As the trial of Bradley Manning finally begins after three long years of its defendant being held in conditions that have been internationally described and condemned as inhumane, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that the entire affair is disturbingly reminiscent of another famous case of a soldier who stood accused of passing secrets to his nation’s enemy; I mean of course Alfred Dreyfus. While there are important differences, to be sure, between the two cases (Manning admits to transmitting information – but to a journalist not an enemy agent – and anti-Semitism plays no known role in his case), the treatment of both men and the military secrecy surrounding key facts in the prosecution of each case do exhibit unsettling resemblances.
Even more troubling is the apparent repetition of the now-infamous abdication of responsibility by the nation’s public intellectuals (or today more accurately the academics, pundits, and think-tank staff members who have largely replaced them) to dig deep into the Manning case in order to expose all its details to the light of public scrutiny, or worse, to become little more than mouthpieces for the State or panderers to a largely un- or misinformed public’s fears and prejudices. Decried as La trahison des clercs by Julien Benda in his 1927 book of the same name (sadly no longer presently in print in an English translation in the United States but generally available at lending libraries or second-hand book shops), this flight from serious, objective inquiry puts at risk both the soul of the nation itself as well as the very life of a man standing accused of charges that if convicted of them may bring a sentence of death.
To be sure, there are journalists attempting to cover the trial despite the U.S. government’s multiple layers of secrecy surrounding the case and its prosecution. Many will patiently and obediently follow the restrictions imposed upon them, reporting little more than what they are told by spokespeople. Others, such as Kevin Gosztola and Alexa O’Brien, have actually managed to obtain access to the trial itself and are updating anyone interested to learn what they are discovering via Twitter. There is also an attorney, Chase Madar, whose book The Passion of Bradley Manning was recently published by Verso and should be considered essential reading for all who wish to consider themselves well-informed about the background of the case and its much-misunderstood defendant, to whom attention should be paid for ongoing commentary about the trial.
As fragmented as the modern media is, no one person’s J’accuse! will have the same force as Zola’s did in the Dreyfus case back in 1898. For one thing, a much smaller portion of the American public will likely even pay attention to the Manning case – beyond the ignorable cursory coverage it will likely receive on CNN or FOX – than did the French to the Dreyfus case during its time. Indeed, its timing, spanning the summer months as it will – the period of lowest attention being paid to news of any sort – may have been yet one more way the U.S. government planned to keep it outside of the public’s view. Thus it is imperative upon all those who would think themselves civically informed and engaged to seek out the information necessary to do so. Mr. Madar’s book – as well as Mr. Benda’s for purposes of intellectual background – and the daily reporting of Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Gosztola are very good sources with which to begin.
