There are likely many soldiers in the military that no longer believe in the "war on terrorism." Like the soldiers in Iraq Veterans Against the War or Courage to Resist, they want to step out. Manning may be someone who gives them the courage to follow their conscience and resist fighting an endless war. On the other hand, the way the government has treated him, soldiers may see Manning as an example of what happens to you if you don't keep quiet about what you see in war. Soldiers may think his case shows it's best to just get to the end of your tour of duty and not make the injustices or horrors of war a problem for the military or your chain of command, like Manning allegedly did.
Everest: On the issue of whistle-blowers and alleged whistle-blowers--how does the Obama administration compare to when George W. Bush was in the White House?
Gosztola: The Obama administration has waged an unprecedented war on whistle-blowers or "leakers." He's prosecuted more individuals for alleged leaks than all previous U.S. presidents combined. Unlike Bush, the Obama administration does not simply retaliate against people that go to the press to reveal the truth of what the U.S. government is doing. They target them with prosecutions. And, to date, six people have faced prosecutions under the flawed and outdated Espionage Act of 1917.
This war on whistle-blowing or leaking has created a climate that makes government employees very reluctant to talk to reporters or journalists on the record. It chills free speech and freedom of the press. It makes media organizations more deferent to power. To avoid being targeted by government for engaging in actual muckraking journalism, journalists form cozy relationships hoping to be spoon-fed scoops that can form best-selling books like New York Times' journalist David Sanger's recent book, Confront and Conceal, or Newsweek correspondent Daniel Klaidman's Kill or Capture. They ask permission before going to publish and carefully frame their reporting as merely informative so as not to upset the officials who provided them with scoops. They do not draw any important conclusions about government, or in these cases the national security state, which might alienate sources, because they want to be able to talk to officials for future stories or books.
Everest: I understand media organizations are waging a campaign for more access to Manning and information about his case. What is this about?
Gosztola: I am a plaintiff in a challenge filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) with the Army Criminal Court of Appeals (ACCA) to force the military judge to grant the press and public access to court filings. Other plaintiffs signed on to the challenge include Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, Nation national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman, The Nation, Chase Madar, author of The Passion of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Each of us finds the lack of transparency in the proceedings unacceptable. Court orders, judges' decisions, government motions and other filings in the court should be available for the press to reference. None of that is available to reporters who cover the proceedings from the media pool. Yet the press does have access to court filings in the cases of Guantà ¡namo prisoners brought before military tribunals. This means when the judge, defense or prosecution says something or reads a document, reporters have one chance to get what was said for a news story. And, whether what we put down is accurate or not, what is written or typed is what is reported and we may or may not have the full context, but there is nothing we can do to confirm the accuracy. The military won't give us access to court documents so we can double-check.
Everest: Why do you feel it's so important to expose what's happening in this case and build support for Manning? And what can people do to help?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
