summer 2013 quarterly

Veteran Writers Group

Quarterly

Volume 4, Number 2

Summer 2013

Contents Invocation to Listening 2 Riposte An Ant-Sized Response 3

William Larsen

Reflections on 20 Years Our Writing Group Family 8 Phyllis Meshulam Like Herding Cats:

10

Bonnie Bonner

Under the Trees

13

Michael Wong

Write to Heal

14

Doris Lucki Allen

In Case of Emergency

16

DonEdward Morris

Dear Maxine, dear Sangha

18

Gary Gash

Every Veteran Knows

19

Jiwon Chung

On Writing

20

Kathleen A. Taylor

Memorial Day Weekend May 2013

22

Pauline Laurent

Reflecting back……

23

Pauline Laurent

Ira Sandperl, Friend and Teacher

23

Lee Swenson

Special Addition 25 Ted Sexauer Bradley Manning statement 2/28/13

2

Invocation to Listening We invoke your name, Avalokiteshvara.

We aspire to learn your way of listening to help relieve the suffering in the world.

You know how to listen in order to understand.

We invoke your name in order to practice listening with all our attention and open-heartedness.

We will sit and listen without judging or reacting.

We will sit and listen in order to understand.

We will sit and listen so attentively that we will be able to hear what the other person is saying and also what is being left unsaid.

We know that just by listening deeply we already alleviate a great deal of pain and suffering in the other person.

3

[Publishers Note: Riposte is the Quarterly's new section that invites critical and/or praiseful comments on writing from earlier editions of the Quarterly.]

THE ANT-SIZED VIEW OF PREJUDICE William Larsen

It was with dismay and sadness that I read Lawrence Maykel's vitriolic essay-THE ANTSIZED GOD OF ISLAM-- in the VOWVOP Spring Quarterly. While I welcome an expanded focus to include current, rather than historical, issues in our journal, the aim would hopefully be to promote intelligent debate, rather than emotional discharge. Toward this end, there surely needs to be some basic standards of balance, depth and veracity to insure the discussion proceeds in a civil manner designed to result in a genuine exchange of well-examined viewpoints. Unfortunately, this piece fails on all counts.

My intent here is in no way to disparage Mr. Maykel's character. He is obviously a man of intelligence and great passion. His essay, however--in this writer's opinion--is deeply flawed and, due to its one-sided vitriol, exceedingly misleading and potentially harmful. In the interest of providing a more well-rounded perspective of the issues he raises, I therefore submit the following.

The author begins by rejecting Elijah Imlay's contention that ".there is much stereotyping, intolerance and bigotry directed towards Muslims..". He then loads us up with incontrovertible facts regarding the unconscionable violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists, but mentions nothing about atrocities committed against Islam by the United States, Israel and the Western powers (e.g. the parceling out of large portions of the MidEast into lackey "nations" following WW 1; the two horrific bombings of Iraq by U.S. weapons of mass destruction; the infamous Guantanamo prison camp; the systematic and illegal torture of Islamic suspects in the "war against terror"; the disproportionate retaliatory air strikes, subjugation of Arabs and increasing thievery of Arab lands by Israel; etc. Again, there is no question that the actions of Islamic terrorists are brutal and criminal in all respects, but this violence is only one aspect of the overall situation.

In his passionate defense of American benevolence, the author conveniently neglects to mention even one killing of Muslims by the U.S. military. In fact, by the most conservative estimates available, the deaths of Muslims by U.S. aggression since 1990 outstrips U.S. deaths via Muslim violence by a factor of at least 30-1 (see "Why they Hate Us", by Stephen M. Walt at walt.foreignpolicy.com). Although figures vary according to the reporting agency, U.S. drones have been reported to kill many civilians for every terrorist (50-1 by some estimates). Perhaps the author feels his status as a citizen of the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations -and remains the world's largest exporter of weaponry--qualifies him to take the moral high road in areas of international conflict. There are many who do not.

If the author truly wants to understand the issue of religious violence, he may want to

4 broaden his historical perspective to include the innumerable deaths perpetrated in the Catholic Inquisition and Protestant Reformation. Or the slaughter of aboriginal peoples throughout the New World by European conquerors and their Christian missionaries. In light of the historical record regarding violent persecution by virtually all of the world's major religions, his outrage is truly selective (interestingly, Buddhism has largely been an exception to this rule).

The essay goes on to praise the ".open minded, unbiased treatment." afforded Muslims in America since 9/11. But this is only true on the level of national legislation and constitutional protection. In fact, there have been many hundreds of accounts-and subsequent FBI investigations--of rampant discrimination and violence against Muslims in America since the attacks on the twin towers. As reported in the Media Moniter Network, there were 104 documented reports of "bias incidents" against Islamic houses of worship in the first week following 9/11. Twenty percent of U.S. Muslims polled eight months after the bombings reported incidents of employment discrimination, and a full 57% of reported experiencing discrimination ranging from verbal abuse to fullfledged hate crimes. Sadly, the FBI reported a 1600% jump in anti-Islamic hate crimes between 2000 and 2001--from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001-and in 2003 there were 1019 reports.

It's important to note that this discrimination continues to the present day. According to the Dept. of Justice figures, there were still nearly 200 reports of anti-Islamic hate crimes per year in 2010. An intensive PEW study conducted between 2010-2011 found that 22% of Muslims polled reported incidents of verbal harassment; 21% were singled out by airport security; 6% were either threatened with violence or attacked; and 25% reported violence or other hostile acts against Islamic houses of worship.

Nor are such incidents of anti-Islamic discrimination limited to the acts of rogue individuals. The Dept. of Justice has documented several incidents of prohibitive zoning restrictions enacted against the constructions of Islamic religious institutions in American communities. According to the DOJ report, such discriminatory policies are on the rise, and reports of anti-Muslim discrimination in the workplace in 2009 were at the highest level ever reported.

All of this simply points to the fact that governmental oppression is only one form of discriminatory abuse against a minority population. In fact, within the U.S. there is ongoing de facto discrimination against Muslims. It is unclear whether the author's failure to balance the institutional freedoms granted Muslims with this abuse is a result of sloppy research or the result of the unrelenting bias he brings to this issue (the statistics noted above were found in one hour of googling on the internet). Either way, the lack of even a minimally balanced perspective diminishes any credibility he may wish to claim.

Indeed, credibility is exactly what is lost through biased diatribes of this sort, regardless of the subject matter. This credibility loss becomes more glaring in the author's confusing statements regarding his personal tolerance. His claim that he does not, ".engage in.hostile treatment of Muslims in word." is absurd in light of his comments throughout the essay. On one hand he freely admits that he and "most Americans" have a low opinion of the religion of Islam" (this guy must know a lot of people), and calls the Koran a "literary monstrosity". Later, however, he attests that he "welcomes" Muslims will have to into his country and trusts our government to protect them ".from the violence of their fellow Muslims" (if not the violent persecution of our own ignorant

5 fanatics). This is, at best, a backhanded welcome and leaves one to wonder how our domestic situation would evolve if the reactionaries in our own country were to gain control of national policy I intend no personal criticism of Mr. Maykel by these comments. But in a democracy, where attitudes and policies shift with the political wind, it is imperative to understand that our own intolerant extremists-primarily right wing Christian fundamentalists-are quite capable of the same types of religious persecution documented in his essay. And yes, we can thank the U.S. Constitution, those who protect it and the democratic process itself for the sacred privilege of religious freedom.

It is worth noting, however, that when the Ottoman Empire was dominant, their tolerance of the Christian and Jewish religions was far greater than that accorded Muslims when Western powers were ascendant (five minutes of internet research, starting with Wikipedia, will confirm this). This point is important because it speaks to several of the false myths held by Westerners regarding Islam. Simply put, the Islam presented by violent fanatics is not the Islam that evolved through centuries on the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, ".Until the impact of colonialism on the heart of the Islamic world..there were no modernists or fundamentalists." (see THE HEART OF ISLAM, page 100, and THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM referenced below.)

Regarding the Koran's violent language, the writer could have contributed to a deeper understanding of the inherent limitations of historical religious texts. He might have done so by relating how religious tomes are able to channel universal truth only through the cultural norms and institutions of the time in which they were written. Since he is no fan of "religious monstrosities, it would have been edifying, for example, to have referred to that eminently tolerant and peaceful opus, The Old Testament. In this Judeo-Christian foundational text, we are told that: we are free to own slaves, provided we purchase them from neighboring nations (Leviticus 25:44); fathers can sell our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7); we may put to death neighbors who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:12); and we should stone neighbors who curse and blaspheme (Leviticus 24:10-15), etc,.

At one point, the author states that, ".the time is upon us for addressing.the violent language and tenants (sic) of the Koran." Beyond the fact that such a statement should raise a red flag of concern to every freedom-loving American, the author offers not one constructive suggestion for how we might relate with the Islamic world on the issue of religious violence. Is it time for a new Crusade? Do we limit the sale of the Koran on American soil? Institute mandatory sensitivity training for Muslim extremists? Demand loyalty oaths from Arabic residents? Promote inter-cultural dialogue? Or (perish the thought) do we modify our own foreign policies? But not one constructive suggestion is offered in this essay, and in neglecting to do so the author fails to make the slightest positive contribution to this critical debate.

Because the author chose to reference a core Buddhist concept-erroneously-in his protest against using Sufi breath practices at a VOWVOP meeting, it is worthwhile to expand on this misunderstanding as it relates to a deeper analysis of the underlying conflict. He states that the ".cosmology of the five primordial elements.find their parallel in the Buddhist doctrine of the Five Skandas." This is patently untrue. The concept of primordial elements has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the Five Skandas, as presented in the Abhidharma. What the skandas do relate to is the construction of ego and the foundational Buddhist tenet of dependent origination. That is, no one thing has any inherent nature, but is simply a result of many causes preceding every manifestation , be it an object, thought, body or political situation.

6 So, in our universe there is form; and because of form there is sensation; because of sensation, there is perception; because of perception, there are mental formations; and because of mental formations, there is the manifestation of consciousness, or the fullfledged and illusory dance of self-other (all of which is simply the creation of the mind). I stress the author's confusion here not so much to illustrate his penchant for generating misinformation, but to offer a model for understanding how Islamic extremism came to be in our world.

The teachings of dependent origination and the skandas are deeply profound, and fully applicable to our discussion. This is because they pertain as fully to the delusions of international politics as to individual misinterpretation. The great beauty of Buddhism is that it not only tells us what should be, but how the specific delusions entrapping us are created (and therefore how we can undo this process of entrapment). Unfortunately, until our species understands the underlying causes of human conflict, the short term solutions of intermittent war and power politics are likely the best we can hope for.

Such a bellicose state of affairs was at least tenable throughout human history. Modern technology, however, has turned this alternative into a doomsday scenario. Clearly, at this time in history, a new paradigm of how we view "self" and "other" is called for.

This writer lacks the wisdom and expertise to even begin to address how we might arrive at such a new understanding. There are, however, some wonderfully thought-out books examining the conundrum of Islamic-Western conflict which add greatly to the discussion. The information provided here, coupled with a wisdom-oriented view of human relations (such as the teachings of the skandas and dependent origination) might a good place to start. I respectfully recommend two of them.

The first book, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM, by Reverend Ben Daniel (recommended by Maxine Hong Kingston) addresses the issue from the Western side. This is a terrific must-read for anyone wanting to gain understanding of Islam and its people. Confronting the same issues outlined in "The Ant Sized God of Islam", Reverend Daniel chronicles a truly ecumenical journey in testing his hypothesis that there is, ".no reason why Moslems and Christians should not be able to exist side by side in peace." The book follows his courageous and deep-hearted journey to discover the true Islam behind the gory headlines. It is a beautiful story, and through it the author comes to see Islam as a legitimate and holy world religion. This understanding allows him to debunk many of the false derogatory myths Westerners have of Islam. He then explores the flawed and avaricious reasons why so many in our culture refuse to even consider Islam, and Muslims, as co-inhabitants of both the Abrahamic tradition and world community.

The second book deals with the issue from the Islamic side of the equation. It is a denser, more analytical treatment, but well worth the effort. In it, the author explains how the present extremist movement constitutes a reaction to the imperialistic policies of the West toward Islam (in the last several centuries), as well as to the secular modernism of our present time. This book also provides a thorough and illuminating review of the Koran, relating how it prescribes a social order that has many positive aspects (including the prohibition of slavery centuries before the West). This is THE HEART OF ISLAM, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University.

7 In re-reading Mr. Markel's essay, the predominant emotion leaping out to me is that of fear. And in this, I am again in full agreement with the author. I too am extremely fearful of what the conflict between Islam and the West will bring if the underlying causes are not resolved. The Buddha taught that in order for peace to occur, there must be a profound shift in the hearts and minds of individuals, as well as within the collective consciousness of society itself. That is, the negative emotions of fear, anger and aggression must be transmuted into deep acceptance of the fact that we are truly interdependent. Ironically, it is especially true that we extend this attitude of understanding and concern to those who most threaten our well-being and survival.

And herein lies the new paradigm. It is likely the greatest challenge facing us in the 21st Century: there can never be peace for one until there is peace for all.

May all beings be free.

8

Our Writing Group Family Phyllis Meshulam My fellow poet-teacher, Arthur, invited me to poetry day at Mark West School. “There will be other writers there, too. You know Penelope. And you will meet my friend Ted who is a poet and a Vietnam vet.”

And so I did. Ted on the steps of a portable classroom About my age, a cane in one hand, a stack of papers under the other arm. I was new at the teaching of writing, insecure, glad to have my deck of Haiku cards to deal out some magic poetry tricks as I visited my assigned classes. Ted with his compelling story, written in the lines of his face and worn like an aura around his head and shoulders.

Our friendship proceeded along the usual path of such things in Sonoma County poetry circles. Re-acquainting at readings, warm hand shake, and soon an invitation: “Come to the Vets’ writing group.” “Who me?” “Yes, you.”

Only when it was repeated when I saw Ted at a reading at Santa Rosa Central Library spontaneously organized to warn about rushing to war after 9/11, did I really consider this might be something for me to do.

So I attended the meeting in late September 2001. Marg and Bill’s converted sheep barn made a beautiful and spacious living room with views of a magical landscape outside, rolling and green. It was woody, Persian – or Afghan – carpeted, populated with Buddhas, bells, and a great many Bodhisatvas that day.

Fred led the meeting. I wrote, out on the grass below the lower parking area, where the wind was steady and the shadows of vultures rode up my spine and down over the valley.

I dared to share and people gave me love. Fred said words of encouragement. Earl said something about Emily Dickinson, and I said, “Oh, good, you caught the reference.” And he said, “No, no, you are Emily Dickinson.” Definitely not that, but a welcomed member of the group from that day.

Our Family’s Keepers – Phyllis Meshulam, September 2001 This is a steady breeze, one that could really take you somewhere, in a glider or a boat.

It tries to make a sail out of this page, fills my ears with ocean, like a shell, trembles the oats against the barbed wire fence like kites.

But I must travel on my knees.

In just a few revolutions of this inherited sphere, (though long enough to mistake complacency for peace) earth’s become a legacy.

9 The toddler who played warrior to my horse, now of age, prepares to take the same old course.

A vulture darts his darkened shape like a plumed serpent across the grass.

Like us, he is tethered to our Mother, her drapery of sweet grass, hair shirt of burrs.

But I have set aside my eyes, and then misplaced them.

Sisters, brothers, where are you?

Where am I? May, 2013

10

Like Herding Cats: Workshop for Recalcitrant Writers Bonnie Bonner The advantage of belonging to a writing group, aside from the obligatory writing, is the community you form inadvertently. Vietnam Veteran and Pulitzer Prize nominee Jimmy Janko says of our Veteran’s Writing Workshop, “I still have issues of fear. Fear my life won’t go deep enough. But this group is never lacking in depth. It’s like a cradle here.”

Maxine Hong Kingston, our beloved mentor, who started the group over ten years ago puts it simply, “I think we now understand we are lifelong friends.” After editing our anthology, Veterans of War, Veterans of Peace, she scolds us tenderly—exasperated.

“We are working here with eighty non-conformists. You rebelled from the military, from common life and from my editing and my deadlines. You people are conscientious objectors and deserters. I ask you to meet deadlines, you ignore me; I ask you to rewrite, you disregard me. Editing for and leading eighty individuals is like herding cats. I am a cat herder.”

Maxine weighs her thoughts carefully and speaks deliberately. “Today, I think we should get back to basic ways of being, expressing ourselves and our art. The first lesson I gave to the very first Veteran Writing Workshop 20 years ago was ‘How to Write a Scene’.

How we can use our lives and convert it into art. How we can understand what we have been through. Put everything into words to understand the chaos we’ve been through.

Today remember or imagine how a core event in our lives played out in real life. It was full of feeling and energy and explosion that changed you. It was full of physicality, feeling, senses. Not full of thought and understanding and words—these things come later. Someone has been to battle but the words don’t come for twenty years. In the Odyssey, Odysseus tells it over and over. Write this event as a scene, one place in chronological time. No lapse of time, no change of place. Describe place with all of your senses--the smell, sound, feel, look of it. If others are in the scene, describe them. Use dialogue. The great dramatic moments come from confrontation, where people are face to face and really talk. If we can hear those voices, then it’s developed. Aristotle taught that scene has unity in time and place -- cause and effect. Everything is connected. It’s a feat to turn one big moment into consecutive moments. Don’t flash-back or flash-forward.

Your book is a sequence of important scenes, then you simply connect them. That’s narrative. When we write with a theme, we end up with an essay. But when we write about an event in our life, we think about the theme later on. When we finish maybe we will understand what it’s about, what the theme is. Stop and think what core event comes to you from your past. Set it down as a scene. Stay in one setting. Use smell which is connected to memory, sight, sound, feeling, touch, pain, taste, color or lack thereof-tactile things. Feel how it was to be in your body at that moment. Things are most dramatic when you take your time. When you set your scene and slow it down, we can see the whole thing.”

Members of our Veterans Writing Group take turns leading. A week or so before our quarterly meeting, the rotating leader emails us the prompt. It is a suggestion supported by reflection on the subject, and usually includes prose or poetry that substantiates the topic. It’s a jumping-off point for our ninety minutes of silent writing. Maxine pacifies the talkers among us. “Your vow of silence allows the writer’s voice to come in. You

11 listen to the natural quiet and put that desire for communication into the writing.”

Prompts are more general than specific, more ambiguous than aphoristic and can be interpreted on many levels. Maxine claims there are only a dozen plots in literature anyway, no original stories remain. “Great drama comes from the conflicts of ethical problems. Good writing comes when one of your characters wrestles with this conflict.

Write about that struggle.”

We’ve been prompted to write about something we can’t remember—the forgotten things we’ve kept locked up for our own protection. Or to write about something we’ll never forget, something that haunts us. Write a story beginning in the middle or write at the speed of walking. Write about unconditional love or unchecked anger. Write a love letter to yourself and let your story listen, then reach beyond where it began. Write about a moment when you felt joy at someone else’s success—or maybe there was only envy.

Write about a subject you can’t escape because if you can’t escape it you have to turn around and face it. Go into the dark of forgotten things and invite them in. The struggle of every writer is to claim yourself as narrator of your own unspeakable stories.

Storytellers will never forget the emotional memories; rather it’s the trauma you must forget so you can go on. Listen to yourself. Ask yourself, does writing change anything?

Write about that. The human condition is a symphony that resonates universally, and lost illusion is the title of every work. The secret is to tell an old story in a new way in order to touch a generation of people.

Esteemed visiting leader and poet, Fred Marchant, assures us that prompts aren’t intended to confine us to a set agenda. “I’d think of this as a possible focus, but of course writing has its own imperatives and desires and they must be honored above all. If this doesn’t work, then spin it into another direction.” He brings hand-outs of work by venerated writers. Salman Rushdie speaks from experience when he says, “Literature is a loose cannon and this is a very good thing.” In a poem written two days before his death, William Stafford asks of us “Are you waiting for time to show you some better thoughts? … What can anyone give you greater than now, starting here, right in this room, when you turn around?”

Author, Paulene Laurent’s prompt intrigues me, “I invite you to reintroduce yourself as though you didn’t know yourself. If there were only one story in your life that you could write about today, what would it be? Look for something new to develop, a change, an element of the unknown. What story do you want to leave? A story you haven’t told before? There’s a sentence I’d like you to begin with: I have something to tell you and I will tell it to the best of my ability and with all of my heart.”

In silence we disperse. I head for the back deck to listen to the natural quiet and hope my writer’s voice will come in. My ninety minutes of hard honest writing has its own imperatives and must be honored above all. Spinning the prompt in my own direction, I get ready to write the first lovemaking scene that I as a writer and my novel’s protagonist have experienced. I stop and think of a core event from my past and take the time to slow down and set my scene. I stay in one setting, use all of my senses and feel how it was to be in my body at that moment. An English Professor from The Iowa Writers’ Workshop once critiqued my narrative by saying it lacked fluids. Excuse me? “Blood, saliva, semen—every great writer includes these elements in her narrative.” It’s a story I can’t escape, so I must turn around and face it. It leads me into an element of the unknown, a story I haven’t told before, a loose cannon.

12 In literature, a girl’s first sexual experience is either portrayed as painful, terrifying, and intimidating, or liberating, immaculate and wildly orgasmic. For most, the first bloom is neither a deflowering nor a blossoming, but like petals in the fold, falls somewhere in between. My character must take her ease and leisure, slow down, in order to open her heart. I write as if speaking to a beloved daughter, although I have only sons.

As the reader lives vicariously through the writing, the writer lives through her characters.

Writing a lovemaking scene is somewhat like experiencing it firsthand. This can be predetermined to some extent. Certain factors must be present—qualifications met. You must have unequalled trust in and respect for your reader, and be absolutely certain you are ready. You may begin then retreat if necessary. Wait for a while until you can think of nothing else. Start again. Explore the writing piece by piece then work in layers. Use nuance, texture and metaphor. . Let it build and lure you. Entice it, feel the essence of it.

Savor the reader’s hunger for your story. When desire takes control let the language propel you. Let it wash over you like warm surf over sand, until you are filled with the idea of it, until there is too much to withstand, until your point of no return. Then the words will gush from within and your story will be spent.

Since I’m no longer waiting for time to show me some better thoughts, I have something to tell you and I will tell it to the best of my ability and with all of my heart.

13

Under the Trees Michael Wong

Under the eucalyptus trees We walk together We write our histories together We grow old together We find each other We find ourselves We change our destinies We change our world Together An Afghanistan vet once said, “This path of peace that we are just starting you have been walking it longer than we have been alive.�

Under the eucalyptus trees We change ourselves We change our world.

September 8, 2012

14

Write to Heal Doris Lucki Allen Twenty years ago I sat in a chair and was allowed to speak, to say some of those words that nobody else had wanted to hear -- from me. The advice from the VA social team had been for me to join a group and speak about those miseries and they would surely go away. "Join," they said, "those others who, after having the same experiences in Vietnam, would share. There would be healing from the misery of my PTSD. First, none of them had experienced any of what I had. None of them respected anything I had to say.

After all, a woman couldn't have any business being there anyway. So I never was heard and so I left the building.”

I was invited to a meeting that opened doors in my mind and immediately changed my life. Though I was unable for various and sundry reasons to attend many of those sessions, that experience and acceptance gave me permission to "write it down." So here with your permission and with many thanks to Maxine "Hong the Gong" Kingston, I submit a couple of experiences of what you allowed me over these 20 years to "write" and so to "heal."

Article 1:

Warehouse 5 “Warehouse 5 is where the bodies from Viet Nam were stored prior to identification and embalming”

Warehouse 5. I passed it yesterday. TRIGGER! But that wasn't what started it all.

The psychologist asked me some awfully leading questions Monday. You see, I was invited to be part of a research study looking for ways to "treat" my pain. They want to know if one more pill can stop this misery in my brain -- this misery that makes me jump, this misery that startles me every time I hear a loud crackle or a balloon pop or the sound of a chopper overhead or, or, or....

Then there's that persistent dream so many times when sleep comes - bed time or nap time - I kill people on a battleground but they never die and they kill me but I never fall - and I still can't or won't identify my foe. And I don't know whether I wake up because of the nightmare or do I fight within myself to wake up and stop the misery.

Sometimes the battle is so vivid that I live it again in my wakefulness -- shot for shot and tear for tear. But then sometimes I still feel the misery of the dream with no vision of what occasioned it.

Tears dimmed my eyesight as I answered the researcher's questions about my war that "hurt my feelings" 40 years ago... about that war 40 years ago that taps my brain and causes so much misery.

And people never see the misery inside 'cause I've become a master of disguise. And I'm good. I'm so good that you, you outside my body will never see the chaos or hear my screams or [see or feel the] fear that so often wracks my brain.

But when you outside in your innocence dare to see/question my cognitive - - - -.

- 30 -

15

Article 2: Killing Cong Sept 2012 I shot at, to kill, so many Viet Cong last night. My guardian brother handed me an M16 and told me to use it when the bad guys showed up. I had a compulsion to kill them only because they were going to kill us. I think that we started out with 3 or 4 rifles between us, but before long there were enough to fight off the Cong.

But they weren't only Cong Vietnamese. There were also some Americans who we figured must have defected back during the war or somehow had moved with their families back to the Nam. The scene was almost like that in Guyana with us being told to fight or live to the death.

Now my dilemma has to do with my "killing" all those bad guys... but they never die -- they fall down but they’re not dead. In fact it seems as though they are players who when they die, they're out of the fray but they never die.

And I get shot, I think, but even I never die... I keep on shooting and "killing" until I am compelled by some blind force to wake up from that horrible dream.

Baffling in a real sense is the fact that this is a recurring dream. I mostly recognize the enemy and I "kill" but he doesn't die. I don't die, but here's the rub -- I wonder if he will ever die. Maybe if he is finally dead for good I can stop "killing" and that dream will go away. But am I myself prepared to give up the ghost -- to die.

- 30 -

16

In Case of Emergency DonEdward Morris

We all received one at birth tucked neatly into the breast pocket of our birthday suit a flesh-tone purse so to speak holding a few coins mad money for a rainy day or like the European autos of old that always came packed from the factory with an emergency tool kit.

A breakdown alone and the desert far from town with no mechanic around who's going to rescue you?

You look in the trunk, amidst all the junk you find your first birthday gift, you open it up hoping for a lifesaver..

There are many breakdowns crackups blowouts along the merry highway of life and as the years pass we gather the wounds, the scars that become the badges of veterans.

17 You've suffered the pain.

You've heard the word "healing" but you don't know how.

You'll find it in the package given at birth.

When I opened my just-in case the instructions said WRITE from the infinite soul to discover your unique images of repair and share your creations in COMMUNITY. I've come all this way for all these years and I've found the way to get right was in the heart from the start.

I'm going home.

18

Dear Maxine, dear Sangha In the spirit of this weekend's celebration may I share a bit of good news, from my corner of the universe? Am enjoying my first weeks of new health after 40 years of hosting hepatitis-c (20, with daily symptoms) thanks to new miracle elixirs from a clinical drug trial. Am speechless. ( Meanwhile, the strong, challenging side effects continue to accumulate daily, but I only have 8 more weeks to go, then withdrawal. ) I have always believed the power of words, a real word or true naming, can create hurricanes or earthquakes ... or transform human consciousness. Well, I earnestly believe veterans' writing sangha has created such a force. Satyagraha, truth force. Nietzsche said sometimes revolutions do not come accompanied by cannon fire, but on little doves' feet. Let us continue, at all costs, to water our flowers, and nourish new seeds of peace. I see angels danceing around our heads, my dear brothers and sisters, this very moment. Thank you for being in my life, and letting me be in yours.

Palms Joined _/|\_ Gary Gash

19

Every Veteran Knows Jiwon Chung Every veteran knows that at the heart of war is a silence.

Above and beyond the sounds, the explosions, the cries, the screaming, and whimpering, we know that there is a profound and inexorable silence in war.

It is a moral silence, something that words themselves recoil from.

It is the silence at the end of reason, of rationality, of thought, hope, prayer.

"That which we cannot speak of, thereof we must remain silent".

My most memorable impression of the Veterans writer's group, was not the beautiful trees in the glade, dancing in the light, or the gentle and comforting camaraderie. Or the profound words expressed in prose and poetry.

It was the silence.

The way we held each other in silence throughout the day.

There is a profound healing in the intimacy of silence, deeper than words, deeper than feelings, deeper than the questioning terminus of all thought.

To be in a group, that understands this; that sometimes even each other's fullest presence, we have be still and together in silence. This is profound and moving.

There is no need for pleasantries, banter, chit chat, the scum of conventional sociality.

"The soldiers marched off to war. Some came back, the words did not."

We speak in silence, and in doing so, we speak truth, truth that holds the fullness of the emptiness of each and everyone of us, truth that heals.

20

On Writing Kathleen A. Taylor The day did not hold any particular portend, so the sudden emergence of words leaping gracefully from my fingers onto the page came as a delightful surprise. The bell for lunch rang. I hurryingly reread my essay. At last, I thought, I had overcome my formal training as a research science writer. A desire to become more literary abutted my experience of rigorous scholarly feedback resulting in a semi-paralyzing fear of peer critique, even when grounded in compassion as it is with this group. Yet here I was every season. The previous four years of coming to the daylong sessions and forcing myself to read still-warm prose to the group had just paid off. Finally this, this was literature and I had written it.

When it came time to present our work I held back from raising my hand until that sweet spot opened. That moment when you just know your piece fits right into the narrative stream. For the first time, feeling confident I had an artistic contribution to make to the afternoon, I gave a reading that I felt was both spontaneous and nuanced. Frankly, I felt a little smug.

Later that afternoon, Earll led our reading response session. Without apprehension, I carefully listened to and added to the comments being shared as we discussed the strengths of individual works and discussed writing. Then Earll turned to me and said “ Kathleeeeeen,” he slowly rolled out his words, “sometimes weee theeeesssssspiiiiaaans use our theeeesssssspiiiaaan training to cover the thiiiinness of the text. Dooo you know what I mean?” One, two three, heart beating in my throat, I grabbed a shallow breath and rasped out, “thespians?” Bending deeply into the circle Earll cocked his head to one side and inquired “You aaare an aaactor…nooo..?” Still caught, a deer in headlights, I retorted, “I am a psyyychooolooogist and that iiiisss different, yeees?”

At that exact moment everything I knew about writing shifted and laughter exploded from my belly with such force that tears ran down my cheeks. Everyone began to laugh. I was a member of this group of writers. It has never been about the “quality” of the text – in of itself. It has been, and continues to be, about the process. About showing up, about thoughtfully listening, and about being free whether your language flows with sparkling effervescence or in methodical measures. It is about trying to articulate precisely what you mean to say even if the words are sprayed out so finely they appear as a thin veneer of text when really you have just barely tapped the amount of blood pooled in your mouth.

May 25, 2013

21

Memorial Day Weekend May 2013 Pauline Laurent

It happens every year in May. The darkness creeps in. It was mild this year, yet, as always, I’m delighted when May is over. It begins with Mother’s Day weekend (the weekend he died) and then mid-May (I was notified) then 3rd week of May (his body returned from Vietnam) and the final weekend in May was his funeral. (45 years ago ---1968) I want new milestones to occur in May. I want to rewrite the story.

How odd to have the 20th anniversary of our Veterans Writing group practically in my back yard. I call it “coming full circle” like when I returned to my hometown, Prairie du Rocher, Illinois in 2000 for Memorial Day weekend. They were dedicating a memorial to war veterans and included Howard’s name, even though he was not from Prairie du Rocher. They invited me to give a speech at the dedication. At the end of my speech a man approached me awkwardly and said he had been an altar boy at Howard’s funeral. He told me Father Siekmann was so nervous his hands were trembling during the Mass. The NBC-TV station from St. Louis filmed parts of my talk and aired it on the evening news.

All my relatives were shocked that their little hometown girl was on national TV. Mom told me that she was proud of me (for the first time).

My brother, Stan, embarrassed me by ridiculing me – an old habit from the past, which he still engages in. I wore a white dress in contrast to the black maternity dress I wore at his funeral. There was an article about me in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. One of Howard’s Jesuit teachers from St. Louis University came to my reading at Barnes and Noble. He told me about his memories of Howard. He’d lost another student to suicide who was a war veteran. Howard’s Uncle Gus and Pete Sotiropoulos were there.

It felt like I was appearing in a movie about my life.

I never really felt like I belonged to this veteran’s writers group; a widow among veterans? Did I really want to hear those war stories? What kept me coming back was the desire to find the voice of the young widow who lived in me. Once I found that voice, I had to let her tell her story through my fingers. She was not a literary writer, not schooled in correct grammar or literature. She only needed to say something to end the 25year silence. She found the courage to keep coming back and meeting yet another person affected by Vietnam. Then another widow came, Barbara, and she made a film. Our silence was broken, our stories were told, and then a new war started. The Gulf War – it was over fast, not like our war, Vietnam. New people came to the group. Then 9-11 and another war began in Afghanistan, I felt so helpless. How could I reach other women

22 like myself, how could I find them, and tell them not to keep silent about their loss, to talk to anyone that would listen?

Then yet another war in Iraq and more war widows were created. Two wars were going on at the same time. This is big, way big, way too big for me to fix. Then one day at Spirit Rock Meditation Center, a nun asked, “Why do you meditate”?

A series of thoughts came.

1. The world is broken 2. It’s my fault 3. I have to fix it 4. I can’t 5. I quit trying 6. Freedom All our war stories are so unique yet interwoven with the same thread of powerlessness. I see others in the group working on issues bigger than any of mine. But I don’t feel guilty anymore.

I’m enjoying the twilight of my years in ways I could not when I was a struggling single mom, and war widow. I’m more of an observer of my life now than the director who’s busy trying to get all the players to line up and do it under my direction.

Thank God, I let go of that nonsense. There’s a grace in my life now as I learn to let go and leave the work to some others who haven’t given up on getting all their ducks in a row.

Aging as a spiritual practice, that’s how I’m living these days.

The, CPCC Author of Grief Denied A Vietnam Widow’s Story.

23

Reflecting back……

Pauline Laurent I don’t remember where I spotted the flyer announcing the gathering of writers who would write about the Vietnam War. I was finally ready to explore the topic of “Vietnam”, which I had avoided for 25 years. The first gathering I attended was held at the UC Berkeley Campus. Maxine welcomed me to the group. I met veterans and women who served as nurses in the war.

As I walked on the UC campus I had a flashback to 1969 - I was enrolled at SIU in Carbondale, Illinois, after my husbands death in Vietnam in May 1968. That spring students on campus were threatening to burn down the President’s home if the war did not end. I opposed the war but felt guilty for doing so.

At that first gathering, the gate that had been slammed shut since 1968 opened and the flashbacks began in full force. The group was the medicine I needed to heal the suffocating silence under which I had blanketed myself for so many years in an attempt to “put it all behind me.”

Throughout the years of attending the group, I heard stories I couldn’t bear to hear, but I listened anyway. I’m sure the veterans felt the same way about my stories, but the desire to bear witness to each other’s stories was greater than the fear of telling.

The stories of our war shaped us but only defined us as long as we kept them secret. The stories I heard reside in me in a sacred room. Sometimes I can’t remember my daughter’s phone number, yet I can recall war stories with much detail.

The gift I gained from the community is a shared common wound, a wound that only we who have the willingness to examine in minute detail, can transcend so that our descendants receive the benefit of our cathartic story telling. The hero’s task is to bring knowledge, energy and power back to the people he or she loves and to share it with them.

(Joseph Campbell) Writing my book, Grief Denied - A Vietnam Widow’s Story saved me, and has been instrumental in helping many other survivors of war disclose and identify their isolation and shame associated with that war.

I’ve received countless letters, emails and requests for my book from people all over the planet, The last one being a man is who fought with the ARVN and spent 6 years in the re-education camps of North Vietnam before he was able to escape to freedom in Australia.

My two granddaughters never knew the silent stoic war widow that my daughter grew up with. As a bi-product of story telling, I’ve been emotionally available to them in a way that I could not be for my daughter.

24 Writing changed me forever, it still does. What often seems unknown to me comes out through my fingers on the page. For finding this precious ally, the craft of writing, I am forever grateful.

Thank you to the Community of Mindful Living, Arnie, Theresa, Maxine, Earl and my fellow survivors of Vietnam for saving my life and giving me me a new life. We are blessed to have found each other. One of these days, perhaps one of my granddaughters will come to the group and write their story. That would be delightful. Namaste.

Pauline Laurent, CPCC Grief Denied, A Vietnam Widow’s Story http://www.griefdenied.com http://www.gutsycoaching.com 707-578-4226

25

Ira Sandperl, Friend and Teacher, 1923-2013 Lee Swenson Kepler’s Books already felt old in 1959 even though it had only been there for five years. Standing behind the bookstore counter, Ira looked as if he had been there forever, too, even though he was just 36 years old. The wooden counter, stacked with books and an old cash register, was just the right height to lean on and listen and talk with Ira as he rang up book sales. If the books handed to him didn’t carry the weight Ira felt they should, he would graciously point out a paperback copy of Tolstoy’s short stories and say, “Here, read The Death of Ivan Illych - old Tolstoy is better than any self-help book in the store."

I was a 19-year-old kid, hungry for stories, and Ira was a magnificent storyteller, the best I had ever heard. I would try to get to Kepler’s by 8 pm and have the next two hours before closing time to lean on the counter and talk with Ira. He was as good a reader as he was a storyteller. Not a good sleeper, he would read and reread his favorites: Gandhi, Tolstoy, Lao Tzu, Huxley. Aldous Huxley’s great book The Perennial Philosophy, framed what I was thinking: that the means are the ends, the "is" is the "was" of what shall be.

Ira read deeply, with a curious and probing mind. He read the Catholic Worker as well as the Daily Worker newspapers. He read Liberation magazine to follow the writings of A. J. Muste, Barbara Deming, and Bayard Rustin, as well as the small but catalytic newsletter, Manas, which carried the early writings of E. F. Schumacher, Wendell Berry, and Ivan Illich.

It was Ira's big mind that was so interesting to me. Having a much narrower band of reading in my classes at Stanford (I was a philosophy major who also roamed around in literature and history), Ira brought in a much wider and deeper vision of the world. Hardly anyone at Stanford was studying or hoping to live a life of Gandhian nonviolence. And yet there it was, unfolding right in front of us in the civil rights movement in the South as well as occasionally in the north and west around ending racial segregation, nuclear testing and fallout shelters, organizing war tax resistance, and speaking out against the militarization of our culture.

One could talk to Ira about so many things: the Holocaust, Russian literature, the French Resistance in World War II, the Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East, as well as the latest gossip. Behind the counter at Kepler’s, Ira heard stories, news, and gossip coming in and he would share them back out. It was his great reach of ideas as well as Gandhian ways to live our daily lives that Ira offered. He was what a friend called a "de-institutionalized intellectual,” a very rare bird in those late '50s. He followed the writing and thinking of other “nonviolent activists” throughout the world as well as mining what have become classics. He

26 would talk about Proust or Spinoza as if they were friends, the two of them in dialogue together.

Ira knew the books at Kepler's and would recommend them to anyone who would read them. There were books by World War II war resisters, like Lowell Naeve’s A Field of Broken Stones and Jim Peck’s We Who Would Not Kill, along with the poetry and writings from William Stafford and others from the Civilian Public Service (CPS) camps. Where else could you get this kind of education?

I think another of Ira’s great and lasting gifts is the way he spoke about nonviolent resistance and social change. He helped make it, directly and clearly, both a way to live and a way to organize. I remember going with him to San Francisco for the demonstrations supporting the Everyman I, II, and III, sailboats that were sailing out to protest the Pacific nuclear tests. Each boat would get out past the Golden Gate Bridge and then get dragged back. But a new one would get built and would set sail again. Or, one could join Ira in demonstrating, picketing really, in front of the Quaker Meeting, urging them to refuse to pay their war taxes. A friend confronting the Friends, and Ira could do it with a smile. It seemed there were endless possibilities to get engaged in a nonviolent demonstration and spend a day, or perhaps a few nights, picketing the Federal Building in San Francisco or joining in the San Francisco to Moscow Peace March. And anyone could join in these exercises and learn new ways of "speaking truth to power."

Ira was open to talking with anyone and everyone, welcoming the best in each person. He also tolerated, or rather saved space for, silence - for someone to not to have to say anything in a group. That was true when the Institute for the Study of Nonviolence was in Carmel Valley. Ira would let anyone sit in the group and not have to say anything. I think he assumed that, over time, the nonviolent teaching would take its own form of action. Later, in Palo Alto, we would go around the circle expecting everyone to say something. But I think both Ira and Roy Kepler held to the old style of politeness and not being imposing. They could see that our youthful formality of informality had its own limits and benefited from some structure. One could learn on so many different levels from a elder like Ira. Ira had a great sense of humor and a wonderful laugh. He wasn't always easy to be around - he could be grumpy or slyly competitive. But by waving his hand and throwing his head back with a big grin, he would lighten the load that he just laid on you. What a lucky thing to be in the time and place where Ira was at his fullest. Such a gift to treasure, particularly now that he's gone from us. Thank you, Ira. In friendship, Lee Swenson

27

Bradley Manning's Statement [Submitted by Ted Sexauer who proposes that PFC Manning be made an honorary member of the Veteran Writers Group]

By Army PFC Bradley Manning Read to Judge Denise Lind, Fort Meade courtroom, February 28, 2013 Transcript by the Bradley Manning Support Network. (Scroll down for acknowledgements.)

I wrote this statement in confinement, so… The following facts are provided in support of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.

I am a 25-year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison—USAG, Joint Base Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia. Prior to this assignment, I was assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York. My primary military occupational specialty or PMOS is 35 fox-trot: intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real-world experience and earning benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.

Facts Regarding My Position as an Intelligence Analyst In order to enlist in the army, I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or ASAB. My score [unavailable] was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted MOS position. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him I was interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested I consider becoming an intelligence analyst. After researching the intelligence analyst position, I agreed this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available choices for determining the best course of action or COAs. Although the MOS required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources in order to create products that assisted the command in its situational awareness or SA. I assessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October 2007. I then traveled to—and reported at—Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 2 October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT. Once at Fort Leonard Wood, I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience lasted six months instead of the normal 10 weeks. Due to medical issues, I was placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained injuries to my right shoulder and left foot. Due to those injuries I was unable to continue basic. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt that I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 20 January 2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared, and I completed training on 2 April 2008.

Then I reported for the MOS specific Advances Individual Training or AIT on 7 April 2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training, where I felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in

28

well. I preferred the mental challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods that I was familiar with.

I graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station, Fort Drum, NY, on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use tools, such as the Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command. The non-commissioned officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P. Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool abandoned by a previously assigned analyst—the incident tracker. The incident tracker was viewed as a back-up to the Combined Information Data Network Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference.

In the months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were from Afghanistan because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.

As and analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs giae a first look impression of a specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device attack or IED, small-arms fire engagement or SAF engagement with a hostile force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time. In my perspective, the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or casualties. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or hostnation—HN—media.

As I started working with SigActs, I felt they were similar to a daily journal or log that a person may keep.

They capture what happens on a particular day in time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated over a period of hours until final version is published on the CIDNE [Combined Information Data Network Exchange]. Each unit has its own Standard Operating Procedure or SOP for reporting recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison. In a garrison a SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.

In a deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the company headquarters and the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle noncommissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle NCO receives the report they will either 1) notify the battalion operations officer or S3; 2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force; or 3) record the event and report and further report it up the chain of command to the brigade.

The reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can

29

either be added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division to corp. At corp level the SigAct is finalized and [cataloged?].

The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense–DoD— personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater: CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.

CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander’s daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, counter improvised explosive device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, targeting reports, social and cultural reports, civil affairs reports, and human terrain reports.

As an intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct reports and Counter IED reports because these reports were used to create a work product I was required to published as an analyst. In working on an assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was the search tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD and Intellink search engines.

Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a back-up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data including SigActs to back-up analyses that were based on HUMINT reporting and produce charts, graphs, and tables.

I also created maps and charts to conduct predictive analysis based on statistical trends.

The SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcomes. Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger. It was my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified only because they are maintained within CIDNE because it is only accessible on SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was treated as classified information.

Facts Regarding the Storage of SigAct Reports As part of my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back-ups of my work product.

The need to create back-ups was particularly acute given the relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.

The organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were Dell laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alien-ware brand laptops. The D6-A laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical problems with the laptops.

30

With these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information due to the multiple backups I created. I attempted to back-up as much relevant information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored. When backing up information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training: 1) Physical back-up. I tried to keep physical back-up copies of information on paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to brief with hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.

2) Local drive back-up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and kept complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on the desktop.

3) Shared drive backup. Each analyst had access to what we call a T-drive, shared across the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. The S6 operated the T-drive.

4) Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back-up. For larger data sets I saved the information onto a rewritable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy allowed us to not worry about information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information from a secondary computer, the T-drive, or one of the CD-RWs. If another analysts wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my published products directory on the T-drive or on the CDRWs. I sorted all of my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was available to them.

During the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever one computer crashed, I lost information but the redundancy method ensured my ability to quickly restore old back-up data and add current information to the machine when it was repaired or replaced.

I stored the back-up CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or next to a workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type and were not marked with classification markings.

Early on in the deployment, I only saved and stored SigActs that were within or near operational environment. Later, I thought it would be easier to just to save all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to complete, and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CDRW. After finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I and CIDNEA SigActs, I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open up a pre-loaded spreadsheet.

This process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the background as I did other tasks. The process took approximately a week for each table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by pulling the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on appropriately labeled and marked CD-RW, stored in the open.

I viewed saving copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A as for both for my use and the use of anyone within S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.

31

In addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports relevant to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and the Diyala Province of Iraq.

In order to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called ‘bzip2′. The program used to compress the data is called ‘WinRAR’. WinRAR is an application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR on NIPRnet and transfered it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a CDRW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.

With the assistance of the bzip2 algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit all of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter ID reports onto a separate CD-RW. Facts Regarding My Knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization (WLO) I first became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, although I did not fully pay attention until WLO released purported Short Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.

The stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.

After this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searched on both NIPRnet and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one of my searches in December 2009. I found the United States Army Counter Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After reviewing the report, I believed that this report was the one that my AIT referenced in early 2008.

I may or may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing this report, I continued doing research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to exposing illegal activities and corruption.

WLO received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also, while reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on outdated rules of engagement—ROE—in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam Hussein’s government.

After seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it and collected open sources information from it. During this time period, I followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to do in AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do. During the searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated this information into one or more of my work products.

In addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instant Relay Chat or IRC Client

32

called XChat sometime in early January 2010. IRC is a protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing, colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. IRC chat rooms are designed for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a channel, similar to a TV where you can tune in and follow a channel– as long as it is open. Once you join a specific IRC conversation, other users in the conversation can see you have joined the room. On the Internet there are millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies.

My primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity, particularly in regards to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal. Initially, I simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on issues the particular individual may have felt strongly about.

Over a period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics, such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would describe the WLO organization [discussions?] as almost academic in nature.

In addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC channels across at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I participated in normally dealt with technical topics, including with Linux and Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS’s, networking, encryption algorithms and techniques and other more political topics, such as politics and current events.

I normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously—mostly publicly but often privately.

The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple conversations across different channels and servers.

The screen for XChat was often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.

I enjoyed the IRC conversations pertaining to the WLO, however, at some point in late February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible. Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber server. Jabber is another internet communication tool similar, more sophisticated than IRC. The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel connected to others even when alone. They helped pass the time and keep motivated throughout the deployment.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the SigActs As indicated above, I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back-up. However, I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believed and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents of our time.

On or around 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my army combat uniform. At the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop.

Later at the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them. At some point prior to my mid-tour, I transferred the information from my computer to a Secure Digital memory card from my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also worked on my

33

computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure manner for transport.

I began mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia, to Regan National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland, and quickly got into contact with my then boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler—then a student at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts—and I made plans for me to visit him him in the Boston, Massachusetts area.

I was excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to him about where our relationship was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area Tyler seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make any plans.

I also tried raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler really didn’t have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be supportive, but he seemed confused by the question in this context. Then I tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to explain my dilemma, I decided to drop the conversation.

After a few days in Waltham, I began to feel I was overstaying my welcome, and returned to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC, area. During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic. I spent a significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt’s house in Maryland.

I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on-the-ground reality of the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and [hatred? anger] on both sides.

I began to become depressed with the situation we found ourselves increasingly mired in. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground. In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and on being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables it could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment everyday.

At my aunt’s house I debated what I should do with the SigActs, in particular whether I should hold on to them or disclose them to a press agency. At this point I decided that it made sense to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local newspaper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public. Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such

34

decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by the senior editors.

I then decided to contact the largest and most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on the New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important.

However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

I also briefly considered dropping into the office for the political commentary blog Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to travel. After these failed efforts I ultimately decided to submit the materials to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would even actually publish the SigAct tables. I was concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media. However, based upon what I had read about the WLO through my research described above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within my reach.

At my aunt’s house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. Before I could describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO web site online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to release the SigActs.

On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link.

Next I found the submit your information online link and decided to submit the SigActs via the router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR clients to conceal the user’s location and identity.

I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to theWashington Post. I provided rough guidelines saying, “It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information—perhaps 90 to 100 days—to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.”

After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been published by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and what I had read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13 I first became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in the AIT. I later learned about the Department of State or DoS netcentric Diplomacy NCD portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2,

35

Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim sent a section-wide email to the other analysts and officer in late December 2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal, along with the instructions to look at the cables contained within them and incorporate them into our work product.

Shortly after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in products from the corp level US Forces Iraq or US-I. Based on Captain Lim’s direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every published cable concerning Iraq.

I also began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my curiosity. It was around this time, in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland to find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland’s banks.

According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the UK’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic access for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.

The cable, published on 13 January 2010, was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything.

From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10 Reykjavik 13 I debated whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNEI or CIDNE-A tables. Despite not knowing if the SigActs were a priority for the WLO, I decided the cable was something that could be important. I felt that I might be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it on my personal laptop.

I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the 12 July 2007 Aerial Weapons Team (AWT) Video During the mid-February 2010 time-frame, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analysts, then Specialist [Jihrleah?] W. Showman and others discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the T-drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other “war porn”-type videos depicting combat. However,

36

the recording and audio comments by the aerial weapons team and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me. As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, and decided to conduct some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.

Using Google I searched for the event by date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained how Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the re-occurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters, stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing the request, they still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA. The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely “good Samaritans.” The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful blood-lust the Aerial Weapons Team seemed to have.

They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life, and referred to them as quote-unquote “dead bastards,” and congratulated each other on their ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see a bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew assumes the individuals are a threat. They repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck, and once granted, they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van. Despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents.

Later, in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team crew vocalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over one of the bodies.

37

As I continued my research, I found an article discussing a book, The Good Soldiers, written

by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.

It is clear to me Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as payback for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier.

Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together—a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture with his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly intent only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess. I was left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period, as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW at the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules for engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I re-deployed in Summer 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13, I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq.

On about 21 February 2010, as described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the general public. I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare.

After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled—if not more troubled—that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense an CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton a link to the video that was on our T-drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the open source center so she could compare them herself.

Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to make it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote “Reuters FOIA Req” on its face. I

38

placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of “Starting Out in Arabic” CDs. I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our re-deployment so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.

Almost immediately after submitting the air weapons team video and rules of engagement documents, I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of “Office.” At first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I assessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO. Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information, however, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [pronounced "Ah-sang-hee"], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange ["Ah-sang-hee"] and Schmidt. As the communications transferred from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave “Office” and later “Press Association” the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009.

After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work. The anonymity provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO’s policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life.

In real life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section, the S2 section. In my section, the S2 section supported battalions and the 2nd Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation.

Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on nearly a daily basis, and I felt we were developing a friendship. The conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about pretty much everything—not just the publications that the WLO was working on. In retrospect, I realize that these dynamics were artificial and were valued more by myself than Nathaniel. For me, these conversations represented an opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose the respect, trust, and support I needed.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of Documents Related to the Detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report: On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police, or FP, detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter and figure out who the quote “bad guys” unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.

Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several photos from the scene from the subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team in the S2 section, and she forwarded them to me.

These photos included picture of the individuals, [pallets?] of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final,

39

printed document, and a high-resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed out one copy of a high resolution photo. I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our Category 2 interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half and hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The document, as I had assessed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the [unavailable] battle captain informed me they didn’t want or need to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out where more of these print shops creating quote “anti-Iraqi literature” unquote might be.

I couldn’t believe what I heard, and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts in my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work, and as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie-cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate the situation.

I knew if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time—if ever.

Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, hoping they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in political opponents of al-Maliki. On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high-resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreter’s hand-written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW [... copies to his personal computer]. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the submission form, I used a Secure File Transfer Protocol, or SFTP connection, to a [cloud? file?] drop box operated by the WLO. The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory allowed me or anyone with log-in access to server to view and download them.

After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.

I attempted to provide the specifics but to my disappointment, the WLO website chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting through information from … SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me, although unlikely … the individual detained by the Federal Police might be turned over into US custody, ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

As I digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly found the Detainee

40

Assessment Briefs, or DABs. I previously came across the documents before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time I was more curious in this search and I found them again.

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander of US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic background information about detainees held at some point

by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested in the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low-level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would’ve been released if they were held in theater.

I also recall that in early 2009 the then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote-unquote “moral authority.” After familiarizing myself with the DABs, I agreed.

Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed they were not analytical products. Instead they contained summaries of [unavailable] versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified.

None of the DABs contained names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIRs. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed they were intended to provide general background information on each detainee—not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner [in which] the DABs were written, I recognized they were at least several years old, discussing detainees already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very important from either an intelligence or national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DABs might be of any use to anyone. Nathaniel indicated although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at JTF Guantanamo. He also thought the DABs might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently or previously held at Gitmo.

After this discussion, I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget to download the DABs. I downloaded Wget off the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that on a CD-RW and placed the executable in my documents directory on my user profile for the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took a list of links for the DABs, and used Wget to download them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them onto my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center reports on the WLO into a compressed Zip file. Zip files contain multiple files, compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their [cloud? file?] drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel this information was in the X directory, designated for my own use.

Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO. As discussed above, I previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the document onto the workstation before, I could not locate it. After I found the document again, I downloaded it to my workstation, and saved it onto the same CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.

41

Although my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report.

Up to this point I had sent them the following: • the CIDNE-I and -A SigActs tables • the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable • the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video • the 2006-2007 Rules of Engagement documents • the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police • the US SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs.

• a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks website and organization.

Over next fw weeks I did not send any additional information to WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with WLO pressured me into giving more information.

The decisions I made to send documents and information to WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Disclosure of Other Government Documents On 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analyst. Based on my training and the possible guidance of my superiors, I looked at as much information as possible. Doing so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss.

On several occasions throughout March, I accessed information from a government entity. I read several documents from a section within this government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly, and I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling and compressed them into a zip file named “Blah.zip,” and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the files to my personal computer. I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy Department of State Cables In late March 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations might decrease significantly.

During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me. I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy server. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics, I became fascinated. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events I found interesting. The more I read, the more I was fascinated by the way we dealt with other nations and organizations. I soon began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity didn’t seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the

42

documents released, the cables were the only ones I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy.

As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website. The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption applied only to [unavailable verbatim: he describes information and messages "deemed appropriate for" release and "a wide number of individuals"].

According to the Department of State guidance, for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions limiting distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information [to be] shared with anyone [authorized to] access SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, DoS, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact the SIPDIS caption was for wide distribution made sense to me given how the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion this was the type of information that should become public. I once read [unavailable] a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War [about how] the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with or against each other. I thought these cables were a prime example of the need for more open diplomacy.

Given all of the DoS info I read, the fact most of these cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believed the public release of these cables would not damage the United States. I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing since they represent very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations. In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the DoS, and other government entities, unhappy.

On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above. I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net Centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them to a CD-RW. These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CDRW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the [bzip2?] compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010.

I saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. I intended to save another copy of these cables, but was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.

Facts Regarding the Unauthorized Storage and Disclosure of Garani, Farah Province, Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directory on a 2009 air-strike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM for information I could use as an analyst. This is something myself and other

43

officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the documents, I recalled the incident and what happened.

The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage at the time as it was reported that up to 100-150 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children, were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq, however, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. The conclusions of the report are more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident. I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions help explain how the incident occurred and what those involved should of done to avoid an event like this occurring again.

After investigating the report and annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations and supporting documents to my workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transfered it to the personal computer in my CHU. Later that day or the next, I uploaded the information to the WLO website using a new version of the submission form. Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer.

Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.

With this statement, PFC Bradley Manning pled guilty to 10 lesserincluded offenses, while refusing to characterize his actions as befitting the prosecution’s charge of aiding the enemy. This was the first time since his arrest that Manning has publicly commented on the motives and methods of his monumental disclosures.

This transcript is the result of press-room note-taking from Michael McKee (writing for Counterpunch.com) and Nathan Fuller of the Bradley Manning Support Network, in addition to the efforts of Alexa O’Brien, whose widely circulated transcript served as a supplemental and corroborating source. Where doubts remain regarding an exact word or phrase, the contributors have substituted bracketed phrasing wholly faithful to the meaning, tone and style of Manning’s verbiage.

Court resumed at 11:06 am after a roughly 20-minute recess. Although it was unclear ahead of time how or how much Judge Lind would allow Bradley to read from his statement, she addresses him almost immediately after court is called to order.

44