From the readings, what is your opinion of Chelsea/Bradley Manning‘s decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks and his subsequent sentencing? Is what he did ethical or did he violate his duty? Should he have been protected under the Whistleblower protection laws? Is he a revolutionary hero or a traitor?
Chelsea Manning seemed deeply unhappy. She was lonely, misunderstood, distant from her family, troubled by her Army service, confused by her own identity, and scared of the repercussions of her leaks. She was in desperate need of a friend, a person who would listen. She didn’t seem capable at the time to blow a meaningful whistle.
I’m not an American citizen, nor am I familiar with codes and policies in the U.S. army, so I don’t feel qualified to weigh in on the “hero or traitor” debate; but to me, Manning’s actions were, as said by many, reckless. For example, in “Cablegate“, she leaked over a quarter million diplomatic cables, citing “open diplomacy” as the reason she did it, when in fact, her actions have exposed the U.S. position on many diplomatic issues. Even in her chat log with Adrian Lamo, she has exposed information that shouldn’t go outside of the U.S. army. She has clearly done something wrong.
In general and in principle, I’m all for carefully calculated whistleblowing, where the whistleblower puts the public interest before their own safety, and reveals something disturbing to the public. But in the case of Cablegate, if the public believes that the Department of State and U.S. diplomats are competent and dutiful, why would they be interested in daily trivialities of U.S. foreign policy? Even the documents about Guantanamo Bay, Afghan, and Iraq are too distant to be provoking to the public. Chelsea Manning clearly made an uncalculated move, one that endangers herself without bearing any meaningful, widely-debated fruit. Futile.
Her sentence, on the other hand, was harsh. It seems counterintuitive to charge an American citizen, who has the public interest of the U.S. in mind, with a law that was enacted to combat enemies of the public interest of the U.S. The Espionage Act makes it especially difficult for any American citizen to uncover classified, systematic wrongdoing of government agencies. The ACLU was rightfully worried: “[w]hen a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.” And the whistleblower protection laws didn’t help either. For the U.S. intelligence community, only when there is a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, will the whistleblowers be protected. This seems dangerous: who could the whistleblowers count on to protect them? They’ll less likely voice their concerns, fearing retaliation.
But the meta question is, if the general public is not interested in some wrongdoing of the government, whose responsibility is it to correct them? If the average American is not worried about the U.S. army hurting or killing innocents in Afghan or Iraq, how do we stop or minimize these casualties? Do we gradually send the message up the ladder, hoping someone higher up with a sense of justice will help? Is there an alternative option?
Conundrum 