What Is The "Right" Whistle To Blow?
The news of Bradley Manning's conviction today on multiple charges (and his acquittal on the most serious one) has people lining up to either defend or denounce the verdict. We'll probably be hearing about it all week, in fact. When he is sentenced, it will spur another round of this debate, no doubt.
Whenever the subject is discussed by serious and sober "security experts," however, I find myself scratching my head over one claim made repeatedly -- that Manning should have availed himself of the "right ways" to blow the whistle, if he thought there was wrongdoing which needed exposing.
These "right ways" to be a whistleblower are never adequately explained, however. Sometimes mentions are made of contacting elected officials, or contacting inspectors general. But I've never heard an example yet of any of this exposing any actual wrongdoing.
Now, I'll be the first to admit this is purely subjective and I am no expert in the field. There may indeed be many cases of people who worked "within the system" and had their concerns adequately met and addressed by concrete changes. All I know is that I can't name one of them.
Maybe this is the way it is supposed to work, though. Maybe the "correct way" of whistleblowing allows anonymity (so careers are not threatened) and problems can be fixed without the intrusion of politics. Again, I admit my own ignorance in the field.
But just from sitting on the sidelines, the "correct" ways simply don't sound as effective as the "take it to the media" option. Take the recent case of Edward Snowden, for instance. He felt he had to expose how the National Security Agency was operating. If he had gone to an internal N.S.A. ombudsman, they would have taken one look and said "that's how we're supposed to operate." If he had tried to talk to some Justice Department inspector general, they would have told him that the Attorney General was already aware of the matter, and that the F.I.S.A. court had approved the programs. If he had talked to a senator or House member, he likely would have been referred to those on the security committees with oversight -- who already knew about the programs but were legally barred from talking about them in public. So what would they have done? What could they have legally done?
Instead, Snowden gave his information to the media. This sparked two reactions which contradicted each other: (1) that Snowden's news was old news, and everybody knew about this already, and (2) Snowden's leak was a body-blow to U.S. security and aided terrorists. They couldn't both be true, but nobody seemed to even notice the contradiction. But then a funny thing happened. Congress was spurred into hearings. The House almost killed the programs Snowden exposed, in a very close vote. Not only was the vote close, it was a very strange coalition that lined up in support -- Tea Partiers and Libertarians working in tandem with civil-liberty-loving Democrats. Not exactly a partisan issue, in other words.
You can bet the effort isn't going to end this year, either. In fact, it may crop up as an election issue in 2014. If it's seen as politically damaging to support programs which collect metadata, perhaps a few more House members will support it next time around and it will pass. Which may even make it an issue in the Senate races as well. Those are all very concrete results from what Snowden leaked. And they happened (or may happen) extremely fast, as Washington measures these things.
My only point here is that while we heard a lot of talk about "welcoming a national conversation" on leaked information, that conversation never starts until the leak takes place. This is precisely why the stuff is leaked in the first place -- because it is an issue the public would likely care about, if people knew about it.
Leakers, under the Obama White House, know that they'll pay a heavy price. Bradley Manning is likely going to pay such a price. I can't see Obama pardoning him any time soon (perhaps on his last day in office, but even then I wouldn't bet the farm on it). Edward Snowden is already paying a price for it (how many other Americans have had their passport yanked with such blinding speed, before being convicted of any crime?). But, in both cases, their leaking has to be judged as being effective. They got the word out. The media exposed a problem that one legislator or some inspector general likely never would have made public at all.
I make no judgment here as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of these leaks themselves (in terms of their content, or national security, or what have you). But I do know that we were all made aware of things by these leaks that we would not have known otherwise. So I have to say that on the level of effectiveness alone, Manning and Snowden did indeed use the "right" method of leaking. They blew the right whistle.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The problem here is that these kinds of activities that were exposed are VITAL to the security of this country..
EVERYONE agrees on this, even if the Left half of our leadership won't admit it..
You mentioned the close vote that almost killed these programs..
Do you know who actually SAVED these very necessary programs??
Nancy Pelosi....
If Manning and Snowden had released their information under a GOP Administration, you just HAVE to know that the outcry from the Left would be deafening....
Ya'all just HAVE to know that President Bush has a Cheshire grin that simply doesn't quit...
His policies are utterly and completely VINDICATED and all those on the Left who fought Bush over these programs are recognized for the treasonous cowards that they are...
Michale
What wrongdoing did Pfc Manning expose in releasing 700,000 US government documents?
What wrongdoing did Pfc Manning expose in releasing 700,000 US government documents?
Oh, where to begin.
Manning gave away sources, assets and procedures that MUST remain secret for them to be effective.
A completely open society that has absolutely no secrets whatsoever is a society that will last barely a day...
Michale
Aww crap, Liz...
Sorry about that.. I totally misread your comment.
My sincerest apologies.
In response to your REAL question..... :^/
I think that initially Manning exposed a Friendly Fire incident where a reporter was killed by a US Gunship..
After seeing how much "fun" that was, Manning decided to go for the whole shebang..
Well he was convicted of aiding the enemy in a court of law, so that should be that.
Except that this comes a week after a guy hunted down and shot a kid for shits and giggles and was allowed to walk completely free in doing so - so who knows how shitty the 'laws' applied here were.
On that last subject, boy did Matt Bors nail it today: http://www.mattbors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1015.png
Michale,
I think that initially Manning exposed a Friendly Fire incident where a reporter was killed by a US Gunship..
That's what I thought. There have been many friendly fire incidents, not least of which from my perspective, occurred shortly after the campaign in Afghanistan began when a US fighter aircraft dropped ordinance on Canadian soldiers.
I cannot understand how people can begin to see Manning as a "whistleblower", especially given his unprecedented and indiscriminate theft of private and confidential State Department and Defense documents.
Well he was convicted of aiding the enemy in a court of law, so that should be that.
What planet are you on??
He was found NOT GUILTY of aiding the enemy, but was found guilty of a slew of lesser charges...
None of which would result in a firing squad..
Unfortunately.....
Except that this comes a week after a guy hunted down and shot a kid for shits and giggles and was allowed to walk completely free in doing so - so who knows how shitty the 'laws' applied here were.
And ANOTHER display of utter ignorance of the facts.
Wish I could say I was surprised.. :D
Liz,
I cannot understand how people can begin to see Manning as a "whistleblower", especially given his unprecedented and indiscriminate theft of private and confidential State Department and Defense documents.
I completely agree.. Both Manning and Snowden exposed intel that hurt the US and helped our enemies.
Manning has SOME small (VERY small) semblance of credibility because he at least went to an organization that specializes in leaks...
Snowden sought asylum in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela....
Not bastions of freedom and human rights by ANY stretch of the definition...
If I were the suspicious/paranoid type, I would think that Snowden is some elaborate false-flap op running out of Langley...
Good think I ain't the suspicious/paranoid type, eh? :D
Chris it is an excellent read viz. the case of Manning v.U.S.,The hysteria of both the left and the right about this case and the ongoing Snowden affair,is personally entertaining.In the case of Manning I am reminded of my first days in the military some forty odd years ago,almost from the first minute you're off the bus,you are told in no uncertain terms,"Your ass is grass and your Uncle Sam is the lawnmower.";so it would, I assume it still to be,he had fair warning that the UCMJ is an instrument designed to crush any attempt at individualism,yet I have some admiration for his actions,as we await hearing of his fate the echos of a phrase I heard those faraway days reverberates in my skull,"Penetration no matter how slight".
that the UCMJ is an instrument designed to crush any attempt at individualism
Being somewhat of an expert on the military, I would look at it more that the UCMJ is an instrument designed to maintain order and discipline..
But, you say toe-MAY-toe, I say poe-TAY-toe.... :D
Michale [1] -
Wait a minute... did I just miss it?... did you just praise Nancy Pelosi?
I gotta sit down or something...
Heh
LizM [2] -
Um, a video of a helicopter gunship mowing down a legitimate journalist?
The Wikileaks document drop spurred the Arab Spring (Tunesia). That's pretty significant, no matter what you think of the outcome, don't you think?
Michale [4] -
OK, much as it pains me... kudos to you for providing the same example I just did. We may not agree on the opinion parts, but I salute your admitting the facts, I have to say.
LizM [6] -
OK, I'm interested -- was Daniel Ellsberg a whistle blower, by your metric? Do you approve of what he did?
I'm not saying Manning's doc drop was as important as the Pentagon Papers, but I am interested to hear your opinion.
Americulchie -
OK, I admit I hadn't heard that "your ass is grass and the US is the lawnmower" line before, and it made me laugh!
Yes, when you join the military you sign away a lot of your rights as a human being. That's part of the gig, and always has been.
But, since Neuremberg, individual soldiers have a higher purpose as well. I am interested, again, in what you would think of the Pentagon Papers and Ellsberg?
Michale -
OK, that last one also made me laugh. I'm interested in your thoughts on Ellsberg as well...
-CW
Chris,
Um, a video of a helicopter gunship mowing down a legitimate journalist?
First off ... Um ...??
You know what, I'm just going to let that slide because I'm not the least bit hypersensitive. I'M NOT, I tell you! Ahem.
Isn't that what is called a friendly fire incident during war? American pilots dropped bombs on
Canadian troops in Afghanistan. I'll bet they high fived and laughed it up when it happened, too ... before they realized what they had done. Do you think that should be seen as a war crime?
The Wikileaks document drop spurred the Arab Spring (Tunesia). That's pretty significant, no matter what you think of the outcome, don't you think?
As for starting the Arab "spring" ... sorry, but I don't buy that. I do have an open mind, though, and it is certainly possible that I might be persuaded by sound arguments that would support that assertion. In fact, I would like to hear them.
Do you think that spurring what occurred in Tunisia is justification - in any way, shape or form - for what Bradley Manning did?
OK, I'm interested -- was Daniel Ellsberg a whistle blower, by your metric? Do you approve of what he did?
Despite what Daniel Ellsberg has said recently, I don't believe there is any reasonable equivalence between what he did and what Manning/Snowden did.
Ellsberg was a classic whistleblower who leaked to the New York Times some very specific documents detailing specific wrongdoing and lies by the US government and who did not run away from his actions which were made with great conviction.
These days, as demonstrated by Manning and Snowden, any Tom, Dick or Harry who leaks government documents, massively indiscriminately and/or without exposing any wrongdoing or abuse is labeled as a "whistleblower".
How would you compare what Ellsberg did with what Manning/Snowden have done?
The term whistleblower has, in my view, lost all meaning since the days of the Pentagon Papers.
Wait a minute... did I just miss it?... did you just praise Nancy Pelosi?
I gotta sit down or something...
Yea, cataclysmic iddn't it?? :D
Just shows ta go ya.. There really isn't any difference between Dem and GOP..
Something I believe I have mentioned here once or twice... :D
OK, much as it pains me... kudos to you for providing the same example I just did. We may not agree on the opinion parts, but I salute your admitting the facts, I have to say.
Oh I have no problem with facts.. Especially when they support my point. :D
OK, that last one also made me laugh. I'm interested in your thoughts on Ellsberg as well...
To be honest, beyond the facts of the Ellsberg case, I don't have any recollection of it affecting me much, being a kid at the time...
I would say, strictly from an intellectual Pro-Military perspective, Ellsberg and Manning are cut from the same cloth.
A twisted and ego-driven notion that they alone know the best course of action for this country. That they alone know all there is to know and, therefore, have no reason to obey the rules and follow orders.
"We follow orders. We follow orders or people die. It's THAT simple. Are we clear!??"
-Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, Commanding Officer, Ground Forces, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
A FEW GOOD MEN