Introduction

In this case study there is a detailed U.S military video called Collateral Murder which was leaked. The video was leaked by Chelsea Manning to a whistleblower site called Wikileaks.  In this video it shows a step by step operation of the U.S using deadly force on enemy soldiers. In the beginning the apache helicopter is hovering over the soldiers because they were given information about them possibly shooting U.S soldiers. In the frame we only see the soldiers walking around. Dispatch sees an object at which they think is a RPG and starts to panic knowing if it is it can take them down. Without confirming whether this is true or not, they were ordered to fire on the soldiers and kill them. Once this was done only one person was alive and crawling. They were ordered not to kill him. However, a few minutes later some unknown people came by in a van to pick up the wounded soldier. In the process of this they were given permission to kill everybody involved. In this sad instance innocent kids were killed in the van. In this Case Analysis I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

Vandekerckhove

One of the main concepts from Vandekerckhove is that loyalty and whistleblowing are both needed concepts in the organizational world. People tend to think the two contradict each other. Vandekerchove explains the concept of rational loyalty to get his point across. Rational loyalty is an organization’s mission statement. Their true purpose and what they stand for. How they choose to operate and have trust in the public. It is the company’s main image. That is a company’s loyalty and what every employee and employer is supposed to stick with. When it comes to whistleblowing it should be a given duty. Whenever it is something against the loyalty it shouldn’t be automatically counted as a negative. In Vandekerchove’s eyes , whistleblowing is needed to coexist in order to prevent harm or well being of society. Loyalty should only be upheld if no curriculum is being broken in the process. 

Using what we gathered from Vanderkchove I can’t say Chelsea was loyal to the United States legitimately in our regular terms which I will explain later. She purposely leaked a video exposing an operation that painted the U.S soldiers in a negative manner. The U.S military exists to serve the American people, defend the nation, protect vital national interests and fulfill national military responsibilities. That is their mission statement and what they represent as an organization. In a situation like this it is hard to deem whether she was right or wrong in betraying the U.S.. In her eyes what they did was wrong and I can admit it was wrong to a certain extent. But there are two sides to every story. From a soldier’s perspective they just received information of enemy soldiers armed shooting U.S soldiers. When they came across them they could not tell if it was a dangerous weapon that could take them out but it looked like it. They didn’t take any chances and proceeded to kill them. In their defense it did look like the guy took cover while slowly peeking around the corner  to get a good angle to shoot them. In a situation like this it’s understandable. I don’t think that warrants Manning to leak information. The second half where they kill people trying to pick up a wounded soldier is heartbreaking to see especially when there were innocent kids in there. The soldier did not know those people or their intentions and that can be dangerous in war. In this situation neither side can be proven. It can be seen as an act of war preventing further damage from the enemy or it can be seen as the U.S using unnecessary destruction. In Manning’s eyes deciding to whistleblow in a manner like this is understandable. Because this situation does not fall under the military’s mission statement (war crimes). We can say Chelsea deciding to blow the whistle was an act of loyalty. Depending on how you look at it you could say it was still loyalty to the U.S or to the public in general. I look at it still being loyal because I see it as her doing the right thing keeping the military in order. 

While some may or may not agree Manning does show signs of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics involves a person morally doing the right thing for the right reason. In her case Manning truly believes this act by the military was wrong and she wanted to shed light on the situation. Regardless of her loyalty to the U.S and consequences she would face. She felt it was the right thing to do given the situation. The U.S potentially killing innocent people which is considered a war crime is wrong in this situation. If that is what we deem this situation as using virtue ethics Manning would be right in her decision to expose this operation for what it was. This does not fit the military standard. In her eyes bringing awareness to this situation so people would know what is going on. It potentially saved other societies from suffering the same fate. Ethically she did the right thing stopping more war crimes from happening.

Oxley and Wittkower

In the Oxley and Wittkower reading their view on loyalty is a little different. Their use of loyalty relies on a care factor. They believe loyalty is a direct expression of care and concern. Loyalty shouldn’t be looked at as a duty or job requirement. They understand that people can be loyal to a oragnzation under good circumstances and bad circumstances. Loyalty is something a person should do whether it’s good for the company or bad. It is the caring aspect of keeping them on track. Which is why his next point extends to whistle blowing. In their opinion whistle blowing can be good. Sometimes to do what is best for the company is to blow the whistle about behind the scenes actions. His example of this in a business world was that a person might perform a job duty that is difficult or goes against the company but does it from a caring space of right and wrong. The main point is loyalty comes from a caring relationship. 

We know for a fact that Chelsea was not loyal to the United States in our own terms of loyalty. However from Oxley and Wittkower we see that Chelsa technically still acted out of loyalty to the U.S. The relationship between the U.S. and Chelsa tells us a couple things. One there either was or was not a caring relationship between them depending how we look at it. Two, she also had a moral caring obligation to society. I think Chelsea has a caring relationship with the U.S. and I say this because that is all she exposed. Once she exposed them and went through that rough period she could have exposed several other secrets however her only focus was on what went on in wars. That is a sign of loyalty considering she could have spilled several secrets. Seeing the U.S. kill innocent people most likely triggered something in her and she knew she had to stand up and put a stop to the U.S abuse of power in war. She acted in loyalty for stopping the U.S. and exposing them, but she also acted loyal to society. She knew what they were doing was wrong and wanted to do what was best for everybody and expose it. This shows a direct correlation to Oxley and Wittkower in having loyalty in terms of stopping corruption within her job from a perspective of care. 

Chelsea Manning actions definitely constitute a moral case for whistle blowing. Since virtue ethics looks at morality as a personal character aspect there’s only so much we could say about her. A virtuous person will respond to a situation in the right way even if that means breaking the rules or in this case betraying your country. Regardless of how we feel or the U.S states feels about the situation. Chelsea Manning shows virtue ethics by standing up for what is right. And that was exposing the U.S for their war crimes. In a situation like this I think this is the best she could have done. She didn’t go out of her way to bring down the U.S with damaging information, only their war crimes, putting a stop to and forcing them to have better procedures. 

Conclusion

In conclusion even though both sides are understandable I think Chelsea Manning did the right thing by deciding to be a whistleblower. The U.S. killed innocent people for no reason other than killing a guy they wounded who probably wouldn’t have even made it. From her stance point I feel as if she stood for what she believed in and decided to expose the U.S for the right reasons. Oxley and Wittkower tell us this form of whistleblowing is completely okay as the person is being loyal by doing what is best for an organization. This is a situation where I can see a viewpoint like this being true. She cares about the military and society and does not want them committing war crimes. Even with the Vandekerckhove stance the same principle can be applied. We know what the military stands for and in the instance they break it is our job as a people to make sure they get back in line here exposing them did just that. Some people will look at Manning as a disloyal traitor to this country and that is completely understandable. They question what she truly gained from doing this because as stated in the video the investigation went nowhere and no soldiers were in trouble. To answer those rhetorics she gained a lot actually. She didn’t do this to hurt the U.S. She did it to bring awareness to what our troops were doing and potentially put a stop to it. In the end it was an act of virtue ethics.