"

(1) Please remain civil.  You may have a personal relationship with the subject, or have personal reasons for supporting him, but taking personal offence on his behalf isn't useful to improvement of the article.  (2) You keep conflating my changes with those of someone else.  The use of the word ""caused"" appears to be the major source of your dudgeon, and I didn't make that change.  You keep reverting all changes wholesale  including changes made for reasons purely of style  rather than picking out the ones which are bothering you.  (3) We have no proof that the documents are ""sensitive"" or that Bradley Manning is responsible for anything at all, since there has been no legal action.  You complain about BLP, but accepting claims about Bradley Manning's guilt in the matter of a serious criminal offence are an extremely serious BLP policy violation.  Until the claims of Lamo and the US government have been established in a court of law, we CANNOT use the word-of-God to state their claims are true.  As for the torture citation, if you read the article (and many others also easily obtainable), you will see that it's the newspaper which chose to put ""torture"" in quotation marks, not the experts they consulted.  We are not interested in the editorial opinion of the newspaper, but rather the opinion of the experts whom the newspaper has consulted  who clearly states that Manning's treatment amounts to torture.    "