This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Capturing the range of sentiment expressed by public figures is neither breathless reportage, nor inherently partisan. I do agree with RayAYang and S. Rich in so far as it is often difficult to tell which particular statements will have lasting social relevance; this will evolve over time. That said, when does the magical day arrive when we determine the "true" meaning or importance of anything? On what basis will we assert that we're finally capable of dispassionate retrospection? Which is greater: the risk of our future selves being deluded by the "fog of time", or the danger of not seeing the trees for the forest right here in the present? It's not always easy to tell; hence, we should err on the side of capturing more, not less, and reconciling ourselves to the need for revisiting such content periodically.
For example, consider the range of views expressed regarding former U.S. President Ronald Regan during his stay in office, and compare them to those of present-day political leaders and news commentators (be they Democrat or Republican). The Overton window has shifted. Regan's grammatical follies no longer capture the level of attention they once did. At the time however, they were used to bring his fitness for office into question, and by implication the wisdom of his decision-making. Where are we now? Are we more dispassionate and able to separate substance from noise, or have we just waded part-way across the river Lethe, and lost touch with the "feeling" of that period? We can say Regan's frequent verbal bloopers and their equally persistent caricature became part of the overall milieau. One can still argue over their meaning, but there is undoubtedly a delicate fragrance to it all that is best bottled when fresh. Anyone who has lived long enough witness the birth of a generational shift in perception realizes how difficult it can be to convey the "feeling" of a time, right down to the very marrow of their weather-predicting bones.
The view I'm advancing is that it's better to err on the side of capturing present-day perspectives on an ongoing basis than it is to omit them entirely, hoping that one day we'll all agree on what genuinely matters. We won't. People are still arguing over the "true" reasons for the Decline of the Roman Empire, whether Abstract expressionism is abstract or expresses anything, and whose opinion on any of these topics is worthy of consideration. For events to be understood in-context, sentiment within that context must be captured. If we fail to document the evolution of meaning, then we're implicitly asserting a misguided belief that The Great Pumpkin of Objectivity will arise one day to settle everything for good, or that social history has no bearing on matters of inclusion, exclusion, or depiction.
I'll grant that a section devoted to material like this could become a breathless echo chamber, or a pointless compendium of daily news articles. The problem is, that omitting public discourse in its entirety is even more dangerous. There's room for common sense here. If the section gets out of hand, or becomes imbalanced, it can be pruned. If something doesn't turn out to matter later on, it can be excised. If history goes full-circle, later authors can feel free to dig through the archives and resurrect material previously deemed inconsequential. I believe we'll be chewing, regurgitating, and redigesting the set of "notable quotations" that apply to any controversial topic for years, somewhat like a herd of bovines processing cud. Yes, this hay will make us belch and more, but the alternative is malnourishment. Therefore, we might as well start chewing on the stuff now. JonDePlume ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I added two sentences to the Background section, both with sources, and both were removed almost immediately without comment. More Wikipedia censorship I see?
FYI, the sentences dealt with the educational background and temperment (as reported by a classmate) of Manning.
I am reverting the reverts. If you don't like the changes, lets talk.
I note the edit summary said this was outdated. Is there a citation to support that summary? Thanks, Ray Talk 18:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me, that he has been charged in the "Collateral Murder" video and in the diplomatic leaks; he is still a person of interest only w.r.t the Afghan war report leaks. Ray Talk 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, is is written below that he is homosexual. So why are you all reverting it without reason when if it is mention in the intro? -- 91.115.56.67 ( talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Army prosecutors and the Quantico brig. They don't have any hearing dates. I deleted the passage stating that Manning is awaiting an Article 32 hearing. If it can be sourced, it should be replaced, but I doubt any hearings have been scheduled because there's no prosecution team assigned yet. If they keep him in solitary like that, he'll be exculpated. Ginger Conspiracy ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article, relating to recent events, that do not belong there. Is the subject of his arrest, the alleged leaks, and resulting consequences supposed to be ignored until they are a year old so they qualify as having "a historical perspective?" William (Bill) Bean ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Welsh nationality. The sovereign State is the United Kingdom, the citizens of which are British. 'Welsh' is a cultural term, not a legal nationality, since Wales is not a sovereign State and therefore cannot confer (or revoke) legal nationality to anyone who resides there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.93.205 ( talk) 07:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Manning was characterized as being "desperate for acceptance" and suffering from "delusions of grandeur" in his social life,[11]
This is basically the opinion of the NY Times author. It's not a quote from anyone. The quote is given as if the military or a psychiatrist described him as so. It should be removed. If it's not removed, it should at least be noted that his (supposed) "friends" afterward said this (according to the author of the source, although it's not presented as a quote), not before the leaks it's not the opinion of either the military or a psychiatrist. The government tried to do this to Daniel Ellsberg too, to quote another Wikipedia article, "In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state in order to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg’s psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[18]"
In fact, that whole sentence reads like a hit piece. The next part of the sentence says, "and he complained about being ordered to fetch coffee in the workplace.[11]"
What he actually says though, if you open the source, is that his concerns were ignored by his superiors and when he really had something important, they blew him off and asked him to fetch coffee and sweep the floors. That's far different from 'he complained about menial labor' impression the quote as given on Wiki creates.
- Sam
Is there any information if he really is being held in solitary confinement, and if so, why? Toby Douglass ( talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Mm. The latest Guardian article [1] suggests that solitary confinement is, in Manning's case, a case of hyperbole. He is being held in confinement, and, like all prisoners, has a limited list of visitors. Ray Talk 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice it's been re-added to the article again. Our sources conflict on this, and fairly reliable non-opinion reporting has been given that Manning has had access to television news and contact with lawyers and a restricted list of friends, which is not at all solitary confinement. Discuss? Ray Talk 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the article right now: "...where he is under suicide watch" and a source is provided [28], but in a previous source [26], the opposite is stated. In Glenn Greenwald's column it is stated quite clearly "(he is not and never has been on suicide watch)". I tried to add something on the following lines: "where he is under suicide watch according to some sources but he is not according to others" but I am not very proficient with <refs>, got a bit lost and decided to quit. 81.39.217.234 ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Consider the following excerpt from the wikileaks chat transcripts:
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy... (1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind... i make no sense... the CPU is not made for this motherboard... (1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy (1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh< (1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out... to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone else's expectations (1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be (1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now... (1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged... and figure out how on earth im going to transition (1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its most intimate secrets are revealed (1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally and psychologically [...] (1:43:59 PM) bradass87: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)
[indentation reset]
On a somewhat technical note, if Manning is transgender then they are not "pre-transition". Transition refers to the whole process of adopting a gender; it doesn't refer to SRS or coming out, or any other particular instant of time. By either a narrow or broad definition of how much is included in this, the chat logs indicate that Manning is currently in the process of transition.
You ask, "if person A, for instance, is male-to-female transgendered, but, for personal, employment, or political reasons, Person A keeps this hidden, shouldn't Person A expect to be referred to by masculine pronouns?"
It depends. Since transgender people are very often "out" in some contexts and not others, the general answer to this question is that A should be able to expect that anyone who knows what A's preferred pronouns are, will use them in those contexts. Or if the pronouns are not known exactly but it is known that A is male-to-(unknown) transgender or gender-variant, then A should at least be able to expect that known-incorrect male pronouns will not be used.
The chat logs are now public information, even if Manning didn't intend them to be. There is no putting this information back in the bottle. Instead, we have to consider what is a respectful way to refer to Manning given what we know or have strong reason to believe. The issue isn't really whether Manning can "claim to be offended"; the issue is what the right thing is to do. Recall this quote from the logs:
"i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as [a] boy..."
In a recent edit, I changed the pronouns to singular they, which is an accurate and respectful way to refer to someone whose gender is not known precisely. (Anticipating a possible objection: please let's not get into an argument about the grammatical status of singular they. It is not perfect, but it is commonly used and well-understood.) I think that addresses your point about using "she".
BTW, I sincerely hope that Manning will be allowed to talk to the media at some point before their trial, if there is one. It would be an outrage if they were not allowed to do so, "national security concerns" notwithstanding. I also hope that they will be given access to HRT medication if they need it (but I fear that they won't). Suddenly losing access to such medication can put someone, especially someone in Manning's situation, at very great risk.
Manning's Facebook page indicates that they are publically supportive of transgender rights -- and hence, we can probably assume, of the practice of referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns. Even if it turned out that we were mistaken about using pronouns other than "he", then we wouldn't have been wrong to do so, we would just have made an honest mistake. If we simply default to "he", then we're not making an honest mistake; we're making a deliberate one. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ ( talk) 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a picture from Bradley Manning as a child in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iougDCH-wJ8 This should refute the rumour that he is transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRauk ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I am going to add the following information (in the future) to the Manning article.
"Manning is also a high school dropout. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333982/WikiLeaks-US-Army-soldier-Bradley-Manning-prime-suspect-leaks-case.html"
The information is well sourced, and educational background is considered important for the encyclopedia articles about most people. I won't add it right away because it looks like there is too much going on with this page at the moment (vandalism, reverts, etc.) but I will add it in a few days/weeks when that has calmed down.
If anyone has an objection, let me know.
The article as it stands shows his nationality solely as American. Being born to a British mother after 1983, I understand he would have automatically acquired British Citizenship at birth British_nationality_law#From_1983. Do we have any information about whether he ever renounced his British citizenship? MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the Greenwald/Salon article, Manning is a dual national and so might be eligible for consular protection. Under the
Master Nationality Rule now he is in the US he is not, but was the British Embassy in Iraq negligent before? Or is there an issue with detention by armed forces? Extraterritoriality say? Thanks
BrekekekexKoaxKoax (
talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he is a dual citizen, but he's the one who'd have to declare UK citizenship once he reached age 18. Is there WP:V to that effect? But even if he is a dualy, he's subject to the UCMJ. (See R.C.M. 202 in the Manual for Courts-Martial.) So, first he's got to say "I'm a British subject" and then the British Embassy can make their inquiries as they see fit. The MNR does not apply. -- S. Rich ( talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article has this , just this : "He had trouble fitting in at school in what former acquaintances have described as a troubled childhood" . Another article ( http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook )has this , which is not quite the same : "If something went wrong, he would speak up about it if he didn't agree with something. He would even have altercations with teachers if he thought something was not right." or again "He was opinionated but not forward on it. If he truly believed in something, he would give an opinion. That's probably because he was right in his opinion." .Shouldn't then the article add something like " ...others say Manning could not but speak up whenever he saw something that hurted his sense of justice" ? Another article departing from the only "troubled childhood picture" : http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ . And remember school is not always paradise ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I added today in the article : " Manning was described by others as speaking out whenever something hurted his sense of justice" which refered to http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook ( by the way ,I'll create a new section downhere about facebook ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you S. Rich for the translation . (I answered your note on my talk page about my commenting in French ). Eventually this source of information has been taken into account , since the article now has "Some described Manning as wanting to right "the injustices of the world.""( which is a bit different of what I retained since it pulls the interpretation to some folly of grandeur !!! Not being a native english reader ,I won't make a point of this . Better than nothing ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to create another new section , I would like to mention the testimonies of Manning's Aunt and Manning's father as they were reported in Wired 6 june . These testimonies are lacking in the article ; they concern more the (young)adulthood than the childhood . And I don't know how to insert them in the text . Aunt :"they had discussed his plans to enroll in college when his four-year stint in the Army was set to end in October 2011. She described him as smart and seemingly untroubled, with a natural talent for computers and a keen interest in global politics." Father :"“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been ondrugs, alcohol, nothing.”" see here [ OK it is his father ! But what if he had said he didn't want to see his son anymore...?]. Since some sort of psychological portrait has already been sketched wouldn't it be fair to add these testimonies ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a quotation from Julian Assange from the lede, and I gave the annotation "Rather prejudicial statement from a highly prejudiced party. Who represents only his own point of view."
As far as I'm aware Assange is not a player in this matter but he does stand to gain from focus on this prosecution. Otherwise I see no reason why his opinion would be cited (and indeed it doesn't seem to be cited elsewhere in the article.) -- TS 05:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
and on May 26, Manning was seized by Army authorities and put into pre-trial detention in Kuwait. (published June 10, 2010 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/) . On the charge sheet here http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html the date for the pre-trial confinement is 29 may . Shouldn't then the article put : "Bradley Manning was arrested on May 26 and then formally put in pre-trial confinement on may 29 " ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It is even more relevant that Manning is to be court-martialled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice whereby, as it currently stands, he may be detained indefinitely before trial, and when the trial does begin, the court panel members are selected by the convening authority, contrary to the principle of random jury selection that applies in civilian cases. (Please see also related discussion at bottom of page and supporting citations of US Code in main article (unless these have again been reverted, prior to reaching consensus; for which, see also cui bono principle)), BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
With ref to added/reverted section on court-martial process that ran as follows, but could be reworked as a paragraph:
Pre-Trial
Upper time limit on detention before trial
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice there is currently no upper time limit on detention before trial. [1]
[improvement would see reference to Article 32: 'no charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made.' No upper time limit is placed on the detention of the accused before trial.] BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Trial
Composition of the Court
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice members of the court-martial are selected from members of the armed forces by the convening authority. [2] This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases.
Charges
When convened, the court-martial is to hear the charges brought against Manning under Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [3] Article 92 concerns the violation of regulations and dereliction in the performance of duties. [4] Article 134 concerns violation of good order and discipline and conduct bringing discredit on the armed forces. [5]
Ok, the new content strikes me as having some problems - specifically one of original research. Most of it is sourced to US codes namely the one determining the charges brought against Manning and the legal processes under which he is currently being detained and will, at some point in the future, be tried, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) with no secondary sourcing establishing relationship, significance and details in the specific case of Manning. I understand that User:ErrantX has greater knowledge of secondary legal sources than I: perhaps he would like to adduce those that are of greatest relevance here, rather than spending his time reverting other users' attempts to improve this and related articles. I currently am a little short of time myself, not least since I keep being called on to justify such contentious edits as providing references to legal codes and external auditors' audit opinions, both of which are being reverted prior to discussion and arrival at consensus, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Wording such as This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases makes me think this is just original research based on the factual knowledge that Manning will be subject to court martial. I'd just like to remind BrekekekexKoaxKoax of the problems of WP:OR and suggest he/she finds secondary sources. By providing at the outset a link to the jury selection page I hoped to have obviated the possibility of such a claim, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Also; there is a serious overkill of section headers in the section, In part these are an invitation for other users with greater knowledge than I to start fleshing out a section of an article which, I imagine, will see greater attention in the coming months; as such, establishing a skeleton framework early on might seem advisable, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) so I would remove almost all of them and switch to a paragraph, per our MOS advice. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Now if Manning's counsel were to present a whistleblower protection defense as part of their defense strategy, then this material would apply. Two problems: 1. we have no WP:RS that says they are planning to do so. 2. In leaking 100,000-200,000+ documents, there is no way that he could say "I was legally blowing the whistle regarding the thousands of topics to which I only had tangential information." As far as the proposed admends to the law, they can be discussed in that article -- not here.-- S. Rich ( talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If you Google Ellsberg Manning xerox you can find plentiful secondary sources commenting on the parallels between the two whistleblowing cases and that it is just a function of technology that the scale is so increased, as Ellsberg himself has discussed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ellsberg, amongst others, also comments that the form of dissemination chosen helps make the information available to the public in a timely manner. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is synthesis, since the links are explicitly drawn by the secondary sources cited and since removed. Please refresh knowledge of WP:BLP before claiming it in defence of your deletions. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If there is any synthesis, this is by the sources cited; please take up issue with eg Washington Post. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Can more users please join in the discussion here, as currently there is no mention in the article of new measures to protect whistleblowers, on the grounds of 'consensus'. Explicit connections with Manning are numerous in the secondary literature (Google). This one for instance appears to make the connection: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the discipline and punish section 'Arrest, criminal charges, and possible court-martial' is of key relevance to Manning's freedom, but that is just one part of the reaction to his alleged whistleblowing (that of the embarrassed institution). Any takers for a further section on how other more diverse sectors of public opinion such as Berkeley City Council, Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, Facebook user groups etc are rallying around and saying, if Manning was indeed involved in what is alleged, then he is an 'unparalleled hero'? I understand that the basis for such calls is his alleged contribution to the anti-war movement as well as to transparency and accountability in government etc. Perhaps both sides could be included in a broader 'reaction to alleged disclosure' section, to keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how much of your rhetoric relates to Bradley Manning, but have heard it ventured that our brave servicemembers, to no fault of their own, have been involved in illegal wars. I imagine that the enemy is indeed 'dangerous' if so many of our servicemembers' lives, and so much public money, is being invested in their pursuit. I would be very interested to see specific references as to how exactly the data makes it difficult for military operations to be conducted - unless you mean politically and in the light of public opinion back home.
I understand from the Bradley Manning article that the classified material he is alleged to have disclosed in fact relates less directly to operational details. Other than for the Collateral Murder video, the disclosure in question is of diplomatic cables. I understand that these, e pluribus unum, reveal the US as using 'spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, under which the US emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation. I imagine Time is indeed needed to sort these issues out. I also wonder whether we may be acting as editors or censors. Again may I refer you to cui bono.
For an alternative position to that of the broader embarrassed institution you venture, may I refer you to that of the founder of the whisteblowing organisation also currently under its investigation, namely that authoritarian power is maintained by want of knowledge. I understand Machiavelli once argued similarly.
I fear however we may be being distracted. In this article we must adhere to what relates most directly to Bradley Manning. Indeed you have highlighted this to me in defence of your removal of sections of US legal code that highlight how Bradley Manning may be detained indefinitely before trial, inter alia. As such, I would again venture that presenting both sides of the reception of and reaction to Bradley Manning's alleged contributions to the anti-war movement, transparency and accountability in government etc might help keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
When I last looked, a Google search for 'Bradley Manning hero' documents some 1,020,000 results. I don't know whether this in itself counts as a secondary source, but it does indeed relate information originally presented elsewhere, the definition given within
secondary sources. At least it helps suggest that the idea of Bradley Manning as hero is seeing some public debate, and that as such some form of inclusion may not necessarily contravene WP:undue weight.
It does, however, make initial selection of the most appropriate secondary source to cite rather problematic. Nevertheless, for those proponents I mentioned previously:
- Berkeley City Council (noted to be politically liberal and sometimes an advocate for progressive ideals): http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/14/meola.bradley.manning/?hpt=Sbin
- Julian Assange (founder and editor of whistleblowing site WikiLeaks): http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-live-online-answers
- Daniel Ellsberg (former US military analyst and celebrated Pentagon Papers whistleblower, with parallels to own case):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081305820.html
For fuller interview with media comment and analysis see also video at http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers (plays after ad) 44:20 to end, 48:22 for 'hero'.
- Facebook, rallies etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11324925 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/bradley-manning-campaign-michael-moore
I understand that care is taken to clarify that Bradley Manning is a hero if he is shown to be the one responsible for the disclosure, a distinction made also by those calling for him to be imprisoned for 50+ years for the same services. I understand that this apparent uncertainty (and reluctance to take measures that may transpire to have been at least irresponsible and premature) does not affect his current indefinite detention before trial in conditions some commentators have likened to torture:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning
On topics previously under discussion, but seemingly now deemed closed with the related reverts already made:
- Bradley Manning & current provisions of UCMJ re court-martial process (self-selected court, no upper time limit for detention before trial): am currently struggling to find secondary sources, but will post asap. Somewhat bizarrely, even a legal update by Manning's own attorney fails to highlight these basic points: http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/BradleyManningLegalUpdate.htm
- Bradley Manning & protection for whistleblowers http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html (with reference to the argument above that Manning is not a 'real whistleblower' because of the scale of his alleged disclosure, Ellsberg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk (2:22 on) suggests this is a function of technology (he was Xeroxing)).
Out of interest, I stumbled upon this too (haven't had a chance to digest fully, but looks intriguing at the outset):
http://warisacrime.org/content/how-report-torture-bradley-manning-united-nations
Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Aye. Which is why all I am suggesting, rather than discussion of these extraneous topics, is inclusion of/incorporation within a section on broader reactions to Manning than solely that of the embarrassed institution. I hope I have provided sufficient documentation for the existence and prevalence of such alternative viewpoints. And my own viewpoints, which may or may not be as you have described, are irrelevant in this. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, why is my attempted contribution, after I have gone through lengthy discussion, providing many reliable sources, 'pending review', while those of other users wbo appear to have made considerably less effort to ensure the reaction section, amongst others, is kept NPOV are 'automatically accepted'? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I used to be, and seemingly am again, but thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The category is for "Articles and events specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics." Manning is the only individual listed. How was he as an individual specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics? Everything else in the category, including the subcategories, deals with the elections and election issues. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I see attempts to include WikiLeaks within the 'Political Scandals in the US' category have met with a similar reaction, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Political prisoners? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a pic of 'our Brad' with a smile omitted/excluded lest, like that of politicians with their families on election day, it might elicit sympathy and support? Anyone think one should be included? (See eg Sarah Palin for how persuasive these may be, with all those smiles, and how carefully curated is the public image of certain individuals.) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand the image is from http://www.bradleymanning.org/, which states 'All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated'. I believe there is no contrary indication. I also believe, if you refer to the about section of said website, that a number of high-profile legal representatives are involved, who presumably know what they are talking about. Until it is proven otherwise, I think we should prefer such a well-backed, public declaration that the image is in the public domain to Srich's own views on the matter. Once you are satisfied, please reinstate. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, on further reflection, it is a more powerful statement if he remains faceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
David Coombs ,Manning's attorney has issued some information that could be useful for this article ( provided that the bias is clearly exposed). If I searched this discussion page well , his site has never been cited yet . Never too late : http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/ and http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/article-13-and-pfc-bradley-manning.html Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Article 13 ref, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
To assess the legal and medical context of prolonged 23 hour/day solitary confinement, an authoritative source is required; otherwise, the significance of such isolation is left to the uninformed imagination. Consider these obvious questions:
It turns out that relevant and credible institutions have spoken on this topic:
By analogy, suppose this were an article about a person who'd been restricted to 100 mg of potassium per day for an extended period of time. Would this imply life-endangering dietary torture, or nothing at all? Most people would not know. Experts might have a range of opinions in borderline cases, but having in-context citations of one or more leading figures is clearly more helpful to the reader than just staring at a raw number.
By the same reasoning, in order to lend some understanding of the legal/medical implications of prolonged 23 hour/day isolation, some authority must be cited; I've cited the ICRC and APA because they seem both authoritative and influential. If you think others apply, please add them.
Note: the Wikipedia deletion policy encourages you to repair any imbalance you might perceive by enriching the article further, rather than removing well-documented and relevant content... particularly when the list of references already in place is short or non-existent. For this reason, I've undone the earlier reversion by Bbb23. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The salient point is that both Supermax and Manning's confinement involve:
These are the factors deemed by the APA to cause psychological harm; the number of officially designated supermax facilities in the United States, and/or the nastiness/violence of the people usually placed in them has nothing to do effects of extreme isolation itself. Because both Manning's imprisonment and supermax both contain all these elements, there's nothing "POV" about citing relevant medical opinion on the topic. To the contrary, the targeted removal of such material could quite easily be interpreted as a politically motivated censorship of expert testimony. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to an absence of objections within the media; there are many critical articles and prominent figures who have raised serious concerns. This is why the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy in Geneva has announced is reviewing a complaint filed on behalf of Manning. Apparently, he's taking this matter quite seriously, and is concerned enough about what he's heard to investigate. Search google with terms like "Amnesty International solitary confinement", or "solitary confinement effects" for relevant articles. There are plenty of examples. You may also be interested in an Associated Press article that appeared in the Washington Post: UN looking into WikiLeaks suspect's treatment. My point is that because there are a large number of prominent figures and organizations expressing the seriousness of long-term 23 hour/day solitary confinement, the APA's prior commentary on exactly this same level of prolonged isolation is indeed relevant. The ICRC judgment is too, as this also relates to the level and duration of prisoner isolation, not the reasons for it, or the national origins of those involved. JonDePlume ( talk) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
An important national and international question regarding Bradley Manning as a subject is: "does his treatment constitute torture?" The high-profile nature of this debate in connection to him as an individual is a noteworthy fact. Because of his actions, Manning is a precedent-setting historical figure; hence, the precedents surrounding his case are highly relevant to the article. For example, The Office of The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has been involved. Manfred Nowak is the UN's top investigator charged with assessing complaints on behalf of alleged victims of human rights violations. This immediately raises the question: "what is it about 23 hour/day solitary confinement for nearly seven months that could have triggered such an investigation?" For that reason, legal and medical background information relating to why the investigation is conducted becomes highly relevant in-context. The ICRC and the APA aren't Bradley Manning's friends. No mention was made of any particular opinion regarding Manning himself, pro or con. The references I've provided are not debating the finer points "right" or "wrong". They simply provide legal and medical context that explain the stated motivation behind why this top-level UN human rights rapporteur is conducting such an investigation. Manfred Nowak taking the allegations of potential human rights violations seriously precisely because of such medical opinions and legal precedents, so it's important to say what they actually are. If you personally believe only the political dimension of the investigation is relevant (not motivating medical or legal findings), we'll need to respectfully disagree. That said, it seems obvious Wikipedia's deletion policy should be our guide, and it is clear enough to make the case for inclusion stronger than removal here. JonDePlume ( talk) 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I respect your intentions as far as helping to prevent this article from devolving into factional shouting match. I ask you to respect my intention that this article does not become a disjointed collection of seemingly unrelated events. Keeping the article clear of political commentary is one thing, but actively deleting the legal and medical context of the UN investigation quite another, particularly when the parties involved play a key role in guiding the General Assembly. Human rights investigations typically begin by a complaint lodged by either the alleged victim, or an advocate. There is nothing odd about that. Speculation about what thresholds are in place at the UN is tangential. Whatever the UN standards might be, they were satisfied. In summary:
Now, let's suppose for a moment that the claims made did not amount to torture an anybody's opinion at the UN. In that case, there would be no point in having someone investigate torture at all, because nothing associated with it in anybody's view would have been alleged. Therefore, the opinions of at least some sufficiently motivating constituency does view the allegations as possibly amounting to torture, and would be taken seriously at the UN if true. That said:
Some information must be provided that connects the allegations made with the assignment of top UN expert on torture, Manfred Nowak. This isn't equivalent to a debate on the stance of the APA or ICRC regarding the definition of torture. Only brief, relevant legal/medical precedence were cited (not argument or testimony) in a short connecting paragraph. Each reference pertains to what it is about the allegations, in the opinion of those who shape the policy of the UN on these matters, might constitute a violation worthy of dispatching a special rapporteur. Nothing more, nothing less. JonDePlume ( talk) 20:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Trente7cinq, the topic of this thread is whether or not it's proper to add contextual information regarding whether extended 23 hour/day solitary could be considered as torture by the UN; it's not a general discussion of what level of punishment is legal or proper according to US law. Nevertheless, the link was interesting.... Happy holidays! JonDePlume ( talk) 19:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is said to have expressed support for Manning :would someone find a serious reference for that ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you've reverted again. I really wish you'd wait for others to discuss this before deciding on your own that the rationale previously used for a section applies to a completely different section. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but, at least procedurally, your latest reversion in particular is inappropriate.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a quotation, reference to rallies, and suggestions that the US official position (solitary confinement without trial) is not necessarily the only possible one. The sources for this, namely CNN, The Guardian, and video footage (on Democracy Now) are presumably sufficiently reliable. Reinstatement time methinks, 94.172.30.185 ( talk) 01:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I just boldly removed the "U.S. Government" subsection of the Reaction section from the article (moving one sentence related to Manning to the Arrest & Trial section). None of that had anything to do with Manning. The reference being used mentions Manning exactly once, and only in an attempt to confirm that the hard drives (in the investigation being briefed about) had belonged to Manning--which, in fact, the U.S. spokesperson didn't verify. That whole section appears to be synthesis, in that it was information unrelated to Manning, added here to advance a point. That info could certainly go into another article (like Afghan war diaries), but I don't think it belongs here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually in favor of removing the reaction section, as it currently exists, altogether. First of all, any reactions are a subset of reactions to the broader Wikileaks mess, and would fit better there. Secondly, as people have pointed out, the US government reaction portion is necessarily synthesis until and unless the government definitively identifies Manning as the source for the leaks in question. Thirdly, we really give undue weight to particular random commentators at the expense of others (Greenwald and Ellsberg?), violating both WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX. This is a biography - let's leave the discussion of the political commentary to a page on the events themselves? Ray Talk 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In Acquisition and disclosure of classified material nothing is said about the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System ? see : "Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ ( by the way shouldn't it be mentionned that Wired was the first to issue the information ....and Kevin Poulsen the journalist ? ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I eventually added today "He was also said to have had access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System " referencing to "Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter (2010 6 6)U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe"
Perhaps it could be usefull to introduce a short footnote explaining why it was apparently so easy to access to such ressources .For example ,this BBC articlehas :""After the events of 11 September 2001, agencies across the federal government understood that greater information sharing was vital to protecting our national security interests. " whereas "He told the BBC that the possibility that someone in a base in Iraq could potentially access cables about Iceland violated, the principle of "need to know" in intelligence." Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich , Indeed one could wonder how the recruitment is done ( an exception !?). Some valuable infos on how Manning is supposed to have proceeded here : http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/wikileaks-one-analyst-so-many-documents/67181/ ; for example :"To transfer information from the SIPRNet to unclassified networks, analysts like Manning use proprietary computers called SNAP. About 1,500 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to TeleCommunications Systems, the company that builds them. SNAP, which stands for SIPR-NIPR Access Point, "allows you to bring stuff from the low side to the high side and vice versa, securely," one current user of the program said." Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the article , it is written Former United Nations Special Rapporteur[30] Manfred Nowak is looking into allegations... . Why "former" ? :the Whashington Post used as a reference just has : "The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture in Geneva" . Effectively ,here ( http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/torture/rapporteur/ )Nowak's mandate came to an end 31 October 2010 ( Juan Méndez holds the post now). It is two months from now !?? Other sources do have Juan Mendez as the man in charge with this Inquiry , whereas according to this quite official site ( http://www.military.com/news/article/un-denies-manning-brig-investigation.html ) :A spokeswoman for the U.N.’s Human Rights office in Geneva said the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, currently held awaiting court-martial in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.“Information has been received [about Manning] but we can’t talk about what it is and the methodology” of getting it, Sonya Cronin said....Cronin said in a telephone interview today that Mendez “has not even been officially advised of this case yet.”. Perhaps it should be wise to write something like :" Although some renowned newspapers have announced a UN inquiry ,the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning" Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich ,information has to be checked indeed ,and sometimes renowned or otherwise trustworthy newspapers can make errors . I agree with you on that point .But I should add that ...I could not find the sources of military.com either ! I browsed on sonya/sonia Cronin without finding anything ( sorry I don't have her telephone number !). Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I am frustrated by the lack of stablility of this article. Even taking into account that Manning is a highly controversial figure and therefore bound to engender all sorts of conflicting responses by Wikipedia editors, the article is a moving target, leaving me reluctant to edit it in any significant way because who knows who will do what next. For example, V7-sport strongly believed that the entire Reaction section (which is now back to the truly awful subsection header "Calls for recognition as hero") was a BLP violation and that he could remove it without discussion. I discussed this issue with V7, but no one else joined in. Now, someone reverted V7 (I haven't bothered to figure out by whom) and, not only put back the removed material but also restored it to an earlier version before I reorganized the article and S. Rich reorganized it still further. Of course, V7 may still come back and revert again as I can't tell if V7 has been on Wikipedia since the latest reversion of his reversion of my reversion - well, you get the idea.
And that's just one example of the constantly shifting sands in this article. Overall, there needs to be more discussion and fewer changes without consensus, unless we're talking about small changes or obvious errors.
As for the present state of the article, here are my thoughts:
Agreed, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User:V7-sport, this appears to be another misquotation and incorrect citation of WP policies. User:AlamedaReader has pointed out the reasons why particularly well-informed commentators' views may be notable and relevant, and I don't think there is any suggestion of his getting up on a soap box and propounding his own views, nor is he making any assertion as to the function of an encyclopaedia. He seems to be suggesting that relevant material FOR and AGAINST be included. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User:V7-sport: I am concerned you are unilaterally reverting other users' edits without prior discussion or reference to the discussion page, and indeed are supporting your contentious edits with seemingly bogus references to WP policies (BLP, original research, soap etc). By removing the sections on motivation, well-referenced, and reaction by anyone other than the, obviously somewhat embarrassed, US military I think the most apposite WP policy to cite is that of NPOV. Please refer to and engage in the discussion. And how exactly do BLP, original research, and soap support your edits? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments you made subsequent to my query here. But, Ellsberg's words, for instance, were referenced to a video showing Ellsberg delivering Ellsberg's cited words. Don't see how that is unsourced, or poorly-sourced, or indeed in violation of BLP. References to BBC website, Guardian website, CNN about rallies, calls for support by influential commentators, all similarly deleted. Don't quite get how these are unsourced, poorly-sourced, or in violation of BLP. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning.
I also don't see anything on the matter by Chomsky about screwing the USA. I think Chomsky has said, re the cables Manning is alleged to have disclosed, 'Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service.' ( http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm) I think this is very, very different from your suggestion. Chomsky is presumably referring to accountability, transparency etc, which have been a fundamental feature of progressive democracies since at least fifth-century BC Athens with its concept and institution of ευθυναι. I think this is why, at least in some circles that are pro-democracy, Manning is getting calls for support. And I think this might need to be included in the article, as we have Manning's alleged motivation, we have calls for support by those who have already helped bring one war to an end (Vietnam) by exposing the scale of government lies (see Pentagon Papers), we have reliable sources, we have due weight. We need to adduce the right material, otherwise we are guilty of synthesis, but this I believe has already been done (yet, I see, reverted). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No, Srich, I think User:AlamedaReader has just suggested that those who speak FOR and AGAINST should be noted. Where these have already been researched, let's include them. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Writing from France ,where articles in French on Manning are very scarce ( but very numerous on Assange/Wikileaks ), I would be of opinion to report FOR/AGAINST arguments so that non native english speaker could have a quick overview of the case and the debates it induces ( by the way, about "And it is definitely not the job of an encyclopedia to job to "change the outcome of an individuals situation"" OK about the change but : is the Manning Case just "an individual situation" ? ...) .I am conscious that this could impair the stability of the article : couldn't special editing measures be taken concerning the "Calls for recognition as hero" section ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Before (800 words); after (2,015 words).
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After some discussion no reliable sources have yet been found asserting Manning's dual citizenship. Please avoid needling other editors in discussion. -- TS 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I keep seeing IPs adding that he has dual U.S./UK citizenship. Some of the sources do say this (e.g. Salon), but they seem to be basing it entirely on the fact that his mother is Welsh, which doesn't mean he's a British citizen. He lived there for three years as a teenager, and we can't automatically assume that he applied for citizenship during that period. Are there any reliable sources who go into this in detail, or who say they obtained confirmation of dual citizenship? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
-- 178.32.73.111 ( talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Since this point is obviously of interest , I dared add a footnote - as I had previously suggested- which reads "Because his mother is British it has been assumed that Manning has a dual citizenship ( and could thus possibly benefit from British support if any ), which so far is more a speculation than a proven fact ".... waiting for confirmation/denial while expressing a question that obviously is raising some interest .Hoping this is Wikicompatible ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Trente, please don't add sources using embedded links, like this: "In Hacker turns in soldier in Iraq airstrike video leak Cnet reported Lamo saying :"My plan initially was not to see him arrested. I and the FBI wanted to continue feeding him disinformation," ..." See WP:CITE#Embedded links. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The legislation dies without passage (23 Dec 2010) http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1210/122310rb1.htm. (In any event, only the media made any connection between Manning & the WBPA. In my quick reading, the act would have applied to federal employees, not servicemembers.) With this in mind, I've deleted the mention of the bill. Any further mention for 2011 would be WP:CRYSTAL.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this tacit agreement with some kind of inclusion? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the lawyer's website, we should rely on secondary sources, not primary, self-published ones, with rare exceptions. For the policies, see WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:PSTS. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a 'personal' website? Isn't this the professional website of a professional lawyer? Is it being discredited because he's not top of the FTSE 100 or equivalent? And is it primary or secondary for the legal code in question under point raised above? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 09:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you Google 'Manning dismiss speedy trial' you currently get 49,000+ results. I'm clearly struggling here to distinguish adequately between primary and secondary sources so please, on this occasion, could you have a quick look yourself, find one that you agree counts as a secondary source, and either post and agree on the talk page that the requisite secondary sources have now been found, or update the article/revert your revert yourself? Sorry to be dumb, but thanks a lot, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The military is investigating Martin under some of the same Espionage Act statutes as those being used to investigate Pfc. Bradley E. Manning,(bold mines) cf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607109.html?wprss=rss_nation/nationalsecurity ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The government interprets the Espionage Act to grant wide discretion in prosecuting leaks of classified information. Whether or not it is fair and appropriate to prosecute Pfc. Manning for choosing to violate his duty as a government employee to protect properly classified information is an open question that ultimately rests on whether one thinks the public good in exposing the information outweighs the potential harm to national security and the violation of the rights of innocent third parties. As more facts regarding the matter are made public as the prosecution proceeds, this debate will continue. cf openthegovernment.org Trente7cinq ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich , you wrote :The article you mention does not confirm that Manning is charged under the EA, .Would you reconsider your position after reading :Manning has been charged with downloading the classified Iraq video and transmitting it to a third party, in violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), a section of the act that involves passing classified information to an uncleared party, but not a foreign government.? cf http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/army-espionage-rulebook/ Trente7cinq ( talk) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article should pay more attention to Wired . 1/ It is Wired which made the arrest Public ( in their first article dated June 6, 2010 ( it was a sunday)- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ - they even reported that the authorities had not made any public statement yet !).At the bottom of that page, an uptdate was added which read : Update: The Defense Department issued a statement Monday morning confirming Manning’s arrest and his detention in Kuwait for allegedly leaking classified information. . I understand that monday was the 7th of June . Would be utmost important to have a link to this statement ( see : http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/army_intel_analyst_arrested_in.html )
2/ about the famous chatlogs posted by Wired : nowhere in the article is it possible to know that they posted just excerpts of it "Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. But the sections in which Private Manning is said to detail contacts with Mr. Assange are not among them. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html) Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"The Pentagon suspects that Manning may have accomplices within the military." wrote Robert Winnett on Jul 29 2010 here. Even if this supposition seems to have been dropped (?), it should be recalled , shouldn't it ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
here the accomplices are not from the military anymore "Officials tell The Daily Beast they suspect the possible civilian accomplices in the U.S. and elsewhere may have helped direct Manning to Julian Assange," ; Lamo himself had In an interview with The Daily Beast last weekend, Lamo said that he did not believe Manning, an intelligence specialist, had the sort of technical background in computers that would allow him to gather all of the information that he is believed to have turned over to Assange. Lamo has said that he is certain that Manning was the source of the more than 90,000 classified military reports from the war in Afghanistan . Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
A reference added by Victor Falk has been reverted by Slim Virgin . My point here is not to discuss these decisions but to mention that the document ( or another one ,but this one is at hand) may perhaps still be used . ""It should not have been physically possible for an individual private to download records at will from a classified network onto transportable media," says Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "That was asking for trouble."" . Although this doesn't speak of accomplices it questions the feasibility of such an action , two points tightly related which are not that developped in the article .( cf SNAP in this page too ). [ the reference proposed by Victor Falk lead me to [6], [7], [8] which may be of use too ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
1/ it is written "He has been held in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, since May 2010" which is not correct :"first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait "( as written in the article itself) he was moved later in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico ( remembering having read 29 of june/july )... 2/ could we avoid the quasi-reiteration "...who was charged in July 2010 with the unauthorized disclosure of U.S. classified information." and "On July 5, Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for transferring classified data onto his personal computer and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source between November 19, 2009 and May 27, 2010" ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
(copied from SV talk)
SlimVirgin, you reverted "On the 28th of July Manning had still not entered a plea to charges of illegally transferring classified data " argumenting "can't see the point of adding this" . The point would be to reconstruct the chronology of the case , here from a legal point of view . The information I added was just a step . Thus It could be also usefull to add that , almost till the end of July " the official said Manning has invoked the Fifth Amendment and is refusing to answer questions from investigators." Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Just deposing facts concerning chronology/legal matters( cf " It would be good to know whether that's still the case before adding anything" ): Capt. Paul Bouchard was at a time manning's attorney cf http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/31/wikileaks.manning/index.html ; Maj. Thomas F. Hurley was another one cf http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html To be continued Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oups :The document referenced for Dadid Coombs nomination already mentionned "Beside Coombs... Manning has been assigned three military lawyers" ( their number/names in footnote ?) Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
Following on legal matters owing to boingboing.net:"According to the UCMJ, if there is pretrial confinement, “immediate steps shall be taken” to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges. Article 10, UCMJ. “We have consistently noted that Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment [and Rules for Courts-Martial 707].” United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308, 312 (C.A.A.F. 2010). RCM 707 says they have 120 days to charge him or dismiss him from pretrial confinement. That time has passed. How are they holding him without charge?
http://court-martial.com/ucmj-pretrial-restraint/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1523645.html"
And happy new year to all of you Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) "How are they holding him without charge?" [but Manning has been charged !] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Wired - 6 june - reported that Manning was held on protective custody . Consequently I added today "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait [15] where he was on protective custody " . This has been reverted into "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait". I don't understand why . Has this information/protective custody since been prooven false ? If not , let's revert all what Wired said about Lamo ...? [ In this discussion page "suicide watch" was tackled , but not "protective custody" ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
A "see also " section was created ...and rapidly reverted . What about : Espionage Act of 1917 , Freedom of the press in the United States , Mordechai Vanunu... Trente7cinq ( talk) 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Many of those links sound highly relevant to wider issue for which Manning, as much as is alleged, / WikiLeaks etc are notable - accountability / transparency (social) / whistleblowing might be good too. At least no one has suggested political prisoners yet! BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the consensus that some of these be reinstated? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the WP policy on these? Guess the rationale isn't to implant associations (whistleblowing/accountability/transparency/political prisoner) vs (treason/espionage). How do we decide? And presumably aren't some of the above, rather than 'remotely' connected, pretty much joined at the hip? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Tacit agreement? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wired published the first chat logs on June 10, 2010. In the article, they indicate that these represent roughly 25% of the logs they received from Adrian Lamo of his chats with Bradley Manning. Later, Wired’s Kevin Poulsen told Glenn Greenwald of Salon that the logs were complete with the exception of “Manning discussing personal matters that aren’t clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I’m not throwing up without vetting first.” Lamo also provided Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post with a complete version of the logs, which were also excerpted on June 10. And on June 19, BoingBoing published what was purported to be a more complete version of one section of the log. The three versions have been merged in the text below: http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
see here the boingboing version
Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs from Greenwald
Jane Hamsher -Tuesday December 28, 2010- commented in this article : The Unlikely Story of Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning, Wired Magazine and the Federal Government Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Wired answered December 28, 2010 Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I edited :In a series of chats whose excerpts were first published by Wired on June 10,2010 he told Lamo over a period of a week what he had done. a footnote was added :"In the issue of June 10,2010 Wired indicated that they published only 25% of the chatlogs they received from Adrian Lamo ( removing personal matters as well as sensitive information ). On that same day,Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post ,provided with a complete version of the logs too , decided to publish a slightly different version ;on June 19, BoingBoing published a slightly more complete version of one section of the log cf
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/" . All this has been reverted by SlimVirgin (23:15, 6 January 2011 ) on these grounds :removed confusing unsourced material . I dare say that I am begining to get confused by your reverting actions ! Unsourced you wrote ? That is not correct . I referenced
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/ ...which contained the urls or the different chatlogs ( so if you thought firedoglake was not appropriate, you could have amended my edit instead of reverting it ). Confusing ? Do you think it is not confusing not to mention the different versions ? Again : I put it in footnote in order not to confuse the quick reader . But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not ? Since you are prompt to raise the issue of evaluating the sources , wouldn't you help mention these different versions instead of reverting straightahead my attempts to do so ? Thank you for your answer .
Trente7cinq (
talk) 08:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-bradley-manning-julian-assange BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we add a link to http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/06/bradley.manning.fbook.jpg ? [ when was his Facebook page closed ?] Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article of Denver Nicks - which serves as reference - one can read about Brian :working with the high tech naval systems of the day. He studied computer science in California, and went to work for Hertz Rent-a-Car as an Information Technology manager; The article just has : "His father had been in the United States Navy for five years ...his father worked as an IT manager for Hertz ". Brian's capacities and experiences in high tech should be more highlighted ...all the more as editors have stressed on the conflict between father and son .( not everyone knows what an IT manager is !) [ I had also mentionned brian's testimony about his son cf Wired 6 june , which should appear in the article ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I had edited , in footnote "Tanja Linton a spokeswoman for Fort Huachuca said that inappropriate deeds were not that exceptional among young recruits ,who , after having been "corrected", may later" do great things for the Army and the country"cf Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter WikiLeaks Suspect’s YouTube Videos Raised ‘Red Flag’ in 2008 ,Wired ,July 29, 2010" which has been reverted by SlimVirgin with the short comment "not clear what this means" . Just refer to the article of Wired : it is not that exceptional for young recruits of fort Huachuca to do inappropriate things ; it is not because you have done such things there that you will be a traitor afterwards . My intention - to make it clear - is not to diminish the facts ( that have not come to trial yet !!)but to prevent the reader to step to quick conclusions .It appears to me that this is real neutrality .If my edit is not clear, wouldn't you try to rewrite it in good english instead of reverting it ? Thank-you . Let me recall his father's words "“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been on drugs, alcohol, nothing.” OK these are the words of a father after his son has been arrested . But doesn't the article cite friends ? Should the article cite only enemies ? ....Or people who don't know him at all ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Similarly Mathew Tully, founding partner with the Washington law firm of Tully Rinckey and an expert on military law, said ... "As for the fighting: where youth, stress and alcohol may be involved, "it is not uncommon for altercations to occur."see : http://www.tullylegal.com/pdf_2010/Tully_WikiLeaks_CNN_080210_TR.pdf ;on Tully : http://tullylegal.com/attorneys/mtully.html Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"A group has been formed, Courage to Resist, to raise money for the legal costs, but it said on December 8 that Wikileaks had so far not made a contribution."
The group formed specifically around Bradley Manning's case is called the Bradley Manning Support Network. Courage to Resist is our organizational partner for fundraising and some other matters. Not editing since I'm involved. 89.173.83.101 ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hijack point, but if you are from Manning Network, with ref to discussion above on dual nationality, do you have any info on this? Does Manning have a British (?Welsh?) passport?
Will have a look at your point too... Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, have attempted clarification. Also, has the WikiLeaks cash arrived yet - i.e. is the next point in the article now out of date? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the statement about wikileaks cash , as according to BMSN,the case has arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 ( talk) 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This article carries various statements critical of Manning's conditions of imprisonment. A US army spokesman, in an interview with The New York Times, has provided a different explanation of these terms of imprisonment. Where different points of view exist, Wikipedia expects its articles to provide a balanced account, and so I have added a summary of the army spokeman's statements to The Times. Nandt1 ( talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
'Accusations' is a 'weasel word'. Reports of the conditions of his detention have resulted in the UN submitting a formal inquiry to the United States Department of State. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) "Accusations" is, in the present case, a direct quotation.
(2) Whatever the UN may or may not have have done is not really the issue here. The issue is that you have reinstated statements which, as already pointed out above, are misquotations and misrepresentations of the statements actually made in the New York Times article. Please, before you do this again (and again), would you kindly read the article and try to avoid misquoting/misrepresenting it again. Nandt1 ( talk) 04:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Nandt1's attempt to 'seek balance': New section: According to a report carried by The New York Times, the military rejects accusations that Private Manning has been mistreated. Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, told The Times that conditions of confinement were dictated by brig rules. According to Col. Johnson, Manning has been designated for “maximum custody” — because his escape would pose a national security risk — and placed on “prevention-of-injury watch.” Johnson denied that Private Manning was in solitary confinement, saying that he could talk with guards and with prisoners in nearby cells, though he could not see them. Manning leaves his cell for a daily hour of exercise, and for showers, phone calls, meetings with his lawyer and weekend visits by friends and relatives, the colonel continued. Manning can read and watch television and correspond with people on an approved list. “Pfc. Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” said an internal military review which was read to a Times reporter by Col. Johnson. “His treatment is firm, fair and respectful.”
Lede: He is being held in what military spokesman Col. T.V. Johnson has described as "maximum custody" (distinguishing this from "solitary confinement" in that Manning can speak to guards and to prisoners in other cells)
My attempt to seek balance: Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, dismissed reports that Manning has been mistreated, and consequent UN formal inquiries, as 'Poppycock', explaining that Manning's conditions were the same as those of all in the brig.
I would invite other users to assess which is more balanced and attentive to WP:Due weight. Perhaps conditions can be corrected to treatment if you would like. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would indeed be happy to have others actually read the NYT article and see which version is a more accurate representation of what is there. (A) Certainly, Col. Johnson says nothing whatsoever about the UN. (B) Certainly, too, he is not talking about Manning's conditions of imprisonment -- the remark about treatment is quite clearly referring to the claim that this is "firm , fair and respectful". So these are both misrepresentations. Beyond this, BrekekekexKoaxKoax's edits have repeatedly just deleted specific statements made by the military in the NYT about Manning's terms of imprisonment and what he is allowed to do. Whatever our views about the rights and wrongs of this case, we have as editors a responsibility to reflect the contents of our sources accurately. I have never tried to rewrite the various complaints made by Manning's supporters about his imprisonment. It would be very welcome if, in return, BrekekekexKoaxKoax would reciprocate by affording the US army the same right to speak for themselves, instead of insisting on repeatedly caricaturing their statements. Nandt1 ( talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, please, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, could you stop trying to "spin" the New York Times story about Manning. Your latest effort was to insert into the account a statement, not found in the original source, that Col. Johnson's statement on Mannings terms of imprisonment applies "as of 13 January 2011" in a way that implies that his conditions might suddenly have been changed. There is no basis whatsover for any such imputation in the original source. Please just let the story speak for itself. Nandt1 ( talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
On another front, it turns out that the quote which had reported the New Statesman as describing Manning as pre-eminent among political prisoners actually came from a New Statesman interview with Julian Assange! I originally thought to keep the quote while clarifying its actual status within the article, but then I saw that Assange's views are in fact discussed fairly fully later on in the article, so have just dropped the New Statesman reference as being essentially repetitive of Assange's opinions on Manning. Nandt1 ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
'POV WARRIOR' :) BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. To elaborate, may I inquire (1) whether one David House is afforded due weight; (2) why supporting citations for BNSN & CTR have been replaced with tags; (3) whether evident blasphemy of WikiLeaks re payment is misplaced in an article about Manning; (4) why you don't simply google dead links to update rather than lazily tag them (re UN torture proof), if your primary concern is indeed the quality of Wikipedia; (5) whether your removal of clear documentation of 'world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience' by the international press, including NYT and NS, is not somewhat questionable. Pourriez vous m'expliquer/revert as 'disruptive edits'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To respond to the substantive questions above which relate to my own edits: Question (1) I am not sure I understand the question, but Mr. House's testimony on Manning's health (which is the only testimony on this point that is actually reported in the source that was cited) is now reported in the present Wikipedia article in precisely the same terms originally used to describe (undefined) friends and supporters; Question (5) As already explained on this page just above here, the NS quote on "prisoner of conscience" turned out not to represent an editorial viewpoint of the NS itself but a report of an interview with Julian Assange (while the NYT quote on this point was in turn a quotation of the same NS interview). Nandt1 ( talk) 05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me make a somewhat broader point. We need to be rather careful to avoid the article automatically make the connection that if (a) Manning is having mental health problems, then it must necessarily follow that (b) Manning is being "mistreated". These are two separate issues.
There are several pieces of evidence in the article which suggest that Manning might well be suffering from depression. The army testimony is that he is on a "prevention of injury" watch, including frequent monitoring. If we assume that the Greewald article is accurate as to his physical conditions of imprisonment, this concern could also explain why he is not, for example, allowed sheets (danger of hanging) and why he is being given anti-depressants (although I note that Greewald states he is not officially on a suicide watch). A prisoner's depression is not, however, per se evidence of "mistreatment". Here we have a 23 year old, with -- it would appear -- some personality issues even prior to the leaks (assaulting a fellow serviceman, etc.), who now has ample time to reflect on his earlier (possibly not very carefully thought-through) actions in leaking his country's secrets. Whether he is having second thoughts about the ethics of his actions, or just facing up to the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, who wouldn't be depressed in his shoes? But unless one assumes (as some of his supporters sincerely do assume) that the alternative is to allow one who has leaked national secrets to walk free, it is not self-evident that any mental health issues are per se evidence of "mistreatment". Nandt1 ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with User:Nandt1. After all, all those Nazis were simply 'following orders'. I believe there is good historic precedent for the elimination of 'whistleblowers'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment is gratuitous. I dare say it infringes any number of Wikipedia policies. More to the point, it sullies efforts at civil discourse on issues which we both take seriously but happen to disagree about. Nandt1 ( talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You entirely misunderstand. I am simply citing a WP:RS. Please see John Pilger article, which makes the connection in no uncertain terms: http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2011/01/14/the-war-on-wikileaks/ In particular, with reference to young Pfc Bradley Manning and the apparently shocking treatment he is receiving in some quarters, including the complete disregard of habeas corpus, instead of the universal gratitude for his bravery in disclosing abuse on a massive scale that he deserves, 'At 23, Private Manning is the world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, having remained true to the Nuremberg Principle that every soldier has the right to "a moral choice." His suffering mocks the notion of the land of the free.' This is the section of the NYT/NS/Article that User:Nandt1, in his assiduity, attributed to Assange and equated with 'political prisoner'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ( WP:NOT#FORUM) make it clear that the sort of comments above are "unacceptable" ( WP:TALKNO). The editor has an agenda which s/he pushes persistently and openly. Neither this page nor the content page have benefited much from these edits and POV comments. I wish the comments would stop. -- S. Rich ( talk) 23:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Like Manning, allegedly (but the doubt does not mean he has not spent many months in detention, without trial, in conditions the UN torture rapporteurs are investigating) I believe all things should be done 'openly'. I wonder whether cries of 'POV' may sometimes be the equivalent of citing 'national security' or 'costs lives', for the credibility of which see United States Department of Homeland Security inter alia, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The concern is not one of suppressing any discussion of topics, but of where topics are best discussed. Wikipedia has a policy to keep POVs out of articles and out of the pages which discuss the articles. If you do not like this policy, you should take your discussions to other forums. Wikipedia is not your encyclopedia, and you are not the WP:OWNER of any article with freedom to flout the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Stop trying to WP:RGW -- such actions WP:DISRUPT the improvement of Wikipedia. There is no problem for anyone to find forums in order to "openly" discuss the topic. Again, please find another forum for your POV. -- S. Rich ( talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Your comment shows you are ignoring the information in the Manning article. The UN SR's are not investigating the confinement conditions. One's term of office expired (and his office said they had received no requests to look into the matter). The other simply sent a letter to the US DoS. Indeed, the UNSRs have no authority to investigate the US government. -- S. Rich ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sadly not. The US Government does indeed appear accountable to no one, though perhaps it will be to history; certainly not their citizenry (see expenditure sections in United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Homeland Security etc), not their allies, not even the United Nations. Previously on this page you questioned whether these wars were illegal, citing something called 'Congress'. I don't know what that is, but I think it shows a limitation on one's point of view to even think of some kind of, I imagine, parochial clique, or to say the UN has no authority vis a vis some cabal. I was thinking more of the ius belli (or, at a squeeze, the United Nations), but I guess if one's perspective is limited by one's government's suppression of information then one might be excused for this. Shall we drop it and get on with Manning? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor had added to John Pilger's statement that "every soldier has the right to "a moral choice"" the additional words "when given orders". But Pilger himself was too careful in his writing to make this latter statement, and I have deleted it. Not to be legalistic about this but just precise, it is not clear from anything that is said in our article (or that I have read elsewhere) that even Manning himself claims to have received any of the "illegal" orders that are the specific focus of the Nurenburg principles. I recognize the likely retort that if one is (implicitly or explicitly) ordered not to divulge restricted information, and this information includes evidence of a crime (as with the video), the Nurenburg principle could be said to apply, but it is not clear how this would cover vacuuming up vast quantities of restricted material and leaking it willy nilly. While the piece by Paul Craig Roberts raises similar logical problems, it is at least quoted accurately, and I have left it in place. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
With reference to Nuremberg (in English I understand typically sic - see etymology for elucidation), I understand that it was a most historic city, centre of the German Renaissance, before being indiscriminately obliterated by the RAF and USAF. Apparently there was a ' cathedral of light' - interesting parallels with other professed beacons perhaps. I understand that Nuremberg was also incidentally the site of what, to date, has been the most publicized international investigation of war crimes. Thank you for highlighting this: I shall make the appropriate changes. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's get back on track: e.g., what is WP:REL to the article as it serves the reader? The discussion on Nuremberg is a side-track. Soldiers make moral choices every day -- from signing up because they might need a job, to the decision to pull the trigger and kill another human being. What General Pace said was that when there are clearly immoral or illegal orders given, soldiers have the obligation to disobey those specific orders and report such orders up the chain of command. But was Manning given any such orders? No. Rather, he was ordered to follow the rules regarding the security of classified information. Were those orders illegal or immoral? This is a more difficult question, indeed. Regardless of the difficulty, what Manning is alleged to have done was take information he had about what he thought were war crimes from some time back and not report them through the chain of command, but reveal information about the specific illegal (or legal) events to the media (via Wikileaks). Moreover, he is alleged to have released even more information not related to war crimes. And this has upset a lot of people because these revelations have made their jobs a lot harder and more dangerous. So, was Manning properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the war crimes info? Arguably, yes. But was he properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the non-war crime information in contravention to the orders he had received? Arguably, no. With these two points in mind, our editing becomes problematic when we seek to promote one argument over the other. That is, we have one group of editors who say "Manning is right because he revealed such-and-such bad things about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan (and it does not matter if he also revealed info about non-bad things}." Other editors are saying "Manning is wrong because he revealed a lot of non-bad things (the non-war crime info) -- along with a few bad things." One side wants to say "The Nuremberg Principle applies" and the other says "No way." The result is that the article suffers because of each editor pushing the short-term, near horizon POV instead of taking an encyclopedic view of editing. Bottom line -- this stuff about Nuremberg, etc., can wait till later. Let Manning's lawyer bring it up if he likes. Let historians figure it out. Let opinion writers write their opinions in their Op-Ed pieces. But let Wikipedia be an encyclopedia and not a forum.-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that a previous user thought fit to delete an indicator of Manning's preferred reading. I would contend that one's preferred reading fodder is indicative of one's interests and character, and since the connection has also been made in a 'WP:RS', presumably this might be retained. Here's the info in full: Mr. Coombs shared a list of books Private Manning had asked his family to buy him, which included: “ Decision Points,” by George W. Bush; “The Critique of Practical Reason” and “The Critique of Pure Reason,” by Immanuel Kant; “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays; “The Selfish Gene,” by Richard Dawkins; “A People’s History of the United States,” by Howard Zinn; “The Art of War,” by Sun Tzu; “The Good Soldiers,” by David Finkel and “On War,” by Carl von Clausewitz. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/lawyer-describes-solitary-confinement-of-suspected-wikileaks-source/?ref=world
I also see, to my surprise, that Manning's 'orientation' is deemed relevant for mention in the article, although this content has been reduced and toned down somewhat over the past month or so, through User:SRich's best efforts to do Manning justice, I understand. Apparently, according to Michel Foucault's multi-tome 'History of Sexuality', this kind of discourse is a hiccup and that, typically, moderation in one's behaviour has been the issue, in accordance with the Delphic principle of μηδεν αγαν, 'nothing in excess'. That Manning apparently chooses his 'partners' on the basis of their character rather than their body shape is perhaps a further indicator of his own character, seemingly deemed a fit subject for conjecture and caricature in this article, and transcendence of the limited visions of those around him. Unfortunately I myself am not so free-thinking, and it would be interesting to have others' views and suggestions on how best to incorporate this - perhaps a reference to Foucault's work in the bibliography? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Since it is a succinct distillation of the discourse on 'orientation', apparently often pejorative, that is deemed fit for inclusion in an article on young Bredley (sic). I understand under the applicable WP policies bibliography is allowed - and there is no such at the moment. Perhaps a full list of Manning's reading, as far as is known, also? Presumably similarly relevant to young Bredley, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand other Manning-related issues were 'precluded by policy', but point taken, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, contrary to a User:Qwertyrxian, were someone to be reading Kant's works on Practical Reasoning (ie self-serving careerism) and Pure Reasoning (ie the transcendent and universal obligation to disclose abuse) that might suggest some kind of awareness of conflicting demands, indeed those very ones that make this Bradley Manning notable. That not only a professional lawyer thinks this is highly relevant and indicative of Manning but none other than the reputable New York Times thinks fit to include such matters in its hallowed publications should surely be preferred to the individual views on the matter of a User:Qwertyxian, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, these are books Manning has asked his family to try to get for him. I don't think we know if he has actually read them yet. Beyond this, obviously, what (even) the New York Times thinks newsworthy for a single story on a specific day is not per se automatically grist for the mill of an encyclopedia article, which needs to apply the higher degree of selectivity associated with a longer shelf life. Nandt1 ( talk) 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice one :)) BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Try googling 'Bradley Manning Kant Reasoning' - will find many many discussions of this, many of which predate the NYT article. Don't see what's quite so objectionable about a brief mention, but anyway, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed edit: "Amongst a number of books Manning has requested from his family whilst in the brig are 'The Critique of Practical Reasoning' and 'The Critique of Pure Reasoning' by Immanuel Kant." BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What's a non-vanilla google search? Then I'll try one of those... BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the google clarification. User:SRich, other than for the chats, has the young hero 'penned' any of the matter in this article himself? On the basis we can include what the TV colonel has to say about Manning, can we not include what Manning has to say about himself (ie I'm interested in Kant)? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the relevance of Manning's 'orientation' - that's deemed relevant, why not his intellectual leanings? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone see any clear reason why my edit [10] was undone? Unless there isn't a consensus what he released was controversial, I see no reason to abstain from adding it. 173.183.66.173 ( talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I added a quote to the "Complaints of mistreatment in detention" section, thus;
Life for PFC Manning, however, is not much better now that he has been returned to POI watch. Like suicide risk, he is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he will sit in his cell. The guards will check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning will be required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He will receive each of his meals in his cell. He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He will not be allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He will only be allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine will be taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He will be prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He will receive one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards will take him to an empty room and allow him to walk. He will usually just walk in figure eights around the room until his hour is complete. When he goes to sleep, he will be required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
— Attorney David C. Coombs
This was removed by Qwyrxian on the basis that it is too long.
I do not agree, on the basis that a paragraph of the same length containing a near-identical description of conditions should be acceptable. It seems to me to make no sense that if I take what Coombs wrote, give it a ref and re-write it to describe conditions, it is acceptable, but if I merely quote Coombs directly, it is not; especially since the latter is more informative than the former. In the absence of disagreement, I will in a day or two re-add the quote. Toby Douglass ( talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
CryptomeManning
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Capturing the range of sentiment expressed by public figures is neither breathless reportage, nor inherently partisan. I do agree with RayAYang and S. Rich in so far as it is often difficult to tell which particular statements will have lasting social relevance; this will evolve over time. That said, when does the magical day arrive when we determine the "true" meaning or importance of anything? On what basis will we assert that we're finally capable of dispassionate retrospection? Which is greater: the risk of our future selves being deluded by the "fog of time", or the danger of not seeing the trees for the forest right here in the present? It's not always easy to tell; hence, we should err on the side of capturing more, not less, and reconciling ourselves to the need for revisiting such content periodically.
For example, consider the range of views expressed regarding former U.S. President Ronald Regan during his stay in office, and compare them to those of present-day political leaders and news commentators (be they Democrat or Republican). The Overton window has shifted. Regan's grammatical follies no longer capture the level of attention they once did. At the time however, they were used to bring his fitness for office into question, and by implication the wisdom of his decision-making. Where are we now? Are we more dispassionate and able to separate substance from noise, or have we just waded part-way across the river Lethe, and lost touch with the "feeling" of that period? We can say Regan's frequent verbal bloopers and their equally persistent caricature became part of the overall milieau. One can still argue over their meaning, but there is undoubtedly a delicate fragrance to it all that is best bottled when fresh. Anyone who has lived long enough witness the birth of a generational shift in perception realizes how difficult it can be to convey the "feeling" of a time, right down to the very marrow of their weather-predicting bones.
The view I'm advancing is that it's better to err on the side of capturing present-day perspectives on an ongoing basis than it is to omit them entirely, hoping that one day we'll all agree on what genuinely matters. We won't. People are still arguing over the "true" reasons for the Decline of the Roman Empire, whether Abstract expressionism is abstract or expresses anything, and whose opinion on any of these topics is worthy of consideration. For events to be understood in-context, sentiment within that context must be captured. If we fail to document the evolution of meaning, then we're implicitly asserting a misguided belief that The Great Pumpkin of Objectivity will arise one day to settle everything for good, or that social history has no bearing on matters of inclusion, exclusion, or depiction.
I'll grant that a section devoted to material like this could become a breathless echo chamber, or a pointless compendium of daily news articles. The problem is, that omitting public discourse in its entirety is even more dangerous. There's room for common sense here. If the section gets out of hand, or becomes imbalanced, it can be pruned. If something doesn't turn out to matter later on, it can be excised. If history goes full-circle, later authors can feel free to dig through the archives and resurrect material previously deemed inconsequential. I believe we'll be chewing, regurgitating, and redigesting the set of "notable quotations" that apply to any controversial topic for years, somewhat like a herd of bovines processing cud. Yes, this hay will make us belch and more, but the alternative is malnourishment. Therefore, we might as well start chewing on the stuff now. JonDePlume ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I added two sentences to the Background section, both with sources, and both were removed almost immediately without comment. More Wikipedia censorship I see?
FYI, the sentences dealt with the educational background and temperment (as reported by a classmate) of Manning.
I am reverting the reverts. If you don't like the changes, lets talk.
I note the edit summary said this was outdated. Is there a citation to support that summary? Thanks, Ray Talk 18:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me, that he has been charged in the "Collateral Murder" video and in the diplomatic leaks; he is still a person of interest only w.r.t the Afghan war report leaks. Ray Talk 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, is is written below that he is homosexual. So why are you all reverting it without reason when if it is mention in the intro? -- 91.115.56.67 ( talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Army prosecutors and the Quantico brig. They don't have any hearing dates. I deleted the passage stating that Manning is awaiting an Article 32 hearing. If it can be sourced, it should be replaced, but I doubt any hearings have been scheduled because there's no prosecution team assigned yet. If they keep him in solitary like that, he'll be exculpated. Ginger Conspiracy ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article, relating to recent events, that do not belong there. Is the subject of his arrest, the alleged leaks, and resulting consequences supposed to be ignored until they are a year old so they qualify as having "a historical perspective?" William (Bill) Bean ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Welsh nationality. The sovereign State is the United Kingdom, the citizens of which are British. 'Welsh' is a cultural term, not a legal nationality, since Wales is not a sovereign State and therefore cannot confer (or revoke) legal nationality to anyone who resides there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.93.205 ( talk) 07:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Manning was characterized as being "desperate for acceptance" and suffering from "delusions of grandeur" in his social life,[11]
This is basically the opinion of the NY Times author. It's not a quote from anyone. The quote is given as if the military or a psychiatrist described him as so. It should be removed. If it's not removed, it should at least be noted that his (supposed) "friends" afterward said this (according to the author of the source, although it's not presented as a quote), not before the leaks it's not the opinion of either the military or a psychiatrist. The government tried to do this to Daniel Ellsberg too, to quote another Wikipedia article, "In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state in order to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg’s psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[18]"
In fact, that whole sentence reads like a hit piece. The next part of the sentence says, "and he complained about being ordered to fetch coffee in the workplace.[11]"
What he actually says though, if you open the source, is that his concerns were ignored by his superiors and when he really had something important, they blew him off and asked him to fetch coffee and sweep the floors. That's far different from 'he complained about menial labor' impression the quote as given on Wiki creates.
- Sam
Is there any information if he really is being held in solitary confinement, and if so, why? Toby Douglass ( talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Mm. The latest Guardian article [1] suggests that solitary confinement is, in Manning's case, a case of hyperbole. He is being held in confinement, and, like all prisoners, has a limited list of visitors. Ray Talk 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice it's been re-added to the article again. Our sources conflict on this, and fairly reliable non-opinion reporting has been given that Manning has had access to television news and contact with lawyers and a restricted list of friends, which is not at all solitary confinement. Discuss? Ray Talk 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the article right now: "...where he is under suicide watch" and a source is provided [28], but in a previous source [26], the opposite is stated. In Glenn Greenwald's column it is stated quite clearly "(he is not and never has been on suicide watch)". I tried to add something on the following lines: "where he is under suicide watch according to some sources but he is not according to others" but I am not very proficient with <refs>, got a bit lost and decided to quit. 81.39.217.234 ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Consider the following excerpt from the wikileaks chat transcripts:
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy... (1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind... i make no sense... the CPU is not made for this motherboard... (1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy (1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh< (1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out... to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone else's expectations (1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be (1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now... (1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged... and figure out how on earth im going to transition (1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its most intimate secrets are revealed (1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally and psychologically [...] (1:43:59 PM) bradass87: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)
[indentation reset]
On a somewhat technical note, if Manning is transgender then they are not "pre-transition". Transition refers to the whole process of adopting a gender; it doesn't refer to SRS or coming out, or any other particular instant of time. By either a narrow or broad definition of how much is included in this, the chat logs indicate that Manning is currently in the process of transition.
You ask, "if person A, for instance, is male-to-female transgendered, but, for personal, employment, or political reasons, Person A keeps this hidden, shouldn't Person A expect to be referred to by masculine pronouns?"
It depends. Since transgender people are very often "out" in some contexts and not others, the general answer to this question is that A should be able to expect that anyone who knows what A's preferred pronouns are, will use them in those contexts. Or if the pronouns are not known exactly but it is known that A is male-to-(unknown) transgender or gender-variant, then A should at least be able to expect that known-incorrect male pronouns will not be used.
The chat logs are now public information, even if Manning didn't intend them to be. There is no putting this information back in the bottle. Instead, we have to consider what is a respectful way to refer to Manning given what we know or have strong reason to believe. The issue isn't really whether Manning can "claim to be offended"; the issue is what the right thing is to do. Recall this quote from the logs:
"i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as [a] boy..."
In a recent edit, I changed the pronouns to singular they, which is an accurate and respectful way to refer to someone whose gender is not known precisely. (Anticipating a possible objection: please let's not get into an argument about the grammatical status of singular they. It is not perfect, but it is commonly used and well-understood.) I think that addresses your point about using "she".
BTW, I sincerely hope that Manning will be allowed to talk to the media at some point before their trial, if there is one. It would be an outrage if they were not allowed to do so, "national security concerns" notwithstanding. I also hope that they will be given access to HRT medication if they need it (but I fear that they won't). Suddenly losing access to such medication can put someone, especially someone in Manning's situation, at very great risk.
Manning's Facebook page indicates that they are publically supportive of transgender rights -- and hence, we can probably assume, of the practice of referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns. Even if it turned out that we were mistaken about using pronouns other than "he", then we wouldn't have been wrong to do so, we would just have made an honest mistake. If we simply default to "he", then we're not making an honest mistake; we're making a deliberate one. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ ( talk) 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a picture from Bradley Manning as a child in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iougDCH-wJ8 This should refute the rumour that he is transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRauk ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I am going to add the following information (in the future) to the Manning article.
"Manning is also a high school dropout. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333982/WikiLeaks-US-Army-soldier-Bradley-Manning-prime-suspect-leaks-case.html"
The information is well sourced, and educational background is considered important for the encyclopedia articles about most people. I won't add it right away because it looks like there is too much going on with this page at the moment (vandalism, reverts, etc.) but I will add it in a few days/weeks when that has calmed down.
If anyone has an objection, let me know.
The article as it stands shows his nationality solely as American. Being born to a British mother after 1983, I understand he would have automatically acquired British Citizenship at birth British_nationality_law#From_1983. Do we have any information about whether he ever renounced his British citizenship? MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the Greenwald/Salon article, Manning is a dual national and so might be eligible for consular protection. Under the
Master Nationality Rule now he is in the US he is not, but was the British Embassy in Iraq negligent before? Or is there an issue with detention by armed forces? Extraterritoriality say? Thanks
BrekekekexKoaxKoax (
talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he is a dual citizen, but he's the one who'd have to declare UK citizenship once he reached age 18. Is there WP:V to that effect? But even if he is a dualy, he's subject to the UCMJ. (See R.C.M. 202 in the Manual for Courts-Martial.) So, first he's got to say "I'm a British subject" and then the British Embassy can make their inquiries as they see fit. The MNR does not apply. -- S. Rich ( talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article has this , just this : "He had trouble fitting in at school in what former acquaintances have described as a troubled childhood" . Another article ( http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook )has this , which is not quite the same : "If something went wrong, he would speak up about it if he didn't agree with something. He would even have altercations with teachers if he thought something was not right." or again "He was opinionated but not forward on it. If he truly believed in something, he would give an opinion. That's probably because he was right in his opinion." .Shouldn't then the article add something like " ...others say Manning could not but speak up whenever he saw something that hurted his sense of justice" ? Another article departing from the only "troubled childhood picture" : http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ . And remember school is not always paradise ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I added today in the article : " Manning was described by others as speaking out whenever something hurted his sense of justice" which refered to http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook ( by the way ,I'll create a new section downhere about facebook ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you S. Rich for the translation . (I answered your note on my talk page about my commenting in French ). Eventually this source of information has been taken into account , since the article now has "Some described Manning as wanting to right "the injustices of the world.""( which is a bit different of what I retained since it pulls the interpretation to some folly of grandeur !!! Not being a native english reader ,I won't make a point of this . Better than nothing ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to create another new section , I would like to mention the testimonies of Manning's Aunt and Manning's father as they were reported in Wired 6 june . These testimonies are lacking in the article ; they concern more the (young)adulthood than the childhood . And I don't know how to insert them in the text . Aunt :"they had discussed his plans to enroll in college when his four-year stint in the Army was set to end in October 2011. She described him as smart and seemingly untroubled, with a natural talent for computers and a keen interest in global politics." Father :"“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been ondrugs, alcohol, nothing.”" see here [ OK it is his father ! But what if he had said he didn't want to see his son anymore...?]. Since some sort of psychological portrait has already been sketched wouldn't it be fair to add these testimonies ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a quotation from Julian Assange from the lede, and I gave the annotation "Rather prejudicial statement from a highly prejudiced party. Who represents only his own point of view."
As far as I'm aware Assange is not a player in this matter but he does stand to gain from focus on this prosecution. Otherwise I see no reason why his opinion would be cited (and indeed it doesn't seem to be cited elsewhere in the article.) -- TS 05:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
and on May 26, Manning was seized by Army authorities and put into pre-trial detention in Kuwait. (published June 10, 2010 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/) . On the charge sheet here http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html the date for the pre-trial confinement is 29 may . Shouldn't then the article put : "Bradley Manning was arrested on May 26 and then formally put in pre-trial confinement on may 29 " ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It is even more relevant that Manning is to be court-martialled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice whereby, as it currently stands, he may be detained indefinitely before trial, and when the trial does begin, the court panel members are selected by the convening authority, contrary to the principle of random jury selection that applies in civilian cases. (Please see also related discussion at bottom of page and supporting citations of US Code in main article (unless these have again been reverted, prior to reaching consensus; for which, see also cui bono principle)), BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
With ref to added/reverted section on court-martial process that ran as follows, but could be reworked as a paragraph:
Pre-Trial
Upper time limit on detention before trial
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice there is currently no upper time limit on detention before trial. [1]
[improvement would see reference to Article 32: 'no charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made.' No upper time limit is placed on the detention of the accused before trial.] BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Trial
Composition of the Court
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice members of the court-martial are selected from members of the armed forces by the convening authority. [2] This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases.
Charges
When convened, the court-martial is to hear the charges brought against Manning under Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [3] Article 92 concerns the violation of regulations and dereliction in the performance of duties. [4] Article 134 concerns violation of good order and discipline and conduct bringing discredit on the armed forces. [5]
Ok, the new content strikes me as having some problems - specifically one of original research. Most of it is sourced to US codes namely the one determining the charges brought against Manning and the legal processes under which he is currently being detained and will, at some point in the future, be tried, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) with no secondary sourcing establishing relationship, significance and details in the specific case of Manning. I understand that User:ErrantX has greater knowledge of secondary legal sources than I: perhaps he would like to adduce those that are of greatest relevance here, rather than spending his time reverting other users' attempts to improve this and related articles. I currently am a little short of time myself, not least since I keep being called on to justify such contentious edits as providing references to legal codes and external auditors' audit opinions, both of which are being reverted prior to discussion and arrival at consensus, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Wording such as This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases makes me think this is just original research based on the factual knowledge that Manning will be subject to court martial. I'd just like to remind BrekekekexKoaxKoax of the problems of WP:OR and suggest he/she finds secondary sources. By providing at the outset a link to the jury selection page I hoped to have obviated the possibility of such a claim, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Also; there is a serious overkill of section headers in the section, In part these are an invitation for other users with greater knowledge than I to start fleshing out a section of an article which, I imagine, will see greater attention in the coming months; as such, establishing a skeleton framework early on might seem advisable, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) so I would remove almost all of them and switch to a paragraph, per our MOS advice. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Now if Manning's counsel were to present a whistleblower protection defense as part of their defense strategy, then this material would apply. Two problems: 1. we have no WP:RS that says they are planning to do so. 2. In leaking 100,000-200,000+ documents, there is no way that he could say "I was legally blowing the whistle regarding the thousands of topics to which I only had tangential information." As far as the proposed admends to the law, they can be discussed in that article -- not here.-- S. Rich ( talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If you Google Ellsberg Manning xerox you can find plentiful secondary sources commenting on the parallels between the two whistleblowing cases and that it is just a function of technology that the scale is so increased, as Ellsberg himself has discussed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ellsberg, amongst others, also comments that the form of dissemination chosen helps make the information available to the public in a timely manner. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is synthesis, since the links are explicitly drawn by the secondary sources cited and since removed. Please refresh knowledge of WP:BLP before claiming it in defence of your deletions. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If there is any synthesis, this is by the sources cited; please take up issue with eg Washington Post. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Can more users please join in the discussion here, as currently there is no mention in the article of new measures to protect whistleblowers, on the grounds of 'consensus'. Explicit connections with Manning are numerous in the secondary literature (Google). This one for instance appears to make the connection: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the discipline and punish section 'Arrest, criminal charges, and possible court-martial' is of key relevance to Manning's freedom, but that is just one part of the reaction to his alleged whistleblowing (that of the embarrassed institution). Any takers for a further section on how other more diverse sectors of public opinion such as Berkeley City Council, Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, Facebook user groups etc are rallying around and saying, if Manning was indeed involved in what is alleged, then he is an 'unparalleled hero'? I understand that the basis for such calls is his alleged contribution to the anti-war movement as well as to transparency and accountability in government etc. Perhaps both sides could be included in a broader 'reaction to alleged disclosure' section, to keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how much of your rhetoric relates to Bradley Manning, but have heard it ventured that our brave servicemembers, to no fault of their own, have been involved in illegal wars. I imagine that the enemy is indeed 'dangerous' if so many of our servicemembers' lives, and so much public money, is being invested in their pursuit. I would be very interested to see specific references as to how exactly the data makes it difficult for military operations to be conducted - unless you mean politically and in the light of public opinion back home.
I understand from the Bradley Manning article that the classified material he is alleged to have disclosed in fact relates less directly to operational details. Other than for the Collateral Murder video, the disclosure in question is of diplomatic cables. I understand that these, e pluribus unum, reveal the US as using 'spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, under which the US emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation. I imagine Time is indeed needed to sort these issues out. I also wonder whether we may be acting as editors or censors. Again may I refer you to cui bono.
For an alternative position to that of the broader embarrassed institution you venture, may I refer you to that of the founder of the whisteblowing organisation also currently under its investigation, namely that authoritarian power is maintained by want of knowledge. I understand Machiavelli once argued similarly.
I fear however we may be being distracted. In this article we must adhere to what relates most directly to Bradley Manning. Indeed you have highlighted this to me in defence of your removal of sections of US legal code that highlight how Bradley Manning may be detained indefinitely before trial, inter alia. As such, I would again venture that presenting both sides of the reception of and reaction to Bradley Manning's alleged contributions to the anti-war movement, transparency and accountability in government etc might help keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
When I last looked, a Google search for 'Bradley Manning hero' documents some 1,020,000 results. I don't know whether this in itself counts as a secondary source, but it does indeed relate information originally presented elsewhere, the definition given within
secondary sources. At least it helps suggest that the idea of Bradley Manning as hero is seeing some public debate, and that as such some form of inclusion may not necessarily contravene WP:undue weight.
It does, however, make initial selection of the most appropriate secondary source to cite rather problematic. Nevertheless, for those proponents I mentioned previously:
- Berkeley City Council (noted to be politically liberal and sometimes an advocate for progressive ideals): http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/14/meola.bradley.manning/?hpt=Sbin
- Julian Assange (founder and editor of whistleblowing site WikiLeaks): http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-live-online-answers
- Daniel Ellsberg (former US military analyst and celebrated Pentagon Papers whistleblower, with parallels to own case):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081305820.html
For fuller interview with media comment and analysis see also video at http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers (plays after ad) 44:20 to end, 48:22 for 'hero'.
- Facebook, rallies etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11324925 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/bradley-manning-campaign-michael-moore
I understand that care is taken to clarify that Bradley Manning is a hero if he is shown to be the one responsible for the disclosure, a distinction made also by those calling for him to be imprisoned for 50+ years for the same services. I understand that this apparent uncertainty (and reluctance to take measures that may transpire to have been at least irresponsible and premature) does not affect his current indefinite detention before trial in conditions some commentators have likened to torture:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning
On topics previously under discussion, but seemingly now deemed closed with the related reverts already made:
- Bradley Manning & current provisions of UCMJ re court-martial process (self-selected court, no upper time limit for detention before trial): am currently struggling to find secondary sources, but will post asap. Somewhat bizarrely, even a legal update by Manning's own attorney fails to highlight these basic points: http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/BradleyManningLegalUpdate.htm
- Bradley Manning & protection for whistleblowers http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html (with reference to the argument above that Manning is not a 'real whistleblower' because of the scale of his alleged disclosure, Ellsberg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk (2:22 on) suggests this is a function of technology (he was Xeroxing)).
Out of interest, I stumbled upon this too (haven't had a chance to digest fully, but looks intriguing at the outset):
http://warisacrime.org/content/how-report-torture-bradley-manning-united-nations
Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Aye. Which is why all I am suggesting, rather than discussion of these extraneous topics, is inclusion of/incorporation within a section on broader reactions to Manning than solely that of the embarrassed institution. I hope I have provided sufficient documentation for the existence and prevalence of such alternative viewpoints. And my own viewpoints, which may or may not be as you have described, are irrelevant in this. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, why is my attempted contribution, after I have gone through lengthy discussion, providing many reliable sources, 'pending review', while those of other users wbo appear to have made considerably less effort to ensure the reaction section, amongst others, is kept NPOV are 'automatically accepted'? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I used to be, and seemingly am again, but thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The category is for "Articles and events specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics." Manning is the only individual listed. How was he as an individual specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics? Everything else in the category, including the subcategories, deals with the elections and election issues. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I see attempts to include WikiLeaks within the 'Political Scandals in the US' category have met with a similar reaction, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Political prisoners? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a pic of 'our Brad' with a smile omitted/excluded lest, like that of politicians with their families on election day, it might elicit sympathy and support? Anyone think one should be included? (See eg Sarah Palin for how persuasive these may be, with all those smiles, and how carefully curated is the public image of certain individuals.) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand the image is from http://www.bradleymanning.org/, which states 'All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated'. I believe there is no contrary indication. I also believe, if you refer to the about section of said website, that a number of high-profile legal representatives are involved, who presumably know what they are talking about. Until it is proven otherwise, I think we should prefer such a well-backed, public declaration that the image is in the public domain to Srich's own views on the matter. Once you are satisfied, please reinstate. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, on further reflection, it is a more powerful statement if he remains faceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
David Coombs ,Manning's attorney has issued some information that could be useful for this article ( provided that the bias is clearly exposed). If I searched this discussion page well , his site has never been cited yet . Never too late : http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/ and http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/article-13-and-pfc-bradley-manning.html Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Article 13 ref, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
To assess the legal and medical context of prolonged 23 hour/day solitary confinement, an authoritative source is required; otherwise, the significance of such isolation is left to the uninformed imagination. Consider these obvious questions:
It turns out that relevant and credible institutions have spoken on this topic:
By analogy, suppose this were an article about a person who'd been restricted to 100 mg of potassium per day for an extended period of time. Would this imply life-endangering dietary torture, or nothing at all? Most people would not know. Experts might have a range of opinions in borderline cases, but having in-context citations of one or more leading figures is clearly more helpful to the reader than just staring at a raw number.
By the same reasoning, in order to lend some understanding of the legal/medical implications of prolonged 23 hour/day isolation, some authority must be cited; I've cited the ICRC and APA because they seem both authoritative and influential. If you think others apply, please add them.
Note: the Wikipedia deletion policy encourages you to repair any imbalance you might perceive by enriching the article further, rather than removing well-documented and relevant content... particularly when the list of references already in place is short or non-existent. For this reason, I've undone the earlier reversion by Bbb23. JonDePlume ( talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The salient point is that both Supermax and Manning's confinement involve:
These are the factors deemed by the APA to cause psychological harm; the number of officially designated supermax facilities in the United States, and/or the nastiness/violence of the people usually placed in them has nothing to do effects of extreme isolation itself. Because both Manning's imprisonment and supermax both contain all these elements, there's nothing "POV" about citing relevant medical opinion on the topic. To the contrary, the targeted removal of such material could quite easily be interpreted as a politically motivated censorship of expert testimony. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to an absence of objections within the media; there are many critical articles and prominent figures who have raised serious concerns. This is why the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy in Geneva has announced is reviewing a complaint filed on behalf of Manning. Apparently, he's taking this matter quite seriously, and is concerned enough about what he's heard to investigate. Search google with terms like "Amnesty International solitary confinement", or "solitary confinement effects" for relevant articles. There are plenty of examples. You may also be interested in an Associated Press article that appeared in the Washington Post: UN looking into WikiLeaks suspect's treatment. My point is that because there are a large number of prominent figures and organizations expressing the seriousness of long-term 23 hour/day solitary confinement, the APA's prior commentary on exactly this same level of prolonged isolation is indeed relevant. The ICRC judgment is too, as this also relates to the level and duration of prisoner isolation, not the reasons for it, or the national origins of those involved. JonDePlume ( talk) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
An important national and international question regarding Bradley Manning as a subject is: "does his treatment constitute torture?" The high-profile nature of this debate in connection to him as an individual is a noteworthy fact. Because of his actions, Manning is a precedent-setting historical figure; hence, the precedents surrounding his case are highly relevant to the article. For example, The Office of The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has been involved. Manfred Nowak is the UN's top investigator charged with assessing complaints on behalf of alleged victims of human rights violations. This immediately raises the question: "what is it about 23 hour/day solitary confinement for nearly seven months that could have triggered such an investigation?" For that reason, legal and medical background information relating to why the investigation is conducted becomes highly relevant in-context. The ICRC and the APA aren't Bradley Manning's friends. No mention was made of any particular opinion regarding Manning himself, pro or con. The references I've provided are not debating the finer points "right" or "wrong". They simply provide legal and medical context that explain the stated motivation behind why this top-level UN human rights rapporteur is conducting such an investigation. Manfred Nowak taking the allegations of potential human rights violations seriously precisely because of such medical opinions and legal precedents, so it's important to say what they actually are. If you personally believe only the political dimension of the investigation is relevant (not motivating medical or legal findings), we'll need to respectfully disagree. That said, it seems obvious Wikipedia's deletion policy should be our guide, and it is clear enough to make the case for inclusion stronger than removal here. JonDePlume ( talk) 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I respect your intentions as far as helping to prevent this article from devolving into factional shouting match. I ask you to respect my intention that this article does not become a disjointed collection of seemingly unrelated events. Keeping the article clear of political commentary is one thing, but actively deleting the legal and medical context of the UN investigation quite another, particularly when the parties involved play a key role in guiding the General Assembly. Human rights investigations typically begin by a complaint lodged by either the alleged victim, or an advocate. There is nothing odd about that. Speculation about what thresholds are in place at the UN is tangential. Whatever the UN standards might be, they were satisfied. In summary:
Now, let's suppose for a moment that the claims made did not amount to torture an anybody's opinion at the UN. In that case, there would be no point in having someone investigate torture at all, because nothing associated with it in anybody's view would have been alleged. Therefore, the opinions of at least some sufficiently motivating constituency does view the allegations as possibly amounting to torture, and would be taken seriously at the UN if true. That said:
Some information must be provided that connects the allegations made with the assignment of top UN expert on torture, Manfred Nowak. This isn't equivalent to a debate on the stance of the APA or ICRC regarding the definition of torture. Only brief, relevant legal/medical precedence were cited (not argument or testimony) in a short connecting paragraph. Each reference pertains to what it is about the allegations, in the opinion of those who shape the policy of the UN on these matters, might constitute a violation worthy of dispatching a special rapporteur. Nothing more, nothing less. JonDePlume ( talk) 20:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Trente7cinq, the topic of this thread is whether or not it's proper to add contextual information regarding whether extended 23 hour/day solitary could be considered as torture by the UN; it's not a general discussion of what level of punishment is legal or proper according to US law. Nevertheless, the link was interesting.... Happy holidays! JonDePlume ( talk) 19:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is said to have expressed support for Manning :would someone find a serious reference for that ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you've reverted again. I really wish you'd wait for others to discuss this before deciding on your own that the rationale previously used for a section applies to a completely different section. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but, at least procedurally, your latest reversion in particular is inappropriate.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a quotation, reference to rallies, and suggestions that the US official position (solitary confinement without trial) is not necessarily the only possible one. The sources for this, namely CNN, The Guardian, and video footage (on Democracy Now) are presumably sufficiently reliable. Reinstatement time methinks, 94.172.30.185 ( talk) 01:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I just boldly removed the "U.S. Government" subsection of the Reaction section from the article (moving one sentence related to Manning to the Arrest & Trial section). None of that had anything to do with Manning. The reference being used mentions Manning exactly once, and only in an attempt to confirm that the hard drives (in the investigation being briefed about) had belonged to Manning--which, in fact, the U.S. spokesperson didn't verify. That whole section appears to be synthesis, in that it was information unrelated to Manning, added here to advance a point. That info could certainly go into another article (like Afghan war diaries), but I don't think it belongs here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually in favor of removing the reaction section, as it currently exists, altogether. First of all, any reactions are a subset of reactions to the broader Wikileaks mess, and would fit better there. Secondly, as people have pointed out, the US government reaction portion is necessarily synthesis until and unless the government definitively identifies Manning as the source for the leaks in question. Thirdly, we really give undue weight to particular random commentators at the expense of others (Greenwald and Ellsberg?), violating both WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX. This is a biography - let's leave the discussion of the political commentary to a page on the events themselves? Ray Talk 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In Acquisition and disclosure of classified material nothing is said about the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System ? see : "Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ ( by the way shouldn't it be mentionned that Wired was the first to issue the information ....and Kevin Poulsen the journalist ? ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I eventually added today "He was also said to have had access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System " referencing to "Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter (2010 6 6)U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe"
Perhaps it could be usefull to introduce a short footnote explaining why it was apparently so easy to access to such ressources .For example ,this BBC articlehas :""After the events of 11 September 2001, agencies across the federal government understood that greater information sharing was vital to protecting our national security interests. " whereas "He told the BBC that the possibility that someone in a base in Iraq could potentially access cables about Iceland violated, the principle of "need to know" in intelligence." Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich , Indeed one could wonder how the recruitment is done ( an exception !?). Some valuable infos on how Manning is supposed to have proceeded here : http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/wikileaks-one-analyst-so-many-documents/67181/ ; for example :"To transfer information from the SIPRNet to unclassified networks, analysts like Manning use proprietary computers called SNAP. About 1,500 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to TeleCommunications Systems, the company that builds them. SNAP, which stands for SIPR-NIPR Access Point, "allows you to bring stuff from the low side to the high side and vice versa, securely," one current user of the program said." Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the article , it is written Former United Nations Special Rapporteur[30] Manfred Nowak is looking into allegations... . Why "former" ? :the Whashington Post used as a reference just has : "The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture in Geneva" . Effectively ,here ( http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/torture/rapporteur/ )Nowak's mandate came to an end 31 October 2010 ( Juan Méndez holds the post now). It is two months from now !?? Other sources do have Juan Mendez as the man in charge with this Inquiry , whereas according to this quite official site ( http://www.military.com/news/article/un-denies-manning-brig-investigation.html ) :A spokeswoman for the U.N.’s Human Rights office in Geneva said the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, currently held awaiting court-martial in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.“Information has been received [about Manning] but we can’t talk about what it is and the methodology” of getting it, Sonya Cronin said....Cronin said in a telephone interview today that Mendez “has not even been officially advised of this case yet.”. Perhaps it should be wise to write something like :" Although some renowned newspapers have announced a UN inquiry ,the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning" Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich ,information has to be checked indeed ,and sometimes renowned or otherwise trustworthy newspapers can make errors . I agree with you on that point .But I should add that ...I could not find the sources of military.com either ! I browsed on sonya/sonia Cronin without finding anything ( sorry I don't have her telephone number !). Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I am frustrated by the lack of stablility of this article. Even taking into account that Manning is a highly controversial figure and therefore bound to engender all sorts of conflicting responses by Wikipedia editors, the article is a moving target, leaving me reluctant to edit it in any significant way because who knows who will do what next. For example, V7-sport strongly believed that the entire Reaction section (which is now back to the truly awful subsection header "Calls for recognition as hero") was a BLP violation and that he could remove it without discussion. I discussed this issue with V7, but no one else joined in. Now, someone reverted V7 (I haven't bothered to figure out by whom) and, not only put back the removed material but also restored it to an earlier version before I reorganized the article and S. Rich reorganized it still further. Of course, V7 may still come back and revert again as I can't tell if V7 has been on Wikipedia since the latest reversion of his reversion of my reversion - well, you get the idea.
And that's just one example of the constantly shifting sands in this article. Overall, there needs to be more discussion and fewer changes without consensus, unless we're talking about small changes or obvious errors.
As for the present state of the article, here are my thoughts:
Agreed, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User:V7-sport, this appears to be another misquotation and incorrect citation of WP policies. User:AlamedaReader has pointed out the reasons why particularly well-informed commentators' views may be notable and relevant, and I don't think there is any suggestion of his getting up on a soap box and propounding his own views, nor is he making any assertion as to the function of an encyclopaedia. He seems to be suggesting that relevant material FOR and AGAINST be included. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User:V7-sport: I am concerned you are unilaterally reverting other users' edits without prior discussion or reference to the discussion page, and indeed are supporting your contentious edits with seemingly bogus references to WP policies (BLP, original research, soap etc). By removing the sections on motivation, well-referenced, and reaction by anyone other than the, obviously somewhat embarrassed, US military I think the most apposite WP policy to cite is that of NPOV. Please refer to and engage in the discussion. And how exactly do BLP, original research, and soap support your edits? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments you made subsequent to my query here. But, Ellsberg's words, for instance, were referenced to a video showing Ellsberg delivering Ellsberg's cited words. Don't see how that is unsourced, or poorly-sourced, or indeed in violation of BLP. References to BBC website, Guardian website, CNN about rallies, calls for support by influential commentators, all similarly deleted. Don't quite get how these are unsourced, poorly-sourced, or in violation of BLP. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning.
I also don't see anything on the matter by Chomsky about screwing the USA. I think Chomsky has said, re the cables Manning is alleged to have disclosed, 'Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service.' ( http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm) I think this is very, very different from your suggestion. Chomsky is presumably referring to accountability, transparency etc, which have been a fundamental feature of progressive democracies since at least fifth-century BC Athens with its concept and institution of ευθυναι. I think this is why, at least in some circles that are pro-democracy, Manning is getting calls for support. And I think this might need to be included in the article, as we have Manning's alleged motivation, we have calls for support by those who have already helped bring one war to an end (Vietnam) by exposing the scale of government lies (see Pentagon Papers), we have reliable sources, we have due weight. We need to adduce the right material, otherwise we are guilty of synthesis, but this I believe has already been done (yet, I see, reverted). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No, Srich, I think User:AlamedaReader has just suggested that those who speak FOR and AGAINST should be noted. Where these have already been researched, let's include them. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Writing from France ,where articles in French on Manning are very scarce ( but very numerous on Assange/Wikileaks ), I would be of opinion to report FOR/AGAINST arguments so that non native english speaker could have a quick overview of the case and the debates it induces ( by the way, about "And it is definitely not the job of an encyclopedia to job to "change the outcome of an individuals situation"" OK about the change but : is the Manning Case just "an individual situation" ? ...) .I am conscious that this could impair the stability of the article : couldn't special editing measures be taken concerning the "Calls for recognition as hero" section ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Before (800 words); after (2,015 words).
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After some discussion no reliable sources have yet been found asserting Manning's dual citizenship. Please avoid needling other editors in discussion. -- TS 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I keep seeing IPs adding that he has dual U.S./UK citizenship. Some of the sources do say this (e.g. Salon), but they seem to be basing it entirely on the fact that his mother is Welsh, which doesn't mean he's a British citizen. He lived there for three years as a teenager, and we can't automatically assume that he applied for citizenship during that period. Are there any reliable sources who go into this in detail, or who say they obtained confirmation of dual citizenship? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
-- 178.32.73.111 ( talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Since this point is obviously of interest , I dared add a footnote - as I had previously suggested- which reads "Because his mother is British it has been assumed that Manning has a dual citizenship ( and could thus possibly benefit from British support if any ), which so far is more a speculation than a proven fact ".... waiting for confirmation/denial while expressing a question that obviously is raising some interest .Hoping this is Wikicompatible ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Trente, please don't add sources using embedded links, like this: "In Hacker turns in soldier in Iraq airstrike video leak Cnet reported Lamo saying :"My plan initially was not to see him arrested. I and the FBI wanted to continue feeding him disinformation," ..." See WP:CITE#Embedded links. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The legislation dies without passage (23 Dec 2010) http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1210/122310rb1.htm. (In any event, only the media made any connection between Manning & the WBPA. In my quick reading, the act would have applied to federal employees, not servicemembers.) With this in mind, I've deleted the mention of the bill. Any further mention for 2011 would be WP:CRYSTAL.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this tacit agreement with some kind of inclusion? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the lawyer's website, we should rely on secondary sources, not primary, self-published ones, with rare exceptions. For the policies, see WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:PSTS. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a 'personal' website? Isn't this the professional website of a professional lawyer? Is it being discredited because he's not top of the FTSE 100 or equivalent? And is it primary or secondary for the legal code in question under point raised above? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 09:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you Google 'Manning dismiss speedy trial' you currently get 49,000+ results. I'm clearly struggling here to distinguish adequately between primary and secondary sources so please, on this occasion, could you have a quick look yourself, find one that you agree counts as a secondary source, and either post and agree on the talk page that the requisite secondary sources have now been found, or update the article/revert your revert yourself? Sorry to be dumb, but thanks a lot, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The military is investigating Martin under some of the same Espionage Act statutes as those being used to investigate Pfc. Bradley E. Manning,(bold mines) cf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607109.html?wprss=rss_nation/nationalsecurity ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The government interprets the Espionage Act to grant wide discretion in prosecuting leaks of classified information. Whether or not it is fair and appropriate to prosecute Pfc. Manning for choosing to violate his duty as a government employee to protect properly classified information is an open question that ultimately rests on whether one thinks the public good in exposing the information outweighs the potential harm to national security and the violation of the rights of innocent third parties. As more facts regarding the matter are made public as the prosecution proceeds, this debate will continue. cf openthegovernment.org Trente7cinq ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
S.Rich , you wrote :The article you mention does not confirm that Manning is charged under the EA, .Would you reconsider your position after reading :Manning has been charged with downloading the classified Iraq video and transmitting it to a third party, in violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), a section of the act that involves passing classified information to an uncleared party, but not a foreign government.? cf http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/army-espionage-rulebook/ Trente7cinq ( talk) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article should pay more attention to Wired . 1/ It is Wired which made the arrest Public ( in their first article dated June 6, 2010 ( it was a sunday)- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ - they even reported that the authorities had not made any public statement yet !).At the bottom of that page, an uptdate was added which read : Update: The Defense Department issued a statement Monday morning confirming Manning’s arrest and his detention in Kuwait for allegedly leaking classified information. . I understand that monday was the 7th of June . Would be utmost important to have a link to this statement ( see : http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/army_intel_analyst_arrested_in.html )
2/ about the famous chatlogs posted by Wired : nowhere in the article is it possible to know that they posted just excerpts of it "Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. But the sections in which Private Manning is said to detail contacts with Mr. Assange are not among them. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html) Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"The Pentagon suspects that Manning may have accomplices within the military." wrote Robert Winnett on Jul 29 2010 here. Even if this supposition seems to have been dropped (?), it should be recalled , shouldn't it ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
here the accomplices are not from the military anymore "Officials tell The Daily Beast they suspect the possible civilian accomplices in the U.S. and elsewhere may have helped direct Manning to Julian Assange," ; Lamo himself had In an interview with The Daily Beast last weekend, Lamo said that he did not believe Manning, an intelligence specialist, had the sort of technical background in computers that would allow him to gather all of the information that he is believed to have turned over to Assange. Lamo has said that he is certain that Manning was the source of the more than 90,000 classified military reports from the war in Afghanistan . Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
A reference added by Victor Falk has been reverted by Slim Virgin . My point here is not to discuss these decisions but to mention that the document ( or another one ,but this one is at hand) may perhaps still be used . ""It should not have been physically possible for an individual private to download records at will from a classified network onto transportable media," says Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "That was asking for trouble."" . Although this doesn't speak of accomplices it questions the feasibility of such an action , two points tightly related which are not that developped in the article .( cf SNAP in this page too ). [ the reference proposed by Victor Falk lead me to [6], [7], [8] which may be of use too ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
1/ it is written "He has been held in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, since May 2010" which is not correct :"first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait "( as written in the article itself) he was moved later in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico ( remembering having read 29 of june/july )... 2/ could we avoid the quasi-reiteration "...who was charged in July 2010 with the unauthorized disclosure of U.S. classified information." and "On July 5, Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for transferring classified data onto his personal computer and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source between November 19, 2009 and May 27, 2010" ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
(copied from SV talk)
SlimVirgin, you reverted "On the 28th of July Manning had still not entered a plea to charges of illegally transferring classified data " argumenting "can't see the point of adding this" . The point would be to reconstruct the chronology of the case , here from a legal point of view . The information I added was just a step . Thus It could be also usefull to add that , almost till the end of July " the official said Manning has invoked the Fifth Amendment and is refusing to answer questions from investigators." Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Just deposing facts concerning chronology/legal matters( cf " It would be good to know whether that's still the case before adding anything" ): Capt. Paul Bouchard was at a time manning's attorney cf http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/31/wikileaks.manning/index.html ; Maj. Thomas F. Hurley was another one cf http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html To be continued Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oups :The document referenced for Dadid Coombs nomination already mentionned "Beside Coombs... Manning has been assigned three military lawyers" ( their number/names in footnote ?) Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
Following on legal matters owing to boingboing.net:"According to the UCMJ, if there is pretrial confinement, “immediate steps shall be taken” to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges. Article 10, UCMJ. “We have consistently noted that Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment [and Rules for Courts-Martial 707].” United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308, 312 (C.A.A.F. 2010). RCM 707 says they have 120 days to charge him or dismiss him from pretrial confinement. That time has passed. How are they holding him without charge?
http://court-martial.com/ucmj-pretrial-restraint/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1523645.html"
And happy new year to all of you Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) "How are they holding him without charge?" [but Manning has been charged !] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Wired - 6 june - reported that Manning was held on protective custody . Consequently I added today "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait [15] where he was on protective custody " . This has been reverted into "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait". I don't understand why . Has this information/protective custody since been prooven false ? If not , let's revert all what Wired said about Lamo ...? [ In this discussion page "suicide watch" was tackled , but not "protective custody" ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
A "see also " section was created ...and rapidly reverted . What about : Espionage Act of 1917 , Freedom of the press in the United States , Mordechai Vanunu... Trente7cinq ( talk) 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Many of those links sound highly relevant to wider issue for which Manning, as much as is alleged, / WikiLeaks etc are notable - accountability / transparency (social) / whistleblowing might be good too. At least no one has suggested political prisoners yet! BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the consensus that some of these be reinstated? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the WP policy on these? Guess the rationale isn't to implant associations (whistleblowing/accountability/transparency/political prisoner) vs (treason/espionage). How do we decide? And presumably aren't some of the above, rather than 'remotely' connected, pretty much joined at the hip? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Tacit agreement? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wired published the first chat logs on June 10, 2010. In the article, they indicate that these represent roughly 25% of the logs they received from Adrian Lamo of his chats with Bradley Manning. Later, Wired’s Kevin Poulsen told Glenn Greenwald of Salon that the logs were complete with the exception of “Manning discussing personal matters that aren’t clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I’m not throwing up without vetting first.” Lamo also provided Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post with a complete version of the logs, which were also excerpted on June 10. And on June 19, BoingBoing published what was purported to be a more complete version of one section of the log. The three versions have been merged in the text below: http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
see here the boingboing version
Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs from Greenwald
Jane Hamsher -Tuesday December 28, 2010- commented in this article : The Unlikely Story of Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning, Wired Magazine and the Federal Government Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Wired answered December 28, 2010 Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I edited :In a series of chats whose excerpts were first published by Wired on June 10,2010 he told Lamo over a period of a week what he had done. a footnote was added :"In the issue of June 10,2010 Wired indicated that they published only 25% of the chatlogs they received from Adrian Lamo ( removing personal matters as well as sensitive information ). On that same day,Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post ,provided with a complete version of the logs too , decided to publish a slightly different version ;on June 19, BoingBoing published a slightly more complete version of one section of the log cf
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/" . All this has been reverted by SlimVirgin (23:15, 6 January 2011 ) on these grounds :removed confusing unsourced material . I dare say that I am begining to get confused by your reverting actions ! Unsourced you wrote ? That is not correct . I referenced
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/ ...which contained the urls or the different chatlogs ( so if you thought firedoglake was not appropriate, you could have amended my edit instead of reverting it ). Confusing ? Do you think it is not confusing not to mention the different versions ? Again : I put it in footnote in order not to confuse the quick reader . But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not ? Since you are prompt to raise the issue of evaluating the sources , wouldn't you help mention these different versions instead of reverting straightahead my attempts to do so ? Thank you for your answer .
Trente7cinq (
talk) 08:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-bradley-manning-julian-assange BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we add a link to http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/06/bradley.manning.fbook.jpg ? [ when was his Facebook page closed ?] Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article of Denver Nicks - which serves as reference - one can read about Brian :working with the high tech naval systems of the day. He studied computer science in California, and went to work for Hertz Rent-a-Car as an Information Technology manager; The article just has : "His father had been in the United States Navy for five years ...his father worked as an IT manager for Hertz ". Brian's capacities and experiences in high tech should be more highlighted ...all the more as editors have stressed on the conflict between father and son .( not everyone knows what an IT manager is !) [ I had also mentionned brian's testimony about his son cf Wired 6 june , which should appear in the article ] Trente7cinq ( talk) 10:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I had edited , in footnote "Tanja Linton a spokeswoman for Fort Huachuca said that inappropriate deeds were not that exceptional among young recruits ,who , after having been "corrected", may later" do great things for the Army and the country"cf Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter WikiLeaks Suspect’s YouTube Videos Raised ‘Red Flag’ in 2008 ,Wired ,July 29, 2010" which has been reverted by SlimVirgin with the short comment "not clear what this means" . Just refer to the article of Wired : it is not that exceptional for young recruits of fort Huachuca to do inappropriate things ; it is not because you have done such things there that you will be a traitor afterwards . My intention - to make it clear - is not to diminish the facts ( that have not come to trial yet !!)but to prevent the reader to step to quick conclusions .It appears to me that this is real neutrality .If my edit is not clear, wouldn't you try to rewrite it in good english instead of reverting it ? Thank-you . Let me recall his father's words "“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been on drugs, alcohol, nothing.” OK these are the words of a father after his son has been arrested . But doesn't the article cite friends ? Should the article cite only enemies ? ....Or people who don't know him at all ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Similarly Mathew Tully, founding partner with the Washington law firm of Tully Rinckey and an expert on military law, said ... "As for the fighting: where youth, stress and alcohol may be involved, "it is not uncommon for altercations to occur."see : http://www.tullylegal.com/pdf_2010/Tully_WikiLeaks_CNN_080210_TR.pdf ;on Tully : http://tullylegal.com/attorneys/mtully.html Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"A group has been formed, Courage to Resist, to raise money for the legal costs, but it said on December 8 that Wikileaks had so far not made a contribution."
The group formed specifically around Bradley Manning's case is called the Bradley Manning Support Network. Courage to Resist is our organizational partner for fundraising and some other matters. Not editing since I'm involved. 89.173.83.101 ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hijack point, but if you are from Manning Network, with ref to discussion above on dual nationality, do you have any info on this? Does Manning have a British (?Welsh?) passport?
Will have a look at your point too... Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, have attempted clarification. Also, has the WikiLeaks cash arrived yet - i.e. is the next point in the article now out of date? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the statement about wikileaks cash , as according to BMSN,the case has arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 ( talk) 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This article carries various statements critical of Manning's conditions of imprisonment. A US army spokesman, in an interview with The New York Times, has provided a different explanation of these terms of imprisonment. Where different points of view exist, Wikipedia expects its articles to provide a balanced account, and so I have added a summary of the army spokeman's statements to The Times. Nandt1 ( talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
'Accusations' is a 'weasel word'. Reports of the conditions of his detention have resulted in the UN submitting a formal inquiry to the United States Department of State. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) "Accusations" is, in the present case, a direct quotation.
(2) Whatever the UN may or may not have have done is not really the issue here. The issue is that you have reinstated statements which, as already pointed out above, are misquotations and misrepresentations of the statements actually made in the New York Times article. Please, before you do this again (and again), would you kindly read the article and try to avoid misquoting/misrepresenting it again. Nandt1 ( talk) 04:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Nandt1's attempt to 'seek balance': New section: According to a report carried by The New York Times, the military rejects accusations that Private Manning has been mistreated. Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, told The Times that conditions of confinement were dictated by brig rules. According to Col. Johnson, Manning has been designated for “maximum custody” — because his escape would pose a national security risk — and placed on “prevention-of-injury watch.” Johnson denied that Private Manning was in solitary confinement, saying that he could talk with guards and with prisoners in nearby cells, though he could not see them. Manning leaves his cell for a daily hour of exercise, and for showers, phone calls, meetings with his lawyer and weekend visits by friends and relatives, the colonel continued. Manning can read and watch television and correspond with people on an approved list. “Pfc. Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” said an internal military review which was read to a Times reporter by Col. Johnson. “His treatment is firm, fair and respectful.”
Lede: He is being held in what military spokesman Col. T.V. Johnson has described as "maximum custody" (distinguishing this from "solitary confinement" in that Manning can speak to guards and to prisoners in other cells)
My attempt to seek balance: Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, dismissed reports that Manning has been mistreated, and consequent UN formal inquiries, as 'Poppycock', explaining that Manning's conditions were the same as those of all in the brig.
I would invite other users to assess which is more balanced and attentive to WP:Due weight. Perhaps conditions can be corrected to treatment if you would like. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would indeed be happy to have others actually read the NYT article and see which version is a more accurate representation of what is there. (A) Certainly, Col. Johnson says nothing whatsoever about the UN. (B) Certainly, too, he is not talking about Manning's conditions of imprisonment -- the remark about treatment is quite clearly referring to the claim that this is "firm , fair and respectful". So these are both misrepresentations. Beyond this, BrekekekexKoaxKoax's edits have repeatedly just deleted specific statements made by the military in the NYT about Manning's terms of imprisonment and what he is allowed to do. Whatever our views about the rights and wrongs of this case, we have as editors a responsibility to reflect the contents of our sources accurately. I have never tried to rewrite the various complaints made by Manning's supporters about his imprisonment. It would be very welcome if, in return, BrekekekexKoaxKoax would reciprocate by affording the US army the same right to speak for themselves, instead of insisting on repeatedly caricaturing their statements. Nandt1 ( talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, please, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, could you stop trying to "spin" the New York Times story about Manning. Your latest effort was to insert into the account a statement, not found in the original source, that Col. Johnson's statement on Mannings terms of imprisonment applies "as of 13 January 2011" in a way that implies that his conditions might suddenly have been changed. There is no basis whatsover for any such imputation in the original source. Please just let the story speak for itself. Nandt1 ( talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
On another front, it turns out that the quote which had reported the New Statesman as describing Manning as pre-eminent among political prisoners actually came from a New Statesman interview with Julian Assange! I originally thought to keep the quote while clarifying its actual status within the article, but then I saw that Assange's views are in fact discussed fairly fully later on in the article, so have just dropped the New Statesman reference as being essentially repetitive of Assange's opinions on Manning. Nandt1 ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
'POV WARRIOR' :) BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. To elaborate, may I inquire (1) whether one David House is afforded due weight; (2) why supporting citations for BNSN & CTR have been replaced with tags; (3) whether evident blasphemy of WikiLeaks re payment is misplaced in an article about Manning; (4) why you don't simply google dead links to update rather than lazily tag them (re UN torture proof), if your primary concern is indeed the quality of Wikipedia; (5) whether your removal of clear documentation of 'world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience' by the international press, including NYT and NS, is not somewhat questionable. Pourriez vous m'expliquer/revert as 'disruptive edits'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To respond to the substantive questions above which relate to my own edits: Question (1) I am not sure I understand the question, but Mr. House's testimony on Manning's health (which is the only testimony on this point that is actually reported in the source that was cited) is now reported in the present Wikipedia article in precisely the same terms originally used to describe (undefined) friends and supporters; Question (5) As already explained on this page just above here, the NS quote on "prisoner of conscience" turned out not to represent an editorial viewpoint of the NS itself but a report of an interview with Julian Assange (while the NYT quote on this point was in turn a quotation of the same NS interview). Nandt1 ( talk) 05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me make a somewhat broader point. We need to be rather careful to avoid the article automatically make the connection that if (a) Manning is having mental health problems, then it must necessarily follow that (b) Manning is being "mistreated". These are two separate issues.
There are several pieces of evidence in the article which suggest that Manning might well be suffering from depression. The army testimony is that he is on a "prevention of injury" watch, including frequent monitoring. If we assume that the Greewald article is accurate as to his physical conditions of imprisonment, this concern could also explain why he is not, for example, allowed sheets (danger of hanging) and why he is being given anti-depressants (although I note that Greewald states he is not officially on a suicide watch). A prisoner's depression is not, however, per se evidence of "mistreatment". Here we have a 23 year old, with -- it would appear -- some personality issues even prior to the leaks (assaulting a fellow serviceman, etc.), who now has ample time to reflect on his earlier (possibly not very carefully thought-through) actions in leaking his country's secrets. Whether he is having second thoughts about the ethics of his actions, or just facing up to the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, who wouldn't be depressed in his shoes? But unless one assumes (as some of his supporters sincerely do assume) that the alternative is to allow one who has leaked national secrets to walk free, it is not self-evident that any mental health issues are per se evidence of "mistreatment". Nandt1 ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with User:Nandt1. After all, all those Nazis were simply 'following orders'. I believe there is good historic precedent for the elimination of 'whistleblowers'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment is gratuitous. I dare say it infringes any number of Wikipedia policies. More to the point, it sullies efforts at civil discourse on issues which we both take seriously but happen to disagree about. Nandt1 ( talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You entirely misunderstand. I am simply citing a WP:RS. Please see John Pilger article, which makes the connection in no uncertain terms: http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2011/01/14/the-war-on-wikileaks/ In particular, with reference to young Pfc Bradley Manning and the apparently shocking treatment he is receiving in some quarters, including the complete disregard of habeas corpus, instead of the universal gratitude for his bravery in disclosing abuse on a massive scale that he deserves, 'At 23, Private Manning is the world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, having remained true to the Nuremberg Principle that every soldier has the right to "a moral choice." His suffering mocks the notion of the land of the free.' This is the section of the NYT/NS/Article that User:Nandt1, in his assiduity, attributed to Assange and equated with 'political prisoner'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ( WP:NOT#FORUM) make it clear that the sort of comments above are "unacceptable" ( WP:TALKNO). The editor has an agenda which s/he pushes persistently and openly. Neither this page nor the content page have benefited much from these edits and POV comments. I wish the comments would stop. -- S. Rich ( talk) 23:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Like Manning, allegedly (but the doubt does not mean he has not spent many months in detention, without trial, in conditions the UN torture rapporteurs are investigating) I believe all things should be done 'openly'. I wonder whether cries of 'POV' may sometimes be the equivalent of citing 'national security' or 'costs lives', for the credibility of which see United States Department of Homeland Security inter alia, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The concern is not one of suppressing any discussion of topics, but of where topics are best discussed. Wikipedia has a policy to keep POVs out of articles and out of the pages which discuss the articles. If you do not like this policy, you should take your discussions to other forums. Wikipedia is not your encyclopedia, and you are not the WP:OWNER of any article with freedom to flout the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Stop trying to WP:RGW -- such actions WP:DISRUPT the improvement of Wikipedia. There is no problem for anyone to find forums in order to "openly" discuss the topic. Again, please find another forum for your POV. -- S. Rich ( talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Your comment shows you are ignoring the information in the Manning article. The UN SR's are not investigating the confinement conditions. One's term of office expired (and his office said they had received no requests to look into the matter). The other simply sent a letter to the US DoS. Indeed, the UNSRs have no authority to investigate the US government. -- S. Rich ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sadly not. The US Government does indeed appear accountable to no one, though perhaps it will be to history; certainly not their citizenry (see expenditure sections in United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Homeland Security etc), not their allies, not even the United Nations. Previously on this page you questioned whether these wars were illegal, citing something called 'Congress'. I don't know what that is, but I think it shows a limitation on one's point of view to even think of some kind of, I imagine, parochial clique, or to say the UN has no authority vis a vis some cabal. I was thinking more of the ius belli (or, at a squeeze, the United Nations), but I guess if one's perspective is limited by one's government's suppression of information then one might be excused for this. Shall we drop it and get on with Manning? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor had added to John Pilger's statement that "every soldier has the right to "a moral choice"" the additional words "when given orders". But Pilger himself was too careful in his writing to make this latter statement, and I have deleted it. Not to be legalistic about this but just precise, it is not clear from anything that is said in our article (or that I have read elsewhere) that even Manning himself claims to have received any of the "illegal" orders that are the specific focus of the Nurenburg principles. I recognize the likely retort that if one is (implicitly or explicitly) ordered not to divulge restricted information, and this information includes evidence of a crime (as with the video), the Nurenburg principle could be said to apply, but it is not clear how this would cover vacuuming up vast quantities of restricted material and leaking it willy nilly. While the piece by Paul Craig Roberts raises similar logical problems, it is at least quoted accurately, and I have left it in place. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
With reference to Nuremberg (in English I understand typically sic - see etymology for elucidation), I understand that it was a most historic city, centre of the German Renaissance, before being indiscriminately obliterated by the RAF and USAF. Apparently there was a ' cathedral of light' - interesting parallels with other professed beacons perhaps. I understand that Nuremberg was also incidentally the site of what, to date, has been the most publicized international investigation of war crimes. Thank you for highlighting this: I shall make the appropriate changes. BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's get back on track: e.g., what is WP:REL to the article as it serves the reader? The discussion on Nuremberg is a side-track. Soldiers make moral choices every day -- from signing up because they might need a job, to the decision to pull the trigger and kill another human being. What General Pace said was that when there are clearly immoral or illegal orders given, soldiers have the obligation to disobey those specific orders and report such orders up the chain of command. But was Manning given any such orders? No. Rather, he was ordered to follow the rules regarding the security of classified information. Were those orders illegal or immoral? This is a more difficult question, indeed. Regardless of the difficulty, what Manning is alleged to have done was take information he had about what he thought were war crimes from some time back and not report them through the chain of command, but reveal information about the specific illegal (or legal) events to the media (via Wikileaks). Moreover, he is alleged to have released even more information not related to war crimes. And this has upset a lot of people because these revelations have made their jobs a lot harder and more dangerous. So, was Manning properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the war crimes info? Arguably, yes. But was he properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the non-war crime information in contravention to the orders he had received? Arguably, no. With these two points in mind, our editing becomes problematic when we seek to promote one argument over the other. That is, we have one group of editors who say "Manning is right because he revealed such-and-such bad things about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan (and it does not matter if he also revealed info about non-bad things}." Other editors are saying "Manning is wrong because he revealed a lot of non-bad things (the non-war crime info) -- along with a few bad things." One side wants to say "The Nuremberg Principle applies" and the other says "No way." The result is that the article suffers because of each editor pushing the short-term, near horizon POV instead of taking an encyclopedic view of editing. Bottom line -- this stuff about Nuremberg, etc., can wait till later. Let Manning's lawyer bring it up if he likes. Let historians figure it out. Let opinion writers write their opinions in their Op-Ed pieces. But let Wikipedia be an encyclopedia and not a forum.-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that a previous user thought fit to delete an indicator of Manning's preferred reading. I would contend that one's preferred reading fodder is indicative of one's interests and character, and since the connection has also been made in a 'WP:RS', presumably this might be retained. Here's the info in full: Mr. Coombs shared a list of books Private Manning had asked his family to buy him, which included: “ Decision Points,” by George W. Bush; “The Critique of Practical Reason” and “The Critique of Pure Reason,” by Immanuel Kant; “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays; “The Selfish Gene,” by Richard Dawkins; “A People’s History of the United States,” by Howard Zinn; “The Art of War,” by Sun Tzu; “The Good Soldiers,” by David Finkel and “On War,” by Carl von Clausewitz. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/lawyer-describes-solitary-confinement-of-suspected-wikileaks-source/?ref=world
I also see, to my surprise, that Manning's 'orientation' is deemed relevant for mention in the article, although this content has been reduced and toned down somewhat over the past month or so, through User:SRich's best efforts to do Manning justice, I understand. Apparently, according to Michel Foucault's multi-tome 'History of Sexuality', this kind of discourse is a hiccup and that, typically, moderation in one's behaviour has been the issue, in accordance with the Delphic principle of μηδεν αγαν, 'nothing in excess'. That Manning apparently chooses his 'partners' on the basis of their character rather than their body shape is perhaps a further indicator of his own character, seemingly deemed a fit subject for conjecture and caricature in this article, and transcendence of the limited visions of those around him. Unfortunately I myself am not so free-thinking, and it would be interesting to have others' views and suggestions on how best to incorporate this - perhaps a reference to Foucault's work in the bibliography? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Since it is a succinct distillation of the discourse on 'orientation', apparently often pejorative, that is deemed fit for inclusion in an article on young Bredley (sic). I understand under the applicable WP policies bibliography is allowed - and there is no such at the moment. Perhaps a full list of Manning's reading, as far as is known, also? Presumably similarly relevant to young Bredley, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand other Manning-related issues were 'precluded by policy', but point taken, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, contrary to a User:Qwertyrxian, were someone to be reading Kant's works on Practical Reasoning (ie self-serving careerism) and Pure Reasoning (ie the transcendent and universal obligation to disclose abuse) that might suggest some kind of awareness of conflicting demands, indeed those very ones that make this Bradley Manning notable. That not only a professional lawyer thinks this is highly relevant and indicative of Manning but none other than the reputable New York Times thinks fit to include such matters in its hallowed publications should surely be preferred to the individual views on the matter of a User:Qwertyxian, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, these are books Manning has asked his family to try to get for him. I don't think we know if he has actually read them yet. Beyond this, obviously, what (even) the New York Times thinks newsworthy for a single story on a specific day is not per se automatically grist for the mill of an encyclopedia article, which needs to apply the higher degree of selectivity associated with a longer shelf life. Nandt1 ( talk) 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice one :)) BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Try googling 'Bradley Manning Kant Reasoning' - will find many many discussions of this, many of which predate the NYT article. Don't see what's quite so objectionable about a brief mention, but anyway, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed edit: "Amongst a number of books Manning has requested from his family whilst in the brig are 'The Critique of Practical Reasoning' and 'The Critique of Pure Reasoning' by Immanuel Kant." BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What's a non-vanilla google search? Then I'll try one of those... BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the google clarification. User:SRich, other than for the chats, has the young hero 'penned' any of the matter in this article himself? On the basis we can include what the TV colonel has to say about Manning, can we not include what Manning has to say about himself (ie I'm interested in Kant)? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the relevance of Manning's 'orientation' - that's deemed relevant, why not his intellectual leanings? BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone see any clear reason why my edit [10] was undone? Unless there isn't a consensus what he released was controversial, I see no reason to abstain from adding it. 173.183.66.173 ( talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I added a quote to the "Complaints of mistreatment in detention" section, thus;
Life for PFC Manning, however, is not much better now that he has been returned to POI watch. Like suicide risk, he is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he will sit in his cell. The guards will check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning will be required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He will receive each of his meals in his cell. He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He will not be allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He will only be allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine will be taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He will be prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He will receive one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards will take him to an empty room and allow him to walk. He will usually just walk in figure eights around the room until his hour is complete. When he goes to sleep, he will be required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
— Attorney David C. Coombs
This was removed by Qwyrxian on the basis that it is too long.
I do not agree, on the basis that a paragraph of the same length containing a near-identical description of conditions should be acceptable. It seems to me to make no sense that if I take what Coombs wrote, give it a ref and re-write it to describe conditions, it is acceptable, but if I merely quote Coombs directly, it is not; especially since the latter is more informative than the former. In the absence of disagreement, I will in a day or two re-add the quote. Toby Douglass ( talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
CryptomeManning
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).