Nice information, but you don't have to accuse people of lying. Most likely they're misremembering structurally minor details which don't distract from the main point -- which is that he was held under conditions tantamount to torture, and in an abuse process: in particular, a dubious interpretation of the "Prevention of Injury" status.
If you want to go after liars, go after people who pretend to believe that unnecessary solitary confinement (military or civilian) isn't torture. Or that drone (and vanilla) airstrikes aren't killing civilians in large numbers.
It's 2013 now. Manning was taken into custody in 2010. When do we get to assume people seriously debating the events around Manning's trial will at least be vaguely aware of the big details? Especially since we're discussing Manning in the context of wider U.S. legal policy now.
Garbage in means garbage out, every time. How can you draw accurate parallels from one case to another if you don't even bother to do the barest of research about the case you're drawing from?
It's all in 10 U.S.C. You can also download the Manual for Courts-Martial which includes all of the UCMJ articles (and IIRC, even the equivalent of 'annotated diffs'). I believe the latest MCM is from 2012.