noted that in a search for the Global Address List was created, and then the text files that contained fragments of the GAL were created within a minute or two of access to the Bradley Manning’s gmail account.

The prosecution then asked Williamson to verify several documents. Each one they handed to him and he then described it briefly. The spectators did not have an opportunity to see these documents. [Also, this section was conducted quickly so I may not have gotten it all.] Occassionally I managed to get down what I assume is the exhibit number, which I have denote with {}. The documents verified were:

  • Cached webpages and a Google [homepage] with a logged-in user of Manning.
  • Screen shot of a Google Search for the Global Address List Macro Outlook [questionable transcription on that – will be good to compare to official transcript] {00409679}
  • A screen shot that displayed what would be seen if someone clicked on the first result after the Google Search above. {00410555}

At this point the prosecution had no further questions or requests for verifications of evidence. Kemkes from the defense team stepped forward to question the witness. As before, Kemkes seemed thoughtful, organized, and skilled in his questioning.

[I believe Kemkes’ first question was about whether the NIPR computer Williamson examined was classified, but my notes are unclear.] On questioning, Williamson noted that a CAC card was not needed to log into the computer. Williamson was not sure if a password was required. The evidence regarding the GAL was stored in My Docs. It was not classified and not encrypted or otherwise hidden. Williamson also admitted, somewhat grudgingly, that there was no forensic evidence on this computer that the GAL information was extracted or removed.

Upon questioning, Williamson noted that he found a Google search for “gender identity disorder” and that he’d found a cached Wikipedia page about “adjustment disorder.” He did not recall if he found items related to Breanna Manning.

Williamson explained that he’d seen a book ordered on the Bradley Manning Amazon account. This was a book about feminine facial surgery and the shipping address was in Potomac.

Kemkes noted that Williamson had produced a lengthy report about the NIPR computer. He asked Williamson whether he stood by what he had written in that report. Williamson, somewhat hesitantly, said that he did. Kemkes asked if Williamson was, through forensic examination, able to know when an account was created. Williamson said there were several ways to do this with forensic tools. The Manning profile had been created on 21 May 10. Kemkes asked if Williamson was also able to know when an account was last accessed. Williamson hedged this response a little, saying yes and no and giving an explanation [that I found a bit hard to follow] about how a profile might appear to be accessed even if the user didn’t log in. Kemkes asked if Williamson stood by his report that the Manning account was last accessed on 28 May 10. Williamson asked to view the report, and ultimately stood by the words there.

Kemkes asked if Williamson knew that Manning had been placed under guard by the unit on 27 May. Williamson did not know that.

With no further questions, Williamson was permanently excused.

David Shaver

11:40 AMThe prosecution recalled Shaver and reminded him that he was still under oath.

Upon questioning, Shaver explained that Jason Katz was a former employee of the Department of Energy who had been previously employed at the Brookhaven National Labs. Shaver examined Katz’s Linux work computer to determine whether a B.zip file existed there and investigate it.

The profile on the computer was [username redacted by me to protect privacy of individual involved. I’ll add the username back if it’s reported correctly in other sources.] and b.zip was indeed present. It was password protected, but Shaver was able to open it using a password he had gotten from Cent Comm previously. The Cent Comm file this password opened was BEX22.zip.

Within the B.zip file was a file called BE22PAX.wmv and it showed a movie file of an aircraft over a battlefield. Shaver testified that this file had been placed on the computer on 15 December 2009.

Shaver testified that he had seen this same video in folders that were related to the Farah investigation.

Shaver found evidence to show the user had been attempting to decrypt the video, specifically by using a password cracking program. From the bash history, the password cracking program was running to try to decrypt the video. Shaver was unable to know whether the decryption was ultimately successful.

At this point the prosecution had no more questions and Blouchard of the defense team stepped forward.

Upon questioning, Shaver confirmed that the video was related to the “Gahrani” [airstrike] of May 2009. It was a flight over battlespace. The video was received on 15 Dec 09, and Shaver acknowledged that WikiLeaks was known to have a similar video around that time frame.

At this point, Blouchard asked whether this video matched one on the .22 computer [Manning’s work computer]. Shaver said that it did not.

Blouchard had no further questions, but the prosecution had one follow-up clarification. Upon questioning, Shaver explained that he knew the video in the b.zip file on Katz’s machine was identical to the one in the Farah investigation folder because the hash values matched.

Shaver was then temporarily excused. We broke for lunch; the attorneys agreed to return at 1:15 PM for a conference and begin the hearing at 1:30 PM.

At 1:47 PM, the hearing was called to order. The individuals were reminded about the decorum rules for the courtroom, reminded that cellular devices were forbidden, told not to speak if they weren’t part of the proceedings. Almanza added that the gallery should be cleared when recesses are called.

The next section happened very quickly and I was unable to get comprehensive notes. The prosecution read aloud a series of what appeared to be exhibits. I jotted a few notes, but was unable to get everything:

· 1A exam B {375768-375776}

· {375772}

· 1A virtual training {375773}

· 1A virtual training #2 {375774}

· Test results {22348}

· Al Quaeda recruitment video {408202-408236}

· Al Quaeda [missed this] {408202-408236

· Evidence #1 possession evidence

· Redacted {410664}

· Metadata display

· Forensically recovered material

· Miscellaneous documents

· C3 documents

· Military intelligence work product

· IED story[board]

· Range storyboard

· IIT

· SIPRnet email 10 01 12 (multiple emails) {410613-410618}

· SIPRnet emails 9 11 30

· WikiLeaks background

· Afghan War Logs

· Bradley Manning other documents

· CIDNE typed file

· IIR5

· Dooments

· DISA trickler report

· Other

· CIDNE data on the Internet

· Net Centric Diplomacy evaluation document

The defense raised no objection.

[ Note: because this section moved so quickly and I’m not sure I got everything down, here are notes that another individual in the room got:

U.S. presents documents:

IA Exam

IA Training Requirement

IA Virtual Training #2

Test Results

Al Qaida recruiting video

Al Qaida & the Arabian Peninsula Magazine

Enemy #1 Possession Evidence

Redacted [is this part of the ID? Don’t know.]

Metadata display

Forensically Discovered Material

Continuing w/ Misc. Docs:

3C Documents

Pfc. Manning’s Work Product – IED Storyboard

Range – Storyboard

I-I-R

SIPRnet email

SIPRnet email

Afghanistan war log posted by Wikileaks

Under Pfc. 1st Class Documents

SIDNE [types fire?]

Under defence system agency documents

[something] report

US no longer wants you to consider [mentions something].

SIDNE [missed]

Net-centric diplomacy documents

IO: Objection from defense?

DEFENSE: No.]

 

Antonio Patrick Edwards

1:53 PM Next the prosecution called Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards. He was sworn in and warned against exposing classified information without informing Almanza. Edwards had been an investigator for CCIU with Army CID for a little over 3.5 years. He’d been in law enforcement for about 12 years. His training included digital forensic examiner training, including the use of EnCase.

On May 25 he received an email from Jack Hooper [Sp? Please email me quick if you know the right spelling! [email protected]]. Hooper stated that he was aware of someone speaking to a US army analyst who was speaking to an Australian involved with WikiLeaks.

Edwards met Lamo on June 11, 2010 in Sacramento, CA. The purpose of this visit was to collect evidence of the chat logs alluded to in the email. He was able to collect a removable hard drive and a mini laptop with hard drive installed. He also collected 2 thumb drives but stated that he didn’t get these directly from Lamo but rather from another individual named George W. Shreik (sp?). The chat logs had been provided to Shreik in this matter.

Edwards testified that Lamo had been a confidential informant in the past. CID had not paid him any money other than reasonable expense reimbursement. There was no other compensation. There was no belief that Lamo was providing information in order to have expenses reimbursed.

Edwards said that Lamo is not currently a confidential informant. And he clarified that the expenses reimbursed were for a hard drive – since the government took Lamo’s hard drive, they provided him with a new one so he would have a working computer. Edwards stated that during the conversations with BradAss87, Lamo was not operating as a confidential informant.

At this point the prosecution sat down without further questions and Blouchard came forward to questions Edwards.

Under questioning by Blouchard, Edwards restated that Lamo had previously served as a confidential information. That began in July 2010 and ended about 3 or 4 months ago. He stated that they had acquired two computers from Lamo – a hard drive and a computer with hard drive installed. They did not have a search warrant, but they did have consent from Lamo. The consent they received was for communications with BradAss87.

Under questioning, Edwards explained that he was aware of Danny Clark. He ad attempted to interview him between approximately June 18-23, 2010. Edwards was not able to interview Clark because Clark invoked his right to counsel. Clark had communicated with Lamo, and Edwards had gotten the chat log from Lamo. It was provided to Edwards around July 22nd.

Blouchard asked if anyone from law enforcement had directed Lamo to communicate with Clark. Edwards responded that Lamo had been given no specific guidance, but that if Lamo found something useful he should tell law enforcement about it. Lamo realized other individuals were involved and he was active in the community.

In regards to whether Lamo was encouraged to communicate with Clark, Edwards paraphrased his prior answer about not providing Lamo with specific direction but that if something useful turned up then yes of could they would be interested in Mr. Clark. But “tread lightly” and “don’t do anything that would be illegal.”

Edwards noted that his first telephonic introduction to Lamo was May 25 2010. He noted that they communicated little between May 25 and the June meeting except to set up details for he in person meeting.

The defense was finished and Edwards was permanently excused.

 

Adrian Lamo

At 2:05 PM, Adrian Lamo entered the room. He wore one black glove on his left hand and in that gloved hand he was carrying another glove. He had a round pin on his dark blue coat jacket that I could not make out. He removed his glove in order to be sworn in. When asked to be seated, he said “That I shall.” He had a uniquely robotic affect. He has a habit of squinting his eyes together intensely (perhaps a nervous tic?), often several times in a row.

The prosecution began to ask Lamo when he had first come into contact with Manning, but the defense intervened and asked that the questions be limited to when Lamo first was in contact with the moniker BradAss87.

The government rephrased its question to find out when Lamo was first in contact with BradAss87. Lamo explained that there was a series of email, one of which was tied to the 10th Mountain Division. He noted the name on the emails was Bradley Manning. Some were Manning’s .mil address (Lamo didn’t remember the specific email address) and some were from bradley.e.manning@gmail.comLamo received encrypted emails from this individual and responded suggesting they chat on AIM. The encrypted emails he received were unreadable because they had been encyphered using an outdated key.

On May 20, BradAss87 sent him an encrypted message using Off The Record (OTR) chat. Lamo was unable to speculate as to why this chat was encrypted. As to why he uses encrypted chat, Lamo stated that “I use it because I value my privacy as a citizen and desire my communications to be private.”

Lamo noted that he identified Manning when he asked BradAss87 if he used Facebook. The individual replied affirmatively but said his privacy settings had been adjusted so that Lamo wouldn’t be able to search for him. Lamo subsequently received a friend request from a Facebook profile called “Bradley Manning” He testified that he was also able to subsequently identify Manning when Manning provided him with his Army Knowledge Online username and password. He stated that he knew Manning had friended him on Facebook based on the historical content on the wall, the photos, the demographics [might have listed another thing or two]. Lamo stated that he did not log onto Army Knowledge Online because that would have been a crime.

Lamo was asked why he verified Manning and he gave a response indicating he had become suspicious or dubious of whether the person he was chatting with was for real. [I found his explanation a bit muddled and had a hard time writing it down.] He was then asked how many days he had chatted with BradAss87, and he stated it was from May 20th to May 26th.

During this time, the encryption key did not change and the moniker stayed consistent.

Lamo then testified that Special Agent Tony Edwards had responded to his initial [inquiries]. Edwards came to Sacramento to interview him. Lamo provided him with one 500GB hard drive. He also provided him with a netbook and two thumb drives, though Lamo didn’t remember their size.

The prosecution asked Lamo to clarify whether he had given the thumb drives to Edwards or to military intelligence. Lamo was uncertain, he’d had trouble distinguishing the agencies at that point.

Lamo testified that that chat logs he provided were unaltered and unmanipulated.

Lamo testified that he was aware of Jason Katz’s name and certain circumstances about his life and times. He had been informed through a third party that Katz was [involved in the decryption of the Granai video] and was using “using federally funded lab resources to do so.”

When asked if he had Aspergers, Lamo stated that “I have been diagnosed thus.” However, Lamo stated that Aspergers did not affect his memory. He also admitted to a history of drug use. But he stated that in May 2010 he had been successfully treated. When asked about his drug use during January 2010, he stated that his usage was consistent with what it was in May 2010 and also what it is today.

Lamo had agreed to be a source for the media. He stated he had done so because when a story is evolving it is necessary to stay ahead of a story “to ensure the facts remain correct.”

He reiterated that he had not received any compensation from CID other than expenses.

The prosecution at this time had no further questions. David Coombs stood for his cross examination of Lamo at 2:17 PM.

Upon questioning by Coombs, Lamo noted that he was a convicted felon. In [the] 2000[s], he had committed a string of hacks and then in 2004 he pleaded guilty to computer fraud. He was sentences to 6 months house arrest and 2 years probation. Lamo thought it might have been 2.5 years probation but wasn’t certain. He was also ordered to pay restitution.

Around this time, Lamo started suffering from depression. He confirmed that he began overmedication with prescription drugs, and his parents became concerned.

In April 2010, Lamo was involuntarily institutionalized after he called the police. He stated that he had called the police due to a dispute over possession of his medications, which he clarified through questioning to mean he thought someone had stolen his medicine and his backpack. He was then institutionalized for 72 hours in a psychiatric hold. Lamo then voluntarily extended that stay for 9 days.

On May 7, 2010 Lamo was discharged. Asked how he makes a living now, Lamo reported that he did computer-related odd jobs but had no full time employment.

Lamo stated that he had not received an immunity agreement from law enforcement in exchange for testifying. He stated that he had received no benefit from providing testimony. He stated that he was “here to ensure the truth is presented.”

At this point, the prosecution stood and asked for a sudden conference. It was 2:23 PM. The attorneys retreated to the back room for a meeting with the investigating officer, while Manning and Lamo remained int he court room. Lamo sat in the jury box, peering over in the direction of the gallery.

At 2:30 PMwe reconvened. Coombs continued with his questioning of Lamo.

Lamo stated that he first received an encrypted email on 20 May 10. [This is what I have in my notes but I’m skeptical of it so flagging it. Did anyone else get this date down? email me.] Coombs asked if it was about an 8 email exchange, and Lamo said he wasn’t certain. Lamo said he never read any of the email he received. He stated that the bulk of the emails were encrypted in a way he couldn’t decipher so he was unable to read the emails.

The IM exchanges began on 20 May 10. Lamo initially suggested it. The chats lasted for 5 [not certain why this isn’t 6] days and ended on 26 May. At the time, Lamo was living with his parents. On 21 May 10, a day after the chats started, Lamo decided to contact the army through an intermediary. He then contacted Timothy Webster, a UC Santa Barbara psychology student who had previously been in the army. Lamo asked his friend to find out who in the army CID would be able to handle this the right way and in a sensitive manner. In other words, within one day of starting the chats, Lamo had decided to contact law enforcement.

Lamo testified that he exchanged an instance message conversation with Danny Clark on 21 July 10. Lamo initiated the chat out of curiosity about Clark’s role in the WikiLeaks affair. In the chat session, Lamo stated “let’s just agree that neither of us is going to share these logs.” However, hen Lamo did decide to share the logs with law enforcement. Asked whether that was the purpsoe of the entire conversation, Lamo didn’t really answer, then said no.

Coombs asked if, basically, law enforcement had told Lamo to essentially keep his ear to the ground. Lamo replied that he was instructed to let them know if he saw or heard anything.

In another line from the chat, Lamo stated “For what it’s worth, I’m not working with the guys out pounding on doors.” Coombs questioned his line, nothing that in fact Lamo had emailed the chat records to Edwards. Lamo responded that “I was not at that time pounding on any doors.” That was the distinction for Lamo.

Coombs asked what in the complete chat with Clark had made Lamo want to give it to law enforcement. Lamo stated that he found it unusual that an individual would give additional assistance to someone in the military in installing additional encryption software. [Note: this isn’t a direct quote]

At 2:39 PM, Coombs handed Lamo a stack of stapled together papers. He asked Lamo to look through them carefully. Lamo stated that he recognized the cover then, at Coomb’s urging, carefully reviewed the documents, spending time examining most pages. He squinted his eyes intensely and frequently. Finally, Lamo stated that a reasonable person would conclude that these were the logs of someone between Lamo and someone who identified themselves repeatedly at Bradley Manning. And, in fact, Lamo would conclude that as well.

Then Coombs asked Lamo to locate different sections by time stamp and verify what was said there. After a while, he asked Lamo to start reading the sections. I tried to get as much as I could. I urge readers to refer to the fullchatlogs for exact wording.

Page (p) 8, time 12:46:17 PM Lamo: How long have you helped WikiLeaks

p9 1:48:50 PM Give me some bona fides, you know. Any specifics?

(a bit later)

Anything unreleased?

Coombs clarified with Lamo that this section was checking to see if there was anything that Manning had that was unreleased.

p 14 7:26:47 [AM?] Is there a Baghdad 2600 meeting?

7:28:41 AM [missed part of this] pokes around on the network?

p [15?] 7:30:09 AM Then is stands to reason that you have at least 3 people with some infosec knowledge?

Coombs clarified and Lamo agreed that this line of questioning was to determine if others were working with Manning.

p 25

02:48:52 PM How long between leak and publication?

02:50:04 PM Uploaded where? How would I upload something if [missed].

2:54:53 PM Submission where?

2:56:53 PM How does he preference work?

Coombs then clarified and Lamo agreed that the purpose of this questioning was to determine how information was shared with WikiLeaks. Then Coombs made the point that, as a computer savvy individual, Lamo likely knew all of this stuff already. Lamo responded that every system was a little unique and there were no general ways [ to upload things].

p32

02:13:12 AM Would the cables come from State?

04:14:36 AM [missed this question]

p 33

02:16:10 AM So how do you [deploy[ the cables if at all

[missed timestamp]

What your end game plan then?

Coombs asked if the purpose of this line of questioning was in order to elicit information about what he did. Lamo stated that it was so he could better understand what was done, and that he had already decided to go to law enforcement at this point.

p 36

301:56:36 PM From a professional perspective, I’m curious how the server was insecure.

Coombs asked what the purpose of this question was. Lamo replied “I was asking these questions out of curiosity.” He then elaborated, nothing that there was much evidence to show that “I am a curious individual.”

“A curious individual working with law enforcement?” asked Coombs.

“Ultimately, yes,” Lamo responded.

[missed time stamp]

Hey can you torrent from there?

Coombs asked Lamo to explain bit torrent, then asked why Lamo had asked the question. Lamo didn’t recall why he asked the question. Lamo did note that Bit Torrent would not be a first choice for exchanging classified data. Coombs asked if he intended the question to share with law enforcement, and Lamo responded yes in the sense that the logs as a whole were meant to share with law enforcement.

p 45 04:45:20 Or a spy? 🙂

Coombs then asked Lamo to read the prior statements, which were [not exact quote] I’m not sure where I’d be a tupe of hacker, cracker, leaker or whatever. I’m just me, really. Starts off like every physics [missed].

Coombs clarified that this was all out of curiosity? Lamo confirmed, but also confirmed that yes he was working with law enforcement at the time he asked the question. [That’s what I have in my notes! Let me know asap if you have something else here.}

Coombs asked if Lamo considered himself a reporter and Lamo confirmed he did. Lamo acknowledged that there was an obligation to protect sources that elect to be confidential but that sources that don’t elect to be confidential do not get protection, which is why we have quotes in the newspaper.

Coombs then drew Lamo’s attention to a quote on pg 2 where Lamo proclaimed himself to be a journalist and a minister and that BradAss87 would have a modicum of legal protection as a result.

Lamo acknowledged he had said that but argued that BradAss87 had failed to affirmatively accept the protection. Lamo also acknowledged, finally after the investigating officer interceded and asked him to answer the question, that no where in the chat did BradAss87 affirmatively decline the offer for journalists privilege.

Coombs directed Lamo to page 7 of the chat logs, where Lamo asked: want to do to the press? 🙂 BradAss87’s response was: No. There’s an issue with that.

p 10

1:55:10 [PM or AM not noted] I told you none of this is for print.

1:55:16 BradAss87 response: OK OK

Coombs then clarified with Lamo that in fact these chat logs had been provided to law enforcement and to Wired Magazine. Lamo acknowledged this but stated that it was “not for print by me.” Coombs asked if Lamo thought that Wired wouldn’t do anything with it, and Lamo stated that he gave the logs to Wired because he was concerned that he wouldn’t be coming back from his meeting with the feds.

Coombs then asked Lamo to explain why someone would use Off the Record chat. Lamo couldn’t speak to why anyone would use it. Coombs asked if OTR was used to keep conversation confidential and Lamo replied affirmatively. Lamo testified that there was no specific agreement for these chats to be private. But he knew that this was a sensitive subject.

Coombs asked if Lamo thought BradAss87 was coming to him for moral support. Lamo acknowledged that this may have been one aspect of the conversation. Coombs asked if BradAss87 may have come to him for emotional support, and Lamo acknowledged that was a possibility. Coombs asked if perhaps BradAss87 was seeking guidance from Lamo. Lamo felt that it was not so much looking for guidance as much as bragging.

Under questioning, Lamo testified that he considered himself a minister. He was with the Universal Life Church. He acknowledged that at one point in the chat he had told BradAss87 that he could treat this conversation like a confession. He also acknowledged that at one point in the chat, BradAss87 stated they were seeking moral and emotional support. At some point in this exchange, Lamo tried to point out that BradAss87 was a humanist.

Then Coombs asked if someone “might come to a minister as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience?” Lamo struggled to answer this questioning. Finally, after the investigating officer interceded to ask Coombs to break it down into a non-compound sentence, Coombs broke it into two sentences: could someone come to a minister as a formal act of religion, and then in a separate question could someone come to a minister as a matter of conscience? Lamo replied affirmatively to both.

Coombs sat down and we then had a very quick break. It was 3:11 PM.

The prosecution that had a couple of clarifying questions. Upon questioning, Lamo testified that the first person he reached out to was Timothy Douglas Webster, who was a student at US Santa Barbara. Lamo struggled to answer about the first time he met an army CID individual (he wasn’t sure which was army CID v. other types of law enforcement). He was asked then when the first time he met law enforcement was. He thought it was May 23 or May 24th, but wasn’t sure and didn’t have it marked on a calendar. Asked if there was something that would jog his memory of the date, Lamo stated that he would remember if there was a record of such as meeting. The prosecution had a quick meeting among themselves and then said they had no more questions.

At this point, Lamo was permanently excused.

We then had a 10 minute break.

David Shaver

At 3:29 PM, the prosecution called back David Shaver and reminded him that he was still under oath. Shaver testified that he had examined both of the computers from Lamo and that he had imaged them and verified the images himself. He had a limited search scope – only to look for communications between BradAss87 and Lamo.

On the Windows machine, he found 4 chat logs with Lamo and BradAss87.

On the Linux machine, he found several copies of the chat logs slightly modified to be akin to the versions given to the media.

He compared the logs on Lamo’s computer to the ones on Manning’s computer. He stated that at some point [did not specify when] chat logging had been enabled, and after that point the logs matched up except that sometimes there were network connectivity issues.

The prosecution had no further questions. The defense declined to cross examine.

At last, Shaver was permanently excused.

Troy Bettencourt

3:32 PM The prosecution then called in Troy Bettencourt again. Bettencourt was reminded that he was still under oath.

Bettencourt spent an extensive amount of time explaining what phishing was, and then explained what spear phishing was. He noted that spear phishing was more targeted but necessitated having intelligence about the victim. It was most effective that phishing. He mostly referred to banking and financial examples. He noted that spear phishing often targeted for financial resons.

Bettencourt was then asked if WikiLeaks had ever indicated how they valued their information. Over an objection from the defense that this was hearsay, Bettencourt noted that some individuals had left WikiLeaks and had reported that Julian Assange had asked them to sign a nondisclosure agreement that valued WikiLeaks’ information at 12 million pounds.

There was no cross examination from the defense. The investigating officer then asked a clarifying question – whether the 12 millions pounds referred to everything WikiLeaks had or just a portion of it. Bettencourt said it was everything.

Bettencourt was then permanently excused.

The prosecution stated that it had no further witnesses and no additional evidence to present.

The investigating officer confirmed that the defense would present its witnesses the following day beginning at 9:00AM.

_______

Note: This concludes my coverage of the Manning pretrial hearing. We are sending in different representatives from the Bradley Manning Support Network to cover the last of the proceedings. I will continue to note suggested revisions and additions as they are sent to me. If you have taken notes of the proceedings and would like your notes published here, please contact me at Rainey@bradleymanning.org

We believe it is critical that Manning’s court martial and pre-trial be open to public scrutiny and media coverage. Denied recording equipment or an official transcript, we are doing everything in our power to make sure a comprehensive public record of these events is created. Please let us know if you can assist in this endeavor during the court martial.

Resources:

Article 15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment

Combined Information Data Network Exchange http://www.issinc.com/programs/cidne.html

News Coverage:

Bradley Manning hearing – Tuesday 20 December 2011 as it happened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/20/bradleymanninghearingliveupdates?newsfeed=true

Last Witness for Military Takes Stand in Leak Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us/governmentslastwitnesstakesstandatbradleymanninghearing.html?_r=1

Witness in WikiLeaks case says Manning confessed to him
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-manning-hearing-20111221,0,3065361.story

4 thoughts on “Day 5 of Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing: In-depth notes from the Art. 32 courtroom

  1. War is the illusion that force can overcome evil, provided it is more deadly and brutal then evil.

    “You have read that it was spoken…
    ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ I now say to
    you, Do not use force to overcome evil. Instead,
    whenever you are slapped on the right cheek,
    turn to them the other.”

  2. War represents only death in intent and result. All acts of war prove that it is greed and desire for power that is the ultimate evil.

  3. The NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) he signed stated that unauthorised intentional release of classified material is a felony. No mater how you look at it he did just that and should be punished accordingly. as far as the helicopter video there are multiple channels he could have sent that up that are in place for checks and balances. He was obviously not concerned with catching flack from reporting this video. so no mater how you look at it he has broken the law and will be punished for his crimes. A hero would have sent the video up all the proper channels which does include several civilian groups so they do not report to the Army.

    • I have to disagree.

      Nothing Manning released was “top secret”, and yet the government has leaked classified information to major news outlets. Why are they never prosecuted or even investigated?

      Bradley Manning did complain and use other channels. He was ignored. WikiLeaks may have been his (or whoever leaked the informations) best option. Was he concerned about catching flack? If the chat logs released by Wired are real – then yes he was concerned, he just felt there was no other way – he wanted people to see what was going on. Again, this is as pure a case of whistle-blowing (which yes, by definition involves breaking certain rules to expose far worse crimes).

      You admit the video should have been released, so why is no one being charged for trying to keep it secret? you shouldn’t be able to classify a document to cover-up war crimes.

      Beyond that, the Collateral Murder video was only one important piece of information leaked. I suggest you read the post “What WikiLeaks” revealed” to learn more about the actual leaks.

      This is a clearcut case of whistle-blowing, and should be treated accordingly. When Bradley Manning was deemed guilty by Obama, it was certainly “undue command influence”, and its effect is demonstrated in arguments like yours. You have judged Bradley Manning guilty without ever going to trial. When Obama made that statement, it made it impossible for most military persons to think otherwise. Too many members of the military have forgotten that people are innocent until proven guilty – even under the uniform code of military justice.

      The people responsible for treating Bradley Manning so brutally should also be charged. As PJ Crowley stated, Bradley’s treatment has been “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid”. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/pj_crowley). Given this treatment, a fair trial is impossible, and Bradley Manning should be released.

      He is a hero, and no threat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *