As the first day Bradley Manning’s court martial wrapped up on Monday, we feel that it’s a good time to take a stand, not necessarily for Manning but for what he represents: the public’s right to know.
After being outed as WikiLeak’s source of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, reports about the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and case reports on Guantanamo detainees, the former Army intelligence officer now potentially faces 20 years in prison – despite having already admitted his guilt in the biggest public dumping of U.S. state secrets in history. Despite this, prosecutors are forging ahead in an attempt to charge Manning with a more serious crime of violating the Espionage Act – if they can prove that he intended to aid enemies and deliberately harm the the nation. The next step, if the prosecution can make its case, would be to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Act. If that were to go through, journalists and news organizations would find themselves in a precarious position, thanks to the broad language of the law: report on any information disseminated by WikiLeaks and face prosecution.
While we, nor do most journalists advocate ever using illegal means to gather news, we will, and always will, support the free flow of information. Manning’s defense lawyer is arguing that the leaks were not, on Manning’s part, an act of treason nor malice; any ill that may have come from the leaks was unintended, he says. Due to Manning’s selectivity in choosing which files to release, we’re inclined to agree. It seems that he sought to enlighten his country’s citizens as to their government’s activites abroad, and we applaud that mission, even if we don’t applaud his methods. Maybe downloading thousands of classified documents to CDs, under the guise of burning Lady Gaga albums, wasn’t the most ethical way to go about it. However, leaks are always messy, and nothing in Manning’s case is black and white. We, as journalists, also believe that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
Manning’s case and what it means for how information is disseminated and censored is an important chapter in journalism’s history, and we’re paying close attention. And as a member of the public, with an unshakeable right to know about what your government is up to, you should be, too.