US Army
PFC Bradley Manning
By Army
PFC Bradley Manning
Read to
Judge Denise Lind, Fort Meade courtroom, February 28, 2013
Transcript
by the Bradley Manning Support Network. (Scroll down for
acknowledgements.)
I wrote
this statement in confinement, so… The following facts are provided in support
of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley
E. Manning.
I am a
25-year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison—USAG, Joint Base
Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia. Prior to this assignment, I was
assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum,
New York. My primary military occupational specialty or PMOS is 35 fox-trot:
intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I
enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real-world experience and earning
benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.
Facts
Regarding My Position as an Intelligence Analyst
In order
to enlist in the army, I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or
ASAB. My score [unavailable] was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted
MOS position. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that
complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him I was
interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested I
consider becoming an intelligence analyst. After researching the intelligence
analyst position, I agreed this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I
enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety
of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available
choices for determining the best course of action or COAs. Although the MOS
required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider
how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources
in order to create products that assisted the command in its situational
awareness or SA.
I
assessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer
skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I
reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October
2007. I then traveled to—and reported at—Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 2
October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT.
Once at
Fort Leonard Wood, I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor
mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience
lasted six months instead of the normal 10 weeks. Due to medical issues, I was
placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained
injuries to my right shoulder and left foot. Due to those injuries I was unable
to continue basic. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out
processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt
that I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 20 January
2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared, and
I completed training on 2 April 2008.
Then I
reported for the MOS specific Advances Individual Training or AIT on 7 April
2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training, where I
felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in well. I preferred the mental
challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and
trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the
practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods that
I was familiar with.
I
graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station,
Fort Drum, NY, on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or
SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work
products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at
Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use tools, such as the
Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work
products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command. The non-commissioned
officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P.
Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool
abandoned by a previously assigned analyst—the incident tracker. The incident
tracker was viewed as a back-up to the Combined Information Data Network
Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference.
In the
months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of
the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were
from Afghanistan because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the
Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to
deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan
SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.
As and
analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared
by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs giae a first look impression of a
specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device
attack or IED, small-arms fire engagement or SAF engagement with a hostile
force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time.
In my perspective, the information contained within a single SigAct or group of
SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs
involve either enemy engagements or casualties. Most of this information is
publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or
host-nation—HN—media.
As I
started working with SigActs, I felt they were similar to a daily journal or
log that a person may keep. They capture what happens on a particular day in
time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated
over a period of hours until final version is published on the CIDNE [Combined
Information Data Network Exchange]. Each unit has its own Standard Operating
Procedure or SOP for reporting recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between
reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison. In a garrison a
SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence
or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury
of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the
battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.
In a
deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a
platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the
company headquarters and the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander
or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle
non-commissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle
NCO receives the report they will either 1) notify the battalion operations
officer or S3; 2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force;
or 3) record the event and report and further report it up the chain of command
to the brigade.
The
reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior
enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent
up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can either be
added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and
reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and
SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division
to corp. At corp level the SigAct is finalized and [cataloged?].
The CIDNE
system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of
Defense–DoD—personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors. It was the
United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational
reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were
maintained for each theater: CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each
database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical
information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized
directories including operational intelligence reporting.
CIDNE was
created to collect and analyze battle data to provide daily operational and
Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander’s daily decision
making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and
analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT
reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, counter
improvised explosive device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, targeting reports,
social and cultural reports, civil affairs reports, and human terrain reports.
As an
intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A
databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within
the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct
reports and Counter IED reports because these reports were used to create a
work product I was required to published as an analyst. In working on an
assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source
analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases
built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was the search
tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD
and Intellink search engines. Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using
the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a
back-up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data
including SigActs to back-up analyses that were based on HUMINT reporting and
produce charts, graphs, and tables. I also created maps and charts to conduct
predictive analysis based on statistical trends.
The
SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided
myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcomes.
Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their
sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is
either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not
in danger. It was my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified
only because they are maintained within CIDNE because it is only accessible on
SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was
treated as classified information.
Facts
Regarding the Storage of SigAct Reports
As part of
my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back-ups of
my work product. The need to create back-ups was particularly acute given the
relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the
field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and
theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.
The
organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were
Dell laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alien-ware brand laptops. The D6-A
laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had
fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware
laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical
problems with the laptops.
With
these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information
due to the multiple back-ups I created. I attempted to back-up as much relevant
information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another
analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet
connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored. When backing up
information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training:
1)
Physical back-up. I tried to keep physical back-up copies of information on
paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to
brief with hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.
2) Local
drive back-up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and kept
complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the
Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my
primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on
the desktop.
3) Shared
drive backup. Each analyst had access to what we call a T-drive, shared across
the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. The
S6 operated the T-drive.
4)
Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back-up. For larger data sets I saved the
information onto a rewritable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the
conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy allowed us to not worry about
information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information
from a secondary computer, the T-drive, or one of the CD-RWs. If another
analysts wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my
published products directory on the T-drive or on the CD-RWs. I sorted all of
my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information
on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was
available to them.
During
the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever one
computer crashed, I lost information but the redundancy method ensured my
ability to quickly restore old back-up data and add current information to the
machine when it was repaired or replaced.
I stored
the back-up CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or
next to a workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level
and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type
and were not marked with classification markings.
Early on
in the deployment, I only saved and stored SigActs that were within or near
operational environment. Later, I thought it would be easier to just to save
all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to
complete, and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CD-RW. After
finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I
and CIDNE-A SigActs, I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed
it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to
pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open up a pre-loaded
spreadsheet.
This
process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I
could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the
background as I did other tasks. The process took approximately a week for each
table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by
pulling the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into
the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded
copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on
appropriately labeled and marked CD-RW, stored in the open.
I viewed
saving copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A as for both for my use and the use of
anyone within S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.
In
addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and
Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports relevant
to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and
the Diyala Province of Iraq.
In order
to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called
‘bzip2′. The program used to compress the data is called ‘WinRAR’. WinRAR is an
application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via
the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR
on NIPRnet and transfered it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a
CD-RW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my
SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.
With the
assistance of the bzip2 algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit
all of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter ID
reports onto a separate CD-RW.
Facts
Regarding My Knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization (WLO)
I first
became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona,
although I did not fully pay attention until WLO released purported Short
Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At
that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily
Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.
The
stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I
then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were
very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.
After
this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searched on both NIPRnet
and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At
this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one
of my searches in December 2009. I found the United States Army Counter
Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After
reviewing the report, I believed that this report was the one that my AIT
referenced in early 2008.
I may or
may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the
document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my
primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing this report, I continued doing
research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered
information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that
indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to
exposing illegal activities and corruption.
WLO
received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also,
while reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs
for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on outdated rules of
engagement—ROE—in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam
Hussein’s government.
After
seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it
and collected open sources information from it. During this time period, I
followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as
the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including
Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to
do in AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do. During the
searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in
my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related
to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated
this information into one or more of my work products.
In
addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instant Relay
Chat or IRC Client called XChat sometime in early January 2010. IRC is a
protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing,
colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. IRC chat rooms are designed
for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a
channel, similar to a TV where you can tune in and follow a channel– as long as
it is open. Once you join a specific IRC conversation, other users in the
conversation can see you have joined the room. On the Internet there are
millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span
a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies.
My
primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity, particularly in regards
to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that
collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal. Initially, I
simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization
was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed
were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on
issues the particular individual may have felt strongly about.
Over a
period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when
conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics,
such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would
describe the WLO organization [discussions?] as almost academic in nature. In
addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC
channels across at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I
participated in normally dealt with technical topics, including with Linux and
Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS’s, networking,
encryption algorithms and techniques and other more political topics, such as
politics and current events.
I
normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously—mostly publicly
but often privately. The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple
conversations across different channels and servers. The screen for XChat was
often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I
would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.
I enjoyed
the IRC conversations pertaining to the WLO, however, at some point in late
February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible.
Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber
server. Jabber is another internet communication tool similar, more
sophisticated than IRC. The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel
connected to others even when alone. They helped pass the time and keep
motivated throughout the deployment.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the SigActs
As
indicated above, I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as
part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not
intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back-up. However,
I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believed
and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents
of our time.
On or
around 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of
the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my army combat uniform. At
the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized
Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop.
Later at
the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of
the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take
them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them. At some point
prior to my mid-tour, I transferred the information from my computer to a
Secure Digital memory card from my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also
worked on my computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure
manner for transport.
I began
mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia, to Regan
National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van
Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland, and quickly got into contact with my then
boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler—then a student at Brandeis University in
Waltham, Massachusetts—and I made plans for me to visit him him in the Boston,
Massachusetts area.
I was
excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to him about where our relationship
was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area
Tyler seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return
from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make
any plans.
I also
tried raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to
the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he
had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler really didn’t
have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be
supportive, but he seemed confused by the question in this context. Then I
tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to
explain my dilemma, I decided to drop the conversation.
After a
few days in Waltham, I began to feel I was overstaying my welcome, and returned
to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC,
area. During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic. I spent a
significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt’s house in Maryland.
I began
to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession.
For me, the SigActs represented the on-the-ground reality of the conflicts in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt that we were risking so much for people that
seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and [hatred?
anger] on both sides.
I began
to become depressed with the situation we found ourselves increasingly mired
in. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what
we were seeing on the ground. In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT
and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and
killing human targets on lists and on being suspicious of and avoiding
cooperation with our Host Nation partners, ignoring the second and third order
effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I
believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access
to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables it could
spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in
general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also
believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by
different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even
the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency
operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the
affected environment everyday.
At my
aunt’s house I debated what I should do with the SigActs, in particular whether
I should hold on to them or disclose them to a press agency. At this point I decided
that it made sense to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I
first called my local newspaper, The Washington Post, and spoke
with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington
Post would be interested in receiving information that would have
enormous value to the American public. Although we spoke for about five minutes
concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me
seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would
possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the
information I was referring to and after consideration by the senior editors.
I then
decided to contact the largest and most popular newspaper, The New York
Times. I called the public editor number on the New York Times website.
The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu section
for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I
had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very
important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email
address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.
I also
briefly considered dropping into the office for the political commentary blog
Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to
travel. After these failed efforts I ultimately decided to submit the materials
to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would even actually publish the SigAct
tables. I was concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media.
However, based upon what I had read about the WLO through my research described
above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the
world within my reach.
At my
aunt’s house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information
that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would
help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the
individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. Before I could
describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO
web site online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered
my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to
release the SigActs.
On 3
February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the
submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and
decided to submit the SigActs via the router or TOR anonymizing network by
special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The
software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR
clients to conceal the user’s location and identity.
I was
familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously
monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central
Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I
and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to
provide the documents to theWashington Post. I provided rough guidelines
saying, “It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You
might need to sit on this information—perhaps 90 to 100 days—to figure out how
best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is
possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of
war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare.
Have a good day.”
After
sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the
event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11
February 2010. Although the information had not yet been published by the WLO,
I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished
something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen
and what I had read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan
everyday.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13
I first
became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in the AIT. I
later learned about the Department of State or DoS netcentric Diplomacy NCD
portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2, Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim
sent a section-wide email to the other analysts and officer in late December
2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal, along with the instructions to
look at the cables contained within them and incorporate them into our work
product.
Shortly
after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in
products from the corp level US Forces Iraq or US-I. Based on Captain Lim’s
direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every
published cable concerning Iraq.
I also
began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my
curiosity. It was around this time, in early to mid-January of 2010, that I
began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in
Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an
issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but
it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This
is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland to find
out more.
At the
time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or
indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned
that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland’s
banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy
involved the UK’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to
freeze Icelandic access for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that
lost money.
Shortly
after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy
portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not
abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the
cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.
The
cable, published on 13 January 2010, was just over two pages in length. I read
the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied
diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland
was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the
quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do
anything.
From my
perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of
long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10
Reykjavik 13 I debated whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At
this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNE-I or
CIDNE-A tables. Despite not knowing if the SigActs were a priority for the WLO,
I decided the cable was something that could be important. I felt that I might
be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the
information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it
on my personal laptop.
I
navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the
document via the secure form. Amazingly, the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13
within hours, proving the form worked and that they must have received the
SigAct tables.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the 12 July 2007 Aerial
Weapons Team (AWT) Video
During
the mid-February 2010 time-frame, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain
Division targeting analysts, then Specialist [Jihrleah?] W. Showman and others
discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the T-drive.
The video
depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first
I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other
“war porn”-type videos depicting combat. However, the recording and audio
comments by the aerial weapons team and the second engagement in the video of
an unarmed bongo truck troubled me. As Showman and a few other analysts and
officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew
violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away
from this debate, and decided to conduct some research on the event. I wanted
to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of
the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.
Using
Google I searched for the event by date by its general location. I found
several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the
aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained how Reuters had
requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA.
Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and
to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters
was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the re-occurrence of the tragedy
and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the
video.
Despite
the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM
replied to Reuters, stating that they could not give a time frame for
considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another
story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still
pursuing the request, they still did not receive a formal response or written
determination in accordance with FOIA.
The fact
neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily
release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event
happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters
employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were
merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a
threat but merely “good Samaritans.” The most alarming aspect of the video to
me, however, was the seemly delightful blood-lust the Aerial Weapons Team
seemed to have.
They
dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human
life, and referred to them as quote-unquote “dead bastards,” and congratulated
each other on their ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video
there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The
individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to
the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the
wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For
me, this seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.
While
saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I
was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the
scene. In the video, you can see a bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded
individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew assumes the individuals
are a threat. They repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo
truck, and once granted, they engage the vehicle at least six times.
Shortly
after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene.
Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the
van. Despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay
the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for
bringing their kids into a battle.”
The
aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children
or the parents. Later, in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons
team crew vocalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles
driving over one of the bodies.
As I
continued my research, I found an article discussing a book, The Good
Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.
In Mr.
Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As I read an
online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event
belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel
verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.
It is
clear to me Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his
tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the
incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow
justified as payback for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier.
Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds
an individual still alive from the attack. He writes the soldier finds him and
sees him gesture with his two forefingers together—a common method in the
Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of
assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture with his middle finger.
The
individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think
of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then quickly finds he
needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he
continues to express his friendly intent only to find himself receiving this
well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess. I was left
wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me
emotionally.
I saved a
copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of
engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007
time period, as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from
2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW at the same
time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the
video and rules for engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I
planned to keep this information there until I re-deployed in Summer 2010. I
planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in
preventing events such as this in the future.
However,
after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13, I altered my plans. I decided to
provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would
have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February
2010, as described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the
documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was
concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the
general public. I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the
conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public
to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to
be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure
cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was
encouraged by the response in the media and general public who observed the
aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled—if not more
troubled—that me by what they saw.
At this
time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense an CENTCOM
could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my
supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not
authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the
video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed
Captain Fulton a link to the video that was on our T-drive, and a copy of the
video published by WLO that was collected by the open source center so she
could compare them herself.
Around
this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team
video. In order to make it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker
and wrote “Reuters FOIA Req” on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my
personal CD cases containing a set of “Starting Out in Arabic” CDs. I planned
on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our re-deployment so they could have
a copy that was unquestionably authentic.
Almost
immediately after submitting the air weapons team video and rules of engagement
documents, I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important
submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of
“Office.” At first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as
our conversations progressed, I assessed this individual to be an important
part of the WLO. Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never
exchanged identifying information, however, I believe the individual was likely
Mr. Julian Assange [pronounced "Ah-sang-hee"], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or
a proxy representative of Mr. Assange ["Ah-sang-hee"] and Schmidt. As
the communications transferred from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave “Office” and
later “Press Association” the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after
the author of a book I read in 2009.
After a
period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with
Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our
conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as
an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel
after work. The anonymity provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO’s
policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of
social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life.
In real
life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section,
the S2 section. In my section, the S2 section supported battalions and the 2nd
Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my
roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation.
Over the
next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on
nearly a daily basis, and I felt we were developing a friendship. The
conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about
pretty much everything—not just the publications that the WLO was working on.
In retrospect, I realize that these dynamics were artificial and were valued
more by myself than Nathaniel. For me, these conversations represented an
opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced
and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit
in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose the respect, trust,
and support I needed.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of Documents Related to the
Detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, Detainee Assessment Briefs and
the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report:
On 27
February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report
described an event in which the Federal Police, or FP, detained 15 individuals
for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions
from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain
Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter and figure
out who the quote “bad guys” unquote were and how significant this event was
for the Federal Police.
Over the
course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to
anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I
received several photos from the scene from the subordinate battalion. They
were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team in the S2 section, and
she forwarded them to me.
These
photos included picture of the individuals, [pallets?] of unprinted paper and
seized copies of the final, printed document, and a high-resolution photo of
the printed material itself. I printed out one copy of a high resolution photo.
I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and
delivered the laminated copy to our Category 2 interpreter.
She
reviewed the information and about a half and hour later delivered a rough
written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and
followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was
easy for her to transcribe verbatim since I blew up the photograph and
laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The
document, as I had assessed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the
then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
It
detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the
financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this
discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s
transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The
top OIC and the [unavailable] battle captain informed me they didn’t want or
need to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote
and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out where more of
these print shops creating quote “anti-Iraqi literature” unquote might be.
I
couldn’t believe what I heard, and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to
the other analysts in my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were
sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.
I am the
type of person who likes to know how things work, and as an analyst, this means
I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or
other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with
just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie-cutter assessments.
I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct
or mitigate the situation.
I knew if
I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political
opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in
the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely
tortured and not seen again for a very long time—if ever.
Instead
of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take
the information and expose it to the WLO, before the upcoming 7 March 2010
election, hoping they could generate some immediate press on the issue and
prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in
political opponents of al-Maliki. On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the
photos, the high-resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreter’s hand-written
transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW [... copies to his personal
computer]. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information
through the submission form, I used a Secure File Transfer Protocol, or SFTP
connection, to a [cloud? file?] drop box operated by the WLO. The drop box
contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files
into this directory allowed me or anyone with log-in access to server to view
and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I
notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO
needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or
to gain interest in the international media.
I
attempted to provide the specifics but to my disappointment, the WLO website
chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting
through information from … SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or
JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me, although unlikely … the individual
detained by the Federal Police might be turned over into US custody, ending up
in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
As I
digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly
found the Detainee Assessment Briefs, or DABs. I previously came across the
documents before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time
I was more curious in this search and I found them again.
The DABs
were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander of
US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic background information about detainees
held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been
interested in the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint
Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to
detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and
our allies, however, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we
found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that
we believed or knew to be innocent, low-level foot soldiers that did not have
useful intelligence and would’ve been released if they were held in theater.
I also
recall that in early 2009 the then newly elected president, Barack Obama,
stated he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility
compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote-unquote “moral
authority.” After familiarizing myself with the DABs, I agreed.
Reading
through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed they were not analytical
products. Instead they contained summaries of [unavailable] versions of interim
intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained
names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIRs. Since
the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed they were
intended to provide general background information on each detainee—not a
detailed assessment.
In
addition to the manner [in which] the DABs were written, I recognized they were
at least several years old, discussing detainees already released from Joint
Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very
important from either an intelligence or national security standpoint. On 7
March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he
thought the DABs might be of any use to anyone. Nathaniel indicated although he
did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that
they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what
occurred at JTF Guantanamo. He also thought the DABs might be helpful to the
legal counsel of those currently or previously held at Gitmo.
After this
discussion, I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget
to download the DABs. I downloaded Wget off the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF,
like other programs. I saved that on a CD-RW and placed the executable in my
documents directory on my user profile for the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.
On 7
March 2010, I took a list of links for the DABs, and used Wget to download them
sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and
copied them onto my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee
Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center
reports on the WLO into a compressed Zip file. Zip files contain multiple
files, compressed to reduce their size.
After
creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their [cloud? file?] drop box
via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified
Nathaniel this information was in the X directory, designated for my own use.
Earlier
that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO. As discussed above, I
previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the
document onto the workstation before, I could not locate it. After I found the
document again, I downloaded it to my workstation, and saved it onto the same
CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.
Although
my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to
send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report.
Up to
this point I had sent them the following:
- the CIDNE-I and -A SigActs tables
- the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable
- the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video
- the 2006-2007 Rules of Engagement documents
- the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police
- the US SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs.
- a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks website and organization.
Over next
fw weeks I did not send any additional information to WLO. I continued to
converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel.
Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with WLO
pressured me into giving more information.
The
decisions I made to send documents and information to WLO and the website were
my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Disclosure of Other Government Documents
On 22
March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course
of my normal duties as an analyst. Based on my training and the possible
guidance of my superiors, I looked at as much information as possible. Doing so
provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several
occasions throughout March, I accessed information from a government entity. I
read several documents from a section within this government entity. The
content of two of these documents upset me greatly, and I had difficulty
believing what this section was doing.
On 22
March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling and
compressed them into a zip file named “Blah.zip,” and burned them onto a CD-RW.
I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the files to my personal computer. I
uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy
Department of State Cables
In late
March 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO
website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that
the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber
conversations might decrease significantly.
During
this time, I had nothing but work to distract me. I read more of the diplomatic
cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy server. With
my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics, I became fascinated. I
read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events I found
interesting. The more I read, the more I was fascinated by the way we dealt
with other nations and organizations. I soon began to think the documented
backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity didn’t seem characteristic of
the de facto leader of the free world.
Up to
this point during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty
at work. Of the documents released, the cables were the only ones I was not
absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the
cables published on Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State
cables worked in general.
In
particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the
Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document
published by the Department of State on its official website. The document
provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling
instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings
clearly detailed the sensitivity of Department of State cables. For example,
NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and
were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
The
SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption applied only to [unavailable verbatim:
he describes information and messages "deemed appropriate for"
release and "a wide number of individuals"]. According to the
Department of State guidance, for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could
not include other captions limiting distribution.
The
SIPDIS caption was only for information [to be] shared with anyone [authorized
to] access SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, DoS,
and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact the SIPDIS
caption was for wide distribution made sense to me given how the vast majority
of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
The more
I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion this was the type of
information that should become public. I once read [unavailable] a quote on
open diplomacy written after the First World War [about how] the world would be
a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with or
against each other. I thought these cables were a prime example of the need for
more open diplomacy.
Given all
of the DoS info I read, the fact most of these cables were unclassified, and
that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believed the public release of
these cables would not damage the United States. I did believe that the
cables might be embarrassing since they represent very honest opinions and
statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations. In many ways
these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information
might make some within the DoS, and other government entities, unhappy.
On 22
March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program
Wget, described above. I used instances of the Wget application to download the
Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks,
the Net Centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April
2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them to a CD-RW.
These
cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February
2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my
personal computer, compressed them using the [bzip2?] compression algorithm
described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box.
On 3 May
2010, I used Wget to download and update cables for the months of March 2010
and April 2010. I saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a
CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later
found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. I intended to save
another copy of these cables, but was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010
after an altercation.
Facts
Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of Garani, Farah Province,
Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos
In late
March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directory on a 2009 air-strike in
Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM for information I could use as an analyst.
This is something myself and other officers did on a frequent basis. As I
reviewed the documents, I recalled the incident and what happened. The
airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern
Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage at the time as it was
reported that up to 100-150 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children, were
accidentally killed during the airstrike.
After
going through the report and annexes, I began to review the incident as being
similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq, however,
this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher
number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. The
conclusions of the report are more disturbing than those of the July 2007
incident. I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave
away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions help
explain how the incident occurred and what those involved should of done to
avoid an event like this occurring again.
After
investigating the report and annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation,
PowerPoint presentations and supporting documents to my workstation. I also
downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this
information onto a CD-RW and transfered it to the personal computer in my CHU.
Later that day or the next, I uploaded the information to the WLO website using
a new version of the submission form. Unlike other times using the submission
form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer.
Your
Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.
With this
statement, PFC Bradley Manning pled guilty to 10 lesser-included offenses,
while refusing to characterize his actions as befitting the prosecution’s
charge of aiding the enemy. This was the first time since his arrest that
Manning has publicly commented on the motives and methods of his
monumental disclosures.
This
transcript is the result of press-room note-taking from Michael McKee (writing
for Counterpunch.com) and Nathan Fuller of the Bradley Manning Support Network,
in addition to the efforts of Alexa O’Brien, whose widely circulated transcript
served as a supplemental and corroborating source. Where doubts remain
regarding an exact word or phrase, the contributors have substituted bracketed
phrasing wholly faithful to the meaning, tone and style of Manning’s verbiage.
Court
resumed at 11:06 am after a roughly 20-minute recess. Although it was unclear
ahead of time how or how much Judge Lind would allow Bradley to read from his
statement, she addresses him almost immediately after court is called to
order.