In The Matter Of: United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation Min-U-Script(R) with Word Index UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 1 1 VOLUME XXVIII 2 IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY 3 4 UNITED STATES 5 VS. 6 MANNING, Bradley E., Pfc. 7 U.S. Army, xxx-xx-9504 8 Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 9 U.S. Army Garrison, 10 Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 11 Fort Myer, VA 12 COURT-MARTIAL _______________________________________/ 22211 13 14 15 16 The Hearing in the above-titled matter was 17 held on Monday, August 5th, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., at 18 Fort Meade, Maryland, before the Honorable Colonel 19 Denise Lind, Judge. 20 21 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 2 1 DISCLAIMER 2 This transcript was made by a court 3 reporter who is not the official Government reporter, 4 was not permitted to be in the actual courtroom where 5 the proceedings took place, but in a media room 6 listening to and watching live audio/video feed, not 7 permitted to make an audio backup recording for editing 8 purposes, and not having the ability to control the 9 proceedings in order to produce an accurate verbatim 10 transcript. 11 12 This unedited, uncertified draft transcript 13 may contain court reporting outlines that are not 14 translated, notes made by the reporter for editing 15 purposes, misspelled terms and names, word combinations 16 that do not make sense, and missing testimony or 17 colloquy due to being inaudible by the reporter. 18 19 20 21 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 3 1 INDEX 2 August 5th, 2013 3 4 5 WITNESS: Patrick Kennedy 6 Examination By: 7 Mr. Fein 11, 136 8 Mr. Coombs 62, 133 Marked 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 4 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT: 4 MAJOR ASHDEN FEIN 5 CAPTAIN JOSEPH MORROW 6 CAPTAIN ANGEL OVERGAARD 7 CAPTAIN HUNTER WHYTE 8 CAPTAIN ALEXANDER van ELLEN 9 10 ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: 11 DAVID COOMBS 12 CAPTAIN JOSHUA TOOMAN 13 MAJOR THOMAS HURLEY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 5 1 PROCEEDINGS, 2 THE CLERK: All rise. 3 THE COURT: Please be seated. 4 called to order. 5 The court is Major Fein, please account for us? MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am. All parties in the 6 court last recess are again present with fine 7 exceptions. 8 Mr. Chavez and the court reporter is present. 9 Mr. Robert Shaw is absent. 10 11 12 Captain Overgaard is present and THE COURT: All right. Have there been any new exhibits added to the Appellate exhibit list? MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am. Appellate 13 Exhibit 632, the Prosecution's response to the 14 Defense's motion to merge specifications 5 and 7 of 15 charge 2 dated 2 August, 2013. 16 Prosecution response to Defense's motion to merge 17 specifications 4 and 6 of charge 2 dated 2 August, 2013 18 and Appellate Exhibit 634 is the Prosecution's response 19 to Defendant's motion to merge with an unreasonable 20 multiplication of charges for sentencing dated 21 2 August, 2013. Exhibit 633 is Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 6 1 Also, Your Honor, as of 09:49 this morning, 2 there was ten members of the media in the operations 3 center, one stenographer. 4 court room and 19 spectators in the courtroom. 5 Currently, the overflow trailer is not being used but 6 is available if needed. 7 THE COURT: There's no media in the All right. Thank you. I also 8 received an E-mail from Defense counsel over the 9 weekend with respect to the unreasonable multiplication 10 11 12 13 of charges for findings motions. I believe it was specifications 4 and 6 of charge 2 that are at issue? MR. COOMBS: That is correct, Your Honor. 14 After the 802 session, we spoke with government. 15 believe what we'll do is put together a stipulation of 16 expected testimony and in order to highlight the issue 17 that the Defense believes was brought out in the 18 government's response motion. 19 20 21 THE COURT: All right. I And does either side desire oral argument with respect to that motion? MR. COOMBS: I think once the -- yes, the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 7 1 Defense would, Honor Honor. 2 THE COURT: 3 have a time that we build that in. 4 is get through the witnesses -- maybe get to the 5 witness today and this afternoon perhaps or, if that 6 doesn't work, maybe we can do it tomorrow. 7 will hold that ruling in advance pending oral argument. 8 9 MR. COOMBS: THE COURT: 11 MR. FEIN: 13 So we'll have to What I'd like to do The court This afternoon will be fine for the Defense, Your Honor. 10 12 All right. All right. Government? That would be fine, ma'am. We can, at lunchtime, start working on the stip. THE COURT: Once again, counsel, and I met 14 in a brief RCM 802 conference before we started today 15 to discuss logistics and other issues and arising cases 16 and I advised counsel that, in finalizing my ruling 17 with respect to the Defense motion for appropriate 18 relief under RCM 1001B4, but for the way ahead, I'm 19 going to read that portion of the ruling now because it 20 is germane as we proceed. 21 "Basically, conclusions of law procedures Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 8 1 forward. The court cannot determine if government 2 proffered evidence as admissible aggravation under RCM 3 1001B4 unless the court knows what the evidence is. 4 this were a trial before members, the court would 5 address these issues by holding an Article 39 session 6 outside the presence of the members with each witness. 7 If The court would hear the testimony, 8 argument from counsel and rule on what, if any, of the 9 testimony was admissible as aggravating evidence under 10 RCM 1001B4. 11 Since this case is a judge alone trial, 12 there are no Article 39A sessions during the trial. 13 The court sits in its interlocutory capacity to 14 evaluate what evidence should be introduced and in its 15 sentence imposing authority, when considering only 16 appropriately admitted evidence for its proper purpose. 17 2: The following procedure will be 18 followed for all remaining government witnesses for 19 whom the government intends to qualify as an expert. 20 21 A: The government will begin by identifying the scope of the expertise for which the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 9 1 government seeks to qualify the witness followed by the 2 ultimate opinion the government seeks from the expert. 3 B: Defense may object and voir dire the 4 witness after the government lays the foundation for 5 the witness. 6 C: The government may lay for the 7 foundation for the expert's opinion to include any 8 admissible evidence in accordance with MRA 703. 9 government will not introduce any hearsay or other 10 facts or data that is not admissible evidence in 11 The support of the expert opinion. 12 D: The Defense may object during the scope 13 of the witness's testimony and articulate the reasons 14 for the objection. 15 E: The court will listen to the evidence 16 in its interlocutory capacity. The court will 17 summarily rule on clearly inadmissible testimony. 18 After the witness has testified, the Defense will 19 identify for the court the areas of the testimony the 20 Defense finds objectionable and why. 21 need for a classified supplement. There may be a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 10 1 2 3 F: The government will provide its position to the court regarding each Defense objection. G: The court will examine the testimony 4 and rule on each objection lodged by the Defense. 5 acting in its sentencing imposing rule, the court will 6 not consider any testimony or evidence ruled to be 7 inadmissible aggravation evidence. 8 H: When Unless either party wishes to rely on 9 additional legal authority not briefed in the filings 10 for this motion, the list and response need state only 11 the objections and the reason the testimony or evidence 12 should or not should be admitted." 13 14 Does either side have any question about that procedure? 15 MR. COOMBS: 16 MR. FEIN: 17 THE COURT: 18 19 No, Your Honor. No, ma'am. Is there anything else we need to address before we call the witness? MR. FEIN: No, ma'am. Ma'am, the United 20 States calls Under Secretary of State For Management, 21 Patrick Kennedy. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 11 1 2 Please take the stand and face me. Whereupon, 3 PATRICK KENNEDY, 4 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to tell 5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 6 was examined and testified as follows: 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. FEIN: 8 Q Thank you, sir. 9 A (Witness complied.) 10 Q Sir, you are the Under Secretary of State 11 Please be seated. For Management, Patrick Kennedy? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And, sir, what does your current position 14 15 entail as the Under Secretary of management? A I am responsible for the operational aspect 16 of the State Department, telecommunications, 17 information technology, records, finance, budget, 18 security, medical, personnel and logistics. 19 20 21 Q And, sir, how long have you been in the current position -- in your current position? A I've been in the position since November of Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 12 1 2 2007. Q And, sir, you are here today to discuss 3 your expertise in the management and operations of the 4 Department of State? 5 A Correct, Major. 6 Q And, sir, you are also here to discuss your 7 expertise in the use of diplomatic reporting by U.S. 8 policy makers? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Sir, given that expertise, are you also 11 here today to give your opinion on the impact of PFC 12 Manning's criminal conduct on the management and 13 operations of the Department of State? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And also the impact of Private First Class 16 Manning's criminal conduct on the diplomatic reporting 17 use by U.S. policymakers? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Thank you, sir. 20 21 Sir, before we continue, if either party or the court asks you a question that requires a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 13 1 classified answer, please notify the court. There's no 2 expectation here in this court-martial that that 3 classified information be discussed in the open. 4 A Thank you. 5 Q Sir, how does one become the Under 6 7 Secretary of State For Management? A That is a presidential appointment. I have 8 been a foreign service officer for 40 years and I was 9 probably at the point -- in 2007, I think, I was the 10 senior career management officer in the State 11 Department and I was recommended to the then Secretary 12 of State, Secretary Rice, by the then deputy Secretary 13 of State John Negroponte. 14 Q Sir, where does your current position fall 15 within, for instance, an organizational chart within 16 the Department of State? 17 A You have the Secretary of State, you have 18 two deputy Secretaries of State and then you have six 19 under Secretaries of State. 20 third operational tier in the State Department. 21 Q So it's, in effect, the Sir, are you a member of the Senior Foreign Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 14 1 Service? 2 A I am. 3 Q And how many years have you been a member 4 5 6 7 8 9 of the Foreign Service? A since 1973. Q I've been a member of the Foreign Service So a little over 40 years. And what is your rank, sir, in the Foreign Service? A The rank is called career minister. It is 10 the equivalent of the Senior Executive Service and in 11 military parlance it would be the protocol equivalent 12 of a three-star general. 13 Q Sir, in your current position, do you have 14 any specific delegations as it pertains to executive 15 order 13526 and its preceding orders? 16 17 18 19 20 21 A I am the responsible official for classification for the department. Q And where does that authority -- your specific as the senior agency official derive from? A It derives from a delegation of authority from the Secretary of State. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 15 1 Q Sir, does that include having essentially, 2 as we would call it, commanding control over the 3 different information systems and information 4 management systems? 5 A Yes. 6 Q That also involves classified information, A Yes. 7 8 sir? 9 MR. FEIN: Your Honor, before going through 10 Under Secretary of State Kennedy's entire background, 11 the United States offers Under Secretary of State For 12 Management Patrick Kennedy as an expert in the field of 13 management and operations in the Department of State 14 and expert in the use of diplomatic reporting by U.S. 15 policymakers. 16 MR. COOMBS: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. FEIN: 19 THE COURT: 20 21 No objection, Your Honor. Okay. One moment, please. Does that truncate the foundation? MR. FEIN: It will be truncated, ma'am. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 16 1 BY MR. FEIN: 2 Q Sir, rather than going through your almost 3 41 years of experience in the Department of State, I'd 4 like to ask you a few questions about key jobs you've 5 held at the department. 6 Sir, when did you first become -- when did 7 you first assume a job within the assistant secretary 8 or the secretary's office level? 9 A I was a -- became the Assistant Secretary 10 of State For Administration in 1993 and served in that 11 position until 2001. 12 Q And what were your general 13 responsibilities, sir, as the Assistant Secretary of 14 State For Administration? 15 A It included oversight of information 16 technology, classifications and records management, 17 oversees buildings operations, logistics. 18 Q And, sir, after being the Assistant 19 Secretary of State For Administration, what position 20 did you hold? 21 A I then became one of the U.S. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 17 1 representatives to the United Nations and served in 2 that position from 2001 to 2005. 3 4 5 Q And during that time, sir, did you overseas details or other duties? A Twice. Once in 2003 and once in 2004 for 6 six and a half months and three and a half months 7 respectively I was detailed to Iraq first as the chief 8 of staff for the Coalitional Provisional Authority and 9 the then second time in 2004 as the chief of staff for 10 the transition unit, the transition from CPA and 11 Defense to an American embassy. 12 Q Sir, have you ever been detailed as a 13 Department of State senior foreign service officer to 14 the Office of Director of National Intelligence? 15 A Yes. 16 Q In what capacity, sir? 17 A From 2005 to 2007, I was the deputy 18 19 20 21 director of National Intelligence For Management. Q And why, sir, ultimately, were you selected for that job at ODNI? A Because I was a senior management officer Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 18 1 and because the to-be-named first director of national 2 intelligence, John Negroponte, had been my supervisor 3 both at the United Nations -- U.S. missions with United 4 Nations and in Iraq. 5 6 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the year that that occurred? 7 THE WITNESS: 8 THE COURT: 9 Q Thank you. BY MR. FEIN: 10 2005 to 2007. Sir, can you generally describe to the 11 court your responsibilities as a deputy director of 12 National Intelligence For Management? 13 A I essentially had two responsibilities, the 14 office of the Director of National Intelligence was 15 set -- was just being set up. 16 the personnel system, the financial systems, the IT and 17 bring in the positions that the Intelligence Reform and 18 Terrorism Prevention Act required to be merged into the 19 Office of the Director of National Intelligence and 20 then set up processes and make sure that the office was 21 established and running and then, additionally, oversee So someone had to set up Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 19 1 the logistics, the finance, the information management, 2 the personnel systems of the ODNI. 3 4 5 Q Sir, after May of 2007, what job did you move back when you returned to the department? A When I returned to the department, I was 6 briefly the director of Management Policy Rightsizing 7 and Innovation for the department for several months 8 until I was nominated to be Under Secretary of State 9 For Management. 10 Q And what were your general 11 responsibilities, sir, within the office of Management 12 Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation? 13 A The office is essentially a senior level 14 staff arm, a mini think tank that oversees the 15 development of management policies, works with other 16 U.S. Government agencies on the correct numbers and 17 staffing of American embassies' consulates and other 18 offices throughout the world and then heads a unit that 19 works within the department to look for innovative ways 20 to improve all aspects of management and operations. 21 Q Thank you, sir. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 20 1 2 3 Sir, have you ever taught in the field of management and operations of the department? A Not formally. The State Department has the 4 national foreign affairs training center, the Foreign 5 Service Institute, and I have been an adjunct faculty 6 there which simply means you give lectures on subject 7 matter. 8 1990s and I give lectures there on a regular basis to 9 either in-service or newly appointment classes. 10 11 12 13 14 Q Mine was on logistics and that was back in the Sir, the ones -- the lecture you give today and in recent time, what was the general subject areas? A The general subject is the overall management and operations of the State Department. Q Sir, have you also or have you testified in 15 the Field of Information Management within the 16 Department of State? 17 A Yes, both when I was assistant Secretary of 18 State for administration and now in my position as 19 Under Secretary For Management I testify regularly 20 before the Congress in either formal sessions in open 21 and closed briefings and among the subjects that I Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 21 1 cover, since it is within my responsibility, is 2 information management. 3 4 Q Sir, using the term information management, what does that mean, sir? 5 A 6 parts to it. 7 itself, which is the records management, the 8 classifications of it and then also computer systems 9 operations and, lastly, long haul technology. 10 11 12 Q Information management has really several It is the management of the information Sir, have you ever had personal experience in your career with information management operations? A As a management officer both in Africa when 13 I served there in the 1970s and in Cairo where I was 14 chief of administration, chief of management at the 15 American embassy in Cairo, the information management 16 section within the embassy reported directly to me. 17 Q Sir, can you please describe for the 18 court -- you've used the term, I think, reporting -- 19 what reporting means? 20 21 A It is the State Department's -- one of the State Department's major responsibilities in the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 22 1 national security arena is to have officers who are 2 expert in political reporting, economic reporting, 3 public diplomacy as well as counselor and 4 administration assigned to American embassies, 5 consulates and other missions around the world whose 6 duties are to engage with foreign government officials 7 and foreign non-officials, NGOs, business community, 8 et cetera and to prepare reports and then append 9 analysis to them to advise Washington on trends, 10 circumstances and events in foreign nations so that 11 information can then serve Washington policymakers in 12 developing the best strategy for national security. 13 14 15 Q Sir, have you, in your career, been a consumer State Department Reporting? A I have been ever since I was in -- I would 16 say I was in a supervisory position which was probably 17 starting in 1985 when I became the executive director 18 and then deputy executive secretary in the Department 19 of Secretary which is the office that directly supports 20 the Secretary of State. 21 Q Sir, during your career, have you also had Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 23 1 experience how U.S. government policymakers used 2 Department of State reporting? 3 A Absolutely, both as a senior management 4 official I see that the actions that department 5 officials take on a worldwide basis across a full range 6 of issues is impacted heavily by the reporting and 7 analysis that is provided them -- the information that 8 is provided them by our offices in the field and also 9 by our personnel in Washington who engage with foreign 10 delegations, with foreign embassies and others as well. 11 Q Sir, can you briefly describe for the court 12 the different types of positions you've held where 13 you've experienced U.S. policymakers use Department of 14 State reporting? 15 A Certainly. In my current position as Under 16 Secretary For State For Management, it is my 17 responsibility to determine where the resources of the 18 State Department -- the financial and human resources 19 are going to be applied, where we might need to 20 construct new facilities, where new posts might be 21 open, what security steps may or may not have to be Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 24 1 taken to protect our personnel, where the economic 2 trends may be going overseas which would impact foreign 3 exchange rates. 4 budget office of the State Department prepares its 5 budget or how our financial operations work and, in all 6 of those activities, the reporting and analysis 7 submitted by our posts overseas inform us of where we 8 may need to increase resources, where we might need to 9 reduce resources, how we budget and how we protect. 10 Q It would have an impact on how the Sir, have you ever been required or have 11 you ever represented Department of State on official 12 matters within the U.S. Government? 13 A Yes. I regularly engage in inter-agencies' 14 activities up and to representing the State Department 15 on the deputy's committee of the national security 16 staff. 17 Q Sir, now I'd like to focus this next 18 portion of your testimony on the actual -- on the 19 department's first response to the WikiLeaks 20 disclosures. 21 Sir, do compromises in classified State Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 25 1 Department information, does that fall within your 2 scope of responsibility? 3 A It does. 4 Q And were you made aware, sir, of the 5 compromise of the Reykjavik cable in back in March of 6 2010? 7 A I was. 8 Q And did the department take any actions, 9 10 11 investigate or response to the compromise of that reported cable? A Our diplomatic security service, which is 12 the security arm of the State Department, worked with 13 other elements of the United States government to 14 determine what the source of that leak might have been. 15 Q Sir, in the summer of 2010 when the 16 Department of Defense information started to publicly 17 released, did you take any steps within the Department 18 of State in response to that disclosure? 19 A Yes. We had a liaison officer assigned to 20 the task force that was under the direction of 21 Brigadier General Carr. We also assembled a database Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 26 1 that was posted to the State Department's Intranet 2 classified website of all of the cables we thought 3 might be incorporated in such a leak and then we 4 advised our embassy's counselors and other posts around 5 the world to go to this Intranet website and to review 6 the cables that they had written because it was 7 organized by source and also advised the departmental 8 bureaus, the departmental operating units that would 9 also have been the sources of cables outbound from the 10 State Department to review material that they would 11 have generated. 12 Q So, sir, you mentioned Department of State 13 cables. We'll gel to that in a moment, but going back 14 to the Department of Defense information, why did the 15 State Department dedicate any resources to the original 16 DOD effort with the DOD information? 17 A Because there was reason to believe that 18 summary material from State Department diplomatic 19 reporting and analysis cables was incorporated into 20 some of the DOD material. 21 Q Hold on, please, sir. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 27 1 (Pause.) 2 Sir, what point in the summer of 2010 did 3 you become the senior State Department official for all 4 matters of WikiLeaks? 5 A After briefing the Secretary of State and 6 my senior colleagues on the information that we were 7 receiving, I was designated to lead the departmental 8 efforts in this regard. 9 Q And why, sir -- prior to the Thanksgiving 10 timeframe, why was it necessary to be briefing even the 11 secretary on the ongoing Department of Defense 12 compromises of information? 13 A Because there was, I said, reason to 14 believe and then evidence that certain State Department 15 materials, certain summaries of State Department 16 reporting and analysis was contained in the -- in that 17 Department of Defense material and then simply in order 18 to get prepared should other State Department material 19 be at risk. 20 21 Q So, sir, in the time between summer of 2010 and before Thanksgiving of 2010, were you aware of any Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 28 1 additional Department of State classified information 2 that could have potentially been compromised to 3 WikiLeaks? 4 A There was -- we were provided with 5 information from the Department of Defense that 6 indicated that their review of material indicated that 7 there could be a large quantity of State Department 8 material, potentially up to 250,000 reporting cables. 9 Q Sir, at that point, the time between summer 10 of 2010 and before Thanksgiving of 2010, what steps did 11 you take for the department in respect to the purported 12 NCD cable compromise? 13 A What we did was assemble a file, a 14 searchable file on the State Department's classified 15 Intranet, our internal classified system and then 16 advised all embassadors and deputy chiefs of mission, 17 our number two officer at an embassy, to -- of the 18 location of this file, so to speak, on our website and 19 ask them to acquaint themselves with this material and 20 to read through it and be prepared to analyze what the 21 potentially deleterious impacts were and, at the same Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 29 1 time, addressing the same instruction to all assistant 2 secretaries and office directors within the State 3 Department whose bureaus or offices might also be 4 generating the outgoing material that was contained -- 5 that had generated the outgoing material that was in 6 that file. 7 Q So, sir, why, at this time, prior to 8 Thanksgiving of 2010 was, the direction simply to 9 acquaint themselves with the purported cables? 10 A I think there were two reasons. The first 11 is that the State Department is a rather small 12 organization with over 280 posts around the world, wide 13 responsibilities and to divert resources, additional 14 resources, large resources to any further review when 15 it was not yet absolutely clear that those -- that the 16 State Department material was going to be released 17 would have been a version waste of very, very scarce 18 human and other resources and, secondly, obviously we 19 would not wish to engage with any of the other nations 20 involved in advance. 21 engage with another nation about what might or might It would have been premature to Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 30 1 not be contained in a leak or a purported leak without 2 being absolutely sure. 3 if not stupid. 4 Q That would have been premature, So, sir, what actions did the department 5 take around Thanksgiving of 2010 upon learning that the 6 public release of the purported cables was imminent? 7 A The department notified all posts of this 8 and asked them to reacquaint themselves with all of 9 this material, to carefully analyze what might be 10 leaked or become a purported leak and then to prepare 11 guidance for Washington on potential host 12 government/host nation reaction to that material. 13 14 Q Sir, did you, as the Under Secretary, have to brief the Secretary of State? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 Q And why, sir? 17 A Because, obviously, this is a huge -- it's 18 a huge effort because State Department reporting and 19 analysis is incredibly important to the national 20 security and also our reporting and analysis is based, 21 to a great extent, on our ability to interface, to work Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 31 1 with foreign government officials and other foreign 2 nationals in the private sector of all kinds. 3 They have an implicit belief that there's a 4 confidentiality and a privacy with what they would say 5 to us and the breach of that privacy would have a 6 significant and deleterious impact on our operations 7 and, secondly, also, just perchance, the Secretary of 8 State was about to embark on an overseas travel to two 9 major conferences where she would be seeing many, many 10 11 senior foreign leaders. Q So, sir, could you please very briefly 12 describe your specific role around that Thanksgiving 13 timeframe with the -- as the purported cables were 14 being released to the public? 15 A Certainly. I worked with the executive 16 secretary of the department. The executive secretary, 17 using almost a Thomas Jeffersonian term, is the chief 18 clerk of the department, the individual who coordinates 19 process and operations of paper flow and briefing 20 materials within the department and the department, as 21 a matter of course, when it is faced with a serious Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 32 1 crisis, sets up a task force. 2 We set up a task force. We set up a task 3 force to review and deal with material, we set up a 4 mitigation task force and we set up a "persons at risk" 5 task force. 6 So my responsibility was to make sure, 7 working with the executive secretary, that those 8 processes were started and that they had the resources 9 necessary that we had to pull from throughout the 10 department to staff them because the department has no 11 excess -- in fact, has no reserve or National Guard to 12 call forward and call up in order to backstop the State 13 Department. 14 line" to deal with any crisis. 15 Q It has to pull people, in effect, "off the Sir, first, we'd like to talk about the 16 WikiLeaks working group. 17 will not be trying -- I will not be listening to any 18 testimony from you about the mitigation team, just the 19 WikiLeaks working group. 20 21 For today's testimony, sir, I So, sir, in reference to the WikiLeaks working group, when was that first created? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 33 1 A The WikiLeaks working group was created 2 around that Thanksgiving timeframe. 3 exact date in my head. 4 representatives at a senior level, the deputy assistant 5 secretary level from every regional bureau, the Bureau 6 of International Organization Affairs and all the 7 functional bureaus. 8 9 I don't have the It was composed of A functional bureau in the State Department would be the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, 10 the Bureau of Oceans, Environmental and Science 11 Affairs, the Counter-terrorism Office as well as 12 individuals from various management bureaus who are 13 there in a supporting and advisory role and its job was 14 to serve as a central hub. 15 We have a small suite behind our operations 16 center, our 24-hour command center, the equivalent of 17 the National Military Command Center in which task 18 forces assemble when we're in crisis mode. 19 around the table and, as information comes in from 20 other elements of the department or from overseas, they 21 make sure the information is coalesced, assembled, People sit Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 34 1 compared, contrasted and then briefed to senior to 2 management along with recommendations for "next steps" 3 that might have to be taken. 4 5 Q Sir, you mentioned the term crisis a few times. 6 7 8 9 What is a crisis situation in terms of the Department of State? A The crisis situation of the Department of State can -- is a huge range of activities. You can 10 have an airplane crash with many American citizens 11 onboard. 12 earthquake. 13 Japan followed by the damage to the Aku Shima power 14 plants, you can have a terrorist attack on the United 15 States embassy or you can have any activity that has a 16 deleterious impact on the State Department's operations 17 our national security division which goes outside of 18 the narrow framework that one bureau or office should 19 and could handle itself. 20 force is that. 21 Q You can have a natural disaster, the Haiti You can have something like the tsunami in So a crisis -- a crisis task Sir, why was this situation considered a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 35 1 crisis? 2 A It was considered a crisis because the 3 release of documents that would be purported to be U.S. 4 State Department classified or unclassified, for that 5 matter, in large quantities reporting an analysis would 6 breach the trust and confidence of our interlocutors 7 overseas. 8 9 When the State Department officers go out and are looking at the situation in the country in 10 which they are assigned or the international 11 organization to which they are assigned, they are 12 looking at activities that are ongoing. 13 talking to other diplomats, to members of the private 14 sector, wherever, and they are assembling reporting on 15 that situation and then there are pending analysis to 16 it. 17 They are Part and an incredibly important part of 18 that complex undertaking is to understand the opinions, 19 the analysis, the feelings of others, i.e. those 20 outside the State Department or the U.S. Government 21 family and, therefore, we will have discussions with Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 36 1 host nation, meaning the country in which the embassy 2 is located, diplomats from third countries, individuals 3 representing non-governmental organizations. 4 We have full and frank discussions with 5 those individuals and it is their expectation that 6 those discussions will be treated as private and 7 confidential and not exposed to everyone because, if 8 that was the case, they would be reticent to provide 9 their full and frank opinions and analysis and share 10 them with us and then, as we're assembling our 11 reporting analysis, feeding it back to Washington where 12 it becomes one piece of a very large puzzle that is the 13 national security of the United States, the diminution 14 of the value of that reporting is that we're not 15 getting the full and frank opinions of interlocutors 16 expressed to us. 17 Q So, sir, in reference -- 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. COOMBS: Hold on just a moment. Yes? I'm sorry to interrupt you 20 there. The last part of -- Under Secretary Kennedy's 21 answer would be [inaudible]... Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 37 1 2 THE COURT: What time frame are you talking about with the diminution? 3 THE WITNESS: 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. COOMBS: I'm talking about -- Hold on. The last part, Under 6 Secretary's answer would be 2001. 7 THE COURT: 8 about? 9 THE WITNESS: 10 11 THE COURT: I'm sorry? I understand. I got the objection down. 12 13 What timeframe are you talking What timeframe where you talking about with the diminution? 14 THE WITNESS: I'm talking about the 15 diminution after any leak of classified information, 16 any leak of classified information that can be 17 attributed to a breach of confidence results in a 18 diminution. 19 THE COURT: 20 BY MR. FEIN: 21 Q Thank you. You gave that answer based on the answer Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 38 1 why this was thought to be a crisis. 2 3 4 In your experience, sir, how many bureaus are normally represented in a crisis work group? A I would say usually in a crisis working 5 group you have a single geographic bureau because most 6 events take place in one geographic area and then you 7 have the Bureau of Public Affairs because they are 8 large press inquiries. 9 Consulate Affairs which handles our assistants to 10 You have the Bureau of American citizens in distress. 11 Overseas, you would -- could have the 12 Bureau of Diplomatic Security. 13 Administration which would be providing logistics and 14 then you could have, potentially, the Bureau of Human 15 Resources if there are large number of State Department 16 people. 17 Q 18 19 You have the Bureau of I would say five or six. So how was the WikiLeaks working group different than other crisis working groups? A It was different in that it impacted every 20 single one of our six regional bureaus plus the Bureau 21 of International Organizational Affairs, plus a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 39 1 significant number of functional bureaus, economic and 2 business, ocean, environment, science, 3 counter-terrorism. 4 5 Q In your 40 years, have you ever seen a crisis working group that encompassed so many bureaus? 6 A Never. 7 Q Why not, sir? 8 A Because we've never had a crisis that was 9 10 11 so -- it's so wide ranging that affected that many bureaus at one time. Q Can you please describe to the court the 12 overall mission of WikiLeaks working group within the 13 first 24 to 48 hours? 14 A The mission of WikiLeaks working group was 15 to be in communication with the ambassador and chief of 16 mission at our overseas post and with the assistant 17 secretaries, deputies, assistant secretaries and office 18 directors within the domestic offices to review the 19 material that we believed could become compromised in 20 such release and determine what recommendations we need 21 to make to the secretary and what action the State Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 40 1 Department needed to take should that information 2 result in a purported leak of State Department 3 documents. 4 5 Q Was anyone at the State Department looking at the documents that were being released in the press? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you describe that process? 8 A The documents were being -- we were looking 9 at the purported leaked documents in the press and then 10 determining what actions we needed to take in light of 11 engaging with foreign officials, either governmental or 12 private either in Washington or overseas. 13 Q One moment, please, sir. 14 (Pause.) 15 Sir, how many countries does the United 16 States have diplomatic relations with, approximately? 17 A 18 170 countries. 19 Q Do we have embassies and posts in all of A We have embassies in about 160 of them. 20 21 I think we have a diplomatic relations with them? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 41 1 There are some small, smaller nations, in the 2 geographic sense, in mainly the island nations in the 3 Caribbean and in the Pacific where we have diplomatic 4 relations and our diplomacy carried out by an 5 ambassador resident in another country also accredited, 6 also the United States ambassador of those actions as 7 well. 8 Q How many geographic bureaus? 9 A There are six geographic bureaus. 10 Q How many functional bureaus? 11 A About two dozen. 12 Q Total, sir, how many of these embassies or 13 the bureaus were involved in responding to the crisis? 14 A Every regional bureau plus the Bureau of 15 International Organizational Affairs plus probably 20 16 others. 17 Q What about the embassies abroad? 18 A Every single embassy and our consulates as 19 well. Any and all of those offices could have done 20 some element of political, economic reporting and 21 analysis. So one of these would have been involved if Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 42 1 they had filed reporting cables and also all of them do 2 to some degree or another. 3 Q Sir, who -- speaking about the embassies, 4 who at the embassies were involved in reviewing these 5 documents and getting back to main state? 6 A I would say everyone at the embassy. The 7 ambassador, the deputy chief of admission would be 8 leading the team. 9 have economic reporting, science reporting. 10 have political military affairs reporting. 11 have press and cultural reporting. 12 consulate reporting. 13 security reporting. 14 You have political reporting, you You could You could You could have You could have administrative and So every officer at that embassy or other 15 post would have been reviewing that database I 16 mentioned earlier which we had set up. 17 Q So, sir, I'm sorry. When you said 18 everyone, you mean all the reporting officers, not 19 literally everyone at an embassy? 20 21 A I would think also it would involve the counselor officers would be looking at it. There would Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 43 1 be also the management officer and the security officer 2 would be looking at to see if any of that reporting, 3 should it be compromised, would have some kind of 4 potentially deleterious effect on either the security 5 or the operation. 6 So, yes, the reporting officers and 7 ambassador and the deputy chief submission are the 8 first line, but everyone else there is supporting them. 9 Q It is your understanding that each post, 10 you already essentially testified, ranges in some 11 sizes, some have ambassadors, some don't. 12 How many total people oversees were 13 involved in the initial response to the disclosures 14 approximately, sir, overseas? 15 A I would say the number is in the thousands. 16 We have about 10,000 American State Department 17 personnel abroad and I would say a significant number 18 of them would have been involved in this one way or 19 another. 20 21 Q Sir, how many -- on average, how many individuals are assigned to geographic bureaus? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 44 1 A They geographically vary in size, but I 2 would say that there are several hundred in each of the 3 six geographic bureaus, plus another 150 of the Bureau 4 of International Organization Affairs. 5 Q In your estimate, what was the total number 6 of individuals assigned to geographic bureaus that were 7 dedicated to supporting the WikiLeaks working group in 8 the first few weeks after the disclosure started? 9 A I would say that if you had a bureau it 10 would probably have been 75 or 80 percent of the 11 individuals only excluding those people responsible for 12 the internal administrative processing of the bureau 13 because if you have a large desk -- a desk is a 14 concept, not a physical thing, a desk, the French desk, 15 the Brazilian desk. 16 officer on it that's because there's a large amount of 17 material moving back and forth and, therefore, everyone 18 had been involved. 19 there might be one officer who is handling two 20 countries. 21 reviewing that potentially leaked material and then If that desk has more than one If you had a very small country But all of them would have been involved Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 45 1 determining what actions needed to be briefed out and 2 what actions might have to be taken bilaterally, 3 multi-laterally. 4 5 Q What about the function of bureaus? How many people, on average, are assigned to those? 6 A Again, probably 200. 7 Q In your estimate, sir, what was the total 8 number of individuals assigned to functional bureaus 9 that were consumed by the first few weeks of WikiLeaks 10 working group? 11 A I would say of the 200, I'm guessing 12 probably more like half because they are responsible, 13 though equally important would probably have been less 14 directly although some, such as the economic and 15 business bureau or the counter-terrorism bureau, might 16 have been up in the 75 to 80 percent range as well. 17 18 Q Sir, what about the Under Secretary level? How many Under Secretaries were involved? 19 A All six Under Secretaries were involved. 20 Q What about the Secretary of State? 21 Was she presently involved in the responses? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 46 1 A She was. 2 Q And why did Secretary Clinton have to be 3 4 personally involved in this crisis management? A Because the Secretary of State is 5 responsible for the operations of the entire State 6 Department and this was a very, very serious crisis. 7 Secondly, it is the Secretary of State who 8 is either on the telephone with or engaged in meeting 9 or in travels with a huge panoply of senior foreign 10 officials as well as both governmental and 11 non-governmental. 12 individuals she would be dealing with if they would be 13 reading the newspaper. 14 Q So these are individuals -- the Sir, why did you wait essentially at the 15 department until the release was eminent to start 16 implementing a department-wide response? 17 A I think there are two reasons for that. 18 First of all is that the department is always resourced 19 constrained. 20 activities and the -- as well as long-term planning 21 that best supports our national security mission and we We put our resources to the immediate Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 47 1 took, I believe, prudent preliminary steps such as 2 assembling that Intranet database and advising our 3 posts overseas as well as in our office in Washington 4 to prepare themselves by reviewing the material, but to 5 pull resources off the line to engage in this when we 6 were not absolutely fully sure that the material would 7 be released. 8 and the second item is that if we're going to have to 9 deal with a country that is aggrieved about material It would be a potential waste of resource 10 that they had read, you want to make sure that they had 11 read it before you went to them. 12 be ahead of the curve and this is one case where you do 13 not want to be ahead of the curve. 14 Q Otherwise, you would Did you direct an impact review to capture 15 the department's efforts that impacts from the 16 compromise of the purported cables? 17 A I did. 18 Q And when did you finalize that impact 19 review, sir? 20 A I did not finalize that impact. 21 Q Why did you not, sir? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 48 1 A I received a draft, the draft that came to 2 me as a senior official in August of 2011 and as we 3 were reviewing it, we also very shortly thereafter 4 became aware that there was going to be a second major 5 traunch of purported documents moving into the press 6 and it became evident from looking at that and looking 7 at the material that what I had in my hand was a 8 snapshot based upon earlier material which was 9 certainly not comprehensive. When you took the 10 material that was published, purported State Department 11 documents and then added to it the second major traunch 12 that was about to be released which in that second 13 traunch was purported to contain a large number -- 14 larger percentage of classified material than the first 15 traunch and, therefore, what I had was a snapshot in 16 time and certainly by no means represented a full and 17 conclusive damage assessment. 18 19 Q Sir, would a completed assessment have mitigated any potential damage? 20 A No. 21 Q Why not, sir? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 49 1 A 2 damage. 3 Q Because assessment is simply measuring It does not mitigate damage. Sir, from what you observed in your 4 position, the Under Secretary of State For Management, 5 has the department's ability to conduct diplomacy been 6 impacted by the PFC Manning's actions? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Has that also impacted foreign relations? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Sir, why is the ability to conduct 11 12 diplomacy in the United States' national interests? A I believe that there is a three-legged 13 stool that protects U.S. national security. There's 14 obviously our military, our development assistance 15 which helps countries develop so that they do not 16 become ungovernable states and potential havens for 17 terrorism and the humanitarian point which is equally 18 of value of helping people desecrated and the third leg 19 of that stool is diplomacy and to do -- to underpin the 20 national security you need a robust State Department 21 diplomatic effort which includes the ability to report Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 50 1 and analyze events that are going on across the world 2 so that will become a piece of the puzzle, i.e., 3 information that's available to national security 4 decision makers in Washington and we are -- if we are 5 not able to engage in full and frank and private and 6 confidential discussions with a full range of foreign 7 interlocutors, we are not able to craft up the 8 reporting and analysis to feed to those national 9 security decision makers in Washington information of a 10 quality that is diminished otherwise. 11 12 MR. COOMBS: The last part 1001B4, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: 14 Q Got it. BY MR. FEIN: 15 All right. Specifically in reference to the privacy 16 and confidence in the trust of our foreign 17 interlocutors have to have -- don't the -- well, do the 18 foreign interlocutors still have to work with us even 19 if they didn't have trust in us? 20 21 A Obviously, they have to work with us. When we go into a foreign embassy to deliver a demarche, a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 51 1 request that the United States is making them to engage 2 in some kind of action or support for the United States 3 and some world forum, they will certainly receive our 4 demarche and potentially work with us if this is in 5 their national interest and many cases it would be in 6 their -- in our common interest to do so. 7 would be lacking is a full and frank exchange of views 8 on what their thinking is, what their analysis is of a 9 situation that is developed. But what we It's that exchange, 10 that's correct. 11 allows us to craft the best analytic to Washington on 12 circumstances. 13 Q 14 15 That full and frank exchange that You describe the conversation and report back to Washington? A Yes. We have a system and it has -- it's 16 one of those sort of historical names. There are names 17 called cables, they're sometimes called telegrams. 18 They're called cable telegrams and you see that often 19 referred to. 20 at our posts around the world in economic reporting and 21 analysis, culture and science, political military, What happens is we have offices stationed Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 52 1 et cetera, even the managerial report and analysis that 2 officers at our embassies monitor situations that are 3 ongoing in the nation to which they are assigned and 4 for potentially adjacent nations as well. 5 are looking at that, analyze it in the context of their 6 own expertise, these individuals who have been trained 7 in the language and the culture of that country and 8 they rise in the ranks from probably subsequent and 9 repetitive tours in a country or region, these are our As I they 10 subject matter experts. But that's not enough. What 11 they do then is they go out and they meet and they talk 12 with representatives of that government, of other 13 governments who happened to be based in that situation, 14 location of journalists educators, non-governmental 15 organizations, the best community. 16 discuss issues with all of those people engage in the 17 full range discussions and then go back to the embassy 18 and craft a cable, a telegram, a report that says, in 19 effect, here is what is going on and then they report 20 on the why and then depending upon the circumstances, 21 predictions, so to speak, about what actions might be They meet and Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 53 1 taken in the future by that nation and then that report 2 analysis feeds into the national security analysis in 3 Washington. 4 5 6 Q Sir, how do you, as the Under Secretary For Management oversee this process? A I provide the physical plan overseas. I 7 provide the personnel, security, the medical, the 8 logistics and I also provide the records management in 9 Washington and I provide the information technology 10 transmission to speak between the posts and Washington. 11 So those reports do reach Washington and 12 other U.S. government agencies and also an embassy 13 could also be reporting what we call laterally. 14 army in Shangri-Law does not send reports to 15 Washington, but is sending the report to the embassy in 16 Shangri-La which is a country which might have some 17 interest in this meeting. 18 has interest in that reporting. 19 20 21 Q The Our embassy in that country Why does the department write cables and/or telegrams? A To inform the policymakers in Washington so Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 54 1 that they can develop the best national security 2 position for the United States. 3 Q Sir, who with the U.S. Government reads 4 these cables? 5 A The State Department reporting analysis 6 goes to -- I think probably any U.S. Government agency 7 that has an interest in international affairs or has an 8 interest in domestic affairs that is impacted by 9 activities that go on overseas. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q Sir, how many cables, on average, is sent from any given embassy on any given day? A It can range from a half dozen at the same embassies to 100 or more in a large embassy. Q Prior to PFC Manning, was information about sources included in sources? 16 A 17 interlocutory. 18 Sources has another context, but we refer to them just 19 as the people we meet with. 20 21 Q Yes. Also, always is cited our I would not refer to them as sources. Sir, what purpose is it -- what purpose is served when you list individuals, the people that Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 55 1 diplomats meet with in general, sir? 2 A It's a very important element in giving 3 context and credibility to the reporting information 4 and report from a more senior government official 5 might, in given circumstances, carry more weight than a 6 report from a junior official, report of a discussion 7 with a senior member of a significant party in a 8 country. 9 from a senior management of the business community and It conveys a certain context to Washington 10 it would be very, very important potentially to our 11 expert import bank on the overseas private investment 12 corporation in determining their strategies to promote 13 United States economic investments, our U.S. exports. 14 15 Q Sir, the information of Department of State reports on U.S. Government policy? 16 A Yes. Policymakers in Washington do not 17 operate in a vacuum. There are obviously views from 18 multiple government agencies. 19 views. 20 Department of Commerce might have views. 21 Government agencies tend to have views on overseas that The State Department has The Defense Department has views. The All U.S. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 56 1 impact on the United States national security. 2 that reporting and analysis feeds in context is it 3 allows policymakers to make the best decisions because 4 their decision making is informed from the widest 5 possible ambit. 6 Q What Sir, after PFC Manning compromised the 7 cables, was there change in the type of source 8 information, personal information of the people that's 9 drafted included in cables? 10 A Some embassies have changed that. That is 11 deleterious and we have -- we think we are losing 12 something in that regard. 13 however. Not every embassy has, 14 MR. COOMBS: 1001B4. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. 16 Q Did you correct that change or is that -- 17 A It is self-generated at various embassies. 18 Q Okay. Sir, why did the Department of State 19 provide other agencies, as you've already testified 20 about, access to the diplomatic reporting? 21 A The State Department is represented in Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 57 1 280-some odd posts around the word. 2 geographically dispersed representation of any U.S. 3 Government agency, period, and that means that our 4 personnel are doing reporting and analysis from more 5 locations with more personnel than any other U.S. 6 Government agency and, therefore, these other U.S. 7 Government agencies want the widest possible range of 8 reporting to -- if nothing more to interleave or 9 compare and contrast with other reporting that they may 10 We have the widest be receiving from other U.S. Government agencies. 11 So these agencies need our reporting and 12 analysis in order to inform their part of the national 13 security including economic security and national 14 security. 15 Q 16 Sir, I have a few more questions for you. Sir, this is just a yes or no question. 17 you have an opinion on whether these disclosures 18 impacted the Department of State? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And, sir, how confident are you in that 21 opinion? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation Do UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 58 1 A Totally confident. 2 Q Sir, what is your opinion on whether these 3 disclosures impacted the Department of State? 4 A These disclosures, had a chilling effect on 5 foreign officials, governmental and non-governmental 6 willingness to engage in full and frank discussions 7 with us which is detrimental to us assisting in our 8 responsibilities to protect the national security. 9 10 MR. COOMBS: Your Honor, 1001B4 and speculation. 11 THE COURT: 12 Q 13 Go ahead. Sir, a yes or no question. Do you have an opinion on whether these 14 disclosures will continue to impact the Department of 15 State? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Sir, how confident are you on that opinion? 18 A Totally confident. 19 Q Sir, what is your opinion on whether these 20 disclosures will continue to impact the Department of 21 State? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 59 1 2 3 A We have had situations in which individuals, for example -Q I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir. Without 4 giving examples, sir, if you could, just explain why 5 you believe these disclosures will continue to impact 6 the department. 7 A Certainly. The underpinning of diplomatic 8 reporting and analysis is full and frank discussion 9 with foreign officials. I believe those foreign 10 officials feel that in many cases that they do not have 11 the ability to engage in that same level of full and 12 frank conversation because of what has happened and, 13 therefore, that is a chilling effect that will go on 14 for some time. 15 People have long memories. MR. COOMBS: 16 speculation. 17 Q Your Honor, again, 1001B4, Sir, a yes or no question. 18 Do you have an opinion, sir, on whether 19 these disclosures impacted policymakers who rely on 20 diplomatic reporting? 21 A Yes. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 60 1 Q Sir, how confident are you in that opinion? 2 A Totally confident. 3 Q Sir, what is your opinion on whether the 4 disclosures impacted policymakers that relied on 5 diplomatic reporting? 6 7 MR. COOMBS: speculation, foundation of the opinion. 8 9 Your Honor, objection here, THE COURT: Foundation is one of the objections? 10 MR. COOMBS: 11 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. All right. Proceed. You can 12 develop your foundation, should you have any additional 13 foundation you want to add. 14 MR. FEIN: One moment, please, ma'am. 15 (Pause.) 16 17 Ma'am, the United States believes that it has laid a proper foundation for that opinion. 18 THE COURT: 19 BY MR. FEIN: 20 Q Proceed. 21 Sir, to reask the question, what is your opinion on whether these disclosures impacted Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 61 1 2 policymakers that relied on diplomatic reporting? A Policymakers, in order to develop the best 3 course of action for the U.S. national security need 4 the best possible reporting and analysis from the State 5 Department as its contribution and absent a full and 6 frank discussion, which I believe has been chilled, 7 they then do not get the best possible reporting and 8 analysis that would enable them to do potentially a 9 better job in supporting our national security. 10 MR. FEIN: 11 Your Honor, there are no further questions. 12 THE COURT: 13 Thank you, sir. Okay. You guys want a recess before you go? 14 MR. COOMBS: Yes, Your Honor. 15 could -- come back maybe 25 after. 16 THE COURT: If we Ambassador Kennedy, please 17 don't discuss your testimony or knowledge of the case 18 with anyone other than counsel and the accused while -- 19 well, don't discuss your testimony with anybody during 20 the recess. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 62 1 2 THE COURT: I'm sorry, how long did you need? 3 MR. COOMBS: 4 THE COURT: 5 All right. Court is in recess until 25 after 11:00. 6 THE CLERK: 7 8 Just until 25 after. All rise. (There was a recess taken at 11:13 and the trial resumed at 11:25 a.m.) 9 THE CLERK: All rise. 10 THE COURT: Please be seated. 11 called to order. 12 last recessed are again present in court. 13 The court is All parties present when the court is on the witness chair. 14 Proceed, Mr. Coombs. 15 MR. COOMBS: 16 The witness EXAMINATION BY MR. COOMBS: 17 18 Q Thank you, Your Honor. Under Secretary Kennedy, I remind you you're still under oath. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Okay. 21 I want to start off by asking you a few questions about the use of cables with the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 63 1 Department of State. 2 A Okay. 3 Q The State Department has historically 4 accomplished the basic communication between Washington 5 and its overseas posts through the use of diplomatic 6 cables? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you would agree that United States 9 10 11 12 13 policy formulation is done at the State Department in Washington and across inter-agencies? A With input from the diplomatic reporting as well as other input from other agencies. Q Correct, but the actual formulation of the 14 policy is done here in Washington with inter-agencies, 15 correct? 16 A With input from diplomatic reporting. 17 Q All right, and the diplomatic cables that 18 you receive the input, that's not policy, though? 19 A (Pause.) 20 Q It's not a statement of policy, is it? 21 A No. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 64 1 2 3 Q And diplomatic cables are not always accurate? A Diplomatic cables report the facts as they 4 are then known to the individuals who are doing 5 reporting. 6 7 8 9 Q My question is diplomatic cables are not always accurate? A I'm afraid I can't give you a yes or no answer to that. To say yes, they're not always 10 accurate implies that there is a deliberate inaccuracy 11 in the reporting when the report is filed. 12 the ground can change and so an accurate reporting in 13 2002 may no longer be the case in 2003 but that, in my 14 opinion, does not make the report of 2002 inaccurate, 15 it just means the situation has been overtaken by 16 events between 2002 and 2003. 17 Q Facts on Let me then -- I think based upon what you 18 answered there, I'll take out the deliberate aspect 19 because that's not my question. 20 inaccuracy within a diplomatic cable, but diplomatic 21 cables are not always accurate. So not a deliberate Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 65 1 So if somebody reports something believed 2 to be true and immediately would find out is not true; 3 is that correct? 4 A That is possible, yes. 5 Q Now, a diplomatic cable is a report of 6 information or facts from a particular embassador or 7 post, correct? 8 A It's a report from the post, yes. 9 Q And that is -- that cable is the view from 10 that particular post of the facts? 11 A Yes. 12 Q So that's the view from their vantage 13 point, what they believe might be the facts on the 14 ground where they're reporting from? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And each diplomatic cable that comes in 17 will have the ambassador's name on the bottom? 18 A That is a convention, yes. 19 Q And because it's a convention doesn't many 20 21 that the ambassador actually drafted that cable, right? A That is correct. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 66 1 Q If it dealt with routine administrative 2 matters, the ambassador might not have even reviewed 3 the cable? 4 A Correct. 5 Q And depending upon the size of the embassy 6 or post and the number of cases going out, an 7 ambassador might not even review a cable that has his 8 or her name on it? 9 A Well, the ambassador's name is on every 10 cable that goes out if he or she is present at the 11 post. 12 necessarily read every cable that goes out of the post 13 even though it bears his or her signature. 14 But, yes, an ambassador does not physically Q And the SIPDIS cables, those were 15 addressed -- when they the ambassador's name on the 16 bottom, they were addressed to the Secretary of State, 17 correct? 18 A All cables inbound from Washington as well 19 all cables outbound from Washington say either to or 20 from sec state. 21 Q And, obviously, that doesn't mean that the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 67 1 Secretary of State reads all of these cables? 2 A That is correct. 3 Q And as you just said, the outbound cables 4 also have the Secretary of State's name on them? 5 A Correct. 6 Q And that clearly does not mean that the 7 Secretary of State wrote those cables, correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Read the cable? 10 A All, not necessarily. 11 Q Or even was aware that the cable went out? 12 A Depending upon the subject matter, yes. 13 Q And as you had earlier testified, that's 14 just kind of a coming convention that's a holdover of, 15 I guess, years gone by? 16 A It's a convention, yes. 17 Q Now, the Net Centric diplomacy database, 18 that was available to anyone who has SIPRNET access at 19 one point, correct? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And those cables that were shared on the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 68 1 NCD database, they were all captioned with the 2 distribution caption of SIPDIS? 3 A Correct. 4 Q And within the State Department, the access 5 to and control over the cables and who it's distributed 6 to is controlled by the use of tags which I'm not going 7 to really talk about, but then also captions, correct? 8 9 A And a third element. It's called AMats and I'm not sure what the acronym stands for, but it is, in 10 effect, an artificial intelligence that reads the 11 cables and depending upon keywords that it finds in the 12 message. 13 would be formulate the distribution pattern. 14 15 Q So that would be captions, tags and AMats And SIPDIS would be an example of one of the distribution captions that you would use? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And with regards to the Department of 18 State, the advice and training that was put out to the 19 various embassies and posts was that SIPDIS caption 20 meant that it was appropriate to share with our 21 inter-agency partners; is that correct? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 69 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, there are, obviously, other more 3 sensitive captions that can be used for cables? 4 A There are lots of captions available for 5 use. 6 restrictive, yes. 7 Some of them are directional, some of them are Q And some of the captions that would 8 restrict the audience, narrow the audience who could 9 actually review them I'm just going to name a few and 10 tell me if you're aware of these or are familiar with 11 them. Statedisk or Statdisk? 12 A Statdisk, yes. 13 Q NODIS? 14 A Yes. 15 Q XDIS? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Roger? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Terror (phonetic)? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Okay. Now, I'm showing you what's been Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 70 1 marked as Defense Charlie-Charlie-Charlie for 2 identification. 3 handbook. 4 5 It is a portion of the Foreign Affairs Are you familiar with the Foreign Affairs handbook? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And I hand the witness Charlie-Charlie for 8 identification or Charlie-Charlie-Charlie. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Do you recognize that? A I recognize the format and I'm going to assume that you've given me an accurate copy. Q And the Foreign Affairs handbook has several sections to it, correct? A There are multiple volumes of the Foreign Affairs handbook. Q And the volume or the section that you have 17 in front of you, does that deal with just captions, 18 what captions mean? 19 A Chapter -- volume V deals with information 20 technology and telecommunications and the subsection 21 you have is labeled captions and handling instructions, Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 71 1 2 yes. Q If you would, please, Under Secretary, just 3 kind of thumb through that for a moment and tell me 4 whether or not that kind discusses each of the possible 5 captions that you can have for a cable? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A (Pause.) It seems to -- it has lots of captions that I recognize. Q Underneath each of those captions it also gives comprehensive instructions about when you would use that caption; is that correct? A Yes. MR. COOMBS: I'm retrieving from the 13 witness Defense Exhibit Charlie-Charlie-Charlie for 14 identification and offering into evidence as Defense 15 Exhibit Charlie-Charlie-Charlie. 16 THE COURT: 17 MR. FEIN: 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. FEIN: Any objection? Lack of foundation, Your Honor. What's missing? Well, ma'am, Under Secretary 20 Kennedy didn't specifically remember that being -- that 21 being the actual Foreign Affairs handbook, where it Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 72 1 came from. 2 He kept saying it appears to be this. THE COURT: Why don't we do this. I'm not 3 going to initial off on it now. 4 provisionally admit it. 5 can show me that it's an accurate version of the 6 Foreign Affairs I will admit it. 7 THE COURT: If you can find something that MR. COOMBS: 8 9 What I will do is Okay, your Honor. Consider it provisionally admitted for now. 10 MR. COOMBS: Just to lay the foundation, 11 having Defense Exhibit Charlie-Charlie-Charlie for 12 identification to the witness, is there anything on the 13 very top of that or bottom of that document that would 14 indicate to you that this is from the Department of 15 State. 16 THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, the 17 formatting and everything looks like pages from the 18 Foreign Affairs handbook. 19 THE COURT: 20 I just... question its accuracy? 21 Do you have any reason to THE WITNESS: No, but, as I said, depending Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 73 1 upon the questions that follow, I cannot, Your Honor, 2 state it with a hundred percent certainty that this is 3 an accurate copy of this chapter of five -- manual five 4 Foreign Affairs handbook. 5 I don't know that it's not, but I don't 6 know that is. 7 this -- that I was presented as the Under Secretary For 8 Management, I would give it to staff and say if I was 9 submitting this to a court of law, I would go have it 10 validated that this copy that was being submitted was 11 going in was absolutely correct. 12 to believe it is, Your Honor, but I just don't have any 13 reason to know it is either. 14 15 So I'm not willing to certify that THE COURT: I have no reason not I understand that. May I see it for just a moment? 16 THE WITNESS: 17 THE COURT: Certainly. Here's what we're going to do. 18 I'm going to admit. Government, if you think there's 19 something that's not accurate about this document, 20 you're certainly free to advise the court and the court 21 will take action accordingly. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 74 1 MR. FEIN: 2 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. Defense Exhibit 3 Charlie-Charlie-Charlie for identification is admitted. 4 BY MR. COOMBS: 5 Q Ambassador Kennedy, I'm going to ask you a 6 few questions about various caption -- excuse me, Under 7 Secretary Kennedy, I'm going to ask you a few questions 8 about various captions. 9 benefit of that if you needed to look at something to 10 I wanted you to have the refresh your memory. 11 A Certainly. 12 Q Otherwise, your memory is perfectly fine. 13 With regards to status, status is used 14 basically to preclude initial distribution to other 15 federal agencies; is that correct? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Status is basically for the internal 18 19 deliberative process for the State Department? A No, I think it goes beyond that. It could 20 be that, it can be other things. It is simply a 21 caption to ensure that the distribution remains State Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 75 1 Department only. 2 administrative, it could be any purpose in which the 3 originator wishes this material to remain only within 4 the State Department. 5 Q It could be deliberate, it could be And basically by the use of that caption 6 that is when it, for whatever reason, it would be 7 either premature or just simply not the type of 8 information that you would want to share with 9 interagency parters? 10 A Again, there could be a huge range of 11 subjects. 12 that he or she wishes this to be handled only within 13 State Department distribution channels and no one else. 14 Q The salient item is that the originator says Now, with regards to NODIS, that caption 15 identifies messages of the highest sensitivity, but 16 basically between the president, the Secretary of State 17 and chiefs of mission; is that correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And not what fact, but can you provide us 20 21 with kind of an example of what would be a NODIS? A I would say if an ambassador in a country Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 76 1 wished to provide information of the highest 2 sensitivity, let us say on ongoing negotiations about 3 conflict rationing between Xanadu and Shangri-La and, 4 because of the nature of the information, we were 5 restricting that to only certain -- a very, very 6 limited number of people. 7 Q And in with regards to the XDIS caption, 8 that is used for highly sensitive traffic between the 9 White House, the secretary, the deputy secretary and 10 11 12 13 the Under Secretaries of State? A It has -- it has a variety -- a wide variety of uses, but it is very close to what you said. Q And can you provide us with just kind of a 14 general example, again, of what type of cable might be 15 an XDIS cable? 16 A Again, it depends upon the circumstances 17 and I would say probably you would find some arms 18 control negotiations material potentially in that 19 channel. 20 21 Q And then with regards to Roger, that's for communications between the assistant secretary for Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 77 1 intelligence and research, I&R, and the chiefs of 2 mission; is that correct? 3 4 A That is an administrative channel. That is not a reporting channel. 5 Q With a cable, though, that's labeled as a 6 Roger, can you give us an example of what type of 7 cable? 8 A No, not in this session. 9 Q Okay. And terror, that's a caption used 10 for messages related to information about terrorism; is 11 that correct? 12 A 13 14 That is the channel used to call attention to terrorist reporting, yes. Q And these are messages, my understanding, 15 that can only be distributed to members of the 16 emergency action committee; is that correct? 17 A I would have to refresh my memory on that. 18 Q Are you -- again, in a very general 19 unclassified format, can you give an example of what a 20 terror type cable might be? 21 A A terror cable would be a report of a Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 78 1 2 potential terrorist attack. Q Now, the SIPDIS caption, as we said, that 3 is a caption that is only used if it can be shared with 4 the interagency partners? 5 A No. 6 Q Okay. 7 A The State Department shares large numbers Can you go ahead and enlighten me? 8 of cables with the interagency partners and this -- to 9 answer the question, Your Honor, I have to go back to a 10 little history, if I might. 11 12 THE COURT: A That's fine. The Department of Defense came to the State 13 Department mid 2000 or so and said that because of the 14 importance of State Department reporting to it and 15 because of the size of the defense department, the 16 current kind of push system in which the State 17 Department would dispatch cables to sec def, Secretary 18 of Defense, OSD, JCS, joint chiefs of staff, Fort 19 Richardson did not necessarily -- because of the size 20 of DOD, they would not necessarily get to potentially 21 the right elements within the Department of Defense Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 79 1 and, therefore, ask that a database be set up in which 2 the State Department would push reporting to that 3 database and then the DOD would be able to pull 4 information from that database based upon the needs of 5 the individual puller. 6 Q Now, with regards to the Defense Exhibit 7 Charlie-Charlie-Charlie, it lays out guidance for when 8 you would use the SIPDIS caption, correct? 9 A There are instructions there, yes. 10 Q And, again, those instructions indicate for 11 information messages deemed appropriate for release to 12 the U.S. Government interagency community? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And a SIPDIS caption message is never to be 15 combined with more restrictive captions such as NODIS, 16 XDIS, Roger or terror? 17 A Correct. 18 Q If a message carries conflicting captions, 19 the more restrictive caption is going to government? 20 A Correct. 21 Q So a SIPDIS caption, for instance, if it Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 80 1 does have more restrictive caption with it, it's not 2 going to go into the Net Centric diplomacy database? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Additionally, a SIPDIS caption is not 5 supposed to be used with Privacy Act information? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q So your meta channels, your HR channels, DS 8 channels, DSX channel, that stuff will not be in a 9 SIPDIS cable? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Again, if you had a SIPDIS cable that had 12 this type of information, again, it would not be loaded 13 into the Net Centric diplomacy database? 14 A Yes. 16 Q Correct. 17 A -- it would cause it -- if the machine is 15 Well, if it had the other caption on it -- 18 working correctly to what's called spill, meaning spill 19 to manual management upon arrival at its destination. 20 21 Q And drafting officers were directed, basically, to use the SIPDIS caption only for those Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 81 1 messages that fit the requirements of SIPDIS? 2 A Correct. 3 Q And so they understood that these were 4 messages that were designed to be shared with 5 interagency partners? 6 A Correct. 7 Q And during the period from 2004 to 2010, 8 State Department had posted some 250,000 or so cables 9 to the Net Centric diplomacy database? 10 A Correct. 11 Q During that same period of time, the State 12 Department disseminated approximately 2.4 million 13 cables through other systems to our other 65 other 14 government agencies? 15 A I believe, yes. 16 would want to verify it. 17 I recall that figure. I percent either way. 18 Q It's right within one or two So I believe you testified at Congress that 19 basically ten times as many cables that were given 20 to -- well, actually, the amount of cables given to the 21 Net Centric diplomacy database during that same time Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 82 1 period, ten times that many cables were pushed out to 2 our interagency partners through other means? 3 A Correct. 4 Q So, obviously, the majority of the cables 5 that were being shared with interagency partners were 6 not SIPDIS cables? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q So the policy formulation and whatnot, that 9 10 wasn't entirely relied upon by SIPDIS cables, there were other cables going out for policy and formulation? 11 A That is correct. 12 Q Do you know -- and you might not and that's 13 fine if you don't -- what percentage of Department of 14 State cables were labeled as SIPDIS cables on any given 15 year? 16 17 18 A No, I don't. I don't have that fact at Q Was it, in a general standpoint, was it a hand. 19 small percentage of the overall cables or a large 20 percentage of the overall cables that were labeled 21 SIPDIS or could you guess? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 83 1 A It would be hard to guess because you would 2 first have to factor out all the administrative or 3 logistic cables that are sent and then you SIPDIS as a 4 percentage of other reporting cables and -- I'm sorry, 5 I don't have that number available to me. 6 Q 7 That's fine. Now, my understanding is that when it 8 received the SIPDIS caption, those types of cables were 9 automatically by the, basically, automated process put 10 into the Net Centric diplomacy database? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q There wasn't a person that was looking at 13 the cable first and then saying, yeah, that should go 14 into the Net Centric diplomacy database? 15 A Correct. 16 Q And in 2005 through 2010, if an ambassador 17 or somebody posted a cable that was SIPDIS, they 18 labeled it as SIPDIS, within minutes of them submitting 19 it, it would get put into the Net Centric diplomacy 20 database? 21 A Correct. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 84 1 Q And after process, basically, and placed in 2 the Net Centric diplomacy database, it would be 3 available to anyone who had SIPRNET access? 4 A Correct. 5 Q And ambassadors and posts understood that 7 A Yes. 8 Q So fair to say that if somebody labeled as 6 9 10 fact? SIPDIS, they knew that it would be accessible to the million or so people who have SIPRNET access? 11 A I'm not sure that they knew that they were 12 a million or so people who had SIPRNET access, but they 13 thought that it was a category to make sure that the 14 Department of Defense had the material available to it 15 just like they would put other tags on the cable as 16 well. 17 Q And -- 18 A As I mentioned earlier, there are other 19 20 21 ways to ensure that messages get to other users. Q All right. And with regards to SIPDIS cables, if you label it as SIPDIS, in your opinion, Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 85 1 would that state something about the type of 2 information that would be in SIPDIS cables? 3 A No. 4 Q And why not? 5 A Because it was -- its purpose was to get it 6 to that -- to the Net Centric database so it would be 7 available at the request of DOD more easily for defense 8 department and potentially other -- several other U.S. 9 government agencies also have access to SIPRNET which 10 is the Department of Defense classified database and 11 the SIP in SIPDIS stands for SIPRNET access. 12 13 14 Q And from your perspective, did you review SIPRNET or SIPDIS cables, ever? A I read cables all day long. I don't ever 15 really particularly look at the captions. 16 the subject lines and I look at the summary paragraph 17 and then determine from the subject line and the 18 summary paragraph whether I need them to read the 19 entire message depending upon what is in the subject 20 line, want is in the summary paragraph. 21 Q I look at Between 2005 and 2010, were the SIPDIS Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 86 1 cables available to you in some other way besides Net 2 Centric diplomacy database? 3 A Yes. Because I'm State Department, they 4 would be available on the State Department distribution 5 system. 6 Q 7 And on that system, were they separated at all from any cable with a different caption? 8 A No. 9 Q All right. 10 A Excuse me... 11 Q Go ahead. 12 A Cables like NODIS and Roger channel are Now, when the DOD material -- 13 handled in very, very special ways. 14 diplomatic -- routine and diplomatic and consolate 15 reporting, it could be SIPDIS, it could not be SIPDIS. 16 It would appear on my computer screen as a telegraphic 17 report from whatever embassy was the originator. 18 Q But in terms of When purported material from the State 19 Department was allegedly given to Wikileaks, the State 20 Department immediately asked the chief of submission at 21 the affected post to review the purported department Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 87 1 cables, correct? 2 A Correct. 3 Q And the State Department also directed the 4 chiefs of mission to provide an assessment as well as a 5 kind overall summary of the effect that the release of 6 the purported cable could have on the host country? 7 A Correct. 8 Q In this review, an assessment was completed 9 10 in August of 2010? A No, sir. The request that was completed in 11 August of 2010 -- not completed in August of 2010 is a 12 damage assessment. 13 commissioned and the damage assessment was -- drew from 14 reports from chiefs of mission, ambassadors, but the 15 damage assessment was never completed. 16 Q It was a damage assessment I'm not talking about damage assessment, 17 what I'm talking about is the review that you got from 18 the chief submission at the effective host. 19 20 21 A They were individuals submissions from chief submission, yes. Q And that was completed in August of 2010? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 88 1 A There was, I guess -- I apologize. I guess 2 I'm hung up on the "it." 3 submission reports, but there is no it, there is no a 4 chief submission sent in a cable. 5 from all the chiefs submission. 6 in a binder, you know, alphabetically by post. 7 There were individual chief So we had the cable I'm sure they were put If that's the "it," yes. 8 Q Okay. And to make sure we're talking about 9 the same "it" then, you had testified about what the 10 Department of State had done in front of the senate 11 committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 12 Affairs? 13 A 14 appreciate it. 15 Q Before I do that, you did do that, correct? 16 A I testified before the senate committee, Q And there you testified that we immediately 17 18 If you could read the section to me, I'd yes. 19 asked the chief submission effective post review and 20 record a state material in the release in the release 21 and provide an assessment as well as a summary of the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 89 1 overall effect of the Wikileaks release could have on 2 relations with the host country following the 3 completion of this review in August. 4 A Okay. 5 Q So -- 6 A All right. 7 You're talking about August of 2010, not the August 2011... 8 Q I'm not talking about the assessment. 9 A Thank you. 10 11 I just -- if we're talking about 2010, I now understand your question. Q Okay. So let me go back then. You had the 12 chief submission review, the reported State Department 13 material from their area, correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And you asked them to look at it and to 16 give their impressions on how that might affect 17 relations with the host country? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And they got back to you by August of 2010? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And when it was believed that the State Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 90 1 Department cables might actually be released, you then 2 again instructed all of the chief submissions to 3 familiarize themselves with the content within the Net 4 Centric diplomacy database? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Based upon that direction, again, you got 7 feedback from the chiefs submission? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And when the press and Wikileaks announced 10 that there was going to be a release of purported 11 cables on 28 November, 2010, that's when the State 12 Department took several additional actions? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And one of those was to create the 15 24-7 Wikileaks working group? 16 A Correct. 17 Q And as you had said, this was a working 18 group composed of senior officials throughout the State 19 Department? 20 A Correct. 21 Q To include your regional bureaus? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 91 1 A Correct. 2 Q And how long did the 24-7 Wikileaks working 3 4 5 6 7 group conduct its work? A I think it was several months. I don't have the exact end date in mind. Q Do you have an idea of what month they stopped working? 8 A No, I don't. I'm sorry. 9 Q Less than six months? 10 A Less than six months. 11 Q Now, during this period, the Department of 12 State kept Congress apprized of its response to any 13 potential release by Wikileaks, correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And according to your testimony, the 16 department convened two separate briefings for memos of 17 both the House of Representatives and the senate within 18 days of December 2010? 19 A Correct. 20 Q And members of the department also appeared 21 twice in front of the House Permanent Select Committee Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 92 1 On Intelligence both on 7 December and 9 December, 2 2010? 3 A Correct. 4 Q And during those briefings, Department of 5 State officials informed Congress that the 6 administration felt compelled or Department of State 7 felt compelled to say publicly that the cable leak had 8 caused serious damage to American interests in order to 9 bolster the legal efforts to shut down the Wikileaks 10 11 12 13 website? A You just read me a quotation. Are you quoting me or are you quoting someone else, sir? Q I'm asking, are you aware of Department of 14 State officials informing Congress that the 15 administration felt compelled to say publicly that the 16 cable leaks had seriously damaged American interests in 17 order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the 18 Wikileaks website? 19 A I was the briefing officer at both those 20 two House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence 21 briefings and I don't remember saying that. I was -- Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 93 1 Q You don't believe that is true? 2 A I believe it caused damage, yes. But I 3 don't think -- the end of it is compelled to say 4 something and I don't remember saying that. 5 Q All right. I understand your testimony 6 under oath here is that the State Department never 7 briefed to a House Permanent Select Committee that the 8 cable leaks in this instance, the administration felt 9 compelled to say publicly that the cable leaks had 10 seriously damaged American interests in order to 11 bolster legal efforts to shut down the Wikileaks 12 website? 13 A I recall saying -- talking about the damage 14 to the U.S. national security. 15 that and I don't recall anyone saying that in my 16 presence. 17 Q I don't recall saying During those briefings, do you recall 18 indicating to Congress or saying to Congress that the 19 impact of the cable release was embarrassing, but not 20 damaging? 21 A I never said that. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 94 1 Q Anyone else from the Department of State? 2 A Not in my presence, sir. 3 Q So again, under oath here today, you are 4 saying that when you briefed congress, the State 5 Department never stated to Congress that the impact of 6 the cable release was embarrassing but not damaging? 7 A I do recall that having been said. 8 Q Now, I want to address a couple of the 9 10 potential harms that have been documented and you testified to one of those here today. Okay? 11 A Counsel, yes. 12 Q Now, there have been two types of potential 13 chilling effects from the alleged leaks, the first that 14 the State Department will stop sharing information with 15 other agencies and the second that countries or 16 individuals may stop being open and frank with us as 17 State Department members; is that correct? 18 19 20 21 A No, I've only described the second. I have never gone to the first. Q Well, that's not quite true. You've gone to the first when you testified in front of the House Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 95 1 Permanent Select Committee, correct? 2 A No, I said -- I believe I said -- and I 3 would have to go back and see if I can obtain the 4 classified transcript of that briefing -- that we were 5 certainly cutting off distribution via SIPRNET. 6 cutting off distribution -- We're 7 Q I have a clip from your testimony -- 8 A We're cutting off distribution via SIPRNET, 9 but we are not cutting off distribution via what we 10 called legacy SIPs which are the other distribution 11 systems. 12 the traffic would still be available to policymakers 13 through legacy systems. 14 15 Q So cut off the one, but not the other. Secretary Kennedy, I'm going to play a clip from your testimony and then ask you to comment on it. 16 17 So THE COURT: Are these marked in some fashion? 18 MR. COOMBS: They're going to be, Your 19 Honor. We may need to take a slight break. 20 whatever reason, it's not coming up. 21 For BY MR. COOMBS: Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 96 1 2 Q Again, you recall testifying in front of the House Permanent Select Committee? 3 A Yes. 4 Q I'd like to play -- 5 (Recorded MPEG clip starts playing...) 6 A Everything I've said to you -- your 7 question was, counsel, your testimony for the house 8 permanent select committee. 9 before the House Permanent Select Committee. 10 This is not that testimony This is a different hearing, so... 11 Q My question to you, Under Secretary 12 Kennedy, was had you testified about the two chilling 13 effects. 14 the -- 15 16 17 18 A You indicated that you never testified about Counsel, I believe you were talking about -- you said the House Permanent Select Committee. Q I'll repeat my question and then I'll see if I need to play this, okay? 19 A Right. 20 Q So I'll repeat the questions as I ask them 21 to you word-for-word. I want to address a couple of Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 97 1 potential harms that have been documented basically to 2 you, the two types of potential chilling effects from 3 the alleged leaks. 4 The first, that the State Department will 5 stop sharing information with other agencies and the 6 second that other countries or individuals may no 7 longer share information with us. 8 you never had testified about the former. 9 10 You indicated that Is that true or not true? A We're talking now about the senate 11 committee. 12 the senate homeland committee was very, very concerned 13 about -- since Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, 14 who are the chair and co-chair of that committee, they 15 were very concerned about information sharing because 16 they had been -- they were the authors of the 17 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. 18 Their question was directed at was the State Department 19 going to cut off the defense department from the 20 intelligence information and -- 21 Q The questions posed were two-fold. Since My question, though, Under Secretary, is Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 98 1 there were two types of possible chilling effects, the 2 first the State Department will shop sharing 3 information with other agencies. 4 5 Did you testify about that potential chilling effect? 6 A To Homeland Security and the senate, yes. 7 Q All right. And you testified there that 8 the State Department had avoided that first kind of 9 chilling effect? 10 11 12 A The chilling effect on the distribution to other government agencies, yes. Q All right. You said while the State 13 Department at that point had stopped its dissemination 14 of these purported cables on SIPRNET, they continued to 15 disseminate to the intelligence community system 16 throughout other sources, one was JWICS, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q You continued to disseminate the same 19 volume of material at the same rate with the 65 other 20 U.S. government agencies after the purported leak? 21 A Yes, sir. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 99 1 2 Q And the State Department, in your words, don't hold anything back? 3 A Correct. 4 Q All right. Now, the second type of 5 potential chilling effect, that is, whether or not 6 foreign governments or citizens of foreign countries 7 would be willing to share information with us. 8 9 The State Department has avoided that chilling effect too? 10 A I do not believe so. 11 Q Are you familiar with then Secretary 12 Clinton's statement that diplomatic cables, again, are 13 not always accurate? 14 15 Are you familiar with her saying that? A I believe that she -- the Secretary of 16 State did give a press conference in 2010 after the 17 first traunch of Wikileaks, yes. 18 Q Are you familiar with her saying that, in 19 her opinion, the diplomatic cables are basically 20 passing on information for whatever it's worth? 21 A I would have to see what she said, but I Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 100 1 2 remember that press conference, yes. Q Do you recall her then saying that most 3 leaders understand this fact, that cables are not 4 always accurate, they're passing on information for 5 whatever it's worth and that she's found no hesitancy 6 on the part of leaders to share information? 7 A That does not contradict my statement that 8 there was a chilling effect on diplomacy reporting and 9 analysis. 10 Q I understand that's your opinion. My 11 question to you was: 12 statement saying that she has found no hesitancy on the 13 part of leaders to share information? 14 15 16 A Are you familiar with her No part on the part of leaders sharing information with her, yes. Q Okay. So you would agree with me that, 17 obviously, countries, whatever country we're dealing 18 with, they act in their own interest? 19 A Correct. 20 Q And the interests of each country are 21 pretty well defined by their -- either place in the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 101 1 2 3 4 world, their economy or their history? A And current circumstances, et cetera. There are multiple factors, yes. Q But these countries -- we have a -- you 5 name a country, we can have a pretty good idea of their 6 general interests and what they would want to have 7 happen or not happen as far as their interests are 8 pretty well defined? 9 A That's a very, very broad statement and I 10 will say yes to it as a very, very broad statement. 11 Obviously, there are many exceptions that occur in 12 individual circumstances, a given country and a given 13 situation at a given time. 14 Q Other countries, their diplomacy is not 15 based on whether or not they think an unpleasant 16 article may be put out in the press if they speak 17 freely with us? 18 A That is correct. That is correct in that 19 sense, but it does not go to the point that you're 20 asking me about, is the chilling effect on individual 21 members of that government or individual members of the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 102 1 private sector in that country being willing to share 2 personal opinions with United States diplomats. 3 Q Okay. My question here, though, is that 4 other countries' diplomacy is not based on whether or 5 not they think there's going to be an unpleasant 6 article written about them if they speak freely? 7 8 A There's no yes or no answer to that question, counselor. 9 Q Well, do you believe, I guess, other 10 countries' diplomacy is based upon whether or not they 11 think an unpleasant article is going to be published 12 about them if they speak freely? 13 A I think there are circumstances when 14 certain governments would base their diplomacy on that, 15 yes. 16 Q All right. I'm sure you're familiar with 17 the comments and opinions of former secretary, Robert 18 Gates concerning the release of purported cables? 19 20 21 A I recall generally his statements. MR. COOMBS: What I'd like to do is I'd like to -- and, Your Honor, for the record, I started Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 103 1 to play a portion of Under Secretary Kennedy's 2 testimony. 3 I'll have that marked now. 4 I'll have that marked -- it's on a CD. For the record, I also have another CD. 5 I'm going to play a portion of Secretary Gates's 6 statement and ask Under Secretary Kennedy to give his 7 opinion on that. 8 THE COURT: 9 (MPEG clip began playing.) 10 MR. GATES: All right. Go ahead. "Now, I have heard the impact 11 of these releases on our foreign policy described as a 12 meltdown, as a game changer and so on. 13 descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. 14 I think those The fact is governments deal with the 15 United States because its in their interest, not 16 because they like us, not because they trust us and not 17 because they believe we can keep secrets. 18 governments -- some governments deal with us because 19 they fear us, some because they respect us, most 20 because they need us. 21 been said before -- the indispensable nation. Many We are still essentially -- it's Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 104 1 So other nations will continue to deal with 2 us. They will continue to work with us. 3 continue to share sensitive information with one 4 another. 5 Yes. 6 fairly modest." Is this embarrassing? Yes. We will Is it awkward? Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? 7 I think (MPEG clip ceased.) 8 BY MR. FEIN: 9 Q 10 11 12 13 14 familiar with, Under Secretary? A 17 I believe -- yes, I believe that was a statement Secretary Gates made in 2010. Q All right. And do you disagree with his statement? 15 16 Is that the statement that you were (Loud audio sound.) A I do not disagree with his statement, but I don't it contradicts the statements I have made either. 18 Q And why not? 19 A Because what Secretary Gates is correctly 20 talking about is government to government interaction, 21 but what I'm talking about is diplomacy reporting which Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 105 1 is both government to government, but it is also the 2 interaction between individual U.S. diplomats and 3 government officials who give us their views in the 4 expectation of privacy and about U.S. diplomats 5 interacting with private sector businessmen, other 6 officials, non-governmental officials in a host country 7 and so the chilling effect on those interactions remain 8 valid and are not contradicted by Secretary Gates's 9 statement and nor are they encompassed in Secretary 10 11 Gates's statement. Q With regards to the other individuals that 12 you're talking about, members of -- not the government, 13 but you're talking about your average citizen or 14 somebody who lives in the country? 15 16 Who are you talking about? A No, sir. I'm talking about government 17 officials who render us their private opinions, their 18 private analysis which is important in helping us 19 formulate. 20 businessmen, it could be senior members of the 21 educational system. I'm talking about it could be senior It could be senior members of the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 106 1 press. It could be senior NGO officials. 2 Those are equally important in 3 understanding, in terms of U.S. national security, 4 where a nation might be going and that analytical 5 information is critical and that is the chilling we're 6 talking about. 7 Q And that chilling that you're talking about 8 is based upon what you perceive or what you have heard 9 from others a chilling effect? 10 A It is what has been reported to me -- 11 examples and I'd be glad to go into examples in closed 12 session -- 13 Q 14 Can I ask you a particular question? Have you had anybody come to you and say 15 "I'm no longer giving you as much information as I have 16 in the past?" 17 A It has been reported to me that foreign 18 officials have said the equivalent to our diplomats 19 overseas -- not to me, I'm in Washington -- but have 20 said similar constraining statements to U.S. diplomats 21 overseas. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 107 1 Q So, for you, that answer would be no, you 2 haven't had anybody come to you and indicate that we're 3 no longer sharing as much information with you in the 4 past? 5 A To me personally, no. But I am only one of 6 10,000 State Department diplomats and others have had 7 it said to them. 8 9 Q You say that they're not sharing information then. You are, at that point, believing 10 that there is some deficit in the information that they 11 would have been otherwise shared, correct? 12 A Correct. 13 Q So it is potentially, kind of to use 14 Secretary Rumsfeld, "the known unknowns?" 15 16 Is that what you were talking about? A I'm not sure it's a known, unknown. It is 17 more likely that we have, over the course of the years, 18 had robust dialogue with officials, governmental and 19 non-governmental of very senior levels in society 20 across the world and there is less frankness, less 21 fulsome discussions now than there were before. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 108 1 Q And again, that's based upon a perception? 2 A That's based upon individuals saying to 3 State Department diplomats that they doubt that or 4 taking other actions to restrict those -- that 5 frankness. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q Are you familiar with who Alex Ross is within the Department of State? A Alex Ross was an information technology guru at the State Department until 2012, I believe. Q Are you aware of his statements regarding the purported leak of the diplomatic cables? 12 A No, I don't remember ever seeing Alex's. 13 Q I'd like to play his statement for you and 14 then see if you would agree or disagree with it. 15 (MPEG file played.) 16 BY MR. FEIN: 17 Q Were you aware of that statement? 18 A No, I have not seen Alex's statement 19 before. 20 disagree with his statement, but I do not find it 21 relevant to the point I've been making. But, again, like Secretary Gates, I do not Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 109 1 Alex Ross was talking about we do not need 2 to be embarrassed by the reporting cables that were 3 filed. 4 thing. That's not what I'm addressing, this particular 5 I'm addressing the fact that because of the 6 information and because of the fact that people know 7 that there's been a breach of privacy and that they no 8 longer have the expectation of the privacy, that they 9 less willing to engage in the full and frank discussion 10 and exchange of ideas that they were willing to engage 11 in before. 12 Q So Alex's statement is true and so is mine. Okay. With regards to the purported 13 release, the purported SIPDIS cables range from 28 14 December, 1966 to 28 February, 2010; is that correct? 15 A I believe that's correct, yes. 16 Q And the vast majority of these purported 17 cables from came 2004 or later? 18 A I believe that's correct, yes. 19 Q And that was roughly the time period in 20 which cables were beginning to be shared on the Net 21 Centric diplomacy database? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 110 1 A That is how SIPDIS -- that's where SIPDIS 2 cables went, was to the Net Centric diplomacy database, 3 yes. 4 5 6 7 Q And of the 251,287 reported SIPDIS cables, 133,887 of them were unclassified; is that correct? A I think that's about right. It was about 50/50 if my recollection is correct, yes. 8 Q And then 101,748 were classified as 9 confidential? 10 A I believe that's also correct. 11 Q And finally, 15,652 were classified as 12 secret? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And you conducted a classification review 15 of a certain subset of the purported Department of 16 State cables? 17 A 18 Are we referring, counsel, to the filing of the 100 or so cables -- 19 Q Yes. 20 A Yes. 21 Q So you did a classification review of those Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 111 1 cables? 2 A Correct. 3 Q And you were selected to do that review 4 5 based upon, basically, your duty position? A Yes, the Under Secretary For Management's 6 responsibility is the senior classification officer by 7 delegation from the Secretary of State. 8 9 10 Q And prior to this one, you had never done a classification review before? A I looked at individual cables. I had 11 classified cables, but I had not done -- I have not 12 done a filing such as this, no, sir, never before. 13 14 Q And you had assistance, obviously, in completing this classification review? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And who, in general, assisted you? 17 A This was subject matter experts within the 18 State Department, both subject matter as to the rules 19 and regulations of classification and subject matter as 20 to the content of the cable. 21 So the regional or functional bureau, Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 112 1 experts on that matter and the classification experts 2 from the department to the rules and regulations. 3 Q And how did they assist you in the review? 4 A They prepared what is called an action memo 5 to me which is a memo saying that we've conducted the 6 review, here is the material outlined, the situation 7 and said do you concur or non-concur, do you approve or 8 disapprove the attached filing. 9 filing and concurred in it. 10 11 Q So I read through the No one actually sat down and briefed you on any of the hundred or so purported cables? 12 A No, no one sat there and briefed me on 13 every cable. 14 Q And when you reviewed the document, the 15 document that you reviewed was ultimately the document 16 that you signed; is that correct? 17 A That's correct and I also had -- I 18 believe -- if my recollection is correct -- this is 19 sometime ago -- I believe I also had a binder which had 20 the cables themselves. 21 Q Did you actually type any of the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 113 1 classification review? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Did you make any changes to the 4 classification review? 5 A No, because I concurred in it. 6 Q And you indicated that you thought you had 7 an attachment with the hundred or so purported cables? 8 A To the best of my recollection. 9 Q Did you read each cable from start to 10 11 12 finish as you were doing your classification review? A I would read the document and I think I skimmed through the cables. 13 Q 14 each -- 15 A 16 17 18 So the answer would be no, you didn't read I did not believe I read each cable word-for-word, no. Q What classification guide did you use to complete your classification review? 19 A The current classification guide which is 20 confidential. 21 exceptionally grave damage, confidential, secret and You have damage, grave damage and Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 114 1 top secret. 2 Q Did you actually have that classification 3 review next to you as you were doing this -- excuse me, 4 classification guide? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q What is -- 7 A When you classify cables you have taken in 8 what the guidelines are and then you do that -- since I 9 classify cables all the time, I know what the rules 10 are. 11 classifies, I use the same processes when I would 12 classify a cable in my own right. 13 When I'm reviewing something that someone else Q All right. So then you didn't feel the 14 need at that point, based upon your experience and 15 knowledge, to use a classification guide? 16 17 18 19 20 21 A No, sir. I used the principles of the classification guide, not a hard copy. Q And what experience do you have in using the classification guide, actually physically using it? A I -- as the agency officer in charge of classification, I am the person who signed and approved Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 115 1 the classification guide and also from 1993 to 2 2001 when I was assistant Secretary of State for 3 administration, the classifications and records 4 management office in the department worked directly for 5 me. 6 in the processes. 7 So I have an intimate knowledge of how they work Q When you say they worked for you, were you 8 actually reviewing what was put into the classification 9 guide or based upon your position were they simply 10 telling you their complete classification guide and 11 then giving it to you for your signature? 12 A 13 or clearance. 14 Q 15 They would give it to me for my concurrence Before you signed it, I guess, did you review the entire classification guide? 16 A I read what I sign. 17 Q All right. So I guess the exception, then, 18 would be just reading the entire cables when you're 19 doing the classification review? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Now, you had testified about -- now we're Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 116 1 talking about the August of 2011 damage assessment, 2 okay? 3 A Okay. 4 Q Did you review that draft damage assessment 5 from start to finish? 6 A I read the entire damage assessment, yes. 7 Q Okay. 8 signed? 9 A I never signed it. 10 Q Was it done at your request? 11 A I requested it be done, yes. 12 Q And was it something that needed to have a 13 14 Was this something else that you had signature then? A I would have approved it. If it had 15 been -- August of 2011, if it would have been the 16 damage assessment. 17 its preparation and as we were reviewing it, we were 18 marching on to the Labor Day release of the next 19 traunch of cables. 20 21 But given the passage of time and I decided that the damage assessment draft was a snapshot in time which was not an accurate Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 117 1 representation of the situation because the next 2 traunch of Wikileaks material purported cables was 3 about to be released and, therefore, saying that this 4 represented the damage assessment would have been an 5 inaccurate statement for me to make and approve. 6 Q All right. And you had indicated that 7 because of the fax that the State Department viewed 8 this as a crisis, that you basically went into a crisis 9 management mode? 10 A Correct. 11 Q And, obviously, by just using the term 12 crisis, that means it's something that's serious? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And you said on direct that it was, in 15 fact, very, very serious and that's why you had -- 16 A Correct. 17 Q -- conducted your response. And that's why 18 you have impact review going initially to see what the 19 impact was of the purported leak; is that right? 20 A Correct. 21 Q You had indicated that you reviewed this Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 118 1 draft in August of 2011, but you, at least at the time 2 of the draft, you -- did you approve or not approve of 3 what was said in the draft? 4 A It never reached that point. I did not 5 approve or disapprove it because there was a second 6 traunch of documents coming and that for me to have 7 said this represents a damage assessment for the 8 purported Wikileaks release would have been inaccurate 9 because it was not the entire scope. 10 Q All right. You indicated it was a 11 snapshot, basically, is what you thought up until that 12 point? 13 A It was a snapshot, yes. 14 Q And it was a snapshot up until that point, 15 August of 2011? 16 17 18 19 A It was a snapshot of the first traunch, Q And you haven't updated this damage yes. assessment since? 20 A Correct. 21 Q You haven't taken any more snapshots in Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 119 1 time? 2 A No. 3 Q And it's obviously possible to do that, is 4 it not? 5 A It is. 6 Q And isn't it possible, if you don't do 7 that, that you would miss something? 8 A No. 9 Q You don't think it's possible that you 10 might miss some potential damage if you don't do a 11 Department of State-wide damage assessment? 12 A No, because a damage assessment of this 13 nature is very different in my mind from other damage 14 assessments that are done. 15 Other damage assessments to which I'm aware 16 of or compromise of a piece of equipment or a case of 17 an individual with limited access that he or she has to 18 a string of cases. 19 wider range and, therefore, the scope of damage is much 20 wider. 21 Q At 251,000 cables, this is a much Right, but if you took snapshots in time, I Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 120 1 guess maybe at the end of 2011, end of 2012, maybe 2 coming up end of 2013, you would have snapshots as to 3 the damage at that point, would you not? 4 A It's a very, very labor intensive activity 5 to engage in such damage assessments. 6 assessments -- we are aware of the damage that has been 7 done as I outlined the chilling effect and, therefore, 8 I do not see a need to do a snapshot now because the 9 damage continues to roll on. 10 Q The damage Now, I guess -- I mean, that's obviously 11 your opinion, that it continues to roll on. 12 a final damage assessment or damage assessment that was 13 a snapshot, we would have a State Department position 14 as to what the damage was at that point, would we not? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A If you did Snapshots, I do not believe are a valid tool when you have an ongoing situation. Q Do you know whether or not there is a final damage assessment in the works? A I'm not aware of a State Department final damage assessment in the works, no. Q Has anyone ever spoken to you or indicated Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 121 1 to you that a final damage assessment will be completed 2 at some point? 3 A I know that the Department of Defense has 4 done work and I believe the intelligence community has 5 done work. 6 Q But in terms of the State Department, no. Now, obviously, you had indicated that you 7 were -- have been a part of the Department of State 8 since 1973? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And clearly, being part of an organization 11 for this length of time, you have a vested interest in 12 making the Department of State look good? 13 14 A That's another question that I don't think is amenable to a yes or no answer. 15 Q 16 a yes or no. 17 wish. 18 A Okay. You don't have to simply limit it to You can give me a longer answer if you Of course, I've been a foreign service 19 officer for 40 years. Of course, I am proud of the 20 agency at which I work. 21 contribution to the national security, but I don't I am proud of our agency's Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 122 1 think that pride goes to the point of saying that I 2 will defend the State Department at any cost and/or 3 defend the State Department when it's wrong. 4 5 Q assessment a little bit more. 6 7 Obviously, it was an investigation as to, at that point, what the damage was, would you agree? 8 9 10 11 12 Now, let's talk about this draft damage A It was a review of reports from the field, Q And just as a general standpoint or yes. proposition, it's important to complete investigations? A This is not an investigation. I totally 13 agree with -- if you take the word investigation, 14 investigation has a particular art form, I'm sure, in 15 the law enforcement community and I know what 16 investigations are because the State Department's law 17 enforcement arm works for me, but this was not an 18 investigation. 19 analysis has not been completed because the damage 20 continues to roll out. 21 Q This was an analysis and the snapshot Well, obviously, you had just testified Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 123 1 that you would have no desire to minimize an 2 investigation just because it might make the State 3 Department look bad; is that correct? 4 A I said -- absolutely. I said I have no 5 desire to either perjure myself or lower my standards 6 by doing something that's inappropriate. 7 Q And with regards to an investigation, if 8 the investigation indicated or a damage assessment 9 indicated that there was no damage or it was simply 10 embarrassment, then, at that point, based upon what you 11 just said, your interest would be to have that 12 completed and known; is that correct? 13 A Well, if we were talking about an informal 14 investigation or if we had talked about -- if we are 15 talking about a snapshot that showed that there was no 16 damage, I would take that position. 17 investigation. 18 didn't -- even, at the snapshot point in time, did not 19 show no damage. 20 21 Q But this was not a This was an analysis and the analysis All right. And even at this point, though, there's been no need or desire to do another snapshot? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 124 1 A No, sir. 2 Q You had said that your desire would not be 3 to stop an investigation or cease an investigation just 4 because it might make the State Department look bad, 5 right? 6 A I said I would not stop an investigation 7 just because it would make the State Department look 8 bad, yes. 9 10 Q you for that very thing of stopping an investigation? 11 12 A 15 16 17 There is somebody who wrote a letter saying that I stopped an investigation, yes. 13 14 Is there any sort of investigation now into Q And is that being investigated at this point? A Of course, when something is investigated, it's looked into by the State Department's IT. Q And is the allegation essentially that you 18 stopped the investigation in order to avoid the State 19 Department from looking bad? 20 21 A No, I have no idea what the allegation is. It just says that I stopped an investigation and it Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 125 1 2 3 4 happens to be entirely false. Q Okay. The ambassador that had dealt, was that person replaced? A The individual who was there had a 5 four-year appointment and when administrations change, 6 including a president to a reelected sitting president, 7 the four years is up and the individual did not leave 8 short of tour. 9 accusations. 10 Q 11 12 No, he was not replaced because of the His tour was up. And currently, right now, you said that investigation is ongoing? A I believe the -- you would have to ask the 13 inspector general. 14 That inspector general is outside of my purview. 15 MR. COOMBS: 16 THE COURT: 17 No further questions. Government, you want to recess before we go to redirect? 18 MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am. 19 THE COURT: How long? 20 MR. FEIN: 21 (Pause.) May I have a moment, Your Honor? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 126 1 2 Ma'am, may we have a ten-minute recess? We don't anticipate a long redirect, ma'am. 3 THE COURT: 4 rules apply. 5 during the recess. 6 Under Secretary Kennedy, same Please don't discuss your testimony ten minutes to 13:00. Court will be in recess until in 7 THE CLERK: 8 (There was a recess taken at 12:38 and the 9 All rise. trial resumed at 12:51 p.m.) 10 THE COURT: Please be seated. Court is 11 called to order. Let the record reflect that all 12 parties present when the court last recessed are again 13 present in the court. 14 stand. The witness is on the witness 15 Redirect? 16 MR. FEIN: 17 THE COURT: No, ma'am. Under Secretary, I have a 18 couple of questions. 19 testified earlier that -- I just found them. 20 21 I just need to find them. You You testified earlier on direct examination that I believe -- and please correct if I have Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 127 1 misquoted your testimony -- that there were 2 approximately 250,000-plus cables on the NCD database 3 on the SIPRNET back in 2010? 4 THE WITNESS: 5 THE COURT: 6 Yes, Your Honor. And that there were approximately $2.4 million other cables? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, the State Department 8 produces, as I mentioned, lots of diplomatic reporting 9 and other administrative cables. Only a certain 10 percentage of those carried the SIPDIS caption which 11 then pushed them into the NCD, the Net Centric 12 database. 13 There was a full range of different types 14 of reporting in there and there was a full range of 15 reporting on the cables as well. 16 THE COURT: So these other 2.4 million 17 cables, I know you testified in response -- I believe 18 it was to Defense counsel's questions -- that there 19 were a variety of different kinds of distribution 20 systems that were very limited like NODIS and some of 21 the other ones. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 128 1 THE WITNESS: 2 THE COURT: Yes. So was it the Department of 3 State's intent to release or allow other agencies to 4 view cables that could help them in their national 5 security jobs -- 6 THE WITNESS: 7 THE COURT: 8 THE WITNESS: 9 Absolutely. -- with SIPDIS? Both SIPDIS and what we just called, for want of a better term, the legacy 10 distribution systems. 11 range, classified and unclassified. 12 We pushed cables out to a wide For example, we send cables to the Food & 13 Drug Administration. 14 export/import bank. 15 matter of the cable is. 16 Government agency needs that cable in order to do its 17 mission. 18 We send cables to the It depends on what the subject We get them to whatever U.S. SIPDIS was an invention at the request of 19 the Department of Defense and the intelligence 20 community, Office of the Director of National 21 Intelligence saying -- trying to help in the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 129 1 distribution of cables at the agency end, that the 2 system we had which simply pushed the cables from the 3 State Department's communication center to the 4 communications center of the other agency where they 5 then had to direct them to the respective entities in 6 their entities. 7 They were having a problem with that. So can you push some of your reporting 8 cables to this Net Centric diplomacy database using the 9 SIPDIS caption and then the appropriate analyst would 10 pull the cables in their area of responsibility down 11 and it was an attempt to ease the distribution burden 12 on the part of the other agencies. 13 part of our intent to the State Department diplomatic 14 reporting available to any agency of the United States 15 government with classified personnel who will maintain 16 because we have an agreement that goes back years and 17 years with the Department of Defense, for example, that 18 says that the agency receiving the classified material 19 takes responsibility for ensuring that those who are 20 given access to it have the appropriate clearances 21 because it would be -- for the State Department to try But this is all Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 130 1 to find analyst A at Fort Huachuca or analyst B in 2 Bolling or analyst C at Fort Gordon. 3 simply beyond our kin. 4 other agencies either distribute it or they pull it. That is just So we push it out and then 5 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 6 Just shifting to another area now, you 7 testified, in your opinion, that the communications 8 between -- not from government to government level, but 9 with the diplomats and the people they talked to in the 10 foreign countries is chilled and I believe you 11 testified that that was reported to you. 12 How frequently? 13 THE WITNESS: 14 15 16 17 We have examples and I would be -THE COURT: the specifics. I'm not asking you to go into Just give me a flavor for numbers. THE WITNESS: It's a relatively small 18 number of people actually expressing it, but more of 19 our colleagues have a sense that the dialogue that they 20 are engaging in with the foreign interlocutory is not 21 as full as it once was before. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 131 1 Several cases, people have just said we 2 cannot -- we're not going to share with you like we 3 used to. 4 they're not getting the kind of exchanges that they had 5 before the Wikileaks. Other cases of individuals just feeling that 6 THE COURT: Now, these disclosures took 7 place in -- I believe in the Department of State 8 cables, we were talking about November of 2010 followed 9 by the second traunch, as you described it, in 10 September of 2011. 11 THE WITNESS: 12 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. These feelings that you're 13 talking about, were they expressed to you in 2011, 14 2012, 2013? 15 THE WITNESS: They started in 2010 and I 16 believe that my colleagues abroad or still feeling the 17 chill. 18 impossible to know what someone is not sharing with you 19 and that is, in itself, I believe, a risk to national 20 security. 21 But I cannot go to the depth of -- it's THE COURT: I know you did testify about Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 132 1 this, I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. 2 testified earlier, I believe, in response to Defense 3 counsel's question that there was a draft damage 4 assessment done in a draft form approximately around 5 August 2010 before the next wave of releases? 6 THE WITNESS: You Your Honor, it was 7 August 2011. 8 talking to people and then the Labor Day second large 9 traunch of purported documents were released. 10 It reached me. I was reviewing it, So, at that point, it was clear to me that 11 the earlier snapshot which showed, you know, bad 12 results from the Wikileaks. 13 done after a year. 14 it again because we would need time for the second to 15 play out. 16 17 18 It was not -- it had been It was not appropriate to restart THE COURT: If you can't answer this in an open setting, please don't. With the original draft, was there -- did 19 that encompass an assessment of everything that the 20 Department of State thought might be released or what 21 was released? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 133 1 THE WITNESS: 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. FEIN: 4 MR. COOMBS: 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. COOMBS: 6 7 8 Q Was released. Any followup based on that? No, ma'am. The legacy distribution system, if you could, explain that in general format. A Certainly. A telegram would arrive at the 9 State Department's communication center in Washington. 10 It would be read by an artificial intelligence looking 11 at the caption, looking at the tags. 12 four-digit or two-digit country indicator. 13 country in the word has two letters and there are a 14 series of tags which are arranged from A tags which are 15 administrative to P tags which are political reporting 16 to E tags and then the following three letters mean the 17 type of economic political cultural counselor activity. 18 So this automated intelligence reads all of Tags are a Every 19 this and decides that this information is a value to 20 the national security staff, the Department of Defense 21 or to whomever depending on the subject and on the Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 134 1 basis of this then pushes that message over classified 2 circuits to a designated communications center at 3 whatever agency involved and then that agency, on 4 receipt of it, makes distribution within its entity to 5 whomever it deems appropriate with the security 6 clearances. 7 Q When you had testified during the same time 8 250,000 SIPDIS cables were put in the Net Centric 9 database, you had $2.4 million cables unrelated to 10 that, going through these legacy distribution system? 11 A Correct. 12 Q And those were going to the other 13 14 65 interagency partners? A Well, not everyone to every 65, but the one 15 that the AMats, A-M-A-T-S, the distribution system 16 picked up and decided should be routed there on the 17 basis of reading the cable, looking for keywords and 18 terms, the tags, and the captions, if there were any. 19 Q And that number, 2.4 million, that was for 20 2005 to 2010? 21 A Yeah, it was for a comparable period and Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 135 1 there's, obviously, a lot of administrative processing 2 cables in that period as well. 3 Q Now, with regards to the small number of 4 people that had expressed a chilling effect and then 5 the colleague saying I think there's a greater number 6 of people at least per our impressions, did the State 7 Department ever quantify that or graph that in any way 8 to show -- 9 A No. There's a belief also there have 10 been -- we had to make personnel changes at some 11 embassy and I don't want to go into any greater depth. 12 That's another example of a chilling effect. 13 Q With regards to the chilling effect that 14 you believe is present, did that wane at all from 2011 15 to 2012? 16 A I believe that's -- I believe that's hard 17 to tell. 18 I cannot answer that question. 19 cannot. 20 Q 21 I don't believe we have the full measure yet. I wish I could, but I So from your perspective, at least from what you can see and what you understand, you can Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 136 1 discern any difference between what might have been the 2 chilling effect in 2011 to 2012 to 2013? 3 4 A It's the same chilling effect. If you're trying to -- I can't... 5 Q The level of it. 6 A No, I cannot. 7 MR. COOMBS: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. FEIN: 10 No further questions. Thank you. May we have a moment, Your Honor? 11 THE COURT: 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. FEIN: 13 Q Yes. Sir, in reference to your testimony just 14 now and specifically about the 2.4 million cables, 15 through the legacy system, what did you mean by alleged 16 contained admin type cables? 17 A There was some percentage of those 18 cables -- and, Major, I don't have the exact number -- 19 that would never have been candidates for SIPDIS since 20 I was interpreting that as a question about potentially 21 comparing the relative sizes, cables reporting on Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 137 1 freight movements, travel orders, assignment 2 notifications, temporary duty, flight arrivals, those 3 would have been in there. 4 So a 2.4 to 250,000 is not a direct 10 to 1 5 comparison because what would have been put in SIPDIS 6 is not -- we would not have loaded those kind of 7 administrative financial -- here is American embassy's 8 Zanadu's financial allotment for the next quarter. 9 Those would not have been put into SIPDIS. 10 Q Sir, as far as the classification breakdown 11 of 251,000 purported cables, those cables are never 12 reviewed for their actual classification, correct? 13 A We never reviewed all 250,000, no. 14 Q So those numbers, sir, that you gave during 15 cross-examination, the breakdown of 50 percent were 16 unclassified, 50 percent were classified, what do you 17 mean by that? 18 A When you said reviewed for classification, 19 I was using the same phraseology as Defense counsel had 20 been using. 21 them and how many were classified and how many were We were able to aggregate and disaggregate Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 138 1 unclassified. We did not consult -- conduct a review 2 of about the half which were classified in the same way 3 that the filing did. 4 MR. FEIN: Thank you, sir. 5 THE COURT: Anything else? 6 MR. COOMBS: 7 THE COURT: Nothing, Your Honor. I just have one last one based 8 on that. Can you give me a flavor of -- you said 9 2.4 and it's not a direct correlation with the 250,000 10 that were on SIPDIS because you have these 11 administrative. 12 Do those administrative, I guess, cables 13 that are only of interest to a few people that wouldn't 14 go out to the interagency, out of 2.4 million, would 15 that be 50 percent, 25 percent, 75 percent? 16 need an exact figure. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't Your Honor, I would be only 18 guessing. 19 because that's not a way that I've ever cut them in my 20 mind or had it presented to me. 21 I'm very, very hesitant to do that just THE COURT: Any followup based on that? Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 139 1 MR. COOMBS: No, Your Honor. 2 MR. COOMBS: No, ma'am. 3 THE COURT: May this witness be excused? 4 MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am permanent excusal. 5 THE COURT: Under Secretary Kennedy, you 6 are permanently excused. 7 You are free to go or you can stay in the courtroom. 8 (Witness left court room ). 9 THE COURT: We talked earlier today about 10 proceeding with the unreasonable multiplication of 11 charges motion potentially this afternoon. 12 13 14 How would the parties -- would you like to concur or decide how you might like to proceed? MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am. We conferred during 15 the last recess. 16 reconvene at 14:30 which will give us enough time for 17 lunch and then hopefully to agree on this proffer with 18 expected testimony and write it. 19 20 21 The United States requests that we THE COURT: All right. And then we'll have oral argument with respect to that motion? MR. FEIN: Yes, ma'am. Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - 8/5/13 Morning Session 140 1 MR. COOMBS: 2 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Is there anything else we need 3 to address today? 4 other witness for the government? 5 MR. FEIN: 6 THE COURT: 7 8 14:30. I assume we're not going to have any No, ma'am. Okay. Court is in recess until Carry on. (The trial was adjourned at 1:09 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning $ $2.4 (2) 127:6;134:9 [ [inaudible] (1) 36:21 A ability (5) 30:21;49:5,10,21;59:11 able (4) 50:5,7;79:3;137:20 abroad (3) 41:17;43:17;131:16 absent (2) 5:9;61:5 Absolutely (7) 23:3;29:15;30:2;47:6; 73:11;123:4;128:6 access (10) 56:20;67:18;68:4;84:3, 10,12;85:9,11;119:17; 129:20 accessible (1) 84:9 accomplished (1) 63:4 accordance (1) 9:8 according (1) 91:15 accordingly (1) 73:21 account (1) 5:4 accredited (1) 41:5 accuracy (1) 72:20 accurate (12) 64:2,7,10,12,21;70:11; 72:5;73:3,19;99:13;100:4; 116:21 accusations (1) 125:9 accused (1) 61:18 acquaint (2) 28:19;29:9 acronym (1) 68:9 across (4) 23:5;50:1;63:10;107:20 Act (4) 18:18;80:5;97:17;100:18 acting (1) 10:5 action (6) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 39:21;51:2;61:3;73:21; 77:16;112:4 actions (11) 23:4;25:8;30:4;40:10; 41:6;45:1,2;49:6;52:21; 90:12;108:4 activities (6) 24:6,14;34:9;35:12; 46:20;54:9 activity (3) 34:15;120:4;133:17 actual (4) 24:18;63:13;71:21; 137:12 actually (10) 65:20;69:9;81:20;90:1; 112:10,21;114:2,19;115:8; 130:18 add (1) 60:13 added (2) 5:11;48:11 additional (5) 10:9;28:1;29:13;60:12; 90:12 additionally (2) 18:21;80:4 address (5) 8:5;10:18;94:8;96:21; 140:3 addressed (2) 66:15,16 addressing (3) 29:1;109:3,5 adjacent (1) 52:4 adjourned (1) 140:8 adjunct (1) 20:5 admin (1) 136:16 Administration (12) 16:10,14,19;20:18;21:14; 22:4;38:13;92:6,15;93:8; 115:3;128:13 administrations (1) 125:5 administrative (12) 42:12;44:12;66:1;75:2; 77:3;83:2;127:9;133:15; 135:1;137:7;138:11,12 admissible (4) 8:2,9;9:8,10 admission (1) 42:7 admit (3) 72:4,6;73:18 admitted (4) 8:16;10:12;72:9;74:3 advance (2) 7:7;29:20 advice (1) 68:18 advise (2) 22:9;73:20 advised (4) 7:16;26:4,7;28:16 advising (1) 47:2 advisory (1) 33:13 affairs (21) 20:4;33:6,9,11;38:7,9,21; 41:15;42:10;44:4;54:7,8; 70:2,4,12,15;71:21;72:6,18; 73:4;88:12 affect (1) 89:16 affected (2) 39:9;86:21 afraid (1) 64:8 Africa (1) 21:12 afternoon (3) 7:5,8;139:11 again (21) 5:6;7:13;45:6;59:15; 62:12;75:10;76:14,16; 77:18;79:10;80:11,12;90:2, 6;94:3;96:1;99:12;108:1, 19;126:12;132:14 agencies (20) 19:16;53:12;55:18,21; 56:19;57:7,10,11;63:12; 74:15;81:14;85:9;94:15; 97:5;98:3,11,20;128:3; 129:12;130:4 agency (13) 14:19;54:6;57:3,6; 114:20;121:20;128:16; 129:1,4,14,18;134:3,3 agency's (1) 121:20 aggravating (1) 8:9 aggravation (2) 8:2;10:7 aggregate (1) 137:20 aggrieved (1) 47:9 ago (1) 112:19 agree (6) 63:8;100:16;108:14; 122:7,13;139:17 agreement (1) 129:16 ahead (7) 7:18;47:12,13;58:11; 78:6;86:11;103:8 airplane (1) 34:10 Aku (1) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 34:13 Alex (3) 108:6,8;109:1 Alex's (3) 108:12,18;109:11 allegation (2) 124:17,20 alleged (3) 94:13;97:3;136:15 allegedly (1) 86:19 allotment (1) 137:8 allow (1) 128:3 allows (2) 51:11;56:3 almost (2) 16:2;31:17 alone (1) 8:11 along (1) 34:2 alphabetically (1) 88:6 although (1) 45:14 always (8) 46:18;54:16;64:1,7,9,21; 99:13;100:4 AMats (3) 68:8,12;134:15 A-M-A-T-S (1) 134:15 ambassador (14) 39:15;41:5,6;42:7;43:7; 61:16;65:20;66:2,7,11; 74:5;75:21;83:16;125:2 ambassadors (3) 43:11;84:5;87:14 ambassador's (3) 65:17;66:9,15 ambit (1) 56:5 amenable (1) 121:14 American (11) 17:11;19:17;21:15;22:4; 34:10;38:10;43:16;92:8,16; 93:10;137:7 among (1) 20:21 amount (2) 44:16;81:20 analysis (32) 22:9;23:7;24:6;26:19; 27:16;30:19,20;35:5,15,19; 36:9,11;41:21;50:8;51:8, 21;52:1;53:2,2;54:5;56:2; 57:4,12;59:8;61:4,8;100:9; 105:18;122:18,19;123:17, 17 analyst (4) (141) $2.4 - analyst United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 129:9;130:1,1,2 analytic (1) 51:11 analytical (1) 106:4 analyze (4) 28:20;30:9;50:1;52:5 and/or (2) 53:19;122:2 announced (1) 90:9 answered (1) 64:18 anticipate (1) 126:2 apologize (1) 88:1 appear (1) 86:16 appeared (1) 91:20 appears (1) 72:1 Appellate (3) 5:11,12,18 append (1) 22:8 applied (1) 23:19 apply (1) 126:4 appointment (3) 13:7;20:9;125:5 appreciate (1) 88:14 apprized (1) 91:12 appropriate (7) 7:17;68:20;79:11;129:9, 20;132:13;134:5 appropriately (1) 8:16 approve (5) 112:7;117:5;118:2,2,5 approved (2) 114:21;116:14 approximately (6) 40:16;43:14;81:12;127:2, 6;132:4 area (4) 38:6;89:13;129:10;130:6 areas (2) 9:19;20:11 arena (1) 22:1 argument (4) 6:20;7:7;8:8;139:20 arising (1) 7:15 arm (3) 19:14;25:12;122:17 arms (1) 76:17 Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session army (1) 53:14 around (10) 22:5;26:4;29:12;30:5; 31:12;33:2,19;51:20;57:1; 132:4 arranged (1) 133:14 arrival (1) 80:19 arrivals (1) 137:2 arrive (1) 133:8 art (1) 122:14 Article (5) 8:5,12;101:16;102:6,11 articulate (1) 9:13 artificial (2) 68:10;133:10 aspect (2) 11:15;64:18 aspects (1) 19:20 assemble (2) 28:13;33:18 assembled (2) 25:21;33:21 assembling (3) 35:14;36:10;47:2 assessment (31) 48:17,18;49:1;87:4,8,12, 12,13,15,16;88:21;89:8; 116:1,4,6,16,20;117:4; 118:7,19;119:11,12;120:12, 12,18,20;121:1;122:5; 123:8;132:4,19 assessments (4) 119:14,15;120:5,6 assigned (9) 22:4;25:19;35:10,11; 43:21;44:6;45:5,8;52:3 assignment (1) 137:1 assist (1) 112:3 assistance (2) 49:14;111:13 assistant (11) 16:7,9,13,18;20:17;29:1; 33:4;39:16,17;76:21;115:2 assistants (1) 38:9 assisted (1) 111:16 assisting (1) 58:7 assume (3) 16:7;70:11;140:3 attached (1) 112:8 - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 attachment (1) 113:7 attack (2) 34:14;78:1 attempt (1) 129:11 attention (1) 77:12 attributed (1) 37:17 audience (2) 69:8,8 audio (1) 104:15 August (18) 5:15,17,21;48:2;87:9,11, 11,21;89:3,6,7,19;116:1,15; 118:1,15;132:5,7 authority (5) 8:15;10:9;14:18,20;17:8 authors (1) 97:16 automated (2) 83:9;133:18 automatically (1) 83:9 available (12) 6:6;50:3;67:18;69:4; 83:5;84:3,14;85:7;86:1,4; 95:12;129:14 average (4) 43:20;45:5;54:10;105:13 avoid (1) 124:18 avoided (2) 98:8;99:8 aware (11) 25:4;27:21;48:4;67:11; 69:10;92:13;108:10,17; 119:15;120:6,19 awkward (1) 104:4 102:4,10;106:8;108:1,2; 111:4;114:14;115:9; 123:10;133:2;138:7,21 basic (1) 63:4 Basically (14) 7:21;74:14,17;75:5,16; 80:21;81:19;83:9;84:1; 97:1;99:19;111:4;117:8; 118:11 basis (4) 20:8;23:5;134:1,17 bears (1) 66:13 became (5) 16:9,21;22:17;48:4,6 become (7) 13:5;16:6;27:3;30:10; 39:19;49:16;50:2 becomes (1) 36:12 began (1) 103:9 begin (1) 8:20 beginning (1) 109:20 behind (1) 33:15 belief (2) 31:3;135:9 believes (2) 6:17;60:16 believing (1) 107:9 benefit (1) 74:9 besides (1) 86:1 best (10) 22:12;46:21;51:11;52:15; 54:1;56:3;61:2,4,7;113:8 better (2) 61:9;128:9 B beyond (2) 74:19;130:3 back (17) bilaterally (1) 19:4;20:7;25:5;26:13; 45:2 36:11;42:5;44:17;51:14; 52:17;61:15;78:9;89:11,19; binder (2) 88:6;112:19 95:3;99:2;127:3;129:16 bit (1) background (1) 122:5 15:10 Bolling (1) backstop (1) 130:2 32:12 bolster (3) bad (5) 92:9,17;93:11 123:3;124:4,8,19;132:11 both (11) bank (2) 18:3;20:17;21:12;23:3; 55:11;128:14 46:10;91:17;92:1,19;105:1; base (1) 111:18;128:8 102:14 bottom (3) based (20) 65:17;66:16;72:13 30:20;37:21;48:8;52:13; Brazilian (1) 64:17;79:4;90:6;101:15; Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation (142) analytic - Brazilian United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 44:15 breach (4) 31:5;35:6;37:17;109:7 break (1) 95:19 breakdown (2) 137:10,15 brief (2) 7:14;30:14 briefed (7) 10:9;34:1;45:1;93:7; 94:4;112:10,12 briefing (5) 27:5,10;31:19;92:19;95:4 briefings (5) 20:21;91:16;92:4,21; 93:17 briefly (3) 19:6;23:11;31:11 Brigadier (1) 25:21 bring (1) 18:17 broad (2) 101:9,10 brought (1) 6:17 budget (4) 11:17;24:4,5,9 build (1) 7:3 buildings (1) 16:17 burden (1) 129:11 bureau (21) 33:5,5,8,9,10;34:18;38:5, 7,8,12,12,14,20;41:14,14; 44:3,9,12;45:15,15;111:21 bureaus (19) 26:8;29:3;33:7,12;38:2, 20;39:1,5,10;41:8,9,10,13; 43:21;44:3,6;45:4,8;90:21 business (5) 22:7;33:9;39:2;45:15; 55:9 businessmen (2) 105:5,20 UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 30:6;31:13;42:1;47:16; 51:17;53:19;54:4,10;56:7, 9;62:21;63:6,17;64:1,3,6, 21;66:14,18,19;67:1,3,7,21; 68:5,11;69:3;78:8,17;81:8, 13,19,20;82:1,4,6,9,10,14, 14,19,20;83:3,4,8;84:21; 85:2,13,14;86:1,12;87:1; 90:1,11;98:14;99:12,19; 100:3;102:18;108:11; 109:2,13,17,20;110:2,4,16, 18;111:1,10,11;112:11,20; 113:7,12;114:7,9;115:18; 116:19;117:2;119:18; 127:2,6,9,15,17;128:4,10, 12,13;129:1,2,8,10;131:8; 134:8,9;135:2;136:14,16, 18,21;137:11,11;138:12 Cairo (2) 21:13,15 call (6) 10:18;15:2;32:12,12; 53:13;77:12 called (13) 5:4;11:4;14:9;51:17,17, 18;62:11;68:8;80:18;95:10; 112:4;126:11;128:9 calls (1) 10:20 came (4) 48:1;72:1;78:12;109:17 can (41) 7:6,12;18:10;21:17; 22:11;23:11;34:9,9,11,12, 14,15;37:16;39:11;40:7; 54:1,12;60:11;64:12;69:3; 71:5;72:4,5;74:20;75:19; 76:13;77:6,15,19;78:3,6; 95:3;101:5;103:17;106:13; 121:16;129:7;135:21,21; 138:8;139:6 candidates (1) 136:19 capacity (3) 8:13;9:16;17:16 Captain (1) 5:7 caption (24) 68:2,19;71:10;74:6,21; C 75:5,14;76:7;77:9;78:2,3; 79:8,14,19,21;80:1,4,14,21; 83:8;86:7;127:10;129:9; cable (46) 133:11 25:5,10;28:12;51:18; 52:18;64:20;65:5,9,16,20; captioned (1) 68:1 66:3,7,10,12;67:9,11;71:5; 76:14,15;77:5,7,20,21;80:9, captions (17) 68:7,12,15;69:3,4,7; 11;83:13,17;84:15;86:7; 70:17,18,21;71:5,7,8;74:8; 87:6;88:4,4;92:7,16;93:8,9, 79:15,18;85:15;134:18 19;94:6;111:20;112:13; 113:9,15;114:12;128:15,16; capture (1) 47:14 134:17 career (5) cables (112) 13:10;14:9;21:11;22:13, 26:2,6,9,13,19;28:8;29:9; Min-U-Script(R) 21 carefully (1) 30:9 Caribbean (1) 41:3 Carr (1) 25:21 carried (2) 41:4;127:10 carries (1) 79:18 carry (2) 55:5;140:7 case (6) 8:11;36:8;47:12;61:17; 64:13;119:16 cases (7) 7:15;51:5;59:10;66:6; 119:18;131:1,3 category (1) 84:13 cause (1) 80:17 caused (2) 92:8;93:2 CD (2) 103:2,4 cease (1) 124:3 ceased (1) 104:7 center (9) 6:3;20:4;33:16,16,17; 129:3,4;133:9;134:2 central (1) 33:14 Centric (17) 67:17;80:2,13;81:9,21; 83:10,14,19;84:2;85:6; 86:2;90:4;109:21;110:2; 127:11;129:8;134:8 certain (7) 27:14,15;55:8;76:5; 102:14;110:15;127:9 Certainly (11) 23:15;31:15;48:9,16; 51:3;59:7;73:16,20;74:11; 95:5;133:8 certainty (1) 73:2 certify (1) 73:6 cetera (3) 22:8;52:1;101:2 chair (2) 62:13;97:14 change (4) 56:7,16;64:12;125:5 changed (1) 56:10 changer (1) 103:12 changes (2) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 113:3;135:10 channel (6) 76:19;77:3,4,12;80:8; 86:12 channels (4) 75:13;80:7,7,8 Chapter (2) 70:19;73:3 charge (4) 5:15,17;6:12;114:20 charges (3) 5:20;6:10;139:11 Charlie-Charlie (1) 70:7 Charlie-Charlie-Charlie (7) 70:1,8;71:13,15;72:11; 74:3;79:7 chart (1) 13:15 Chavez (1) 5:8 chief (16) 17:7,9;21:14,14;31:17; 39:15;42:7;43:7;86:20; 87:18,20;88:2,4,19;89:12; 90:2 chiefs (8) 28:16;75:17;77:1;78:18; 87:4,14;88:5;90:7 chill (1) 131:17 chilled (2) 61:6;130:10 chilling (23) 58:4;59:13;94:13;96:12; 97:2;98:1,5,9,10;99:5,9; 100:8;101:20;105:7;106:5, 7,9;120:7;135:4,12,13; 136:2,3 circuits (1) 134:2 circumstances (8) 22:10;51:12;52:20;55:5; 76:16;101:2,12;102:13 cited (1) 54:16 citizen (1) 105:13 citizens (3) 34:10;38:10;99:6 Class (1) 12:15 classes (1) 20:9 classification (28) 14:17;110:14,21;111:6,9, 14,19;112:1;113:1,4,10,17, 18,19;114:2,4,15,17,19,21; 115:1,8,10,15,19;137:10,12, 18 classifications (3) 16:16;21:8;115:3 classified (25) (143) breach - classified United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 9:21;13:1,3;15:6;24:21; 26:2;28:1,14,15;35:4;37:15, 16;48:14;85:10;95:4;110:8, 11;111:11;128:11;129:15, 18;134:1;137:16,21;138:2 classifies (1) 114:11 classify (3) 114:7,9,12 clear (3) 29:15;132:1,10 clearance (1) 115:13 clearances (2) 129:20;134:6 clearly (3) 9:17;67:6;121:10 CLERK (5) 5:2;31:18;62:6,9;126:7 Clinton (1) 46:2 Clinton's (1) 99:12 clip (5) 95:7,14;96:5;103:9;104:7 close (1) 76:12 closed (2) 20:21;106:11 coalesced (1) 33:21 Coalitional (1) 17:8 co-chair (1) 97:14 colleague (1) 135:5 colleagues (3) 27:6;130:19;131:16 Collins (1) 97:13 combined (1) 79:15 coming (4) 67:14;95:20;118:6;120:2 command (2) 33:16,17 commanding (1) 15:2 comment (1) 95:15 comments (1) 102:17 Commerce (1) 55:20 commissioned (1) 87:13 committee (15) 24:15;77:16;88:11,16; 91:21;92:20;93:7;95:1; 96:2,8,9,16;97:11,12,14 common (1) 51:6 Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session communication (4) 39:15;63:4;129:3;133:9 communications (4) 76:21;129:4;130:7;134:2 community (8) 22:7;52:15;55:9;79:12; 98:15;121:4;122:15;128:20 comparable (1) 134:21 compare (1) 57:9 compared (1) 34:1 comparing (1) 136:21 comparison (1) 137:5 compelled (5) 92:6,7,15;93:3,9 complete (3) 113:18;115:10;122:11 completed (9) 48:18;87:8,10,11,15,21; 121:1;122:19;123:12 completing (1) 111:14 completion (1) 89:3 complex (1) 35:18 complied (1) 11:9 composed (2) 33:3;90:18 comprehensive (2) 48:9;71:9 compromise (5) 25:5,9;28:12;47:16; 119:16 compromised (4) 28:2;39:19;43:3;56:6 compromises (2) 24:21;27:12 computer (2) 21:8;86:16 concept (1) 44:14 concerned (2) 97:12,15 concerning (1) 102:18 conclusions (1) 7:21 conclusive (1) 48:17 concur (2) 112:7;139:13 concurred (2) 112:9;113:5 concurrence (1) 115:12 conduct (6) 12:12,16;49:5,10;91:3; 138:1 conducted (3) 110:14;112:5;117:17 conference (3) 7:14;99:16;100:1 conferences (1) 31:9 conferred (1) 139:14 confidence (3) 35:6;37:17;50:16 confident (6) 57:20;58:1,17,18;60:1,2 confidential (5) 36:7;50:6;110:9;113:20, 21 confidentiality (1) 31:4 conflict (1) 76:3 conflicting (1) 79:18 Congress (9) 20:20;81:18;91:12;92:5, 14;93:18,18;94:4,5 Consequences (1) 104:5 consider (2) 10:6;72:8 considered (2) 34:21;35:2 considering (1) 8:15 consolate (1) 86:14 constrained (1) 46:19 constraining (1) 106:20 construct (1) 23:20 Consulate (2) 38:9;42:12 consulates (3) 19:17;22:5;41:18 consult (1) 138:1 consumed (1) 45:9 consumer (1) 22:14 contain (1) 48:13 contained (4) 27:16;29:4;30:1;136:16 content (2) 90:3;111:20 context (5) 52:5;54:18;55:3,8;56:2 continue (7) 12:20;58:14,20;59:5; 104:1,2,3 continued (2) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 98:14,18 continues (3) 120:9,11;122:20 contradict (1) 100:7 contradicted (1) 105:8 contradicts (1) 104:17 contrast (1) 57:9 contrasted (1) 34:1 contribution (2) 61:5;121:21 control (3) 15:2;68:5;76:18 controlled (1) 68:6 convened (1) 91:16 convention (4) 65:18,19;67:14,16 conversation (2) 51:13;59:12 conveys (1) 55:8 COOMBS (33) 6:13,21;7:8;10:15;15:16; 36:19;37:5;50:11;56:14; 58:9;59:15;60:6,10;61:14; 62:3,14,15,16;71:12;72:7, 10;74:4;95:18,21;102:20; 125:15;133:4,5;136:7; 138:6;139:1,2;140:1 coordinates (1) 31:18 copy (4) 70:11;73:3,10;114:17 corporation (1) 55:12 correctly (2) 80:18;104:19 correlation (1) 138:9 cost (1) 122:2 counsel (10) 6:8;7:13,16;8:8;61:18; 94:11;96:7,15;110:17; 137:19 counselor (4) 22:3;42:21;102:8;133:17 counselors (1) 26:4 counsel's (2) 127:18;132:3 Counter-terrorism (3) 33:11;39:3;45:15 countries (12) 36:2;40:15,18;44:20; 49:15;94:15;97:6;99:6; 100:17;101:4,14;130:10 (144) classifies - countries United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning countries' (2) 102:4,10 country (23) 35:9;36:1;41:5;44:18; 47:9;52:7,9;53:16,17;55:8; 75:21;87:6;89:2,17;100:17, 20;101:5,12;102:1;105:6, 14;133:12,13 couple (3) 94:8;96:21;126:18 course (6) 31:21;61:3;107:17; 121:18,19;124:15 COURT (102) 5:3,3,6,8,10;6:4,7,19;7:2, 6,10,13;8:1,3,4,7,13;9:15, 16,19;10:2,3,5,17;12:21; 13:1;15:17,19;18:5,8,11; 21:18;23:11;36:18;37:1,4,7, 10,19;39:11;50:13;56:15; 58:11;60:8,11,18;61:12,16; 62:1,4,4,10,10,11,12;71:16, 18;72:2,8,19;73:9,14,17,20, 20;74:2;78:11;95:16;103:8; 125:16,19;126:3,5,10,10,12, 13,17;127:5,16;128:2,7; 130:5,15;131:6,12,21; 132:16;133:2;136:8,11; 138:5,7,21;139:3,5,8,9,19; 140:2,6,6 court-martial (1) 13:2 courtroom (2) 6:4;139:7 cover (1) 21:1 CPA (1) 17:10 craft (3) 50:7;51:11;52:18 crash (1) 34:10 create (1) 90:14 created (2) 32:21;33:1 credibility (1) 55:3 criminal (2) 12:12,16 crisis (22) 32:1,14;33:18;34:4,6,8, 19,19;35:1,2;38:1,3,4,18; 39:5,8;41:13;46:3,6;117:8, 8,12 critical (1) 106:5 cross-examination (1) 137:15 cultural (2) 42:11;133:17 culture (2) 51:21;52:7 Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session current (9) 11:13,20,20;13:14;14:13; 23:15;78:16;101:2;113:19 Currently (2) 6:5;125:10 curve (2) 47:12,13 cut (3) 95:11;97:19;138:19 cutting (4) 95:5,6,8,9 decisions (1) 56:3 dedicate (1) 26:15 dedicated (1) 44:7 deemed (1) 79:11 deems (1) 134:5 def (1) 78:17 defend (2) D 122:2,3 Defendant's (1) damage (49) 5:19 34:13;48:17,19;49:2,2; Defense (39) 87:12,12,13,15,16;92:8; 6:8,17;7:1,9,17;9:3,12,18, 93:2,13;113:20,20,21; 20;10:2,4;17:11;25:16; 116:1,4,6,16,20;117:4; 26:14;27:11,17;28:5;55:19; 118:7,18;119:10,11,12,13, 70:1;71:13,14;72:11;74:2; 15,19;120:3,5,5,6,9,12,12, 78:12,15,18,21;79:6;84:14; 14,18,20;121:1;122:4,7,19; 85:7,10;97:19;121:3; 123:8,9,16,19;132:3 127:18;128:19;129:17; damaged (2) 132:2;133:20;137:19 92:16;93:10 Defense's (2) damaging (2) 5:14,16 93:20;94:6 deficit (1) data (1) 107:10 9:10 defined (2) database (26) 100:21;101:8 25:21;42:15;47:2;67:17; 68:1;79:1,3,4;80:2,13;81:9, degree (1) 42:2 21;83:10,14,20;84:2;85:6, 10;86:2;90:4;109:21;110:2; delegation (2) 14:20;111:7 127:2,12;129:8;134:9 delegations (2) date (2) 14:14;23:10 33:3;91:5 deleterious (5) dated (3) 28:21;31:6;34:16;43:4; 5:15,17,20 56:11 day (4) deliberate (4) 54:11;85:14;116:18; 64:10,18,19;75:1 132:8 deliberative (1) days (1) 74:18 91:18 deliver (1) deal (7) 50:21 32:3,14;47:9;70:17; demarche (2) 103:14,18;104:1 50:21;51:4 dealing (2) Department (178) 46:12;100:17 11:16;12:4,13;13:11,16, deals (1) 20;14:17;15:13;16:3,5; 70:19 17:13;19:4,5,7,19;20:2,3, dealt (2) 13,16;22:14,18;23:2,4,13, 66:1;125:2 18;24:4,11,14;25:1,8,12,16, December (4) 17;26:10,12,14,15,18;27:3, 91:18;92:1,1;109:14 11,14,15,17,18;28:1,5,7,11; decide (1) 29:3,11,16;30:4,7,18;31:16, 139:13 18,20,20;32:10,10,13;33:8, decided (2) 20;34:7,8;35:4,8,20;38:15; 116:20;134:16 40:1,2,4;43:16;46:6,15,18; decides (1) 48:10;49:20;53:19;54:5; 133:19 55:14,18,19,20;56:18,21; decision (3) 57:18;58:3,14,20;59:6; 50:4,9;56:4 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 61:5;63:1,3,9;68:4,17; 72:14;74:18;75:1,4,13;78:7, 12,13,14,15,17,21;79:2; 81:8,12;82:13;84:14;85:8, 10;86:3,4,19,20,21;87:3; 88:10;89:12;90:1,12,19; 91:11,16,20;92:4,6,13;93:6; 94:1,5,14,17;97:4,18,19; 98:2,8,13;99:1,8;107:6; 108:3,7,9;110:15;111:18; 112:2;115:4;117:7;119:11; 120:13,19;121:3,5,7,12; 122:2,3;123:3;124:4,7,19; 127:7;128:2,19;129:13,17, 21;131:7;132:20;133:20; 135:7 departmental (3) 26:7,8;27:7 Department's (12) 21:20,21;24:19;26:1; 28:14;34:16;47:15;49:5; 122:16;124:16;129:3;133:9 department-wide (1) 46:16 depending (7) 52:20;66:5;67:12;68:11; 72:21;85:19;133:21 depends (2) 76:16;128:14 depth (2) 131:17;135:11 deputies (1) 39:17 deputy (10) 13:12,18;17:17;18:11; 22:18;28:16;33:4;42:7; 43:7;76:9 deputy's (1) 24:15 derive (1) 14:19 derives (1) 14:20 describe (7) 18:10;21:17;23:11;31:12; 39:11;40:7;51:13 described (3) 94:18;103:11;131:9 descriptions (1) 103:13 desecrated (1) 49:18 designated (2) 27:7;134:2 designed (1) 81:4 desire (5) 6:20;123:1,5,21;124:2 desk (6) 44:13,13,14,14,15,15 destination (1) 80:19 detailed (2) (145) countries' - detailed United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 17:7,12 details (1) 17:4 determine (5) 8:1;23:17;25:14;39:20; 85:17 determining (3) 40:10;45:1;55:12 detrimental (1) 58:7 develop (4) 49:15;54:1;60:12;61:2 developed (1) 51:9 developing (1) 22:12 development (2) 19:15;49:14 dialogue (2) 107:18;130:19 difference (1) 136:1 different (9) 15:3;23:12;38:18,19; 86:7;96:10;119:13;127:13, 19 diminished (1) 50:10 diminution (5) 36:13;37:2,13,15,18 diplomacy (25) 22:3;41:4;49:5,11,19; 67:17;80:2,13;81:9,21; 83:10,14,19;84:2;86:2; 90:4;100:8;101:14;102:4, 10,14;104:21;109:21; 110:2;129:8 diplomatic (33) 12:7,16;15:14;25:11; 26:18;38:12;40:16,17;41:3; 49:21;56:20;59:7,20;60:5; 61:1;63:5,11,16,17;64:1,3, 6,20,20;65:5,16;86:14,14; 99:12,19;108:11;127:8; 129:13 diplomats (11) 35:13;36:2;55:1;102:2; 105:2,4;106:18,20;107:6; 108:3;130:9 dire (1) 9:3 direct (6) 47:14;117:14;126:20; 129:5;137:4;138:9 directed (3) 80:20;87:3;97:18 direction (3) 25:20;29:8;90:6 directional (1) 69:5 directly (4) 21:16;22:19;45:14;115:4 Director (9) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 17:14,18;18:1,11,14,19; 19:6;22:17;128:20 directors (2) 29:2;39:18 disaggregate (1) 137:20 disagree (4) 104:13,16;108:14,20 disapprove (2) 112:8;118:5 disaster (1) 34:11 discern (1) 136:1 disclosure (2) 25:18;44:8 disclosures (12) 24:20;43:13;57:17;58:3, 4,14,20;59:5,19;60:4,21; 131:6 discuss (7) 7:15;12:2,6;52:16;61:17, 19;126:4 discussed (1) 13:3 discusses (1) 71:4 discussion (4) 55:6;59:8;61:6;109:9 discussions (7) 35:21;36:4,6;50:6;52:17; 58:6;107:21 dispatch (1) 78:17 dispersed (1) 57:2 disseminate (2) 98:15,18 disseminated (1) 81:12 dissemination (1) 98:13 distress (1) 38:10 distribute (1) 130:4 distributed (2) 68:5;77:15 distribution (21) 68:2,13,15;74:14,21; 75:13;86:4;95:5,6,8,9,10; 98:10;127:19;128:10; 129:1,11;133:6;134:4,10,15 divert (1) 29:13 division (1) 34:17 document (6) 72:13;73:19;112:14,15, 15;113:11 documented (2) 94:9;97:1 documents (10) - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 35:3;40:3,5,8,9;42:5; 48:5,11;118:6;132:9 DOD (7) 26:16,16,20;78:20;79:3; 85:7;86:9 domestic (2) 39:18;54:8 done (15) 41:19;63:9,14;88:10; 111:8,11,12;116:10,11; 119:14;120:7;121:4,5; 132:4,13 doubt (1) 108:3 down (6) 37:11;92:9,17;93:11; 112:10;129:10 dozen (2) 41:11;54:12 draft (11) 48:1,1;116:4,20;118:1,2, 3;122:4;132:3,4,18 drafted (2) 56:9;65:20 drafting (1) 80:20 drew (1) 87:13 Drug (1) 128:13 DS (1) 80:7 DSX (1) 80:8 duly (1) 11:4 during (15) 8:12;9:12;17:3;22:21; 61:19;81:7,11,21;91:11; 92:4;93:17;126:5;134:7; 137:14;139:14 duties (2) 17:4;22:6 duty (2) 111:4;137:2 E earlier (10) 42:16;48:8;67:13;72:16; 84:18;126:19,20;132:2,11; 139:9 earthquake (1) 34:12 ease (1) 129:11 easily (1) 85:7 economic (11) 22:2;24:1;33:9;39:1; 41:20;42:9;45:14;51:20; 55:13;57:13;133:17 economy (1) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation 101:1 educational (1) 105:21 educators (1) 52:14 effect (24) 13:19;32:13;43:4;52:19; 58:4;59:13;68:10;87:5; 89:1;98:5,9,10;99:5,9; 100:8;101:20;105:7;106:9; 120:7;135:4,12,13;136:2,3 effective (2) 87:18;88:19 effects (4) 94:13;96:13;97:2;98:1 effort (3) 26:16;30:18;49:21 efforts (5) 27:8;47:15;92:9,17;93:11 either (18) 6:19;10:8,13;12:20;20:9, 20;40:11,12;43:4;46:8; 66:19;73:13;75:7;81:17; 100:21;104:17;123:5;130:4 element (3) 41:20;55:2;68:8 elements (3) 25:13;33:20;78:21 else (9) 10:17;43:8;75:13;92:12; 94:1;114:10;116:7;138:5; 140:2 E-mail (1) 6:8 embark (1) 31:8 embarrassed (1) 109:2 embarrassing (3) 93:19;94:6;104:4 embarrassment (1) 123:10 embassador (1) 65:6 embassadors (1) 28:16 embassies (13) 22:4;23:10;40:19,21; 41:12,17;42:3,4;52:2; 54:13;56:10,17;68:19 embassies' (1) 19:17 embassy (21) 17:11;21:15,16;28:17; 34:15;36:1;41:18;42:6,14, 19;50:21;52:17;53:12,15, 17;54:11,13;56:12;66:5; 86:17;135:11 embassy's (2) 26:4;137:7 emergency (1) 77:16 eminent (1) (146) details - eminent United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 46:15 enable (1) 61:8 encompass (1) 132:19 encompassed (2) 39:5;105:9 end (6) 91:5;93:3;120:1,1,2; 129:1 enforcement (2) 122:15,17 engage (14) 22:6;23:9;24:13;29:19, 21;47:5;50:5;51:1;52:16; 58:6;59:11;109:9,10;120:5 engaged (1) 46:8 engaging (2) 40:11;130:20 enlighten (1) 78:6 enough (2) 52:10;139:16 ensure (2) 74:21;84:19 ensuring (1) 129:19 entail (1) 11:14 entire (7) 15:10;46:5;85:19;115:15, 18;116:6;118:9 entirely (2) 82:9;125:1 entities (2) 129:5,6 entity (1) 134:4 environment (1) 39:2 Environmental (1) 33:10 equally (3) 45:13;49:17;106:2 equipment (1) 119:16 equivalent (4) 14:10,11;33:16;106:18 essentially (7) 15:1;18:13;19:13;43:10; 46:14;103:20;124:17 established (1) 18:21 estimate (2) 44:5;45:7 et (3) 22:8;52:1;101:2 evaluate (1) 8:14 even (9) 27:10;50:18;52:1;66:2,7, 13;67:11;123:18,20 Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session events (4) 22:10;38:6;50:1;64:16 everyone (7) 36:7;42:6,18,19;43:8; 44:17;134:14 evidence (13) 8:2,3,9,14,16;9:8,10,15; 10:6,7,11;27:14;71:14 evident (1) 48:6 exact (4) 33:3;91:5;136:18;138:16 EXAMINATION (5) 11:7;62:16;126:20;133:5; 136:12 examine (1) 10:3 examined (1) 11:6 example (9) 59:2;68:14;75:20;76:14; 77:6,19;128:12;129:17; 135:12 examples (4) 59:4;106:11,11;130:13 exception (1) 115:17 exceptionally (1) 113:21 exceptions (2) 5:7;101:11 excess (1) 32:11 exchange (5) 24:3;51:7,9,10;109:10 exchanges (1) 131:4 excluding (1) 44:11 excusal (1) 139:4 excuse (3) 74:6;86:10;114:3 excused (2) 139:3,6 Executive (7) 14:10,14;22:17,18;31:15, 16;32:7 exhibit (9) 5:11,13,15,18;71:13,15; 72:11;74:2;79:6 exhibits (1) 5:11 expectation (4) 13:2;36:5;105:4;109:8 expected (2) 6:16;139:18 experience (6) 16:3;21:10;23:1;38:2; 114:14,18 experienced (1) 23:13 expert (7) - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 8:19;9:2,11;15:12,14; 22:2;55:11 expertise (5) 8:21;12:3,7,10;52:6 experts (4) 52:10;111:17;112:1,1 expert's (1) 9:7 explain (2) 59:4;133:7 export/import (1) 128:14 exports (1) 55:13 exposed (1) 36:7 expressed (3) 36:16;131:13;135:4 expressing (1) 130:18 extent (1) 30:21 F face (1) 11:1 faced (1) 31:21 facilities (1) 23:20 fact (9) 32:11;75:19;82:16;84:6; 100:3;103:14;109:5,6; 117:15 factor (1) 83:2 factors (1) 101:3 facts (6) 9:10;64:3,11;65:6,10,13 faculty (1) 20:5 fair (1) 84:8 fairly (2) 103:13;104:6 fall (2) 13:14;25:1 false (1) 125:1 familiar (9) 69:10;70:4;99:11,14,18; 100:11;102:16;104:10; 108:6 familiarize (1) 90:3 family (1) 35:21 far (2) 101:7;137:10 fashion (1) 95:17 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation fax (1) 117:7 fear (1) 103:19 February (1) 109:14 federal (1) 74:15 feed (1) 50:8 feedback (1) 90:7 feeding (1) 36:11 feeds (2) 53:2;56:2 feel (2) 59:10;114:13 feeling (2) 131:3,16 feelings (2) 35:19;131:12 Fein (33) 5:4,5,12;7:11;10:16,19; 11:7;15:9,18,21;16:1;18:9; 37:20;50:14;60:14,19; 61:10;71:17,19;74:1;104:8; 108:16;125:18,20;126:16; 133:3;136:9,12;138:4; 139:4,14,21;140:5 felt (4) 92:6,7,15;93:8 few (10) 16:4;34:4;44:8;45:9; 57:15;62:21;69:9;74:6,7; 138:13 field (5) 15:12;20:1,15;23:8;122:8 figure (2) 81:15;138:16 file (5) 28:13,14,18;29:6;108:15 filed (3) 42:1;64:11;109:3 filing (5) 110:17;111:12;112:8,9; 138:3 filings (1) 10:9 final (4) 120:12,17,19;121:1 finalize (2) 47:18,20 finalizing (1) 7:16 finally (1) 110:11 finance (2) 11:17;19:1 financial (5) 18:16;23:18;24:5;137:7,8 find (6) 65:2;72:4;76:17;108:20; (147) enable - find United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 126:18;130:1 findings (1) 6:10 finds (2) 9:20;68:11 fine (7) 5:6;7:8,11;74:12;78:11; 82:13;83:6 finish (2) 113:10;116:5 first (26) 11:4;12:15;16:6,7;17:7; 18:1;24:19;29:10;32:15,21; 39:13;43:8;44:8;45:9; 46:18;48:14;83:2,13;94:13, 19,21;97:4;98:2,8;99:17; 118:16 fit (1) 81:1 five (3) 38:16;73:3,3 flavor (2) 130:16;138:8 flight (1) 137:2 flow (1) 31:19 focus (1) 24:17 follow (1) 73:1 followed (4) 8:18;9:1;34:13;131:8 following (3) 8:17;89:2;133:16 follows (1) 11:6 followup (2) 133:2;138:21 Food (1) 128:12 force (7) 25:20;32:1,2,3,4,5;34:20 forces (1) 33:18 foreign (43) 13:8,21;14:4,5,7;17:13; 20:4,4;22:6,7,10;23:9,10; 24:2;31:1,1,10;40:11;46:9; 49:8;50:6,16,18,21;58:5; 59:9,9;70:2,4,12,14;71:21; 72:6,18;73:4;99:6,6; 103:11;104:5;106:17; 121:18;130:10,20 form (2) 122:14;132:4 formal (1) 20:20 formally (1) 20:3 format (3) 70:10;77:19;133:7 formatting (1) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 72:17 former (2) 97:8;102:17 formulate (2) 68:13;105:19 formulation (4) 63:9,13;82:8,10 Fort (3) 78:18;130:1,2 forth (1) 44:17 forum (1) 51:3 forward (2) 8:1;32:12 found (3) 100:5,12;126:19 foundation (10) 9:4,7;15:20;60:7,8,12,13, 17;71:17;72:10 four (1) 125:7 four-digit (1) 133:12 four-year (1) 125:5 frame (1) 37:1 framework (1) 34:18 frank (12) 36:4,9,15;50:5;51:7,10; 58:6;59:8,12;61:6;94:16; 109:9 frankness (2) 107:20;108:5 free (2) 73:20;139:6 freely (3) 101:17;102:6,12 freight (1) 137:1 French (1) 44:14 frequently (1) 130:12 front (5) 70:17;88:10;91:21;94:21; 96:1 full (19) 23:5;36:4,9,15;48:16; 50:5,6;51:7,10;52:17;58:6; 59:8,11;61:5;109:9;127:13, 14;130:21;135:17 fully (1) 47:6 fulsome (1) 107:21 function (1) 45:4 functional (6) 33:7,8;39:1;41:10;45:8; 111:21 - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 further (4) 29:14;61:11;125:15; 136:7 future (1) 53:1 105:1,1,3,12,16;125:16; 128:16;129:15;130:8,8; 140:4 government/host (1) 30:12 governmental (5) 40:11;46:10;58:5;88:11; G 107:18 governments (6) game (1) 52:13;99:6;102:14; 103:12 103:14,18,18 Gates (5) government's (1) 102:18;103:10;104:12, 6:18 19;108:19 graph (1) Gates's (3) 135:7 103:5;105:8,10 grave (2) gave (2) 113:20,21 37:21;137:14 great (1) gel (1) 30:21 26:13 greater (2) general (16) 135:5,11 14:12;16:12;19:10;20:11, 12;25:21;55:1;76:14;77:18; ground (2) 64:12;65:14 82:18;101:6;111:16; group (15) 122:10;125:13,13;133:7 32:16,19,21;33:1;38:3,5, generally (2) 17;39:5,12,14;44:7;45:10; 18:10;102:19 90:15,18;91:3 generated (2) groups (1) 26:11;29:5 38:18 generating (1) Guard (1) 29:4 32:11 geographic (8) guess (11) 38:5,6;41:2,8,9;43:21; 67:15;82:21;83:1;88:1,1; 44:3,6 102:9;115:14,17;120:1,10; geographically (2) 138:12 44:1;57:2 guessing (2) germane (1) 45:11;138:18 7:20 guidance (2) given (14) 30:11;79:7 12:10;54:11,11;55:5; guide (10) 70:11;81:19,20;82:14; 113:17,19;114:4,15,17, 86:19;101:12,12,13;116:16; 19;115:1,9,10,15 129:20 guidelines (1) gives (1) 114:8 71:9 guru (1) giving (4) 108:9 55:2;59:4;106:15;115:11 guys (1) glad (1) 61:12 106:11 goes (7) H 34:17;54:6;66:10,12; 74:19;122:1;129:16 good (2) Haiti (1) 101:5;121:12 34:11 Gordon (1) half (5) 17:6,6;45:12;54:12;138:2 130:2 government (52) hand (3) 6:14;7:10;8:1,18,19,20; 48:7;70:7;82:17 9:1,2,4,6,9;10:1;19:16;22:6; handbook (7) 70:3,5,12,15;71:21; 23:1;24:12;25:13;31:1; 35:20;52:12;53:12;54:3,6; 72:18;73:4 55:4,15,18,21;57:3,6,7,10; handle (1) 73:18;79:12,19;81:14;85:9; 34:19 98:11,20;101:21;104:20,20; handled (2) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation (148) findings - handled UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 75:12;86:13 handles (1) 38:9 handling (2) 44:19;70:21 happen (2) 101:7,7 happened (2) 52:13;59:12 happens (2) 51:19;125:1 hard (3) 83:1;114:17;135:16 harms (2) 94:9;97:1 haul (1) 21:9 havens (1) 49:16 head (1) 33:3 heads (1) 19:18 hear (1) 8:7 heard (2) 103:10;106:8 hearing (1) 96:10 hearsay (1) 9:9 heavily (1) 23:6 held (2) 16:5;23:12 help (2) 128:4,21 helping (2) 49:18;105:18 helps (1) 49:15 Here's (1) 73:17 hesitancy (2) 100:5,12 hesitant (1) 138:18 highest (2) 75:15;76:1 highlight (1) 6:16 highly (1) 76:8 historical (1) 51:16 historically (1) 63:3 history (2) 78:10;101:1 hold (6) 7:7;16:20;26:21;36:18; 37:4;99:2 holding (1) Min-U-Script(R) 8:5 holdover (1) 67:14 Homeland (3) 88:11;97:12;98:6 Honor (33) 6:1,13;7:1,1,9;10:15; 15:9,16;50:12;58:9;59:15; 60:6,10;61:11,14,21;62:15; 71:17;72:7;73:1,12;78:9; 95:19;102:21;125:20; 127:4;131:11;132:6; 136:10;138:6,17;139:1; 140:1 hopefully (1) 139:17 host (7) 30:11;36:1;87:6,18;89:2, 17;105:6 hours (1) 39:13 House (10) 76:9;91:17,21;92:20; 93:7;94:21;96:2,7,9,16 HR (1) 80:7 Huachuca (1) 130:1 hub (1) 33:14 huge (5) 30:17,18;34:9;46:9;75:10 human (3) 23:18;29:18;38:14 humanitarian (1) 49:17 hundred (4) 44:2;73:2;112:11;113:7 hung (1) 88:2 I I&R (1) 77:1 idea (3) 91:6;101:5;124:20 ideas (1) 109:10 identification (5) 70:2,8;71:14;72:12;74:3 identifies (1) 75:15 identify (1) 9:19 identifying (1) 8:21 ie (2) 35:19;50:2 immediate (1) 46:19 immediately (3) 65:2;86:20;88:18 imminent (1) 30:6 impact (18) 12:11,15;24:2,3;31:6; 34:16;47:14,18,20;56:1; 58:14,20;59:5;93:19;94:5; 103:10;117:18,19 impacted (10) 23:6;38:19;49:6,8;54:8; 57:18;58:3;59:19;60:4,21 impacts (2) 28:21;47:15 implementing (1) 46:16 implicit (1) 31:3 implies (1) 64:10 import (1) 55:11 importance (1) 78:14 important (8) 30:19;35:17;45:13;55:2, 10;105:18;106:2;122:11 imposing (2) 8:15;10:5 impossible (1) 131:18 impressions (2) 89:16;135:6 improve (1) 19:20 inaccuracy (2) 64:10,20 inaccurate (3) 64:14;117:5;118:8 inadmissible (2) 9:17;10:7 inappropriate (1) 123:6 inbound (1) 66:18 include (3) 9:7;15:1;90:21 included (3) 16:15;54:15;56:9 includes (1) 49:21 including (2) 57:13;125:6 incorporated (2) 26:3,19 increase (1) 24:8 incredibly (2) 30:19;35:17 indicate (3) 72:14;79:10;107:2 indicated (12) 28:6,6;96:13;97:7;113:6; 117:6,21;118:10;120:21; 121:6;123:8,9 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 indicating (1) 93:18 indicator (1) 133:12 indispensable (1) 103:21 individual (11) 31:18;79:5;88:2;101:12, 20,21;105:2;111:10; 119:17;125:4,7 individuals (19) 33:12;36:2,5;43:21;44:6, 11;45:8;46:11,12;52:6; 54:21;59:2;64:4;87:19; 94:16;97:6;105:11;108:2; 131:3 inform (3) 24:7;53:21;57:12 informal (1) 123:13 information (69) 11:17;13:3;15:3,3,6; 16:15;19:1;20:15;21:2,3,5, 6,11,15;22:11;23:7;25:1,16; 26:14,16;27:6,12;28:1,5; 33:19,21;37:15,16;40:1; 50:3,9;53:9;54:14;55:3,14; 56:8,8;65:6;70:19;75:8; 76:1,4;77:10;79:4,11;80:5, 12;85:2;94:14;97:5,7,15,20; 98:3;99:7,20;100:4,6,13,15; 104:3;106:5,15;107:3,9,10; 108:8;109:6;133:19 informed (2) 56:4;92:5 informing (1) 92:14 initial (3) 43:13;72:3;74:14 initially (1) 117:18 Innovation (2) 19:7,12 innovative (1) 19:19 input (4) 63:11,12,16,18 inquiries (1) 38:8 in-service (1) 20:9 inspector (2) 125:13,13 instance (3) 13:15;79:21;93:8 Institute (1) 20:5 instructed (1) 90:2 instruction (1) 29:1 instructions (4) 70:21;71:9;79:9,10 (149) handles - instructions UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning Intelligence (19) 17:14,18;18:2,12,14,17, 19;68:10;77:1;92:1,20; 97:17,20;98:15;121:4; 128:19,21;133:10,18 intends (1) 8:19 intensive (1) 120:4 intent (2) 128:3;129:13 interacting (1) 105:5 interaction (2) 104:20;105:2 interactions (1) 105:7 inter-agencies (2) 63:10,14 inter-agencies' (1) 24:13 interagency (9) 75:9;78:4,8;79:12;81:5; 82:2,5;134:13;138:14 inter-agency (1) 68:21 interest (11) 51:5,6;53:17,18;54:7,8; 100:18;103:15;121:11; 123:11;138:13 interests (7) 49:11;92:8,16;93:10; 100:20;101:6,7 interface (1) 30:21 interleave (1) 57:8 interlocutors (5) 35:6;36:15;50:7,17,18 interlocutory (4) 8:13;9:16;54:17;130:20 internal (3) 28:15;44:12;74:17 International (6) 33:6;35:10;38:21;41:15; 44:4;54:7 interpreting (1) 136:20 interrupt (2) 36:19;59:3 intimate (1) 115:5 into (20) 18:18;26:19;48:5;50:21; 53:2;71:14;80:2,13;83:10, 14,19;106:11;115:8;117:8; 124:9,16;127:11;130:15; 135:11;137:9 Intranet (4) 26:1,5;28:15;47:2 introduce (1) 9:9 introduced (1) Min-U-Script(R) 8:14 invention (1) 128:18 investigate (1) 25:9 investigated (2) 124:13,15 investigation (19) 122:6,12,13,14,18;123:2, 7,8,14,17;124:3,3,6,9,10,12, 18,21;125:11 investigations (2) 122:11,16 investment (1) 55:11 investments (1) 55:13 involve (1) 42:20 involved (13) 29:20;41:13,21;42:4; 43:13,18;44:18,20;45:18, 19,21;46:3;134:3 involves (1) 15:6 Iraq (2) 17:7;18:4 island (1) 41:2 issue (2) 6:12,16 issues (4) 7:15;8:5;23:6;52:16 item (2) 47:8;75:11 J Japan (1) 34:13 JCS (1) 78:18 Jeffersonian (1) 31:17 job (5) 16:7;17:20;19:3;33:13; 61:9 jobs (2) 16:4;128:5 John (2) 13:13;18:2 joint (1) 78:18 journalists (1) 52:14 judge (1) 8:11 junior (1) 55:6 JWICS (1) 98:16 - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 later (1) 109:17 laterally (1) 53:13 keep (1) law (4) 103:17 7:21;73:9;122:15,16 Kennedy (14) lay (2) 10:21;11:3,11;15:12; 9:6;72:10 61:16;62:17;71:20;74:5,7; 95:14;96:12;103:6;126:3; lays (2) 9:4;79:7 139:5 lead (1) Kennedy's (3) 27:7 15:10;36:20;103:1 leaders (5) kept (2) 31:10;100:3,6,13,14 72:1;91:12 leading (1) key (1) 42:8 16:4 leak (12) keywords (2) 25:14;26:3;30:1,1,10; 68:11;134:17 37:15,16;40:2;92:7;98:20; kin (1) 108:11;117:19 130:3 leaked (3) kind (13) 30:10;40:9;44:21 43:3;51:2;67:14;71:3,4; leaks (5) 75:20;76:13;78:16;87:5; 92:16;93:8,9;94:13;97:3 98:8;107:13;131:4;137:6 learning (1) kinds (2) 30:5 31:2;127:19 least (3) knew (2) 118:1;135:6,20 84:9,11 leave (1) knowledge (3) 125:7 61:17;114:15;115:5 lecture (1) known (4) 20:10 64:4;107:14,16;123:12 lectures (2) knows (1) 20:6,8 8:3 left (1) 139:8 L leg (1) 49:18 label (1) legacy (6) 84:21 95:10,13;128:9;133:6; labeled (6) 134:10;136:15 70:21;77:5;82:14,20; legal (4) 83:18;84:8 10:9;92:9,17;93:11 Labor (3) length (1) 116:18;120:4;132:8 121:11 Lack (1) less (6) 71:17 45:13;91:9,10;107:20,20; lacking (1) 109:9 51:7 letter (1) laid (1) 124:11 60:17 letters (2) language (1) 133:13,16 52:7 level (8) large (13) 16:8;19:13;33:4,5;45:17; 28:7;29:14;35:5;36:12; 59:11;130:8;136:5 38:8,15;44:13,16;48:13; levels (1) 54:13;78:7;82:19;132:8 107:19 larger (1) liaison (1) 48:14 25:19 last (8) Lieberman (1) 5:6;36:20;37:5;50:11; 97:13 62:12;126:12;138:7;139:15 light (1) lastly (1) 40:10 21:9 K Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation (150) Intelligence - light UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning likely (1) 107:17 limit (1) 121:15 limited (3) 76:6;119:17;127:20 line (5) 32:14;43:8;47:5;85:17,20 lines (1) 85:16 list (3) 5:11;10:10;54:21 listen (1) 9:15 listening (1) 32:17 literally (1) 42:19 little (3) 14:6;78:10;122:5 lives (1) 105:14 loaded (2) 80:12;137:6 located (1) 36:2 location (2) 28:18;52:14 locations (1) 57:5 lodged (1) 10:4 logistic (1) 83:3 logistics (7) 7:15;11:18;16:17;19:1; 20:7;38:13;53:8 long (8) 11:19;21:9;59:14;62:1; 85:14;91:2;125:19;126:2 longer (6) 64:13;97:7;106:15;107:3; 109:8;121:16 long-term (1) 46:20 look (10) 19:19;74:9;85:15,15,16; 89:15;121:12;123:3;124:4, 7 looked (2) 111:10;124:16 looking (14) 35:9,12;40:4,8;42:21; 43:2;48:6,6;52:5;83:12; 124:19;133:10,11;134:17 looks (1) 72:17 losing (1) 56:11 lot (1) 135:1 lots (3) 69:4;71:6;127:8 Min-U-Script(R) Loud (1) 104:15 lower (1) 123:5 lunch (1) 139:17 lunchtime (1) 7:12 M ma'am (21) 5:5,12;7:11;10:16,19,19; 15:21;60:14,16;71:19;74:1; 125:18;126:1,2,16;133:3; 139:2,4,14,21;140:5 machine (1) 80:17 main (1) 42:5 mainly (1) 41:2 maintain (1) 129:15 Major (7) 5:4;12:5;21:21;31:9;48:4, 11;136:18 majority (2) 82:4;109:16 makers (3) 12:8;50:4,9 makes (1) 134:4 making (4) 51:1;56:4;108:21;121:12 Management (47) 10:20;11:11,14;12:3,12; 13:6,10;15:4,12,13;16:16; 17:18,21;18:12;19:1,6,9,11, 15,20;20:2,13,15,19;21:2,3, 5,6,7,11,12,14,15;23:3,16; 33:12;34:2;43:1;46:3;49:4; 53:5,8;55:9;73:8;80:19; 115:4;117:9 Management's (1) 111:5 managerial (1) 52:1 Manning (2) 54:14;56:6 Manning's (3) 12:12,16;49:6 manual (2) 73:3;80:19 many (26) 14:3;31:9,9;34:10;38:2; 39:5,9;40:15;41:8,10,12; 43:12,20,20;45:5,18;51:5; 54:10;59:10;65:19;81:19; 82:1;101:11;103:17; 137:21,21 March (1) 25:5 marching (1) 116:18 marked (4) 70:1;95:16;103:2,3 material (35) 26:10,18,20;27:17,18; 28:6,8,19;29:4,5,16;30:9, 12;32:3;39:19;44:17,21; 47:4,6,9;48:7,8,10,14;75:3; 76:18;84:14;86:9,18;88:20; 89:13;98:19;112:6;117:2; 129:18 materials (2) 27:15;31:20 matter (10) 20:7;31:21;35:5;52:10; 67:12;111:17,18,19;112:1; 128:15 matters (3) 24:12;27:4;66:2 may (20) 9:3,6,12,20;19:3;23:21, 21;24:2,8;57:9;64:13; 73:14;94:16;95:19;97:6; 101:16;125:20;126:1; 136:9;139:3 maybe (5) 7:4,6;61:15;120:1,1 mean (9) 21:4;42:18;66:21;67:6; 70:18;120:10;133:16; 136:15;137:17 meaning (2) 36:1;80:18 means (7) 20:6;21:19;48:16;57:3; 64:15;82:2;117:12 meant (1) 68:20 measure (1) 135:17 measuring (1) 49:1 media (2) 6:2,3 medical (2) 11:18;53:7 meet (4) 52:11,15;54:19;55:1 meeting (2) 46:8;53:17 meltdown (1) 103:12 member (4) 13:21;14:3,5;55:7 members (12) 6:2;8:4,6;35:13;77:15; 91:20;94:17;101:21,21; 105:12,20,21 memo (2) 112:4,5 memories (1) 59:14 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 memory (3) 74:10,12;77:17 memos (1) 91:16 mentioned (5) 26:12;34:4;42:16;84:18; 127:8 merge (3) 5:14,16,19 merged (1) 18:18 message (5) 68:12;79:14,18;85:19; 134:1 messages (7) 75:15;77:10,14;79:11; 81:1,4;84:19 met (1) 7:13 meta (1) 80:7 mid (1) 78:13 might (33) 23:19,20;24:8;25:14; 26:3;29:3,21,21;30:9;34:3; 44:19;45:2,15;52:21;53:16; 55:5,20;65:13;66:2,7; 76:14;77:20;78:10;82:12; 89:16;90:1;106:4;119:10; 123:2;124:4;132:20;136:1; 139:13 military (5) 14:11;33:17;42:10;49:14; 51:21 million (9) 81:12;84:10,12;127:6,16; 134:9,19;136:14;138:14 mind (3) 91:5;119:13;138:20 Mine (2) 20:7;109:11 mini (1) 19:14 minimize (1) 123:1 minister (1) 14:9 minutes (2) 83:18;126:6 misquoted (1) 127:1 miss (2) 119:7,10 missing (1) 71:18 mission (10) 28:16;39:12,14,16;46:21; 75:17;77:2;87:4,14;128:17 missions (2) 18:3;22:5 mitigate (1) 49:2 (151) likely - mitigate United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning mitigated (1) 48:19 mitigation (2) 32:4,18 mode (2) 33:18;117:9 modest (1) 104:6 moment (9) 15:18;26:13;36:18;40:13; 60:14;71:3;73:15;125:20; 136:9 monitor (1) 52:2 month (1) 91:6 months (6) 17:6,6;19:7;91:4,9,10 more (18) 44:15;45:12;54:13;55:4, 5;57:4,5,8,15;69:2;79:15, 19;80:1;85:7;107:17; 118:21;122:5;130:18 morning (1) 6:1 most (3) 38:5;100:2;103:19 motion (9) 5:14,16,19;6:18,20;7:17; 10:10;139:11,20 motions (1) 6:10 move (1) 19:4 movements (1) 137:1 moving (2) 44:17;48:5 MPEG (4) 96:5;103:9;104:7;108:15 MRA (1) 9:8 much (4) 106:15;107:3;119:18,19 multi-laterally (1) 45:3 multiple (3) 55:18;70:14;101:3 multiplication (3) 5:20;6:9;139:10 myself (1) 123:5 N name (7) 65:17;66:8,9,15;67:4; 69:9;101:5 names (2) 51:16,16 narrow (2) 34:18;69:8 nation (7) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 29:21;30:12;36:1;52:3; 53:1;103:21;106:4 National (37) 17:14,18;18:1,12,14,19; 20:4;22:1,12;24:15;30:19; 32:11;33:17;34:17;36:13; 46:21;49:11,13,20;50:3,8; 51:5;53:2;54:1;56:1;57:12, 13;58:8;61:3,9;93:14; 106:3;121:21;128:4,20; 131:19;133:20 nationals (1) 31:2 Nations (9) 17:1;18:3,4;22:10;29:19; 41:1,2;52:4;104:1 natural (1) 34:11 nature (2) 76:4;119:13 NCD (4) 28:12;68:1;127:2,11 necessarily (4) 66:12;67:10;78:19,20 necessary (2) 27:10;32:9 need (23) 9:21;10:10,17;23:19; 24:8,8;39:20;49:20;57:11; 61:3;62:2;85:18;95:19; 96:18;103:20;109:1; 114:14;120:8;123:21; 126:18;132:14;138:16; 140:2 needed (6) 6:6;40:1,10;45:1;74:9; 116:12 needs (2) 79:4;128:16 negotiations (2) 76:2,18 Negroponte (2) 13:13;18:2 Net (17) 67:17;80:2,13;81:9,21; 83:10,14,19;84:2;85:6; 86:1;90:3;109:20;110:2; 127:11;129:8;134:8 new (3) 5:11;23:20,20 newly (1) 20:9 newspaper (1) 46:13 next (7) 24:17;34:2;114:3;116:18; 117:1;132:5;137:8 NGO (1) 106:1 NGOs (1) 22:7 NODIS (6) 69:13;75:14,20;79:15; - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 86:12;127:20 nominated (1) 19:8 non-concur (1) 112:7 non-governmental (6) 36:3;46:11;52:14;58:5; 105:6;107:19 non-officials (1) 22:7 nor (1) 105:9 normally (1) 38:3 notifications (1) 137:2 notified (1) 30:7 notify (1) 13:1 November (3) 11:21;90:11;131:8 number (16) 28:17;38:15;39:1;43:15, 17;44:5;45:8;48:13;66:6; 76:6;83:5;130:18;134:19; 135:3,5;136:18 numbers (4) 19:16;78:7;130:16; 137:14 O oath (3) 62:18;93:6;94:3 object (2) 9:3,12 objection (7) 9:14;10:2,4;15:16;37:11; 60:6;71:16 objectionable (1) 9:20 objections (2) 10:11;60:9 observed (1) 49:3 obtain (1) 95:3 obviously (18) 29:18;30:17;49:14;50:20; 55:17;66:21;69:2;82:4; 100:17;101:11;111:13; 117:11;119:3;120:10; 121:6;122:6,21;135:1 occur (1) 101:11 occurred (1) 18:6 ocean (1) 39:2 Oceans (1) 33:10 odd (1) Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation 57:1 ODNI (2) 17:20;19:2 off (10) 32:13;47:5;62:20;72:3; 95:5,6,8,9,11;97:19 offering (1) 71:14 offers (1) 15:11 office (16) 16:8;17:14;18:14,19,20; 19:11,13;22:19;24:4;29:2; 33:11;34:18;39:17;47:3; 115:4;128:20 officer (16) 13:8,10;17:13,21;21:12; 25:19;28:17;42:14;43:1,1; 44:16,19;92:19;111:6; 114:20;121:19 officers (7) 22:1;35:8;42:18,21;43:6; 52:2;80:20 offices (6) 19:18;23:8;29:3;39:18; 41:19;51:19 official (8) 14:16,19;23:4;24:11; 27:3;48:2;55:4,6 officials (18) 22:6;23:5;31:1;40:11; 46:10;58:5;59:9,10;90:18; 92:5,14;105:3,6,6,17;106:1, 18;107:18 often (1) 51:18 onboard (1) 34:11 once (5) 6:21;7:13;17:5,5;130:21 one (35) 6:3;13:5;15:18;16:21; 21:20;34:18;36:12;38:6,20; 39:10;40:13;41:21;43:18; 44:15,19;47:12;51:16;60:8, 14;67:19;68:14;75:13; 81:16;90:14;94:10;95:11; 98:16;104:3;107:5;111:8; 112:10,12;134:14;138:7,7 ones (2) 20:10;127:21 ongoing (6) 27:11;35:12;52:3;76:2; 120:16;125:11 only (15) 8:15;10:10;44:11;75:1,3, 12;76:5;77:15;78:3;80:21; 94:18;107:5;127:9;138:13, 17 open (5) 13:3;20:20;23:21;94:16; 132:17 operate (1) (152) mitigated - operate UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 55:17 operating (1) 26:8 operation (1) 43:5 operational (2) 11:15;13:20 operations (16) 6:2;12:3,13;15:13;16:17; 19:20;20:2,13;21:9,11; 24:5;31:6,19;33:15;34:16; 46:5 opinion (23) 9:2,7,11;12:11;57:17,21; 58:2,13,17,19;59:18;60:1,3, 7,17,21;64:14;84:21;99:19; 100:10;103:7;120:11;130:7 opinions (6) 35:18;36:9,15;102:2,17; 105:17 oral (3) 6:20;7:7;139:20 order (14) 5:4;6:16;14:15;27:17; 32:12;57:12;61:2;62:11; 92:8,17;93:10;124:18; 126:11;128:16 orders (2) 14:15;137:1 organization (5) 29:12;33:6;35:11;44:4; 121:10 organizational (3) 13:15;38:21;41:15 organizations (2) 36:3;52:15 organized (1) 26:7 original (2) 26:15;132:18 originator (3) 75:3,11;86:17 OSD (1) 78:18 others (5) 23:10;35:19;41:16;106:9; 107:6 Otherwise (4) 47:11;50:10;74:12; 107:11 out (23) 6:17;35:8;41:4;45:1; 52:11;64:18;65:2;66:6,10, 12;67:11;68:18;79:7;82:1, 10;83:2;101:16;122:20; 128:10;130:3;132:15; 138:14,14 outbound (3) 26:9;66:19;67:3 outgoing (2) 29:4,5 outlined (2) 112:6;120:7 Min-U-Script(R) outside (4) 8:6;34:17;35:20;125:13 over (7) 6:8;14:6;15:2;29:12; 68:5;107:17;134:1 overall (6) 20:12;39:12;82:19,20; 87:5;89:1 overflow (1) 6:5 Overgaard (1) 5:7 overseas (18) 17:3;24:2,7;31:8;33:20; 35:7;38:11;39:16;40:12; 43:14;47:3;53:6;54:9; 55:11,21;63:5;106:19,21 oversee (2) 18:21;53:5 oversees (3) 16:17;19:14;43:12 oversight (1) 16:15 overtaken (1) 64:15 overwrought (1) 103:13 own (3) 52:6;100:18;114:12 P Pacific (1) 41:3 pages (1) 72:17 panoply (1) 46:9 paper (1) 31:19 paragraph (3) 85:16,18,20 parlance (1) 14:11 Part (14) 35:17,17;36:20;37:5; 50:11;57:12;100:6,13,14, 14;121:7,10;129:12,13 parters (1) 75:9 particular (5) 65:6,10;106:13;109:3; 122:14 particularly (1) 85:15 parties (4) 5:5;62:11;126:12;139:12 partners (7) 68:21;78:4,8;81:5;82:2,5; 134:13 parts (1) 21:6 party (3) 10:8;12:20;55:7 passage (1) 116:16 passing (2) 99:20;100:4 past (2) 106:16;107:4 Patrick (4) 10:21;11:3,11;15:12 pattern (1) 68:13 Pause (6) 27:1;40:14;60:15;63:19; 71:6;125:21 pending (2) 7:7;35:15 people (23) 32:13;33:18;38:16;43:12; 44:11;45:5;49:18;52:16; 54:19,21;56:8;59:14;76:6; 84:10,12;109:6;130:9,18; 131:1;132:8;135:4,6; 138:13 per (1) 135:6 perceive (1) 106:8 percent (9) 44:10;45:16;73:2;81:17; 137:15,16;138:15,15,15 percentage (7) 48:14;82:13,19,20;83:4; 127:10;136:17 perception (1) 108:1 perchance (1) 31:7 perfectly (1) 74:12 perhaps (1) 7:5 period (8) 57:3;81:7,11;82:1;91:11; 109:19;134:21;135:2 perjure (1) 123:5 Permanent (9) 91:21;92:20;93:7;95:1; 96:2,8,9,16;139:4 permanently (1) 139:6 person (3) 83:12;114:21;125:3 personal (3) 21:10;56:8;102:2 personally (2) 46:3;107:5 personnel (11) 11:18;18:16;19:2;23:9; 24:1;43:17;53:7;57:4,5; 129:15;135:10 persons (1) 32:4 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 perspective (2) 85:12;135:20 pertains (1) 14:14 PFC (4) 12:11;49:6;54:14;56:6 phonetic (1) 69:19 phraseology (1) 137:19 physical (2) 44:14;53:6 physically (2) 66:11;114:19 picked (1) 134:16 piece (3) 36:12;50:2;119:16 place (3) 38:6;100:21;131:7 placed (1) 84:1 plan (1) 53:6 planning (1) 46:20 plants (1) 34:14 play (7) 95:14;96:4,18;103:1,5; 108:13;132:15 played (1) 108:15 playing (2) 96:5;103:9 Please (19) 5:3,4;11:1,8;13:1;15:18; 21:17;26:21;31:11;39:11; 40:13;60:14;61:16;62:10; 71:2;126:4,10,21;132:17 plus (5) 38:20,21;41:14,15;44:3 pm (2) 126:9;140:8 point (24) 13:9;27:2;28:9;49:17; 65:13;67:19;98:13;101:19; 107:9;108:21;114:14; 118:4,12,14;120:3,14; 121:2;122:1,7;123:10,18, 20;124:14;132:10 policies (1) 19:15 policy (12) 12:8;19:6,12;55:15;63:9, 14,18,20;82:8,10;103:11; 104:5 policymakers (13) 12:17;15:15;22:11;23:1, 13;53:21;55:16;56:3;59:19; 60:4;61:1,2;95:12 political (7) 22:2;41:20;42:8,10; (153) operating - political United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 51:21;133:15,17 portion (5) 7:19;24:18;70:2;103:1,5 posed (1) 97:11 position (19) 10:2;11:13,20,20,21; 13:14;14:13;16:11,19;17:2; 20:18;22:16;23:15;49:4; 54:2;111:4;115:9;120:13; 123:16 positions (2) 18:17;23:12 possible (10) 56:5;57:7;61:4,7;65:4; 71:4;98:1;119:3,6,9 post (12) 39:16;42:15;43:9;65:7,8, 10;66:6,11,12;86:21;88:6, 19 posted (3) 26:1;81:8;83:17 posts (13) 23:20;24:7;26:4;29:12; 30:7;40:19;47:3;51:20; 53:10;57:1;63:5;68:19;84:5 potential (13) 30:11;47:7;48:19;49:16; 78:1;91:13;94:9,12;97:1,2; 98:4;99:5;119:10 potentially (16) 28:2,8,21;38:14;43:4; 44:21;51:4;52:4;55:10; 61:8;76:18;78:20;85:8; 107:13;136:20;139:11 power (1) 34:13 preceding (1) 14:15 preclude (1) 74:14 predictions (1) 52:21 preliminary (1) 47:1 premature (3) 29:20;30:2;75:7 preparation (1) 116:17 prepare (3) 22:8;30:10;47:4 prepared (3) 27:18;28:20;112:4 prepares (1) 24:4 presence (3) 8:6;93:16;94:2 present (9) 5:6,7,8;62:11,12;66:10; 126:12,13;135:14 presented (2) 73:7;138:20 presently (1) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 45:21 president (3) 75:16;125:6,6 presidential (1) 13:7 press (10) 38:8;40:5,9;42:11;48:5; 90:9;99:16;100:1;101:16; 106:1 pretty (3) 100:21;101:5,8 Prevention (2) 18:18;97:17 pride (1) 122:1 principles (1) 114:16 prior (4) 27:9;29:7;54:14;111:8 privacy (7) 31:4,5;50:15;80:5;105:4; 109:7,8 Private (11) 12:15;31:2;35:13;36:6; 40:12;50:5;55:11;102:1; 105:5,17,18 probably (10) 13:9;22:16;41:15;44:10; 45:6,12,13;52:8;54:6;76:17 problem (1) 129:6 procedure (2) 8:17;10:14 procedures (1) 7:21 proceed (5) 7:20;60:11,18;62:14; 139:13 proceeding (1) 139:10 PROCEEDINGS (1) 5:1 process (6) 31:19;40:7;53:5;74:18; 83:9;84:1 processes (4) 18:20;32:8;114:11;115:6 processing (2) 44:12;135:1 produces (1) 127:8 proffer (1) 139:17 proffered (1) 8:2 promote (1) 55:12 proper (2) 8:16;60:17 proposition (1) 122:11 Prosecution (1) 5:16 Prosecution's (2) 5:13,18 protect (3) 24:1,9;58:8 protects (1) 49:13 protocol (1) 14:11 proud (2) 121:19,20 provide (12) 10:1;36:8;53:6,7,8,9; 56:19;75:19;76:1,13;87:4; 88:21 provided (3) 23:7,8;28:4 providing (1) 38:13 Provisional (1) 17:8 provisionally (2) 72:4,8 prudent (1) 47:1 public (4) 22:3;30:6;31:14;38:7 publicly (4) 25:16;92:7,15;93:9 published (2) 48:10;102:11 pull (6) 32:9,13;47:5;79:3; 129:10;130:4 puller (1) 79:5 purported (32) 28:11;29:9;30:1,6,10; 31:13;35:3;40:2,9;47:16; 48:5,10,13;86:18,21;87:6; 90:10;98:14,20;102:18; 108:11;109:12,13,16; 110:15;112:11;113:7; 117:2,19;118:8;132:9; 137:11 purpose (5) 8:16;54:20,20;75:2;85:5 purview (1) 125:14 push (4) 78:16;79:2;129:7;130:3 pushed (4) 82:1;127:11;128:10; 129:2 pushes (1) 134:1 put (12) 6:15;46:19;68:18;83:9, 19;84:15;88:5;101:16; 115:8;134:8;137:5,9 puzzle (2) 36:12;50:2 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 Q qualify (2) 8:19;9:1 quality (1) 50:10 quantify (1) 135:7 quantities (1) 35:5 quantity (1) 28:7 quarter (1) 137:8 quite (1) 94:20 quotation (1) 92:11 quoting (2) 92:12,12 R range (13) 23:5;34:9;45:16;50:6; 52:17;54:12;57:7;75:10; 109:13;119:19;127:13,14; 128:11 ranges (1) 43:10 ranging (1) 39:9 rank (2) 14:7,9 ranks (1) 52:8 rate (1) 98:19 rates (1) 24:3 rather (2) 16:2;29:11 rationing (1) 76:3 RCM (4) 7:14,18;8:2,10 reach (1) 53:11 reached (2) 118:4;132:7 reacquaint (1) 30:8 reaction (1) 30:12 read (18) 7:19;28:20;47:10,11; 66:12;67:9;85:14,18;88:13; 92:11;112:8;113:9,11,13, 15;115:16;116:6;133:10 reading (3) 46:13;115:18;134:17 reads (4) (154) portion - reads United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 54:3;67:1;68:10;133:18 really (3) 21:5;68:7;85:15 reask (1) 60:20 reason (8) 10:11;26:17;27:13;72:19; 73:11,13;75:6;95:20 reasons (3) 9:13;29:10;46:17 recall (9) 81:15;93:13,14,15,17; 94:7;96:1;100:2;102:19 receipt (1) 134:4 receive (2) 51:3;63:18 received (3) 6:8;48:1;83:8 receiving (3) 27:7;57:10;129:18 recent (1) 20:11 recess (12) 5:6;61:12,20;62:4,7; 125:16;126:1,5,5,8;139:15; 140:6 recessed (2) 62:12;126:12 recognize (3) 70:9,10;71:7 recollection (3) 110:7;112:18;113:8 recommendations (2) 34:2;39:20 recommended (1) 13:11 reconvene (1) 139:16 record (4) 88:20;102:21;103:4; 126:11 Recorded (1) 96:5 records (5) 11:17;16:16;21:7;53:8; 115:3 redirect (3) 125:17;126:2,15 reduce (1) 24:9 reelected (1) 125:6 refer (2) 54:17,18 reference (4) 32:20;36:17;50:15; 136:13 referred (1) 51:19 referring (1) 110:17 reflect (1) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 126:11 Reform (2) 18:17;97:17 refresh (2) 74:10;77:17 regard (2) 27:8;56:12 regarding (2) 10:2;108:10 regards (12) 68:17;74:13;75:14;76:7, 20;79:6;84:20;105:11; 109:12;123:7;135:3,13 region (1) 52:9 regional (5) 33:5;38:20;41:14;90:21; 111:21 regular (1) 20:8 regularly (2) 20:19;24:13 regulations (2) 111:19;112:2 related (1) 77:10 relations (6) 40:16,17;41:4;49:8;89:2, 17 relative (1) 136:21 relatively (1) 130:17 release (18) 30:6;35:3;39:20;46:15; 79:11;87:5;88:20,20;89:1; 90:10;91:13;93:19;94:6; 102:18;109:13;116:18; 118:8;128:3 released (12) 25:17;29:16;31:14;40:5; 47:7;48:12;90:1;117:3; 132:9,20,21;133:1 releases (2) 103:11;132:5 relevant (1) 108:21 relied (3) 60:4;61:1;82:9 relief (1) 7:18 rely (2) 10:8;59:19 remain (2) 75:3;105:7 remaining (1) 8:18 remains (1) 74:21 remember (5) 71:20;92:21;93:4;100:1; 108:12 remind (1) 62:17 render (1) 105:17 repeat (2) 96:17,20 repetitive (1) 52:9 replaced (2) 125:3,8 report (17) 49:21;51:13;52:1,18,19; 53:1,15;55:4,6,6;64:3,11, 14;65:5,8;77:21;86:17 reported (7) 21:16;25:10;89:12; 106:10,17;110:4;130:11 reporter (1) 5:8 reporting (73) 12:7,16;15:14;21:18,19; 22:2,2,14;23:2,6,14;24:6; 26:19;27:16;28:8;30:18,20; 35:5,14;36:11,14;41:20; 42:1,8,9,9,10,11,12,13,18; 43:2,6;50:8;51:20;53:13, 18;54:5;55:3;56:2,20;57:4, 8,9,11;59:8,20;60:5;61:1,4, 7;63:11,16;64:5,11,12; 65:14;77:4,13;78:14;79:2; 83:4;86:15;100:8;104:21; 109:2;127:8,14,15;129:7, 14;133:15;136:21 reports (8) 22:8;53:11,14;55:15; 65:1;87:14;88:3;122:8 representation (2) 57:2;117:1 representatives (4) 17:1;33:4;52:12;91:17 represented (5) 24:11;38:3;48:16;56:21; 117:4 representing (2) 24:14;36:3 represents (1) 118:7 request (5) 51:1;85:7;87:10;116:10; 128:18 requested (1) 116:11 requests (1) 139:15 required (2) 18:18;24:10 requirements (1) 81:1 requires (1) 12:21 research (1) 77:1 reserve (1) 32:11 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 resident (1) 41:5 resource (1) 47:7 resourced (1) 46:18 resources (13) 23:17,18;24:8,9;26:15; 29:13,14,14,18;32:8;38:15; 46:19;47:5 respect (6) 6:9,20;7:17;28:11; 103:19;139:20 respective (1) 129:5 respectively (1) 17:7 responding (1) 41:13 response (14) 5:13,16,18;6:18;10:10; 24:19;25:9,18;43:13;46:16; 91:12;117:17;127:17;132:2 responses (1) 45:21 responsibilities (7) 16:13;18:11,13;19:11; 21:21;29:13;58:8 responsibility (7) 21:1;23:17;25:2;32:6; 111:6;129:10,19 responsible (5) 11:15;14:16;44:11;45:12; 46:5 restart (1) 132:13 restrict (2) 69:8;108:4 restricting (1) 76:5 restrictive (4) 69:6;79:15,19;80:1 result (1) 40:2 results (2) 37:17;132:12 resumed (2) 62:8;126:9 reticent (1) 36:8 retrieving (1) 71:12 returned (2) 19:4,5 review (35) 26:5,10;28:6;29:14;32:3; 39:18;47:14,19;66:7;69:9; 85:12;86:21;87:8,17;88:19; 89:3,12;110:14,21;111:3,9, 14;112:3,6;113:1,4,10,18; 114:3;115:15,19;116:4; 117:18;122:8;138:1 reviewed (7) (155) really - reviewed UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 66:2;112:14,15;117:21; 137:12,13,18 reviewing (9) 42:4,15;44:21;47:4;48:3; 114:10;115:8;116:17;132:7 Reykjavik (1) 25:5 Rice (1) 13:12 Richardson (1) 78:19 right (36) 5:10;6:7,19;7:2,10;50:13; 60:11;62:4;63:17;65:20; 78:21;81:16;84:20;86:9; 89:6;93:5;96:19;98:7,12; 99:4;102:16;103:8;104:13; 110:6;114:12,13;115:17; 117:6,19;118:10;119:21; 123:20;124:5;125:10; 130:5;139:19 Rightsizing (2) 19:6,12 rise (5) 5:2;52:8;62:6,9;126:7 risk (3) 27:19;32:4;131:19 Robert (2) 5:9;102:17 robust (2) 49:20;107:18 Roger (5) 69:17;76:20;77:6;79:16; 86:12 role (2) 31:12;33:13 roll (3) 120:9,11;122:20 room (2) 6:4;139:8 Ross (3) 108:6,8;109:1 roughly (1) 109:19 routed (1) 134:16 routine (2) 66:1;86:14 rule (4) 8:8;9:17;10:4,5 ruled (1) 10:6 rules (4) 111:18;112:2;114:9; 126:4 ruling (3) 7:7,16,19 Rumsfeld (1) 107:14 running (1) 18:21 Min-U-Script(R) S salient (1) 75:11 same (15) 28:21;29:1;54:12;59:11; 81:11,21;88:9;98:18,19; 114:11;126:3;134:7;136:3; 137:19;138:2 sat (2) 112:10,12 saying (20) 72:1;83:13;92:21;93:4, 13,14,15,18;94:4;99:14,18; 100:2,12;108:2;112:5; 117:3;122:1;124:11; 128:21;135:5 scarce (1) 29:17 Science (4) 33:10;39:2;42:9;51:21 scope (5) 8:21;9:12;25:2;118:9; 119:19 screen (1) 86:16 searchable (1) 28:14 seated (4) 5:3;11:8;62:10;126:10 sec (2) 66:20;78:17 second (13) 17:9;47:8;48:4,11,12; 94:15,18;97:6;99:4;118:5; 131:9;132:8,14 secondly (3) 29:18;31:7;46:7 secret (3) 110:12;113:21;114:1 Secretaries (8) 13:18,19;29:2;39:17,17; 45:18,19;76:10 Secretary (76) 10:20;11:10,14;13:6,11, 12,12,17;14:21;15:10,11; 16:7,9,13,19;19:8;20:17,19; 22:18,19,20;23:16;27:5,11; 30:13,14;31:7,16,16;32:7; 33:5;36:20;39:21;45:17,20; 46:2,4,7;49:4;53:4;62:17; 66:16;67:1,4,7;71:2,19; 73:7;74:7;75:16;76:9,9,21; 78:17;95:14;96:11;97:21; 99:11,15;102:17;103:1,5,6; 104:10,12,19;105:8,9; 107:14;108:19;111:5,7; 115:2;126:3,17;139:5 secretary's (2) 16:8;37:6 secrets (1) 103:17 section (3) 21:16;70:16;88:13 sections (1) 70:13 sector (4) 31:2;35:14;102:1;105:5 security (38) 11:18;22:1,12;23:21; 24:15;25:11,12;30:20; 34:17;36:13;38:12;42:13; 43:1,4;46:21;49:13,20;50:3, 9;53:2,7;54:1;56:1;57:13, 13,14;58:8;61:3,9;88:11; 93:14;98:6;106:3;121:21; 128:5;131:20;133:20;134:5 seeing (2) 31:9;108:12 seeks (2) 9:1,2 seems (1) 71:6 Select (8) 91:21;92:20;93:7;95:1; 96:2,8,9,16 selected (2) 17:19;111:3 self-generated (1) 56:17 senate (6) 88:10,16;91:17;97:10,12; 98:6 Senator (2) 97:13,13 send (3) 53:14;128:12,13 sending (1) 53:15 senior (25) 13:10,21;14:10,19;17:13, 21;19:13;23:3;27:3,6; 31:10;33:4;34:1;46:9;48:2; 55:4,7,9;90:18;105:19,20, 21;106:1;107:19;111:6 sense (3) 41:2;101:19;130:19 sensitive (3) 69:3;76:8;104:3 sensitivity (2) 75:15;76:2 sent (3) 54:10;83:3;88:4 sentence (1) 8:15 sentencing (2) 5:20;10:5 separate (1) 91:16 separated (1) 86:6 September (1) 131:10 series (1) 133:14 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 serious (5) 31:21;46:6;92:8;117:12, 15 seriously (2) 92:16;93:10 serve (2) 22:11;33:14 served (4) 16:10;17:1;21:13;54:21 service (10) 13:8;14:1,4,5,8,10;17:13; 20:5;25:11;121:18 session (4) 6:14;8:5;77:8;106:12 sessions (2) 8:12;20:20 set (10) 18:15,15,15,20;32:2,2,3, 4;42:16;79:1 sets (1) 32:1 setting (1) 132:17 several (8) 19:7;21:5;44:2;70:13; 85:8;90:12;91:4;131:1 Shangri-La (2) 53:16;76:3 Shangri-Law (1) 53:14 share (10) 36:9;68:20;75:8;97:7; 99:7;100:6,13;102:1;104:3; 131:2 shared (6) 67:21;78:3;81:4;82:5; 107:11;109:20 shares (1) 78:7 sharing (8) 94:14;97:5,15;98:2; 100:14;107:3,8;131:18 Shaw (1) 5:9 shifting (1) 130:6 Shima (1) 34:13 shop (1) 98:2 short (1) 125:8 shortly (1) 48:3 show (3) 72:5;123:19;135:8 showed (2) 123:15;132:11 showing (1) 69:21 shut (3) 92:9,17;93:11 side (2) (156) reviewing - side United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 6:20;10:13 sign (1) 115:16 signature (3) 66:13;115:11;116:13 signed (5) 112:16;114:21;115:14; 116:8,9 significant (4) 31:6;39:1;43:17;55:7 significantly (1) 103:13 similar (1) 106:20 simply (11) 20:6;27:17;29:8;49:1; 74:20;75:7;115:9;121:15; 123:9;129:2;130:3 single (3) 38:5,20;41:18 SIP (1) 85:11 SIPDIS (44) 66:14;68:2,14,19;78:2; 79:8,14,21;80:4,9,11,21; 81:1;82:6,9,14,21;83:3,8, 17,18;84:9,20,21;85:2,11, 13,21;86:15,15;109:13; 110:1,1,4;127:10;128:7,8, 18;129:9;134:8;136:19; 137:5,9;138:10 SIPRNET (11) 67:18;84:3,10,12;85:9,11, 13;95:5,8;98:14;127:3 SIPs (1) 95:10 sit (1) 33:18 sits (1) 8:13 sitting (1) 125:6 situation (12) 34:6,8,21;35:9,15;51:9; 52:13;64:15;101:13;112:6; 117:1;120:16 situations (2) 52:2;59:1 six (9) 13:18;17:6;38:16,20; 41:9;44:3;45:19;91:9,10 size (4) 44:1;66:5;78:15,19 sizes (2) 43:11;136:21 skimmed (1) 113:12 slight (1) 95:19 small (7) 29:11;33:15;41:1;44:18; 82:19;130:17;135:3 smaller (1) Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session 41:1 snapshot (14) 48:8,15;116:21;118:11, 13,14,16;120:8,13;122:18; 123:15,18,21;132:11 snapshots (4) 118:21;119:21;120:2,15 society (1) 107:19 somebody (5) 65:1;83:17;84:8;105:14; 124:11 someone (4) 18:15;92:12;114:10; 131:18 sometime (1) 112:19 sometimes (1) 51:17 sorry (8) 18:5;36:19;37:9;42:17; 59:3;62:1;83:4;91:8 sort (2) 51:16;124:9 sound (1) 104:15 source (3) 25:14;26:7;56:7 sources (6) 26:9;54:15,15,17,18; 98:16 speak (6) 28:18;52:21;53:10; 101:16;102:6,12 speaking (1) 42:3 special (1) 86:13 specific (3) 14:14,19;31:12 Specifically (3) 50:15;71:20;136:14 specifications (3) 5:14,17;6:11 specifics (1) 130:16 spectators (1) 6:4 speculation (3) 58:10;59:16;60:7 spill (2) 80:18,18 spoke (1) 6:14 spoken (1) 120:21 staff (8) 17:8,9;19:14;24:16; 32:10;73:8;78:18;133:20 staffing (1) 19:17 stand (2) 11:1;126:14 standards (1) 123:5 standpoint (2) 82:18;122:10 stands (2) 68:9;85:11 start (5) 7:12;46:15;62:20;113:9; 116:5 started (6) 7:14;25:16;32:8;44:8; 102:21;131:15 starting (1) 22:17 starts (1) 96:5 Statdisk (2) 69:11,12 state (177) 10:10,20;11:10,16;12:4, 13;13:6,10,12,13,16,17,18, 19,20;14:21;15:10,11,13; 16:3,10,14,19;17:13;19:8; 20:3,13,16,18;21:20,21; 22:14,20;23:2,14,16,18; 24:4,11,14,21;25:12,18; 26:1,10,12,15,18;27:3,5,14, 15,18;28:1,7,14;29:2,11,16; 30:14,18;31:8;32:12;33:8; 34:7,9,16;35:4,8,20;38:15; 39:21;40:2,4;42:5;43:16; 45:20;46:4,5,7;48:10;49:4, 20;54:5;55:14,18;56:18,21; 57:18;58:3,15,21;61:4;63:1, 3,9;66:16,20;67:1,7;68:4, 18;72:15;73:2;74:18,21; 75:4,13,16;76:10;78:7,12, 14,16;79:2;81:8,11;82:14; 85:1;86:3,4,18,19;87:3; 88:10,20;89:12,21;90:11, 18;91:12;92:5,6,14;93:6; 94:1,4,14,17;97:4,18;98:2, 8,12;99:1,8,16;107:6;108:3, 7,9;110:16;111:7,18;115:2; 117:7;120:13,19;121:5,7, 12;122:2,3,16;123:2;124:4, 7,16,18;127:7;129:3,13,21; 131:7;132:20;133:9;135:6 stated (1) 94:5 Statedisk (1) 69:11 statement (19) 63:20;99:12;100:7,12; 101:9,10;103:6;104:9,12, 14,16;105:9,10;108:13,17, 18,20;109:11;117:5 statements (4) 102:19;104:17;106:20; 108:10 States (19) 10:20;15:11;25:13;34:15; 36:13;40:16;41:6;49:16; Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 51:1,2;54:2;55:13;56:1; 60:16;63:8;102:2;103:15; 129:14;139:15 States' (1) 49:11 State's (2) 67:4;128:3 State-wide (1) 119:11 stationed (1) 51:19 status (3) 74:13,13,17 stay (1) 139:7 stenographer (1) 6:3 steps (5) 23:21;25:17;28:10;34:2; 47:1 still (5) 50:18;62:18;95:12; 103:20;131:16 stip (1) 7:12 stipulation (1) 6:15 stool (2) 49:13,19 stop (5) 94:14,16;97:5;124:3,6 stopped (5) 91:7;98:13;124:12,18,21 stopping (1) 124:10 strategies (1) 55:12 strategy (1) 22:12 string (1) 119:18 stuff (1) 80:8 stupid (1) 30:3 subject (13) 20:6,11,12;52:10;67:12; 85:16,17,19;111:17,18,19; 128:14;133:21 subjects (2) 20:21;75:11 submission (10) 43:7;86:20;87:18,20; 88:3,4,5,19;89:12;90:7 submissions (2) 87:19;90:2 submitted (2) 24:7;73:10 submitting (2) 73:9;83:18 subsection (1) 70:20 subsequent (1) (157) sign - subsequent United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 52:8 subset (1) 110:15 suite (1) 33:15 summaries (1) 27:15 summarily (1) 9:17 summary (6) 26:18;85:16,18,20;87:5; 88:21 summer (4) 25:15;27:2,20;28:9 supervisor (1) 18:2 supervisory (1) 22:16 supplement (1) 9:21 support (2) 9:11;51:2 supporting (4) 33:13;43:8;44:7;61:9 supports (2) 22:19;46:21 supposed (1) 80:5 sure (15) 18:20;30:2;32:6;33:21; 47:6,10;68:9;84:11,13;88:5, 8;102:16;107:16;122:14; 132:1 sworn (1) 11:4 system (13) 18:16;28:15;51:15;78:16; 86:5,6;98:15;105:21;129:2; 133:6;134:10,15;136:15 systems (10) 15:3,4;18:16;19:2;21:8; 81:13;95:11,13;127:20; 128:10 T table (1) 33:19 tags (10) 68:6,12;84:15;133:11,11, 14,14,15,16;134:18 talk (4) 32:15;52:11;68:7;122:4 talked (3) 123:14;130:9;139:9 talking (32) 35:13;37:1,3,7,12,14; 87:16,17;88:8;89:6,8,9; 93:13;96:15;97:10;104:20, 21;105:12,13,15,16,19; 106:6,7;107:15;109:1; 116:1;123:13,15;131:8,13; 132:8 Min-U-Script(R) UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session tank (1) 19:14 task (8) 25:20;32:1,2,2,4,5;33:17; 34:19 taught (1) 20:1 team (2) 32:18;42:8 technology (6) 11:17;16:16;21:9;53:9; 70:20;108:8 telecommunications (2) 11:16;70:20 telegram (2) 52:18;133:8 telegrams (3) 51:17,18;53:20 telegraphic (1) 86:16 telephone (1) 46:8 telling (1) 115:10 temporary (1) 137:2 ten (4) 6:2;81:19;82:1;126:6 tend (1) 55:21 ten-minute (1) 126:1 term (6) 21:3,18;31:17;34:4; 117:11;128:9 terms (5) 34:6;86:13;106:3;121:5; 134:18 Terror (5) 69:19;77:9,20,21;79:16 Terrorism (4) 18:18;49:17;77:10;97:17 terrorist (3) 34:14;77:13;78:1 testified (25) 9:18;11:6;20:14;43:10; 56:19;67:13;81:18;88:9,16, 18;94:10,21;96:12,13;97:8; 98:7;115:21;122:21; 126:19,20;127:17;130:7,11; 132:2;134:7 testify (3) 20:19;98:4;131:21 testifying (1) 96:1 testimony (25) 6:16;8:7,9;9:13,17,19; 10:3,6,11;24:18;32:16,18; 61:17,19;91:15;93:5;95:7, 15;96:7,8;103:2;126:4; 127:1;136:13;139:18 Thanksgiving (7) 27:9,21;28:10;29:8;30:5; 31:12;33:2 thereafter (1) 48:3 therefore (9) 35:21;44:17;48:15;57:6; 59:13;79:1;117:3;119:19; 120:7 thinking (1) 51:8 third (4) 13:20;36:2;49:18;68:8 Thomas (1) 31:17 though (7) 45:13;63:18;66:13;77:5; 97:21;102:3;123:20 thought (6) 26:2;38:1;84:13;113:6; 118:11;132:20 thousands (1) 43:15 three (2) 17:6;133:16 three-legged (1) 49:12 three-star (1) 14:12 throughout (4) 19:18;32:9;90:18;98:16 thumb (1) 71:3 tier (1) 13:20 timeframe (5) 27:10;31:13;33:2;37:7,12 times (3) 34:5;81:19;82:1 to-be-named (1) 18:1 today (9) 7:5,14;12:2,11;20:10; 94:3,10;139:9;140:3 today's (1) 32:16 together (1) 6:15 tomorrow (1) 7:6 took (5) 47:1;48:9;90:12;119:21; 131:6 tool (1) 120:16 top (2) 72:13;114:1 Total (4) 41:12;43:12;44:5;45:7 Totally (4) 58:1,18;60:2;122:12 tour (2) 125:8,9 tours (1) 52:9 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 traffic (2) 76:8;95:12 trailer (1) 6:5 trained (1) 52:6 training (2) 20:4;68:18 transcript (1) 95:4 transition (2) 17:10,10 transmission (1) 53:10 traunch (11) 48:5,11,13,15;99:17; 116:19;117:2;118:6,16; 131:9;132:9 travel (2) 31:8;137:1 travels (1) 46:9 treated (1) 36:6 trends (2) 22:9;24:2 trial (6) 8:4,11,12;62:8;126:9; 140:8 true (7) 65:2,2;93:1;94:20;97:9,9; 109:11 truncate (1) 15:19 truncated (1) 15:21 trust (4) 35:6;50:16,19;103:16 truth (3) 11:5,5,5 try (1) 129:21 trying (3) 32:17;128:21;136:4 tsunami (1) 34:12 Twice (2) 17:5;91:21 two (16) 13:18;18:13;28:17;29:10; 31:8;41:11;44:19;46:17; 81:16;91:16;92:20;94:12; 96:12;97:2;98:1;133:13 two-digit (1) 133:12 two-fold (1) 97:11 type (11) 56:7;75:7;76:14;77:6,20; 80:12;85:1;99:4;112:21; 133:17;136:16 types (6) 23:12;83:8;94:12;97:2; (158) subset - types UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning 98:1;127:13 U ultimate (1) 9:2 ultimately (2) 17:19;112:15 unclassified (6) 35:4;77:19;110:5;128:11; 137:16;138:1 under (40) 7:18;8:2,9;10:20;11:10, 14;13:5,19;15:10,11;19:8; 20:19;23:15;25:20;30:13; 36:20;37:5;45:17,18,19; 49:4;53:4;62:17,18;71:2, 19;73:7;74:6;76:10;93:6; 94:3;96:11;97:21;103:1,6; 104:10;111:5;126:3,17; 139:5 Underneath (1) 71:8 underpin (1) 49:19 underpinning (1) 59:7 understood (2) 81:3;84:5 undertaking (1) 35:18 ungovernable (1) 49:16 unit (2) 17:10;19:18 United (22) 10:19;15:11;17:1;18:3,3; 25:13;34:14;36:13;40:15; 41:6;49:11;51:1,2;54:2; 55:13;56:1;60:16;63:8; 102:2;103:15;129:14; 139:15 units (1) 26:8 unknown (1) 107:16 unknowns (1) 107:14 unless (2) 8:3;10:8 unpleasant (3) 101:15;102:5,11 unreasonable (3) 5:19;6:9;139:10 unrelated (1) 134:9 up (23) 18:15,15,20;24:14;28:8; 32:1,2,2,3,4,12;42:16; 45:16;50:7;79:1;88:2; 95:20;118:11,14;120:2; 125:7,9;134:16 updated (1) Min-U-Script(R) 118:18 upon (22) 30:5;48:8;52:20;64:17; 66:5;67:12;68:11;73:1; 76:16;79:4;80:19;82:9; 85:19;90:6;102:10;106:8; 108:1,2;111:4;114:14; 115:9;123:10 use (17) 12:7,17;15:14;23:13; 62:21;63:5;68:6,15;69:5; 71:10;75:5;79:8;80:21; 107:13;113:17;114:11,15 used (12) 6:5;21:18;23:1;69:3; 74:13;76:8;77:9,12;78:3; 80:5;114:16;131:3 users (1) 84:19 uses (1) 76:12 using (8) 21:3;31:17;114:18,19; 117:11;129:8;137:19,20 usually (1) 38:4 V vacuum (1) 55:17 valid (2) 105:8;120:15 validated (1) 73:10 value (3) 36:14;49:18;133:19 vantage (1) 65:12 variety (3) 76:11,12;127:19 various (5) 33:12;56:17;68:19;74:6,8 vary (1) 44:1 vast (1) 109:16 verify (1) 81:16 version (2) 29:17;72:5 vested (1) 121:11 via (3) 95:5,8,9 view (3) 65:9,12;128:4 viewed (1) 117:7 views (7) 51:7;55:17,19,19,20,21; 105:3 voir (1) - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 9:3 volume (3) 70:16,19;98:19 volumes (1) 70:14 99:17;117:2;118:8;131:5; 132:12 willing (5) 73:6;99:7;102:1;109:9,10 willingness (1) 58:6 wish (3) W 29:19;121:17;135:18 wished (1) wait (1) 76:1 46:14 wishes (3) wane (1) 10:8;75:3,12 135:14 within (27) Washington (26) 13:15,15;16:7;19:11,19; 22:9,11;23:9;30:11; 20:15;21:1,16;24:12;25:1, 36:11;40:12;47:3;50:4,9; 17;29:2;31:20;39:12,18; 51:11,14;53:3,9,10,11,15, 64:20;68:4;75:3,12;78:21; 21;55:8,16;63:4,10,14; 81:16;83:18;90:3;91:17; 66:18,19;106:19;133:9 108:7;111:17;134:4 waste (2) without (2) 29:17;47:7 30:1;59:3 wave (1) witness (39) 132:5 7:5;8:6;9:1,4,5,18;10:18; way (7) 11:4,9;18:7;37:3,9,14; 7:18;43:18;81:17;86:1; 61:21;62:12,13;70:7;71:13; 135:7;138:2,19 72:12,16,21;73:16;126:13, ways (3) 13;127:4,7;128:1,6,8; 19:19;84:19;86:13 130:13,17;131:11,15;132:6; website (6) 133:1;138:17;139:3,8; 26:2,5;28:18;92:10,18; 140:4 93:12 witnesses (2) weekend (1) 7:4;8:18 6:9 witness's (1) weeks (2) 9:13 44:8;45:9 word (3) weight (1) 57:1;122:13;133:13 55:5 word-for-word (2) whatnot (1) 96:21;113:16 82:8 words (1) what's (3) 99:1 69:21;71:18;80:18 work (13) Whereupon (1) 7:6;24:5;30:21;38:3; 11:2 50:18,20;51:4;91:3;104:2; wherever (1) 115:5;121:4,5,20 35:14 worked (4) White (1) 25:12;31:15;115:4,7 76:9 working (19) whole (1) 7:12;32:7,16,19,21;33:1; 11:5 38:4,17,18;39:5,12,14;44:7; whomever (2) 45:10;80:18;90:15,17;91:2, 133:21;134:5 7 whose (2) works (5) 22:5;29:3 19:15,19;120:18,20; wide (4) 122:17 29:12;39:9;76:11;128:10 world (9) wider (2) 19:18;22:5;26:5;29:12; 119:19,20 50:1;51:3,20;101:1;107:20 widest (3) worldwide (1) 56:4;57:1,7 23:5 WikiLeaks (26) worth (2) 24:19;27:4;28:3;32:16, 99:20;100:5 19,20;33:1;38:17;39:12,14; 44:7;45:9;86:19;89:1;90:9, write (2) 53:19;139:18 15;91:2,13;92:9,18;93:11; Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation (159) ultimate - write UNOFFICIAL DRAFT 8/5/13 Morning Session United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning written (2) 26:6;102:6 wrong (1) 122:3 wrote (2) 67:7;124:11 X Xanadu (1) 76:3 XDIS (4) 69:15;76:7,15;79:16 Y year (3) 18:5;82:15;132:13 years (11) 13:8;14:3,6;16:3;39:4; 67:15;107:17;121:19; 125:7;129:16,17 Z Zanadu's (1) 137:8 0 09:49 (1) 6:1 1 1 (1) 137:4 1:09 (1) 140:8 10 (1) 137:4 10,000 (2) 43:16;107:6 100 (2) 54:13;110:18 1001B4 (7) 7:18;8:3,10;50:11;56:14; 58:9;59:15 101,748 (1) 110:8 11:00 (1) 62:5 11:13 (1) 62:7 11:25 (1) 62:8 12:38 (1) 126:8 12:51 (1) 126:9 13:00 (1) 126:6 133,887 (1) Min-U-Script(R) 110:5 13526 (1) 14:15 14:30 (2) 139:16;140:7 15,652 (1) 110:11 150 (1) 44:3 160 (1) 40:21 170 (1) 40:18 19 (1) 6:4 1966 (1) 109:14 1970s (1) 21:13 1973 (2) 14:6;121:8 1985 (1) 22:17 1990s (1) 20:8 1993 (2) 16:10;115:1 2 2 (7) 5:15,15,17,17,21;6:12; 8:17 2.4 (7) 81:12;127:16;134:19; 136:14;137:4;138:9,14 20 (1) 41:15 200 (2) 45:6,11 2000 (1) 78:13 2001 (4) 16:11;17:2;37:6;115:2 2002 (3) 64:13,14,16 2003 (3) 17:5;64:13,16 2004 (4) 17:5,9;81:7;109:17 2005 (6) 17:2,17;18:7;83:16; 85:21;134:20 2007 (5) 12:1;13:9;17:17;18:7; 19:3 2010 (30) 25:6,15;27:2,20,21;28:10, 10;29:8;30:5;81:7;83:16; 85:21;87:9,11,11,21;89:7, 10,19;90:11;91:18;92:2; 99:16;104:12;109:14; 127:3;131:8,15;132:5; - Vol. 28 August 5, 2013 134:20 2011 (12) 48:2;89:7;116:1,15; 118:1,15;120:1;131:10,13; 132:7;135:14;136:2 2012 (5) 108:9;120:1;131:14; 135:15;136:2 2013 (6) 5:15,17,21;120:2;131:14; 136:2 24 (1) 39:13 24-7 (2) 90:15;91:2 24-hour (1) 33:16 25 (4) 61:15;62:3,5;138:15 250,000 (6) 28:8;81:8;134:8;137:4, 13;138:9 250,000-plus (1) 127:2 251,000 (2) 119:18;137:11 251,287 (1) 110:4 28 (3) 90:11;109:13,14 280 (1) 29:12 280-some (1) 57:1 6 6 (2) 5:17;6:11 632 (1) 5:13 633 (1) 5:15 634 (1) 5:18 65 (4) 81:13;98:19;134:13,14 7 7 (2) 5:14;92:1 703 (1) 9:8 75 (3) 44:10;45:16;138:15 8 80 (2) 44:10;45:16 802 (2) 6:14;7:14 9 9 (1) 92:1 3 39 (1) 8:5 39A (1) 8:12 4 4 (2) 5:17;6:11 40 (4) 13:8;14:6;39:4;121:19 41 (1) 16:3 48 (1) 39:13 5 5 (1) 5:14 50 (3) 137:15,16;138:15 50/50 (1) 110:7 Provided by Freedom of the Press Foundation (160) written - 9