New Podcast: An Interview with Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes

By Bryan Rahija

What would you do if you were in the military and were given an order that you thought was illegal?

If you're like Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, you probably would've started asking questions.

Lt. Colonel Holmes leads an information operations team in the military, and his story was the subject of an explosive article published last month in Rolling Stone. The angle that caught our attention: Holmes' story could represent another breakdown in military whistleblower protections.

For our latest podcast, Lt. Colonel Holmes sat down to tell POGO about his experience, the challenges he faced (and continues to face), and the advice he'd give to would-be whistleblowers.

Have a listen!

• Download the latest podcast
• Subscribe to POGO podcasts on iTunes (don't forget to leave us a rating)
• Subscribe to POGO podcasts via RSS
• Previous podcasts

Bryan Rahija edits POGO's blog.

Image by Flickr user pyrosapian, used under Creative Commons License.

Related:

• Rolling Stone Psy-Ops Article Exposes Another Breakdown in Military Whistleblower Protections (UPDATED)
• Largely Missing From the WikiLeaks Debate: The State of Military Whistleblower Protections
• Leaked Assessment Says Deficiencies Have Plagued the Military Whistleblower System
• The Pentagon Must Protect Whistleblowers

Comments

[Wow]

Nick, Sincerely appreciate the reply, and I agree with you. My issue is not with LTC Holmes as a whistleblower, it is in the fact that he himself does not seem to be able to keep his story straight, which is extremely troublesome for me. The problem I have noticed, and now in great concern of, is that the LTC seems to contradict himself every time he interacts with the press. This makes it hard to believe his story. If you look at his fox news interviews, to his statements with NYT and other outlets such as yours, there are some glaring contradictions in his statements. I wish him all the best, but I will look for another whistleblower to put my support behind.

[Nick Schwellenbach]

Dear Wow -- thank you for your comment.

Like many, perhaps the vast majority of whistleblowers, Lt. Col. Mike Holmes did not intend to become one. He did, however, have a duty to withhold the Constitution and the rule of law (the Constitution being “the supreme law of the land”) as a member of the armed services. When he had concerns with an order, he raised them with the appropriate individuals in his chain of command, including a lawyer with responsibility for giving advice on the legal parameters of the kind of order Holmes questioned. The concerns were validated by the lawyer and the order was modified so that they were acceptable within the bounds of the law and policy.

If everything stopped there, we would not know Holmes’ name. But Holmes argues he angered some of his bosses. These particular bosses, according to documents, initiated an investigation that they had influence over. Holmes argues the investigation's conclusions were not based on a fair and complete assessment of the evidence and that the investigation was rigged against him. As further evidence that the investigation was retaliatory, Holmes says that other members of his command who were not on the bad side of his bosses, were not investigated despite the investigating officer's recommendation that they be. And others who sided with Holmes' qualms about the original order also found themselves under investigation.

When Holmes went to the Pentagon Inspector General's Military Reprisals Investigation unit, they did not conduct an investigation into what he argued were reprisals made against him and closed his case. MRI did not even interview Holmes.

When Holmes went to Rolling Stone magazine, he was clearly blowing the whistle on the failed military reprisal investigation system in the IG's office and on the way his original command reprised against him for his legitimate -- and validated -- concerns. Rolling Stone did not emphasize this, instead it exercised its prerogative to emphasis what it thought would be of interest to its readers. But the fact remains that Holmes believes he was reprised against for making a protected communication to a member of his chain of command. When he went to Rolling Stone, he then became what the public traditionally considers a whistleblower (the public often considers individuals – whether civilians, military, or in the private sector – to be whistleblowers when they go out of the chain of command) because of the way he was treated and the lack of adequate recourse that existed within the system.

[Wow]

I was excited to listen to this as I am a Holmes supporter and was hoping to really hear his side of events. After listening though, I am deeply disappointed and, in fact, believe the LTC less than I did before and truly feel his integrity is in question. I am actually wondering why POGO even posted this. In my opinion, he is not a real whistleblower and has now made it more difficult for the real whistleblowers out there who want to come forward.