Reading 05: Hero or traitor?
Nothing was easy about Chelsea Manning’s decision to leak sensitive government information to WikiLeaks.
She struggled mightily with the crossroads she encountered when she discovered disconcerting messages and videos on government computer systems.
Should she leak the information to the public to show the misdeeds the American government hides from its citizens and risk being labeled a traitor to the USA if she’s found out?
Or does she keep quiet about what she has found, obeying government rules on secrecy and classified information while having to live with the worrying actions the government hides from its people?
Certainly, there are obvious pros and cons that exist with taking either option, and neither option is overly easy, although the latter may be the easier decision.
Take the first option and face potential persecution from the American public.
Take the second and have to live with those secrets.
Ultimately, Chelsea chose the first option and leaked ‘secret’ level classified government information to WikiLeaks.
Chelsea Manning did what she felt was ethical in an earnest attempt, and frankly a successful one as well, to expose hidden atrocities of the United States military. She felt she had an obligation to the US public and the world to publicize the inexcusable actions of the military.
Certainly, Chelsea Manning broke laws in leaking classified information and deserved consequences of some regard. However, the punishment Manning received was unprecedented and extremely superfluous. She was charged with multiple crimes and given 35 years of detention in military prisons. Similar leaking crimes have only brought penalties of single-digit sentences in prison — often only 1–3 years.
The 7 years she ultimately spent in prison before having her sentence commuted was plenty punishment enough for the crimes she was prosecuted for. Obama’s decision to commute her sentence was absolutely justified, especially due to the military’s shortcomings in accommodating her gender dysphoria. Keeping her imprisoned longer, especially for the entirety of her 35 year sentence, would have been inhumane and unjust.
Speaking from an ethics perspective, neither of the options Chelsea could take seem perfectly ethical. Both seem quite challenging to completely justify as the “right” course of action to take.
However, I certainly understand the rationale for seeing leaking the information as the most ethical decision, and I do think there is a place for people who make these tough decisions and sacrifices.
A government cannot be allowed to take unethical actions like killing innocent civilians with impunity. A government must be held accountable by its citizens for its actions. However, this accountability cannot occur while the citizens of the country are left in the dark. People breaking the government’s trust to leak sensitive information that provides evidence of governmental or military wrongdoing is necessary for democracy. By this rationale, Manning’s actions to leak classified information were warranted.
Reservations and objections to this type of behavior are also natural. Lots of concern always arises when classified information is leaked about how such leaks undermine the US military and/or government while putting our soldiers at risk. However, in this instance, absolutely no evidence exists that Chelsea Manning’s actions endangered anyone’s life or got anyone hurt.
Additionally, in this instance, most of those who strongly opposed Obama’s commuting of Manning’s sentence did so for the sake of walking party lines and used such cookie cutter rationale without any backing evidence.
By the nature of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Chelsea Manning seemingly should be protected. The information she leaked certainly indicates violation of laws and a potential abuse of authority in killing innocent civilians abroad. However, leaking classified government information tends to evade these protections that usually apply to private sector citizens.
The American public will likely always view Chelsea Manning as a villain and perhaps even a traitor. In my opinion, she’s an antihero, breaking the government’s trust to allow for a more informed public.
