@bmaz So perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm taking the (for me) unprecedented step of writing a twitlonger to explain what I'm trying to say.
Here's my understanding: you think that it's important to highlight how unfriendly UCMJ proceedings generally are to the public and the press, and then contrast that to what happened at the Manning hearing, and then use that as a tool for highlighting ways in which the hearing failed to provide public access in an equitable fashion. I think that is an awesome point, and I'd love to see it written up in an easy-to-understand article and published widely. I'd likely promote it myself.
The purpose of my article, however, was to merely document the barriers that the public and press faced when getting into and reporting on the Manning hearing. That alone was a frighteningly long article! I think there are many articles that can build from that foundation - such as articles describing whether certain laws or regulations were violated or (as you suggested) an article that describes norms that were violated. I would love to see those written, and encourage you to do so. Feel free to use information from my article as the foundation for yours. But please don't tweet at me a bunch of times complaining that I didn't write the article you would have written.