The curious case of Chelsea Manning

The first comprises those who share her ideal, which is that government secrets are bad for mankind and hence must be exposed. The second is made up of “national security” advocates who want her jailed for life, if not sentenced to death. Somewhere in-between is the third group, represented by Barack Obama, who dropped a political bombshell during his final days in office by commuting Manning’s 35-year jail sentence so that she walks free this year.
For the neutrals, here are the straightforward developments: In 2010, Manning handed over a massive tranche of classified US government documents to Wikileaks in what was described as one of the world’s biggest breaches of state secrets. She was sentenced in 2013, but Obama’s commutation means she will be freed this May. It is not a pardon, though, meaning the guilty verdict stands along with her dishonourable discharge from the US Army.
For the first group, here’s the main argument: What’s wrong with showing the world cockpit footage of an Apache helicopter killing 12 innocent people in Baghdad? Why jail someone for exposing such truth to the public?
For the second group, of course, it was an unforgivable sin that endangered American lives by inviting revenge for the deaths of innocent Muslims.
Trapped between them, Obama essentially said, “Yes, she’s guilty, but she has been punished enough so I’m letting her go.”
What about you? It’s not easy, is it? This is like the abortion debate, where pro-life extremists will resolutely stand their ground as long as it’s not their daughters who are raped and get pregnant. Is Manning a hero or a traitor? The journalist who broke the story of Edward Snowden, another highly controversial Wikileaks informant, said Manning’s action had “inspired millions around the world”. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, tweeted: “Thank you to everyone who campaigned for Chelsea Manning’s clemency. Your courage and determination made the impossible possible.”
But at what cost? This is the core question of the “Traitor!” camp. Republican Senator John McCain said Obama was making “a grave mistake that I fear will encourage further acts of espionage”. House Speaker Paul Ryan, also a Republican, said the clemency was “outrageous”. An unnamed former high-ranking intelligence official was “shocked” by “this inexplicable use of executive power” and how “deeply hypocritical” US politicians were given Obama’s denunciation of Wikileaks’ role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee during the presidential election.
Obama’s timing was a bit suspicious. He could have acted a lot sooner, or at least before Republican candidate Donald Trump won the election in November. In drastically reducing Manning’s prison term, he overruled his secretary of defence. It would have been a more courageous act by an elected politician had he crossed the military in mid-term when his party was in firm political control.
No question here has a simple answer, except this one: Did Chelsea Manning embarrass the US government? The answer is a clear-cut “yes”. In addition to exposing the Apache killings, she passed on sensitive messages between US diplomats, intelligence assessments of Guantanamo detainees being held without trial and numerous military records from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Manning had said she thought she could change the world. Maybe it was a statement made in despair with heavy punishment looming, but she almost certainly retains faith in the ideal that led her to expose state secrets. In this respect she is no different from the military, US Intelligence and Obama. All share the same conviction that their actions make the world a better place.
“For the greater good”, could be their collective motto. Yet they can’t all be right. In truth, the biggest sins in the history of mankind are committed “for the greater good”. 
So, the question of who is “right” among the three groups is anything but simple. Manning and her supporters have faith in freedom of information, thinking secrecy leads to abuse – if it’s not spawning abuse already. The opposite side believes secrets are necessary to maintain world order as we know it. Although the global status quo may not be perfect, the military and intelligence officials view its erosion or total collapse as a catalyst for something far worse.
Among the trio, Obama is the most intriguing case. Is his action good or bad? The answer may depend on his real objective or motivation. If the act of mercy was driven by genuine mercy, then his decision on Manning reflects true compassion and demonstrates a noble compromise. If the “mercy” was political, then unlike the other two groups, he was motivated by expediency, not an ideal.