Whistle blowing is “a deliberate non obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify the wrongdoing (Jubb, 1999, p. 83)” (Vanderkerckhove). In the case of “Collateral Murder?”, Manning released privileged information referencing soldiers’ actions at war in WikiLeaks to expose what she felt was internal wrongdoing by the organization. Ivan Eland, U.S. Defense Analyst, provides commentary on the leaked video footage defending the actions of the soldiers. The soldiers were in a fight or flight situation where threats, sometimes, appeared to come out of thin air. There were actions taken that were difficult to see, but, in this situation, it was the soldier’s life or the enemy’s. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that contractarianism shows that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were an immoral case of whistleblowing.

            Vanderkerckhove explores the idea of loyalty to an employer while still upholding the societal need for whistle blowing, stating “Loyalty makes an employee further the interests of an organization: (a) because it feels right to do so, (b) because he/she is convinced it is the right thing to do, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b)” (Vanderkerckhove). This idea allows the burden of right or wrong to lie with those directly involved in each situation. Each involved individual has the prerogative to decide if the action feels right innately or to be convinced it is the correct action by the employing entity. Such is the case during training for the military due to the voluntary basis of being employed. In this case, Manning was not directly involved in the actions for which she ensued whistle blowing, thus not enacting the contractarianism set of values. Vanderkerckhove stated, “A corporate mission statement is an explicit rational contract… they define the initial set of formal rights en duties associated with a relation.” Soldiers are provided with training and a general idea of what facing war will be like, in order to prepare them to handle situations which will be mentally and physically demanding. Manning failed to recognize the mission statement set forward for the men involved on the physical grounds of the war. The mission statement provided to those directly involved allowed each person to determine the correctness of their decisions based on the contractarian point of view. Another issue with Manning’s whistle blowing is that “institutionalized whistle blowing… is the set of procedures allowing potential whistle blowers to raise the matter internally before they become whistle blowers in the strict sense” (Vanderkerckhove). Manning did not go through the internal route in order to attempt to rectify the situation with different or better training for those involved in war. Rather, Manning immediately became a whistle blower in the strict sense of the word. Manning, also, did not uphold the standards of contrarianism in that she was focused on the moral wrongdoing, which remains unclassified in this school of thought, of the soldiers via what has been called mass murder rather than the social contract present in the climate of the war. Morality in contractarianism is not simply classified as positive and negative; right and wrong is rather determined by the fulfillment or not of the unspoken social contract. Manning did not have enough information referencing how to handle such a situation based on her training as an intelligence analyst rather than training the first lines of defense, physically protecting the nation from harm. Manning, being herself in the military, had adequate opportunity to assert what she believed to be a more correct way of handling these situations. Manning should have correctly employed the use of her chain of command rather than risking national security in order to promote her own agenda of how to handle war. Manning did not fulfill her contract to ensure the US military’s intelligence was safeguarded. This contract should have been her main focus when viewing the situation from a contractarian viewpoint. 

            When referencing why Manning had any obligation to the government, specifically the US military as her employer, the correct way for handling a business relationship must be considered. “Business relationships are interpersonal in the sense that they involve people who must work together… learn to give credit where credit is due, know how to communicate effectively with their bosses, show others how to perform tasks without insulting their intelligence or offending them, learn from others without intruding on their ‘territory,’ and seek to develop relationships of respect and trust” (Oxley and Wittkower). Since people with differing views, skill sets, and work history will consistently be intermingled in any workplace, it is important to nurture an environment where one can exercise their speech to voice opinions in a productive manner. This skillset will make those employed by any organization comfortable approaching difficult topics with their peers, both subordinate and superior. Manning failed to take part in the nurturing of an environment like one suggested here. Instead, Manning chose to permanently affect the lives of soldiers, present and future. “We think of a good employee as being cognizant of the way in which those around her are dependent on her proper and conscientious fulfillment of her role… a good worker is not necessarily a good co-worker, but a good employee, ultimately, is both… one should be loyal to these people as friends…” (Oxley and Wittkower). Each employee of any organization has a role to fill based on the job requirements offered prior to accepting the position. In order to be a good employee and fulfill the role set forth, one must not only be concerned with their own well-being but also the well-being of coworkers. The United States military, in particular, has a lucrative role in society where all occupations are necessary in order for the safeguarding of the nation. The US Military, like many other businesses, can and does “require employees to… maintain trade secrets… Following through with these obligations… is… doing one’s duty…” (Oxley and Wittkower). This statement solidifies the requirements in maintaining a positive status relating to fulfilling requires, such as wanted when considering a contractarian viewpoint. All actions taken by Manning were purely based on self-interest and emotion at the time when the decision was made to enact a leak of the government material. This is not conducive to a contractarian viewpoint in which one must live by fulfilling the contract between parties in a given situation. Manning was employed by the military to analyze data and hypotheses, not make decisions for those directly involved in war’s actions. Manning should have felt confident and comfortable enough in her environment to approach those involved in the issue at hand with her grievances. Once this was done, Manning could have had the opportunity to better understand the training and mindset of an individual involved in a situation, like the one viewed in the “Collateral Murder?” video. Manning, also, could have chosen to fulfill her contract with the military then move on, if the changes in policy enacted were not enough to allow her to conscientiously continue with employment. Because there were policy changes after the release of the WikiLeaks, it can be assumed had Manning correctly handled the situation, the propensity for life and national security threatening could have been avoided altogether.             Manning threatened national security and the lives of many by releasing the confidential information as she did. There were many other avenues by which she could have approached the issue. If there was not an environment set forth that promoted communication and trust, this could have been a chance to promote a better workplace for all. “Collateral Murder?” was evaluated by the editor of WikiLeaks as well as a U.S. Defense Analyst. By listening to their evaluations, one can see the difference in opinion shaped by knowledge and training in the field which is being argued for and against. It is important that, when exercising contractarianism, the position for which you are responsible for is fulfilled. Without proper knowledge and training in an area, it is impossible to form an ethical response when faced with only partial information about a subject. Manning did not consider the proper actions to take in order to ensure her role in society was correctly filled based on a contractarian viewpoint