Sarah Henry

 

America has dealt with numerous cases of espionage in its long history, but when it comes to the War on Terror, however, one particular case related to military espionage or outright treason has dominated the public eye.

 

Chelsea Manning, a former soldier, was granted commutation of her 35 year sentence by President Barack Obama Jan. 17.

 

In 2010, while on active duty, Manning released more than 700,000 classified files to the watchdog site Wikileaks. One of the most notorious pieces of information released was a gun-camera video of an Apache helicopter gunning down innocent Iraqi citizens, including a pair of Reuters war correspondents. Manning was court-martialled in 2013, for releasing classified information and sentenced to 35 years in prison. With Obama’s commutation of her sentence, Manning will be released from prison May 17, decades early.

 

These documents have given journalists, historians and the public the ability to see the actions our military has taken without their knowledge or consent. Without the documents that Manning sent to Wikileaks, historians and the American people would not have the insight into the way the military conducted the Iraq War, the State Department’s actions behind the scenes at the time, and many other deliberately obscured facets of the complex mechanism behind waging war.

 

Many publications, including renowned watchdog publication The Guardian, New York Times and other high profile publications have published the documents that Manning gave to Wikileaks for the public to view.

 

While some vilify Manning for it, the information lifted a veil on questionable government and military policies and surveillance programs that have been hidden from the public.

 

“When I chose to disclose classified information in 2010, I did so out of love for my country and a sense of duty to others,” Manning said in an article she wrote for the New York Times.

 

Manning goes on to explain how she came to the decision to obtain and release the classified documents. With this, she describes how she wants information to be transparent not only for journalists and the media, but for the public.

 

As journalism students, we’re always looking for the truth and looking to spread that truth for the good of citizens. Our government, while arguably more benevolent than it has been in the past, is inclined to conceal its sins committed in the name of the projection and maintenance of global power. Manning gave us a look behind the curtain, airing the nation’s dirty laundry in public, where it could be addressed and dealt with.

 

While Obama’s choice to commute Manning’s sentence was called outrageous, according to Sen. Ron Paul, I regard it as a recognition for what Manning was trying to accomplish. In the eyes of the law, Manning’s decision to release sensitive government documents was immoral, but she did so in the commission of her oath of enlistment, not in contravention.

 

As a soldier, Manning swore that she must always serve and protect America. She regarded her loyalty to the country as loyalty to the citizens, not the government, as some might interpret that oath. The knowledge and the truth that she gave the American people was something they needed to see, no matter how much the government at the time would have preferred they not.

 

Even though Manning might have done a disservice to the government and military, she provided the truth for the public, the heart and soul of the nation. I believe this is what Obama managed to see when he took interest in her case. This was just not an act of mercy, but an act of understanding from our president.

 

______________________

 

Conscience is all well and good, but what Manning did, she did in uniform and that makes it treason. Actions have consequences. Per Article 106 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, which Manning was, as a soldier, subject to:

 

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits…(B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information.”

 

There was also a decent case for articles 94 and 104, which cover sedition and aiding the enemy respectively, that I understand was not pressed for under the circumstances.

 

Which, again, I applaud. I don’t know if this is a death-sentence level issue. Manning certainly voted her conscience by releasing the leaked information, and that’s well and good. She was charged, she was sentenced, she was tossed in prison. Which is how these things go, when you, again, commit something that looks like treason.

 

And suddenly, she’ll be free in mere months. What the hell is that?

 

She believed she did the right thing by leaking classified information and exposing intelligence and communications protocols to those who would do us harm, both abroad and on our home soil?

 

This isn’t something wooly and theoretical and incredibly stupid like denying entry to nationals from seven countries who’ve never done us harm, or leaving men and women who worked alongside Marines and soldiers overseas out to dry, or ignoring countries who have time and time again proved their quiet support for terrorism overseas, but a direct and tangible wrong. You released things that the military, in their dubious wisdom, decided they had best not.

 

You do the crime, you do the time. You made the honorable decision to follow your conscience. Don’t muck it up now.