Talk:List of charges in United States v. Manning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Decisions per charge[edit]

Maybe the charges should be done as a table, with a column on the right saying what the result was for each charge, e.g.

1. Aiding the enemy – cleared on 31 July (reference)

etc... BigSteve (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What leaked material was actually classified[edit]

There are inconsistencies between this list, Chelsea Manning, United States v. Manning, and external sources regarding exactly how much of the leaked material was classified. If you can help, please chime in at Talk:Chelsea Manning#What leaked material was actually classified. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of my post was terrible—everyone is arguing about the switch from Bradley to Chelsea—so my post was quickly buried in all the noise. It got archived a few days later. Maybe we should discuss it here instead?


Hi Mjb, I've been using the term "restricted" for precisely the reason you outline, namely that it's not clear what was classified at the time of the release. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten wrapped around the axle on too much of the very technical details, but I just now made a change about the transfer of data into non-secure systems. Non-classified, sensitive info is included. To "clarify" how this might apply in real life, a soldier could record some sort of sensitive info on a non-secure device such as a camera, tape recorder, etc.. That info has to stay on the non-secure device, not any other device, until it can be transferred into the secure system. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed pretty tempting to say sensitive material, some of it classified as an interim solution. Officials were obviously displeased about any of it being leaked, so in that regard, it's all sensitive.
However, "experts disagree." A sizable portion was apparently unremarkable, routine reports and communiques, hence the op-eds downplaying the sensitivity of the trove. We should be careful to neither downplay nor overstate. I'm sure someone will insist we're editorializing or biased if we were to characterize the entire collection as sensitive.
As for restricted, that's more problematic. It has special meaning in classification systems; see Classified information in the United States#Restricted and Classified information in the United Kingdom#System of classification.
I'm hoping someone who has done more reading about this case will be able to point us to some sources... —mjb (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To use an old briefing phrase, we are "getting too deep into the weeds" with this. And seeking to parse out the technicalities of the charges and specifications (especially with an eye toward figuring out if they were well grounded) is OR. Besides, Coombs would have pounded on the table more if the classification issue was important to the case. To answer your two specific questions, Mjb (What was classified at the time of the leaks? What was retroactively classified?), the answers don't matter. Manning was basically charged (from what I read here, not in any other source) with releasing "stuff". When the stuff was classified is not an issue for the article (or even for the court-martial). For the purposes of the trial, Manning had the duty to safeguard the "stuff" (remarkable or not) by following the regulations, etc. Manning did not do so, and as a result Manning will spend a few years at USDB. This article might be improved by table-izing it and including the convicted of/innocent of results. But in terms of article improvement, I would not worry more about these other particulars. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading too much into this. No eye is toward figuring out if the charges were justified; there's no argument (from me, at least) about that. The concern, which I think does matter, is that the three articles in question need to be in agreement. Right now they say different things about the classifications, and they can't all be correct. The Chelsea Manning article in particular, being a BLP, must avoid implying or making any statements about the subject that aren't attributable to reliable sources (e.g., its current implication that Manning leaked only "classified" material). To that end, I'm asking for sources to be cited for anything that is characterized as classified, and for the three articles (and any others that mention the case) to be in alignment on this. There's no OR or POV-pushing involved, but some searching and vetting of sources will have to be done, as in any article. —mjb (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same wavelength. Citation is the key. It's clear that Manning leaked a certain amount of classified stuff, so the conviction is okay in that regard. But, whether some of the material was non-classified won't matter. What I hope WP can avoid is an argument that says "First they charged Manning for leaking stuff, and then they classified it." Let me add that Mador's comments has at least one technical error. He refers to Manning as "declassifying" material. "Declassifying" is a process whereby the classification authority says "we can downgrade this material from Secret, Confidential, TS, whatever". (But Mador may be quite correct when he seeks to debunk the myth that Manning released top secret material.) In Manning's case it looks like at least one of the charges was for copying the material off of the secure system and releasing it. And we know that Manning was convicted on most of the charges. As SlimVirgin mentioned, she used the term "restricted material" in the article to generally describe the material. And she provided an internal link to the classified material article. I think that is a good editing call. In any event, trying to parse what material was TS, S, C, FOUO, OPSEC, diplomatic, etc. is just too much to handle, especially for WP articles. – S. Rich (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At [1] there's a transcript of an interview of Daniel Ellsberg, who says of the information he and Manning leaked:

Mine was classified top secret ... his was classified secret or less. Most of what he released was unclassified [...]

Manning, like myself and like Snowden, had clearances not only top secret but higher than top-secret communications, intelligence clearances, and others. I had many other intelligence clearances that were much higher than top secret. I released none of that, and neither did Manning.

(audio) —rybec 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 13 March 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of charges in United States v. Manning → List of charges against PFC Manning – More professional. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article title conforms to case name. Citation by case name is quite "professional", so nominator's rationale rings hollow. As S. Rich says, the proposed title introduces the problem of Manning's rank. Proposal offers no advantages. Xoloz (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per everybody else I see no reason to use a different name than the actual name of the case.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is specifically clear as to the scope of the article: listing only the charges to this specific court martial case. A title like "list of charges against PFC Manning" is ambiguous, and could refer to any case involving any private first class anywhere in the world whose last name happens to be Manning. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Oppose as the case has an article United States v. Manning. Renaming entails renaming the basic article. Simply using the surname avoids issues about past rank/demoted rank & given/taken first name. Also, the subsequent review by the appellate court will use "U.S. v Manning" and so will legal journals which may (or do) discuss the cases. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 01:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally titled "List of charges against Bradley Manning" and was then moved to "List of charges against Chelsea Manning." So why not call it "List of charges against PFC Manning?" --71.59.58.63 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because List of charges in United States v. Manning avoids all these issues, and -- by conforming to legal citation -- is very much more "professional", the goal toward which the nomination wishes to strive. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed changing the title of Manning's article to avoid those issues. --71.59.58.63 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of charges in United States v. Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of charges in United States v. Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning&oldid=1208219443"