Prosecution, Defense In U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning WikiLeaks Case Make Closing Arguments

David Vergun at the Army News Service offers the below piece:

FORT MEADE, Md., July 29, 2013 - Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's release of classified material did immeasurable harm to national security and put lives at risk, the prosecutor in the soldier's court-martial here said during his closing arguments July 25. The next day though, Manning's defense attorney argued the accused was a young, naïve but well-intentioned soldier who wanted to make a difference for the better by bringing to light wrongs that were done during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Manning, now 25, was an intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2009 and 2010, working in a tactical-sensitive compartmented information facility, or T-SCIF, at Forward Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad. A SCIF is a restricted facility where secret materials are transmitted, collected and analyzed. The prosecutor, Army Maj. Ashden Fein, stated that the facts clearly pointed to Manning's culpability, while the defense, led by David Coombs, argued that the prosecution's charges amounted to "diatribes not based in facts." At the start of the trial on June 3, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 21 original charges regarding having leaked classified information to the WikiLeaks organization, which then made the documents accessible to the public on the Internet and through media outlets such as the New York Times, the United Kingdom-based The Guardian and the Germany-based Der Spiegel. Even the term "media" was argued, with the prosecution saying the WikiLeaks organization was not a legitimate news outlet and the defense arguing that it was. Despite Manning's guilty plea to 10 of the charges, prosecutors went forward with the other 11 charges against him. Those charges stated that he leaked secret documents that he clearly knew from his intelligence training to be harmful to the United States and would result in putting lives at risk. The charges to which Manning pleaded guilty could result in a maximum possible prison sentence of 20 years. The most serious of the 11 other contested charges, "aiding the enemy," could result in a life sentence if the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, finds him guilty and gives him the maximum penalty. Even if she finds Manning guilty, his sentence will be reviewed by the Military District of Washington commander, Army Maj. Gen. Jeffery S. Buchanan. Manning chose to have a trial by the judge alone, rather than a trial by a panel, which is the military's version of a jury. Manning's rigorous and thorough training as an intelligence analyst instilled in him the importance significant activities, or SIGACTS, have on whether soldiers succeed in battle, fail or are killed, said Fein, the prosecutor. Yet despite this knowledge, Manning downloaded some 470,000 SIGACTS from the SIPRNET to a memory card, which he later transferred to his home computer. Some 380,000 documents were from Iraq, and 90,000 were from Afghanistan. The SIPRNET is the military's classified section of the Internet. In addition to SIGACTS, Manning released Apache attack helicopter videos and thousands of State Department cables, Fein said. A SIGACT, he explained, could include anything from where an attack or improvised explosives device detonated to how an attack helicopter engages the enemy and numbers of casualties resulting from an ambush or IED. He said commanders decide their main supply routes, plan their battles and base other tactical decisions on SIGACTS, which are even plotted on maps to provide a clear picture of where dangers, as well as where opportunities lie. If the enemy gets these SIGACTS, they will have access to the Army's "playbook" and can then deduce the tactics, techniques and procedures, or TTP, used and can devise effective countermeasures or adjust fires, Fein said. A number of foreign governments would gladly pay millions of dollars to have this sort of information, Fein added. Having released the information soon after deploying to Iraq, Manning "basked in the amount of press he was receiving" and even posed and smiled in a photo he had taken of himself, holding his memory card containing the data, Fein said. He clearly was on an ego trip and knew the information he'd released would harm U.S. national security, Fein said, adding that Manning even wiped his machine seven times during a three-hour period to ensure his tracks were covered. Wiping a machine means deleting everything on it. Traces of information often remain so multiple wipes are preferred as a more effective scrub. In short, Fein said, Manning "wanted to be hailed as famous" without regard for the lives of his fellow soldiers. "The flag meant nothing to him," he added. Coombs, Manning's attorney, said Manning had access to the entire SIPRNET, which contains millions of documents, and that he probably could have downloaded and released the entire SIPRNET. Yet, he selectively chose to download and pass on only those secret documents that he felt would show how U.S. policy exploited third-world countries and harmed a lot of innocent lives, he said. If Americans learned about what their government was doing, Manning truly believed they'd see the light and demand changes, Coombs said. Coombs argued as well that classified documents were arbitrarily labeled "secret," and that most released by Manning could arguably be deemed appropriate for declassification by any reasonable person. Far from being a traitor, Manning was acting in a way he thought was patriotic, Coombs said, citing recorded conversations Manning had with his friend Lauren McNamara, and with Adrian Lamo, the man who ultimately turned him in to the FBI. Wiping his computer seven times was normal procedure, Coombs said, as the software often got corrupted and had to be reinstalled. Additionally, Manning continued to use his computer to gain classified materials for several months and never subsequently wiped it, the defense attorney said. As to TTPs, playbook and SIGACTS, Coombs said those and other terms are "buzzwords" designed to cast aspersions on Manning. In fact, the enemy already was adjusting fires and adapting based on their own observations, and doing so effectively, he said. Coombs said WikiLeaks was a legitimate news organization, having been recognized with journalistic awards, vetting its sources and publishing information that turned out to be highly accurate. The press, including WikiLeaks, has a responsibility to provide government oversight as part of its Constitutional 1st Amendment rights, he added. The Watergate scandal that led to President Richard M. Nixon's 1974 resignation never would have been brought to light had it not been for intrepid journalists, the defense attorney told the judge. Coombs concluded that there is absolutely zero proof Manning ever even hinted that he was knowingly aiding the enemy. "He really did care what happened to people and hoped to spark a worldwide debate with discussions and reforms," he said. In addition to the charge of "aiding the enemy," which carries a life sentence, the 20 other charges Manning faces could result in a combined maximum sentence of 154 years in prison.

U.S. Army Adds 22 Charges Against Suspected WikiLeak Leaker

From a U.S. Army Military District of Washington News Release FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, D.C., March 2, 2011 - After seven months of additional investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and other investigative agencies, the Army has added 22 charges in the case of a military intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified material. The new charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning allege that he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the classified data for public release and use by the enemy. The investigation remains ongoing, officials said. "The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Private 1st Class Manning is accused of committing," said Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for U.S. Army Military District of Washington. "The new charges will not affect Private 1st Class Manning's right to a speedy trial or his pretrial confinement." U.S. military officials in Baghdad preferred two charges consisting of 12 specifications against Manning on July 5. Officials said the commander of U.S. Army Headquarters Command Battalion preferred the new charges yesterday. In addition to a charge of aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the new charges include 16 specifications under the UCMJ's Article 134: -- One specification of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; -- Five specifications of theft of public property or records, in violation of 18 U.S. Code 641; -- Eight specifications of transmitting defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e); -- Two specifications of fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1); and -- Five specifications in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ for violating Army Regulations 25-2, "Information Assurance," and 380-5, "Department of the Army Information Security Program." The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 is a capital offense, officials said. However, they added, the prosecution team has notified the defense that the prosecution will not recommend the death penalty to the convening authority, Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, commanding general of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington. Under the UCMJ, the convening authority ultimately decides what charges to refer to court-martial, and whether to seek the death penalty if Article 104 is referred. Therefore, if convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade,; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life, and a dishonorable discharge. At the request of Manning's defense attorneys, the trial proceedings have been delayed since July 12, pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning's mental capacity and responsibility, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 706. Depending on the results of the inquiry, an Article 32 hearing may follow, officials said. An Article 32 hearing is the civilian equivalent of a grand jury, with additional rights afforded to the accused, they explained. Manning remains confined in the Marine Corps Base Quantico brig in Quantico, Va. He was notified of the additional charges in person during a command visit today, officials said. Officials emphasized that Manning is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and added that the Army is committed to ensuring his continued safety and well-being while in pretrial confinement.

WikiLeak's Redaction Doesn't Remove Danger to Troops and Allies, Official Says

By Cheryl Pellerin American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25, 2010 - Despite WikiLeaks' attempt to redact the names of Iraqi informants from its recent leak of classified military reports, some of those people are still in danger, a Pentagon spokesman said today.

On Oct. 22, WikiLeaks released more than 400,000 sensitive documents chronicling military operations during the Iraq war from 2004 to 2009.

"We had identified 300 or so people whose names were [mentioned in the documents] that possibly would be put at risk if their names were published," Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan said.

Of that group, he added, the names were removed but "in a few dozen cases there's still information that could identify those people."

Such remaining information includes job titles, he said.

The U.S. Central Command has the names of those potentially at risk and "is deciding whether they're going to make notifications or not," Lapan said.

A joint task force led by the Defense Intelligence Agency is comparing the original with redacted documents, he said, to assess the damage that WikiLeaks' publication of the classified Iraq significant-activities reports, called the SIGACTS data base, could pose to the U.S. military, Iraqi allies and current operations.

During an Oct. 22 State Department press briefing with Pakistani Foreign Minister Mahmood Qureshi, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced the WikiLeaks release of sensitive military documents.

"We should condemn in the most-clear terms the disclosure of any classified information by individuals and organizations which puts the lives of United States' and partner servicemembers and civilians at risk," she said, "threatening our national security and the national security of those with whom we are working."

The count of civilian war deaths in Iraq –- 15,000 more than reported by the Pentagon, according to some news reports and the nongovernmental organization Iraq Body Count -– is one topic arising from the WikiLeaks' release.

"We have rejected the premise that ... the U.S. has not been tracking civilian casualties. We have. We report that on a regular basis to Congress," Lapan said.

Also in the reports to Congress, he added, "We note carefully that these are not a complete picture. ... We don't profess to have knowledge about every civilian that's killed across Iraq. We can only report on the ones that we're aware of."

All reports of civilian casualties –- even those that put the number of casualties at 15,000 more than the U.S. has reported -- all come from the same SIGACTS data base, Lapan said.

"The matter of trying to estimate Iraqi civilian casualties in the war has been an ongoing issue," he said, including a June report by the Congressional Research Service.

"To suggest that there is some kind of precise number that some organization has, I find hard to believe," he added, "because over the years it has been impossible for any of the various organizations that have tried to come to agreement on a specific figure."

WikiLeak's Unauthorized Release of American Classified War Documents On Web Places Troops and Allies in Danger

The WikiLeaks release of U.S. military classified war documents on the Internet places American troops and allies in danger, states the U.S. Defense Department. I agree.

Below is a piece published yesterday by the American Forces Press Service on the leaks:

By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2010 - The Defense Department is preparing for an additional publication by Wikileaks of classified military documents from Iraq operations, DOD officials said here today.

A DOD task force has been combing through the Iraq data base to assess the damage that a proposed Wikileaks publication of 400,000 significant activity reports could pose to the U.S. military, Iraqi allies, and on-going operations.

"We strongly condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and will not comment on these leaked documents other than to note that 'significant activities' reports are initial, raw observations by tactical units," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters. "They are essentially snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane, and do not tell the whole story.

"That said, the period covered by these reports has been well-chronicled in news stories, books and films and the release of these field reports does not bring new understanding to Iraq's past," Morrell added.

In a note to news organizations, Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan said the department does not know for sure what Wikileaks will publish, but officials expect the same type of documents the organization put on the Internet in July about the Afghan conflict. Wikileaks put 77,000 documents from the Afghan data base on line in that breach of national security.

"If the release of documents is four times what it was for the Afghan logs, this is larger in that sense," Lapan said. "But in view of the types of information, the two are very similar."

Task force officials, he said, concluded that Wikileaks might release the names of Iraqis who cooperated with the coalition and information that could aid enemies in operations.

The potential breach is dangerous, but not fatal, Lapan said, noting neither the Iraq, nor Afghanistan data bases contain intelligence sources and methods.

"That's a different level, and that's not what is in these documents," he said.

The data bases contain reports of every company level significant activity, Lapan said.
"These are raw observations from the tactical level of combat operations," he said. "They could be casualty incidents; they could be IED incidents, information on working with Iraqis –- any number of things that units use this database to report."

Wikileaks should not publish anything, the colonel said.

"The problem with Wikileaks is it goes beyond just taking out names of people," Lapan said. "There is lots of other information that could be damaging, and they don't have the expertise to know what they are."

Lapan said if Wikileaks does publish the documents on the Web, servicemembers and DOD civilians should steer clear of the site.

"The information remains classified even if it is released publicly," Lapan said. DOD personnel should not access that website from their government computers, he said, lest they create a security breach.

"We deplore Wikileaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies," Lapan continued. "We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us, and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large."

Wikileaks' actions are putting the lives of troops and civilians at risk, Lapan said.

"The only responsible course of action for Wikileaks at this point is to return the stolen material and expunge it from their websites as soon as possible," he said.