6:25 PM The prosecution will be suspending its case until Wednesday next week. There will be no trial Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Monday. This is happening so that 17 stipulated testimonies can be agreed upon. There will be argument on any outstanding issues related to stipulated testimonies on Tuesday, June 25.
So, tomorrow there will be argument over evidence objections the defense has raised. After this argument and a possible ruling, the court will be in recess until next week.
5:55 PM EST CWO4 Rouillard testified during defense cross-examination that if a soldier wanted to download all the emails from a brigade that soldier could. There is no directive that says “you can’t download email addresses off the global address list.”
“If I wanted to download all the email addresses from the US Army, would it be against the rules?” Cpt. Dooman of the defense asked on redirect. Rouillard answered, “No, sir.”
5:10 PM EST Second witness—Chief Warrant Officer 4 Armond Rouillard—took the stand. The defense challenged whether he could be a witness, who would testify on the monetary value. The defense essentially won, as no testimony was offered on the monetary value when the prosecution cross-examined. Rouillard conceded he had no knowledge of supply, demand or nature of information and how that might contribute to the value of the list. This was important because the count related to the “stealing” of the list asserts the list was worth more than $1000.
5:00 PM EST First live witness — Chief Warrant Officer 4 Ronald Nixon — took the stand. He testified on the global address list of email addresses, # of email addresses it contained and what kind of access officers had to the list. Apparently, two four-star generals’ names were on the list. It had at least 24,000 addresses.
Peter Van Buren commented: GAL was just email addresses, most of which were Iraq-theatre specific and defunct now. Why is the government making an issue of it?
He added: If unclassified GAL, hardly anyone used that email in my experience. Why? Because you can send unclassified email on a classified system, so why use two?
Van Buren was a State Department employee who was stationed at FOB Hammer, where Manning worked as an analyst.
3:40PM EST The global address list (GAL) in Iraq, which prosecutors believe that Manning downloaded, had two 4-star generals in Iraq on it. The day’s first live witness, Ron Nixon from CYBERCOM, testifies on the GAL.
3:25 PM EST Manning was transferred to work in a supply room at Forward Operating Base Hammer on May 8, 2010, after an incident that occurred in the intelligence facility where he had been working as an analyst.
In the room, he worked for Staff Sgt. Peter Bigelow helping with the movement of supplies, photocopying and “running messages to other sections.” He also had hours during the day that he did not have tasks to do, so he would read books or “surf the Internet.”
Bigelow had stipulated testimony entered into the record on Manning’s use of a non-classified Internet Protocol (NIPR) network computer in the supply room. He did not search for any articles on cross-dressing or for info on Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.
3:24 PM EST Katherine Strobl, a software developer and US Central Command contractor, had stipulated testimony on her review of CIA wire logs entered into the record. She examined logs between October 2009 and May 2010. At one point, as Maj. Ashden Fein was reading this, both Manning and his defense attorney, David Coombs, appeared to be holding back smiles or even laughs as they covered their faces with the palm of their hands.
This was because Fein nearly read a list of log information with numbers and characters that would have been utterly meaningless to the judge. The judge stopped Fein. He insisted on reading them so she had them read only a small part of the logged information.
3:22 PM EST Louis Traviaso had stipulated testimony entered into the record. As a specialist who reviewed intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he served on the Information Review Task Force (IRTF). Traviaso examined what the documents contained on military weapons and systems capabilities. One paragraph of it was not read by the prosecution presumably because it was classified.
3:20 PM EST Testimony from Vice Admiral Harword contained the following distinctions: TOP SECRET information is information that will cause “exceptionally grave damage.” SECRET information is information that will cause “serious damage.” CONFIDENTIAL is information that will cause “damage.”
Harword stated detainee assessment briefs (or “Gitmo Files) were “summaries” of data or information classified at the SECRET level. They contained details on “circumstances of capture,” what the detainee “had in possession upon capture,” activities in support of terrorist organizations, information about persons in other organizations, as well as “methods and approaches for collecting intelligence.”
2:22 PM EST Rear Admiral David Woods and Jeffrey Motes, who entered testimony on the “Gitmo Files,” both admitted that there had been “open source material” available. “Extensive litigation” had taken place where records related to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards were released. The records publicly available were not considered when assessing the information and sources for intelligence exposed.
2:20 PM EST Stipulated testimony: Vice Admiral Harward, a deputy commander of US Central Command, said US CENTCOM relies on two classification categories: military plans, weapons systems or operations and intelligence activities, including covert action, sources or methodology and cryptology.
1:29PM EST Jeffrey Motes,, a senior counter terrorism analyst in a strategic fusion cell of the J2 section of JTF-GTMO, and Rear Admiral David Woods, reviewed the detainee assessment briefs. Their stipulated testimony was entered into the record. Both stipulations read, “Detainees may not know the extent of what the U.S. knows about his background information,” but since the U.S. does not always learn about this from the detainee himself, “detainees may not know the extent of what the US knows” about them.
11:34PM EST Proceedings finally about to resume. I think there’ll be a ruling from the judge on the admissibility of the 2009 WikiLeaks “Most Wanted” list.
Numerous stipulations of testimony are expected in military court at Fort Meade during the seventh day of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s trial. The focus of testimony will be the detainee assessment briefs Manning confessed to disclosing to WikiLeaks on Guantanamo prisoners.
According to information provided to reporters by a military legal matter expert, stipulated testimony from “Mr. Motes” and “Rear Admiral Woods” concerning the detainee assessment briefs or “Gitmo Files” will be entered into court.
A witness from US Central Command (CENTCOM) and Network Command (NETCOM) are expected to testify on a global address list that the prosecutors have charged Manning with stealing, purloining or knowingly converting the list for his use or the use of another. The prosecutors have put a value on the list, asserting it was worth more than $1000.
Manning did not plead guilty to releasing the global address list on February 28 when he read a statement in court. He did, however, admit to releasing the “Gitmo Files.”
He thought that it was likely individuals being detained by the Iraqi Federal Police, which he suspected of torturing prisoners, might be turning detainees back over to US custody and they might be “ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.”
As Manning read over the documents, he became more “educated on the topic.” He stated, “It seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.” He agreed with President Barack Obama, who said that Guantanamo Bay diminished America’s “moral authority” and “compromised” America’s “standing” in the world.
He assessed the documents and noticed “they were not analytical products.” Rather, they “contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified.” They did not contain “names of sources” or “quotes from tactical interrogation reports.” They were being sent to the US Southern Command commander and contained “very general background information” on each detainee, “not a detailed assessment.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights is in federal court in Baltimore for oral argument in a federal lawsuit where journalists and press organizations are seeking contemporaneous access to documents in the court martial. I, along with Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Julian Assange and Chase Madar, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Shayana Kadidal has said the military has adopted a policy of “mock openness” at the court martial. The military gives just enough access so it is difficult to argue they are violating press freedom entirely, but they limit openness enough to frustrate reporters who are trying to accurately cover proceedings. For example, all throughout the pretrial process there was no access to records. During the first days the trial, the US Army finally released the majority of the pretrial documents, but they did it when reporters were least likely to cover the nuances of what happened during the pretrial phase because they were now into the trial.
Kadidal also told Firedoglake that he was struck by the fact the military had not even made a show out of trying to fix access issues ahead of the trial when they knew “media would show up in droves.” They should believe there is an incentive to have people believe “this is a legitimate trial,” but they really “screwed it up by not fixing the more grotesque errors.” They had a fiasco with press passes during the first week and it “made the system look sort of farcical.”