By Rahul Gupta
In August 2013, Chelsea Manning, formerly Private Bradley Manning, was sentenced to 35 years prison by a military court for leaking a vast array of classified material. The leak, biggest in US history included a video of a US helicopter attacking 10 individuals, 2 of whom were reporters misidentified as combatants. Manning also leaked thousands of US state department memos and internal communications that painted a picture of how the US bureaucracy viewed the world.
[su_pullquote]In his last few days in office, President Obama pardoned 200 convicts. Chelsea Manning was one of them.[/su_pullquote]
In his last few days in office, President Obama pardoned 200 convicts. Chelsea Manning was one of them. Her pardon was confirmed on the 18th of January after she served 7 years in prison, with opinion firmly divided. The Republicans fumed and used it to paint President Obamas security policy as misguided and dangerous. They viewed Chelsea as a threat to national security who tangibly put the nation in harms way. This position was inconsistent with their support for Wikileaks, which they praised after it hacked into and published e-mails from the Hilary Clinton’s account. Manning has, however, received massive support from activists and proponents of open societies for clearing the fog from how the government actually operates and makes decisions.
President Obama recently pardoned the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Photo Courtesy: Mother Jones.[su_pullquote align=”right”]Also, as several activists point out, Chelsea Manning was failed by the military.[/su_pullquote]
This may be an attempt to adjust President Obama’s legacy after weathering criticism over poor treatment of whistle-blowers Another possible factor that distinguishes Chelsea Manning from other whistle-blowers is that she submitted herself to the workings of the law and acknowledged guilt and responsibility for what she had done. Also, as several activists point out, Chelsea Manning was failed by the military. She had prior to the leak sought help several times for mental complications arising out of her gender dysphoria. But due to the militaries strict policy she was repeatedly denied help and put to work in a place where she had to wade through disturbing data. Finally, her pardon may also in part relate to the inherent inequity in putting a person who identifies as female in an all-male maximum-security prison. The constant harassment within the prison severely impacted her mental health and stability.
Whistle-blowers in the information age
[su_pullquote]The complex lives we lead are regulated and impacted by governments on multiple levels.[/su_pullquote]
Governments today are huge. The complex lives we lead are regulated and impacted by governments on multiple levels. Generally, democracy dictates that the government seek consent from the people and govern accordingly. But the array of policy choices these days are numerous, complex and do not fit into any ideology, this makes it difficult for governments to seek consent and consultation from the population. In defence and world affairs, this problem is compounded because of a need for secrecy. It is possible that we submit the control over some of this policy.
From this point the road diverges, one set of people believe people in this context have a moral right to review and study the information and policy knowledge after the decision was made and another set of people believe that this information is far too sensitive to allow mass review.
Edward Snowden has had to abscond and is currently in Russia. Traitor or Hero? Photo Courtesy: Tutor2u.Both these world-views are equally legitimate with the former group of people supporting whistle-blowers and the latter viewing them as a threat.
A need to incentivise whistle-blowers
[su_pullquote align=”right”]Proponents of whistleblowing will argue that the threat of a leak alters the calculus with which governments operate.[/su_pullquote]
Proponents of whistleblowing will argue that the threat of a leak alters the calculus with which governments operate. Knowing that the decision-making process may fall into public domain, governments are more likely to make reasoned decisions with minimal bias. This provides a reason to incentivise whistleblowing and providing adequate protection to those who do.
Opponents point out that often times the information put into the public domain can be used maliciously by anti-state elements.
Moreover, the threat of review of every single decision can have a paralysing effect on governments. Often decisions have trade-offs and the government in order to maintain political capital needs to keeps these trade-offs secret. Accordingly whistle-blowers ought not to be incentivised. The belief is that where the government is making rouge decisions that information will be leaked irrespective by someone in the process, just by virtue of human nature.
Thomas Andrews Drake is a former senior executive of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), a decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, and a whistleblower. Photo Courtesy: Rise Up Times.A way forward
[su_pullquote]What we need to do is to formulate policy that allows due process for the whistle-blower along with protecting them from undue harassment.[/su_pullquote]
Whistle-blowers often have varied circumstances, objectives and intentions. A one size-fit all solution is unlikely to be helpful. What we need to do is to formulate policy that allows due process for the whistle-blower along with protecting them from undue harassment. Legislation that ensures that whistle-blowers get a fair trial is paramount, as often these rights are curtailed under pressure from governments. Apart from this its important to develop a framework to assess whether information leaked leads to net positive or net negative for society.
Public opinion must find a place in this.
Once its clear what is the net impact of the information, this should factor into how the whistle-blower is treated by the government.
The complexity of the issue makes it hard to develop hard rules. Also, the nature of the crime makes traditional criminal jurisprudence a blunt instrument to deal with the act. The way forward seems to be a combination of measures that foster transparency, allow adequate protection of the law and places the public first.