TRIAL BEGINS FOR ACCUSED WIKILEAK'S LEAKER PFC. BRADLEY MANING

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Trial Begins for Soldier Accused of Classified Leaks

By David Vergun
Army News Service

FORT MEADE, Md., June 4, 2013 - With the prosecution accusing Army Pfc. Bradley Manning of causing immeasurable harm to national security and Manning's attorney portraying the soldier as "young and naïve, but good-intentioned," Manning's court-martial in what has become known as "the WikiLeaks case" began here yesterday.

Manning, 25 is charged with committing various crimes, including aiding the enemy, by leaking classified information to the WikiLeaks website while assigned to Iraq as an intelligence analyst in 2009 and 2010. If convicted, Manning could be sentenced to life in prison.

In his opening statement, Army Capt. Joe Morrow, the prosecutor, called the leaks the "biggest ever" in U.S. history, involving hundreds of thousands of classified documents, and that they provided "potentially actionable information for targeting U.S. forces."

David Coombs, Manning's attorney, said in his opening statement that Manning was selective about the documents he released and "was hoping to make the world a better place" by doing so.

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, asked Manning if he wanted to reconsider trial by a military judge alone, herself, rather than by jury, which is termed a "panel" by the military. Manning declined.

In the afternoon, the prosecutor called the first witness, Army Sgt. 1st Class Thomas Smith, who was the senior enlisted Criminal Investigative Division agent at the time. He and another case agent, Tony Graham, were the first to investigate the "scene of the crime," as Smith called the sensitive compartmented information facility where Manning worked in Iraq. Smith discussed the procedures they used to collect evidence and conduct interviews.

The prosecutor will call more witnesses and use sworn statements as evidence as its case proceeds. The defense will present its arguments in the coming days.

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND THE 9/11 AND WIKILEAKS CASES

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
110525-N-PS473-037 NEW YORK (May 25, 2011) The amphibious transport dock ship USS New York (LPD 21) transits the Hudson River during Fleet Week 2011 parade of ships. New York has 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center towers forged into her bow and is participating in the 24th annual Fleet Week New York. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Eric S. Garst/Released)

Classified Information Plays Central Role in Both 9/11, WikiLeaks Cases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., Oct. 18, 2012 - Pretrial hearings for two major court cases – one involving the alleged perpetrators behind the 9/11 terror attacks and the other involving the soldier charged with the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history – are converging this week as attorneys operating in two very different legal systems focus on the issue of classified information in the courtroom.

The pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks "from A to Z," and four others who allegedly trained, financed or arranged transportation for the 19 hijackers entered its fourth day today at Naval Air Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mohammed's codefendants in the case are his nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, charged with selecting and training some of the hijackers; and Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, accused with helping finance the attacks.

Meanwhile, here at Fort Meade, the second day of pre-trial hearings continued for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. He is an Army intelligence specialist accused of downloading and transmitting classified information to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks while he was deployed to Iraq.

The legal systems being used to prosecute these cases are significantly different.

Manning, as a member of the U.S. military, is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This system has roots dating back to the Revolutionary War to promote good order and discipline in the armed forces. The 9/11 defendants, on the other hand, will be tried through a military tribunal governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges against him also include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 "Information Assurance" and 380-5 "Department of the Army Information Security Program."

If found guilty, Manning could receive up to life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge.

Military commissions, on the other hand, apply to "an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent who has engaged in hostilities, or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or was a part of al Qaeda."

The 9/11 defendants were captured in Pakistan between 2002 and 2003 and have been confined at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.

They were charged during their arraignment in May with terrorism, conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft. If found guilty, they could receive the death penalty.

A casual peek into the courtrooms gives a glimpse into one of the most obvious differences between the UCMJ and military commission processes.

By law, Manning is not required to attend proceedings regarding his case, but a military lawyer with more than 20 years experience said on background that he's never seen a service member not attend. Photographers outside the courtroom yesterday captured images of Manning being escorted from the courtroom in his Army dress blue uniform with gold-colored private first class rank on his sleeves.

Army Col. James Pohl, the judge presiding over the 9/11 case, ruled earlier this week that the defendants don't have to attend their court sessions, as long as they sign a waiver form each morning they choose to skip. When they do elect to attend, they can dress as they choose – as long as their attire doesn't include U.S. military uniform items or prisoner garb in a color that would misrepresent their security status at the detention facility.

Mohammed quickly took advantage of both rulings. He opted out of court the first day after Pohl ruled that he could – the day the judge also took up the wardrobe issue. Yesterday, Mohammed initially elected not to attend the third day of pre-trial hearings, then showed up later that morning wearing a camouflage vest over his traditional white tunic.

Most of the distinctions between the UCMJ and military commission legal processes are less obvious to those without legal training, and the discussion could fill textbooks. One big question being debated during the 9/11 hearings, for example, is whether the defendants have constitutional rights.

However, a central concern in both the Manning and 9/11 cases is the issue of how classified information is dealt with in court.

Today, the fourth day of pretrial hearings for the 9/11 suspects continued to focus on the balance between protecting classified information that, if made public, could jeopardize U.S. national security, and the constitutional mandate that court proceedings be open to the public.

The prosecution and U.S. government lawyers say protections are needed to prosecute the case without disclosing classified information that would threaten U.S. national security.

In contrast, the defendant's defense teams accused prosecutors of using an overly broad banner of national security to safeguard information vital to providing a solid defense. Echoing them were lawyers representing the American Civil Liberties Union and media groups, who said the government wants to squelch information the public deserves to know.

Pohl is expected to rule this week on a protective order the prosecution has requested to spell out what provisions are protected and what aren't.

A central issue in both the 9/11 and Manning cases involves information regarding the defendants' detention. For Manning, that involves time when he was allegedly mistreated while being held in a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va. Of primary concern regarding the 9/11 defendants is time they spent in the hands of the CIA before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

Both cases also require hammering out details about witnesses who can be called. In Manning's case, for example, some witnesses' names have been redacted from the motion and are considered to be classified as secret. At Guantanamo Bay, the issue involves whether the defense is required to give the prosecution a heads up about what the witnesses it calls are likely to say –something the government would weigh in deciding whether to fly a witness to the courtroom.

Meanwhile, Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge hearing he Manning case, ordered the prosecution yesterday to release hundreds of emails about his incarceration to the defense team. Lind's ruling covered all but 12 of about 600 emails covering a range of issues: from Manning's visitor list and provisions to ensure he had proper uniforms to plans for responding to protesters and media queries. These emails, added to ones already in the possession of Manning's defense attorneys, bring to 1,200 the total number of emails that will presumably be used to argue that their client was treated illegally.

Lind also issued rulings that would allow parts of CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security documents used in the case to be redacted.

Ironically, the only concrete decision made during the 9/11 hearing today had nothing to do with the court proceedings. Rather, it involved the cleanup of administrative space the defense teams have complained are plagued with rat droppings and mold. Although base officials had declared them safe, a defense lawyer told Pohl the space is making her staff sick.

A Navy officer promised a comprehensive cleanup before the next series of pre-trial hearings, assuring the court that occupational health experts will verify that they they're up to standards.

JUDGE REFUSES TO THROW OUT CHARGES AGAINST ACCUSED WIKILEAKER PFC. BRADLEY MANNING

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Judge Upholds Charges Against Alleged Document Leaker
By Donna Miles
FORT MEADE, Md., June 8, 2012 - The military judge trying the case of alleged WikiLeaker Army Pfc. Bradley Manning today rejected a defense motion to throw out 10 of the 22 charges against him.

Army Col. Denise Lind refused the defense's argument that eight of the charges are unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.

She also upheld two other charges that Manning had exceeded his authorized access to classified Defense Department networks. Lind did announce, however, that she would use a narrow interpretation of the statute in this case. This raises the standard for what the prosecution will need to prove for Manning to be found guilty, a military lawyer told reporters.

The judge also announced that Manning's trial, initially scheduled to begin Sept. 21, likely will be delayed until November or possibly January. The defense team had asked for more time to review documents associated with the case and prepare its arguments.
The rulings came at the end of a three-day hearing here leading up to what's expected to be a three-week trial.

Manning, 24, is accused of the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history while deployed to Iraq as a military intelligence analyst. The former 10th Mountain Division soldier is accused of installing unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloading it, improperly storing it, and transmitting the data to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy, theft of public property or records, transmitting defense information, and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges also include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 "Information Assurance" and 380-5 "Department of the Army Information Security Program."
If found guilty, Manning could receive up to life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge.

Much of this week's pre-trial hearing, one of several to iron out issues related to the case, centered around what documents are being made available, and how quickly, for the defense to prepare for the trial.

Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, complained of getting discovery documents too slowly, in a piecemeal fashion or with so many sections redacted – meaning parts of them have been blacked out – that they're of little value.

The defense team hopes to use these documents to show that Manning caused little or no damage.

Yesterday, three State Department officials called by the defense testified that the department stood up three different teams after the leaks occurred to do damage control, identify people considered to be at risk because of the disclosures and improve computer security. The witnesses did not testify about what damages may have been caused.

In an effort to keep the proceedings as close to the projected schedule as possible, Lind announced this week that she would add additional pretrial hearings to assess progress and break through any logjams.

Lind announced that the next hearing will be June 25. At that session, both the prosecution and defense teams are scheduled to submit recommended instructions for the court to give the panel at the trial.

The defense team will have the choice of having the case decided by Lind alone, a military panel, or a jury.

ARMY PFC. AND ALLEGED WIKILEAKER BRADLEY MANNING RETURNS TO COURT

AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
Alleged WikiLeaker Returns to Fort Meade Courtroom
By Donna Miles
FORT MEADE, Md. , June 6, 2012 - Army Pfc. Bradley Manning returned to the courtroom here today as lawyers spent most of the day wrangling over the release of documents associated with what's considered the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

Dominating the first of what is expected to be a three-day pre-trial hearing was Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, arguing that the prosecution is withholding key materials needed to build a solid defense.

On the other side of the aisle, Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, called the defense's "unreasonable" request for documents, many of which he said were irrelevant to the case, a ploy to slow down the proceedings. He insisted, however, that the government is going "above and beyond" its legal obligations and is turning over the materials as quickly as possible.

Coombs, also an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel who has deployed to Iraq, accused the government of providing the requested records too slowly, in a piecemeal fashion or not at all. He complained of confronting "roadblock after roadblock" in attempting to get these documents, which include various federal agencies' official assessments of actual damages caused by the alleged leaks.

Coombs also protested that many of documents received so far are so heavily redacted -- meaning specific parts have been blacked out -- that they're of limited value.
Army Capt. Joshua Tooman, one of Manning's two military lawyers, asserted that this threatens the defense team's strategy of proving that Manning caused little or no damage in leaking the classified documents while serving as a military intelligence analyst in Iraq.
Fein noted that the time and manpower needed to review the massive number of documents from multiple entities threatens to unnecessarily drag out the legal process and deny Manning an expeditious trial. "The government has been [reviewing] and continues to review the documents," he said. "But it is a massive amount of documents."

Fein told the court that some of the materials are so sensitive that they cannot be used in the trial. He repeated his concern about "graymailing" this and future legal proceedings with requirements that threaten to disclose national secrets. Graymailing refers to using classified information or the threat of exposing it as a way to circumvent the legal process.

Military judge Army Col. Denise Lind reported that she has personally reviewed the documents turned over so far, and noted that the CIA's submission will require additional information before being turned over to the defense. Lacking that, the prosecution would not be able to use it during the trial, a military legal officer familiar with the case told reporters.

To address the opposing concerns and limit further legal delays, Lind ruled that the court will add additional hearings between those already scheduled leading up to the trial date to assess progress and break through any logjams.

The next pre-trial hearings are slated for July 16 to 20; Aug. 27 to 31; and Sept. 19 to 20.
Manning's trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 21 and continue through Oct. 12. However, that timeline could slip if Lind grants the defense's request for more time to review documents it claims could reveal that Manning caused minimal damage.

His defense team will decide if the case will be heard by a judge alone, by a jury to consist of all officers, or by a mixed panel that includes one third enlisted members from within Manning's current command, the Army's Military District of Washington.

Manning sat quietly during today's proceedings in his Army service uniform, flanked by his two military attorneys. In the coming days of this pre-trial hearing, the defense is expected to ask Lind to dismiss 10 of the 22 charges against Manning.

Coombs plans to argue that eight of the charges are overly broad and vague and therefore, unconstitutional, the legal officer told reporters. The defense will ask Lind to dismiss two additional charges that Manning exceeded his authorized access to classified networks and argue that the prosecution has not made the case for a prosecutable offense, the officer said.

During Manning's pre-trial hearing in April, Lind rejected the defense's argument that all charges against Manning should be dismissed. She also upheld the most serious charge, that he aided the enemy by disclosing classified military and diplomatic material.

The 24-year-old military intelligence analyst was arrested at Contingency Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad on May 25, 2010. A former 10th Mountain Division soldier, Manning is accused of installing unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloading it, improperly storing it, and transmitting the data to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website.

The specific charges against Manning as outlined on his charge sheet include aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy, theft of public property or records, transmitting defense information, and fraud and related activity in connection with computers.
The charges include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 "Information Assurance" and 380-5 "Department of the Army Information Security Program."
The maximum sentence Manning could receive, if found guilty of the charges, is life in prison.

He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.

U.S. GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SHUT DOWN GROUP CODE NAME "ANONYMOUS"

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Department of Justice website:
Prosecution of Internet Hacktivist Group "Anonymous"
by Melinda Haag
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California
The United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Northern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been active in investigating and prosecuting the cyber attacks initiated by members of the Internet activist group "Anonymous" and/or its associates.

In late November 2010, WikiLeaks released a large amount of classified United States State Department cables on its website. Citing violations of its terms of service, and in response to WikiLeaks' release of the classified cables, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks' accounts so that WikiLeaks could no longer receive donations via PayPal. In retribution for PayPal's termination of WikiLeaks' donation account, Anonymous coordinated and executed distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal's computer servers. DDoS attacks are attempts to render a computer unavailable to users through a variety of means, including by saturating the target computers or networks with external communication requests, thereby denying service to legitimate users. The attack lasted from December 6, 2010 through December 10, 2010, and used an open-source computer program that the group made available as a free download on the Internet.

On January 27, 2011, the FBI executed twenty-seven search warrants in twelve states and the District of Columbia as part of the investigation of the DDoS attacks against PayPal. On July 13, 2010, a federal grand jury in San Jose, California, returned a fifteen-count indictment against Dennis Collins, Christopher Wayne Cooper, Joshua John Covelli, Keith Wilson Downey, Mercedes Renee Haefer, Donald Husband, Vincent Charles Kershaw, Ethan Miles, James C. Murphy, Drew Alan Phillips, Jeffrey Puglisi, Daniel Sullivan, Tracy Ann Valenzuela and Christopher Vo for conspiracy and causing intentional damage to PayPal's computer servers. The case, United States v. Dennis Collins, et.al., No. CR 11-00471 DLJ, is currently pending before the Honorable D. Lowell Jensen .
On July 19, 2011, the FBI arrested fourteen defendants. On that same day, the FBI executed an additional twenty-one search warrants in eleven states, also in connection with the DDoS attacks against PayPal. Investigation into the subjects of those searches is continuing.

On December 16, 2010, members of the "People's Liberation Front" (PLF), a hacking group associated with Anonymous, coordinated and executed a DDoS attack against Santa Cruz County's computer servers. The PLF launched the DDoS attack in retaliation for the City of Santa Cruz enacting and enforcing an anti-camping statute against the homeless and disbanding protests related to the anti-camping statute.
On September 21, 2011, a federal grand jury in San Jose, California, returned a three-count indictment against Christopher Doyon and Joshua John Covelli for conspiracy and causing intentional damage to the Santa Cruz County computer servers. The case, United States v. Christopher Doyon, et. al., No. CR 11-00683 DLJ, is also currently pending before the Honorable D. Lowell Jensen. On September 22, 2011, the FBI arrested Christopher Doyon.