Whistleblowing is an essential facet of society, being the last line of defense in maintaining a moral culture and its values. Al Jazeera, a Qatari news organization, published a mini-documentary with Julian Assange, the head of wiki-leaks, breaking down a controversial release on his website, dubbed “collateral murder”. The footage is from a U.S. military Apache helicopter, with pilots in an “engagement” with insurgents and terrorists. During the onslaught, journalists were caught in the crossfire and were continually bombarded by the gunship. Eventually, the terrorist threat abates, with insurgents having fled or been neutralized. A van with children arrives to collect the journalists. The gunship then annihilates the van. Due to videos such as these, Julian Assange has been persecuted with a type of religious zeal by the United States government. The procurement of the video, however, was provided through whistleblowing. Manning, a US soldier who leaked the video to Assange, was arrested for “espionage” and releasing secret information. Manning, despite what the State Department claims, was in the right. In this paper, I’ll be using deontological argumentation to contend that the leak was not only ethical and necessary but was a perfect example of loyalty. This point will be accentuated by works from Ronald Commers and D.E Wittkower, who both wrote works pertaining to whistleblowing and loyalty’s true meaning. Whistleblowing is essential to maintain an upright, moral, and just society when its leaders and institutions begin to stray from their original principles.
Ronald Commers discusses the importance of a rational form of loyalty and whistleblowing in his paper “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty”. Commers begins by explaining that ethicists have argued that there is a fundamental conflict between loyalty and whistleblowing. He posits that this is not the case. Whistleblowing on potentially dangerous decisions that superiors are taking is not a breach of loyalty. Commer explains this in his proposition of rational loyalty, the idea that loyalty is not to “… the physical aspects of the company, buildings, executives, boards, hierarchies, colleges but the explicit set of mission statements goals, value statement and code of conduct…” (Commer 2004) With this definition set, Commer continues on to discuss the rapidly changing climate of loyalty and whistleblowing with the dawn of computing and IT. Traditionally, corporations have operated as hegemons, making singular, centralized decisions. Like steering a large ship, the decisions are very slow to implement and very difficult to stop or correct. In recent decades, there has been a shift in the business world to more decentralized decision-making processes, allowing faster reaction times to problems, and neutralizing risks that could be incurred with the goliath approach. This isn’t a new development, however, as technology and innovation have resulted in decentralization before, as seen in both world wars. Rather than generals making sweeping decisions, more power was granted to company commanders and squad leaders, allowing them to make very quick decisions and alterations to plans while in conflict. With more individuals within a company able to make decisions on behalf of the company, there comes a need for more accountability. An issue arises that the judgments of individual employees at an organization are now indirectly “the company’s” judgment. To counter this, Commer proposes the idea of institutionalized whistleblowing. Institutionalized whistleblowing, as Commer describes, is a “…set of procedures allowing to raise the matters internally before they become whistleblowers in a strict sense.” (Commers 2004) Meaning, that there should be an avenue to address issues and missteps in a company without having to take them to the broader public. Ronald Commer’s work hammers down the idea of loyalty, as well as provides companies a framework to allow internal strife to be resolved and corrected in a healthy way before being released to the public.
If Commer’s proposed design of institutionalized whistleblowing had been utilized in the case of Manning, the entire situation could’ve been avoided. In the Wiki leaks video, what the gunman on the Apache did was objectively wrong. Initially, one could’ve argued that the engagement was warranted, or at the very least, nebulous, as you can see a suspected insurgent with a rifle. The attack became more flagrant, however, when the van arrived to assist the injured journalists was decimated, having children inside it. The act of whistleblowing isn’t inherently bad as there was no outlet by which Manning could pursue to report such egregious actions. With no framework in place to properly address the attack, Manning was left with no choice but to relay the footage to Wikileaks, which could properly inform the public of the assault. Manning shouldn’t have been punished but commended for the noble act, knowing the consequences of “espionage”. A pillar of deontological thinking is that of non-consequentialism. This means that one doesn’t look at the outcome of the action and determine if it was good, rather, they look at the action itself and determine if it was good. In the case of Manning, the act of killing supposed terrorists could be argued by the Department of Defense to have a good result, the possibility terrorists were killed, but the act also included the death of Reuters journalists. Manning’s plight could’ve been abated if Commer’s institutionalized whistleblowing had been utilized.
D.E Wittkower, a psychology professor, as well as one of the primary lecturers of this ethics course, co-authored an article titled “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace”, which focuses on loyalty not as blind allegiance, but as a form of care. The idea stems from loyalty not being able to be contractually mandated or enforced. Employers and bosses cannot force loyalty onto their employees. Wittkower elaborates throughout the piece that employees become loyal through shared values and buy-in, resulting in them caring. There is a distinct differentiation Wittkower makes between a good employee and a good worker. Good employees, unlike good workers, have relationships with co-workers and the company. An example of this is found through ritual. Company picnics, charity drives, and other events, as Wittkower describes, are optional, with employees choosing to go to these events because they care about their organization. Voluntary independence between companies and employees breeds a sense of involvement, which in turn generates duties and responsibilities to each other. (Wittkower 2016) Following this logic, whistleblowing and whistleblowers are not only okay but sometimes actively good, acting in the best interest of the business or institution. With a caring relationship, each party in the said relationship will yearn for the best for the other. An employee may feel as if the organization is not being the best it can be, seeing actions that could potentially destroy or maim the business. They then turn to whistleblowing as an avenue to remediate the issue. It’s out of care, as Wittkower surmises, not malice, malevolence, or money, that the whistleblower acts.
Whistleblowing is the ultimate act of care. Manning cared. Otherwise, Manning could’ve acted as their own agent, with no personal investment. Rather, he decided instead to do something. When swearing to the constitution, Manning pledged to uphold the values and principles of the United States. The United States military is an all-volunteer force, meaning, one would have to care enough about the army’s well-being and success to join. Wittkower’s thesis reflects this idea, “…that loyalty is a form of care and concern for others, and as such, loyalty cannot be obligated” (Wittkower 2016) Manning volunteered to uphold the values of liberty, justice, and freedom. After witnessing the horrendous acts by the gunship on innocent journalists, Manning, out of care, reported and delivered the footage to Wikileaks. This, in turn, could lead to a national conversation and the righting of the U.S. military’s wrongs. Deontology speaks on the idea of duty-based ethics. Regardless of consequences, deontological thinking mandates the most moral action, even to the detriment of an individual. Manning could’ve stayed silent, reneging on their oath, and continued to maintain a successful and well-paying military career. By leaking the actions of the Apache gun crew, Manning not only followed the deontological thought process but also preserved the ideals and principles of the United States Constitution by reporting the heinous slaughter.
The horrid video released by Wikileaks is a tragic, all too common side effect of urban warfare. When unknown to the public, situations such as what occurred with the Apache helicopter gun crew would be unable to be rectified, accentuating the need for practices like whistleblowing. As previously stated, Manning was correct from a loyalty and deontological perspective. Commer’s solution could’ve avoided the reputational damage done to the Department of Defense. In fact, the entire situation could’ve been handled more effectively with institutionalized whistleblowing, allowing individuals to come forward when malicious activities are done in the shadows. Wittkower explains, though, that even if there isn’t a proper outlet to provide such testimony, the act of whistleblowing is not a wrong one. Loyalty is bred from caring about relationships, whether that be family, a church, or in the case of Manning, the United States Army. Whistleblowers care and believe that the institution has been or could be better, and the actions they are reporting are that said institution straying from its stated goals or principles. Whistleblowing is crucial to maintain an upright society, without it, dubious actions can be taken in the dark without recourse.
References
Wittkower, D.E. “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace – Researchgate.” Researchgate.Net, Springer, 29 July 2011, www.researchgate.net/publication/251363864_Care_and_Loyalty_in_the_Workplace.
Vandekerckhove, Wim, and Ronald Commers. “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty – Journal of Business Ethics.” SpringerLink, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Aug. 2004, link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039411.11986.6b.