By: Cait Felt
Both of these leakers lived in the United States for the vast majority of their lives and have each referred to themselves as “patriots” in separate statements, yet they both decided that the information that they were privy to was more important for the world and their fellow citizens to see than their loyalty to the bureaucracy coming to be known as the “national-security state.” Here, however end the important similarities between the two. Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden seem to have had actions inspired by contrasting motives and took separate risks based on their positions in society. They also divulged very distinctive types of information, which had somewhat divergent results. Lastly, Manning and Snowden responded to their indictments in almost completely opposite ways, leading to two separate public images of what seems at first to be the same basic crime.
Both Manning and Snowden asserted the same type of motivation for their actions, but a closer look at their cases shows evidence of very distinct inspirations. Whistleblowers have historically claimed to be appealing to a higher form of ethics than their national government can provide, and these two prove to be no different in this respect. Snowden’s case took place after Manning’s, and his motivations seem less valiant by many accounts. First of all, he gave the government documents he gained access to to The Guardian, a famous British newspaper. Though it is unclear as to whether he intended to spur a newfound yellow journalism, he specifically asked the staff of The Guardian to give out his identity only a few months after the initial leaks were made through multiple means with the shocking revelations about the British and American government actions and ongoing programs. He had achieved access to this classified information through his job as a computer analyst for the NSA. He also released a deluge of classified information, the majority of which was not relevant to the supposed wrongdoings of the national government programs in question. These facts make Snowden seem, at least by the end of his leaking ordeals, much more concerned with dumping anything with a “classified” stamp on it and getting his name in the news than exposing federal wrongdoings.
Manning, on the other hand, released the classified information she had access to to the prominent “whistleblowing” haven Wikileaks, a dissident organization rather than a media source. As a member of the U.S. Army, she gained access to classified information that she claimed to feel ethically bound to report to her fellow citizens. The vast majority of the information passed on from Manning’s illegal downloads (though granted, not all) was directly related to controversial and secret American military operations. Manning’s divulgence included information and even video footage of at least two secret American military airstrikes which had taken place in Afghanistan in recent years, the “Iraq War Logs,” and some diplomatic cables and paperwork from Iraq and Afghanistan spanning 2005-2009. The classified documents handled by Manning were more influential to world politics and, by many opinions, more worth the risk.
Perhaps most important is the way that the two whistleblowers responded in the wake of their respective actions. Manning came to face her sentence and made a strong statement where she acknowledged and took responsibility for her actions without reacting with compunction for her beliefs, saying “sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means that we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty.” She accepted her sentencing (35 years and dishonorable discharge from her military service after conviction of all but the most serious charge) with grace and surprising austerity for someone only 25 years old. Snowden, on the other hand, currently stands attempting to avoid the wrath of the prosecution of the legal system. He traveled with no prior booking to Hong Kong in an effort to escape his former employer, the NSA, and ultimately his country’s government. Though many European powers denied Snowden asylum or even permission to cross their airspace, he landed in the international airport in Moscow, Russia and spent more than a month living in this airport terminal before being granted temporary asylum by the Kremlin. Though Snowden made similar statements to Manning’s, he has not really stepped up to the plate to face the consequences of his actions. Currently, Manning has only just started her prison sentence, while Snowden bides his time in a foreign country rather than facing a similar trial.
Ultimately, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have been accused of violating the same principle by the American government and the masses, despite their many differences in actions and seeming motivation. Though these two whistleblowers are linked by this very term, they epitomize two very different types of societal dissident. Snowden has acted as if consequences are not relevant, whereas Manning has shown a different side of the whistleblower. Manning illustrates for the world the type who will stand up to a belief (founded or otherwise) that the national-security state has turned into an Orwellian government which cannot be followed blindly. The question now for Americans is how we will respond as a society to these two cases and, more importantly, what we deem as the appropriate way to deal with our increasingly secretive government and those who take action against it.
