Whistleblowing

Chelsea Manning was a United States Army Private First Class who passed classified material to a whistleblower website. She released a many classified materials to WikiLeaks. She was convicted of violations of the Espionage Act. The footage she released showed an airstrike in Iraq in a kind of “fog of war” area. The footage shows American troops firing on individuals who they believed had weapons and were involved in small arms fire before. In the footage the suspects looked like they had weapons but could also have been carrying camera tools such as tripods, camera, etc. The video shows how the military opened fire and the commentary and how during the time it can be construed to be a gray-area as when you look back at it you can see they might not have been holding weapons as and could have been independent journalist as WikiLeaks says in their report of the video. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Confucianism shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

Vandekerckhove is a professor at the University of Greenwich and Commers was a Professor at Ghent University. Both Vandekerckhove and Commers wrote a paper called “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty” and the basics of the article has to do with rational loyalty, employers, employees, and whistleblowing. The central concept of Vandekerckhove is that to be loyal to a person or company and to make them better then whistleblowing is a way to do that. Rational loyalty is the notion that the explicit set of goals or mission statements is the object of rational loyalty. Basically, if you find yourself in a place where you see the organization diverting from its original core values and mission statements then it is up to you to blow the whistle. ‘

Using the article from Vandekerckhove and Commers we can use it to analyze the case of Manning. The basic central concept of Vandekerckhove is that to be loyal to your company or organization then you must whistle blow when they deviate from their original mission statement. Comparing this to the Manning case is very simple. Manning released or was a whistle blower because of she saw what had happened from the footage as something that was against the core values of the military. She saw it was being a complete left turn and not being in line with the original mission statement. The original mission statement of the military is to protect the freedom of others and not to endanger and innocent people. So, with Vandekerckhove core beliefs she sees it as her duty to blow the whistle on what happened.

Confucianism is staying on the path to properly fill your role. In other words, it is doing what is fundamentally good and important depending on the situation. We can use this theory to analyze the case of Manning. Using Confucianism to analyze the case we can concur that Manning did what was right for her role.  As military personnel she is meant to follow orders and do what she is told. But also, as military personnel you serve the United States which is not only the government but the people as well that you are protecting.  When it comes to this situation Manning saw whistleblowing the information as doing what is fundamentally good because she saw the government doing bad and crossing the line and entering a gray area. The video showed the government using what some may call excessive force and that is why she chose to be a whistleblower.

In my opinion the best thing to do in the Manning case was to whistle blow. She did the right thing because if she did not do it then the military could still be using that kind of force that they used in the video even now. During war it is a gray area and can be considered to be very gray when it comes to combat situations and being in the moment. However, there are still some instances where it is still considered excessive force and Manning did right to bring it to the light. To be a leader you have cannot wait for others and must do what you think is right and when it comes to Manning, she was right.

Julinna Oxley was a Professor at Coastal Carolina University. Oxley and Wittkower decided to write an article called “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace”.  The basics of the article have to do with the same things as Vandekerckhove article above. It deals with the motivations by caring for other people and caring for other companies. The central concept that Oxley states in the article is that whistleblowing is okay and can be good. Oxley states that you want that when you care about something you want it to be the best it can be. Basically, it means doing the best thing for the company or organization even by going above heads.

Using this article and the key concepts by Oxley we can analyze the case of Manning. Oxley main point is that sometimes in order to bring the best out of something or somebody we must go above their head. Analyzing the case of Manning we can use this to figure out why she did what she did and how it would justify her. Using Oxley main ideas, Manning became a whistleblower because she wanted to see the military be the best it can be. She saw them start to become something that was not the original core values of the military during that time. In turn of this she decided that in order to fix it she needed to go above the military’s head and  report what was happening in order to get someone higher up, like the American people, to hold them responsible and fix what had happened. Manning wanted the government to not be just indiscriminate killers but be what they instilled in core values which is protect the freedom of people and not become what they are fighting.

We can use the ethical tool of Confucianism to help analyze the case of Manning through the previous analysis of Oxley. Confucianism is doing what is fundamentally good and important depending on the situation. Using Confucianism, we see Manning leaking the secrets and becoming a whistleblower because she saw the government changing from what she originally believed. She saw them as not following their core values and roles, so as Confucianism says she followed her role in the situation and saw the best outcome as going above their heads and become a whistleblower. Manning thought of only bettering the government and fulfilling her role by going over their heads. That is how Confucianism can be analyzed by using the ideas of Oxley in this Manning case.

In my opinion using Oxley ideas as a basis I believe that Manning did the right thing. Manning did what she saw as best to help improve the government and not allow their downfall. She leaked the information and went over their head because she cared about the military and wanted to enhance it. In doing so she had to go above their heads and get somebody like the American people to get things done in a way that she was not able to.

In the case of Manning she decided to leak information of what was happening during the war in an attempt to bring light to what the government had done and how they stepped into a gray area with no overhead monitoring. She felt like the government was overstepping their boundaries and the power that was given to them and that the military was not being mindful of the core values of protecting people and their freedoms. This happens a lot in the military and unfortunately is swept under the rug many times. The video that was leaked in question is one of many instances that the military has done. The bigger implications in this case is that it shows that the military will step into the gray area and justify it as though it is a fog of war and in the heat of the moment things can be only made in split second decisions. This is a fair argument as during that split-second decision the soldiers are thinking of their lives and trying to stay alive.