By Lieke Kuiper
Chelsea Manning, who leaked several classified documents to WikiLeaks, is one of the world’s best known military whistleblowers. Manning reported on the misconduct concerning civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the US military. As a consequence of this ‘heroic’ or ‘democratic’ act, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, of which she actually served 7. The prosecutors in Manning’s case labelled her a ‘traitor aiding the enemy’. A striking example is the heading “Bradley [Chelsea] Manning a traitor who set out to harm US, prosecutors conclude”.
In cases where military whistleblowers, such as Manning, report to the public, thus publicizing classified information, the US government, being caught breaking the law, says the people who revealed this lawbreaking have seriously threatened national security. Military whistleblowers are then often portrayed as having an evil intent, which is supported by the fact that external whistleblowing from within the military, is often illegal or highly restricted by national laws.
While these examples are American, many other European countries also do not protect military whistleblowers from retaliation or legal consequences. Furthermore, external whistleblowing, thus turning to the public is often thwarted by military officials or the military chain of command. For example Joe Darby, who blew the whistle on severe detainee abuses and murders in the US military-run prison of Abu Ghraib, Iraq. Military Police and Military Intelligence personnel abused, tortured and killed Iraqi detainees in Tier 1A in Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq. Joe Darby, a US Army Reservist, reported this behavior when one of the perpetrators showed him photographic evidence of the abuses. The subsequent investigation was thwarted by higher officials and Darby was outed in the media by US State Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Resulting in such extreme retaliation that the army had to relocate Darby, since his home would not be safe anymore.
Thus, while there are many protective measures in place in both the US/EU and on the international and supranational levels, in practice military whistleblowers often have to face severe retaliation and legal consequences.
On paper, protection for military whistleblowers consists of legal, media and non-governmental protective mechanisms. In countries such as the US and the Netherlands, however, both organizational and national legislative protection are either ineffective or easily bypassed due to the exception of ‘threats to national security’. In national courts, this exception is easily accepted, thus effectively excluding military whistleblowers from legal protective measures.
An American example of ineffective organizational guidelines is the attempt of Daniel Ellsberg to follow internal channels for reporting misconduct. Ellsberg, a civilian employee for US military think tank RAND Corporation, was tasked with conducting a study on the justification for the Vietnam war. During this task Ellsberg discovered various misconducts regarding US military personnel in Vietnam. Combined, these files came to be known as the Pentagon Papers, which Ellsberg leaked to the New York Times.
In the Netherlands, an example is an anonymous military whistleblower who reported to the investigative journalist platform ‘Follow the Money’. This whistleblower claimed to have reported various instances of gross dereliction of duty to his superiors before, as a last resort, turning to the media (BNN, 2017).
Media protection, in the form of the journalists’ right to source protection is also insufficient protection in practice. Again, this is due to the exclusion of disclosures ‘threatening national security’. While various NGO’s provide legal advice and assistance, it is unknown how effective this aid is against retaliation and legal consequences.
In conclusion, all types of protective measures seem to exclude whistleblowers that might harm national security by exposing certain documents. For military whistleblowers there is thus little effective protection. In the Netherlands, however, there seems to be somewhat more effective protection, as well as firm criticism on inadequacies and proposals for improvement have already been made.
Examples to support this view are found in the cases of Chelsea Manning who was prosecuted, faced retaliation and was portrayed in US media as an anarchist and traitor (Pilkington, 2013). In the Netherlands on the other hand, a soldier who reported sexual abuse on a military base in Schaarsbergen was under criminal investigation himself (Boere, 2019). Still, his reports on misconduct were taken seriously and he was portrayed neutrally in the media and by the public.
An important implication is the fact that in countries such as the US and the Netherlands, whistleblowers perceived as serving public interests, as opposed to state interests, are seen as deserving of adequate protection by the public. Current protective measures are, however, inadequate. It is thus pertinent that democratic governments step up their game and provide for adequate protective measures against both retaliation and legal consequences. Military whistleblowers are, after all, protectors of democracy and adherence to international humanitarian laws. Public opinion reflects this positive view on military whistleblowers. It is now up to governments (especially the US government) to follow in the footsteps of public opinion. Thus ending the portrayal of whistleblowers as state enemies, an instead seeing them as important allies in the protection of democracy.
Comments