US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning Transcripts December 16 2011 to March 1, 2013 - US Army Judge Advocate General

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records: Any and all court transcripts of United States versus Pfc. Bradley Manning for the Article 32 and Article 39(a), to include:

Article 32 Sessions on:

o December 16, 2011
o December 17, 2011
o December 18, 2011
o December 19, 2011
o December 20, 2011
o December 21, 2011
o December 22, 2011

Article 39(a) Sessions on :

o February 23, 2012
o March 15, 2012
o March 16, 2012
o April 24, 2012
o April 25, 2012
o April 26, 2012
o June 6, 2012
o June 7, 2012
o June 8, 2012
o July 16, 2012
o July 17, 2012
o July 18, 2012
o July 19, 2012
o August 28, 2012
o August 29, 2012
o August 30, 2012
o October 17, 2012
o October 18, 2012
o November 7, 2012
o November 8, 2012
o November 27, 2012
o November 28, 2012
o November 29, 2012
o November 30, 2012
o December 1, 2012
o December 2, 2012
o December 5, 2012
o December 6, 2012
o December 7, 2012
o December 10, 2012
o December 11, 2012
o January 8, 2013
o January 9, 2013
o January 16, 2013
o February 26, 2013
o February 27, 2013
o February 28,2013
o March 1, 2013

As a journalist [1] , I am primarily engaged in disseminating information. There exists an urgent need to inform the public of government activity pertaining to the prosecution of the largest leak trial in history, a trial for which military prosecutors themselves regard as unprecedented and trailblazing. I therefore request that you expedite this request.

At issue in the Manning trial is the danger posed to democracy and the rule of law by the government's expanding control over information in the digital age.

For example, the language of Specification 1 of Charge to "cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the U.S. government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy" is an unusual charge against Manning and dovetails right into the Specification of Charge I for ‘aiding the enemy’. Military prosecutors say, the 'evil' of the offense is unrelated to any current existing federal criminal statue or punitive article in the U.C.M.J. Coombs calls the charge a "creation of the government" and a "made up offense." "There is an issue of control if it be published at all," says Coombs, "even if you give [information] to a news organization [there's] no guarantee that it would be published."

While prosecutors say the offense is unlike any existing federal statute or U.C.M.J. punitive violation, they assert that the 'seriousness' of the charge is analogous to espionage.

When asked by the military judge if the prosecution "would have charge the case the same way if the journalistic organization was The New York Times" -- and not WikiLeaks, military prosecutor, Captain Angel Overgaard, conferred in whispered tones with lead military prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, and said, "Yes, Ma'am." Judge Lind asked the prosecution, if "the nature of WikiLeaks [is] somehow different from the New York Times?" Overgaard didn't answer, instead saying it's "not relevant" if "WikiLeaks is a legitimate journalistic organization," adding, however, that the prosecution intends to call a witness during sentencing and possibly at trial "to characterize the WikiLeaks organization" in it's case against Manning for aiding the enemy.

In a case where the First Amendment and access to public information is vulnerable to chill or prohibition, neither the public nor press have had access to over 30,000 pages of court filings and rulings, or a transcript of the legal proceedings.[2]

If you regard these documents as potentially exempt from disclosure requirements, I request that you nonetheless exercise your discretion to disclose them.

Please release all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of documents.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived for searching for, reviewing, or copying the records, please notify me before processing if the amount exceeds $100 (five-hundred U.S. dollars).

I would prefer the request be filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Alexa D. O'Brien

Footnote [1] My work has been published in the Guardian, Salon, and featured by PBS Frontline, On The Media and Public Radio International. http://gu.com/p/3e6gd/tw; http://www.salon.com/writer/alexa_obrien/ ; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/wikisecrets/the-indie-journalists-at-the-center-of-the-bradley-manning-trial/; http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/mar/15/covering-manning-trial/?utm_source=/2013/mar/15/bradley-manning-and-aiding-enemy/&utm_medium=treatment&utm_campaign=morelikethis

[Footnote 2] Despite the recent release of 84 Court rulings for United States versus Pfc. Bradley Manning, this appellate list represents how much we do not know about this important and unprecedented trial. See http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/reconstructed_appellate_list_for_the_secret_trial_us_v_pfc_manning.html

Hello,

With respect to my request regarding US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning Transcripts December 16 2011 to March 1, 2013, please note that I would like notification before processing if the total fees exceed $100 (one-hundred U.S. dollars).

Thank you.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

LTC Deborah E. Pike
Policy Branch Attorney
Criminal Law Division, OTJAG
Pentagon Room 3B548
(571) 256-7870, DSN 260

Dear Ms. Pike,

I have two related FOIA on the matter or transcripts and exhibits from US v. Pfc. Manning.

One was filed April 1, 2013 and the other November 17, 2013. Neither have received FOIA numbers.

The military judge ruled that military prosecutors must provide expedited transcripts of any closed session witnesses.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/712624-20130521-ae-550-order-to-closed-certain.html

List of closed session witnesses:

http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/transcripts/transcript_us_v_manning_article_39a_session_april_10_2013.html

The following 'expedited' closed session transcripts are still missing:

May 8, 2013

Ambassador Don Yamamoto, Department of State. (Noted in my personal transcript for the May 7, 2013 Article 39(a) Session.)

July 31, 2013

Mr. John Kirchhofer, Defense Intelligence Agency

August 1, 2013

Elizabeth Dibble, Department of State, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

John Feeley, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State

August 2, 2013

Ambassador Michael Kozak, Department of State

August 6, 2013

Major General Michael Nagata, Joint Staff, Pentagon

Colonel Julian Chestnut, Defense Intelliegence Agency

August 7, 2013

James McCarl, JIEDDO

Adam Pearson, JIEDDO

August 9, 2013

Rear Admiral Kevin Donegan, Naval Warfare Integration, Pentagon

Major General Kenneth McKenzie, USMC Headquarters Staff

Best regards,

Alexa O'Brien

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #FA-13-0022.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 1, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #FA-13-0022.

Thank you for your help.