Introduction
Most professions practiced in different global locations have stipulated codes of ethics or professional codes of conduct. The codes are essential given that the professionals are provided with advantage over other individuals. Typically, the professionals’ practice in respective fields has the possibility of influencing the rest of the public.
The codes offer guidelines for the professionals on how to execute their mandate and duties responsibly. However, the dawn of information technology has brought with it a host of ethical and legal concerns that are exclusive to the 21st century (Walcerz, 2013).
The issue on the use of technology is intricate and complicated starting from personal online privacy to the disclosure of classified information. These have the potential to distract the lives of many individuals and institutions, as was the case in the Bradley Manning situation.
The saga involved the release of classified military reports and diplomatic cables to the WikiLeaks and consequently to the entire world. The saga ignited debates from many quarters some arguing that Bradley acted in good faith as a whistleblower (Carr, 2013). Others viewed the move by the American soldier as an act of espionage hence a traitor.
Stakeholders
The United States Military
The US Military was a key stakeholder in Bradley Manning case. The situation involved the leaking of classified military information to WikiLeaks by Bradley. The reports included a video by the military where two Apache army airplanes gunned down a crowd of Iraqis in the city of Baghdad. The footage shows the US military fire at civilians that left twelve men dead and several children fatally wounded.
The US military personnel would be heard shouting appalling things while urging colleagues to fire on the group (Porter, 2013). The revelations by Bradley meant that the military was deeply concerned with other reports that were eventually released by Bradley through WikiLeaks. The military became involved given its effort to stop further disclosure of its classified information.
Public
The release of classified reports according to Bradley was motivated by the appalling things that were happening in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as the antagonizing treatment of prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. Bradley sought to make it public the horrifying events that were taking place within military circles.
Prior to the release of the reports, the military had alleged it had lost the video. The public outcry that followed the release of the “Collateral Murder” footage by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks in April 2010 prompted Bradley to release other reports.
The public criticized the government for allowing impunity leading to the loss of lives of innocent civilians. The public remains at loggerheads with the US Federal Government over multiplicity of issues that were revealed in hundreds of thousands military reports and diplomatic cables.
Federal government and national security agencies
Bradley released over 91,000 documents containing classified information. The documents detailed military activities that took place between 2004 and 2010. These activities included airstrike in Baghdad that left 147 civilians dead (Porter, 2013).
The government was dragged into the issue when it became apparent that Pakistan and Iran had assisted the US and its allies in striking Iraq. The reports revealed that the Obama administration considered North Korea an enemy given that it traded weaponry to Osama bin Laden.
The leaked documents indicated that the military had been bribing Afghanistan media houses to report news that favored the United States. The leaks further revealed that the personnel working for the US Department of Defense hired teen prostitutes.
The White House had to step in to safeguard the Obama administration legacy as democratic. The Pentagon and President Obama alleged that the leaked reports exposed and endangered the lives of Afghani informers.
The national security agency apparatus was thrown into a spin by the rapid folding of events. They argued that Bradley intentionally leaked the classified information to Assange who was an enemy of the United States and eventually was within Osama’s reach. The agencies claimed that Bradley deliberately and knowingly revealed intelligence information that exposed undercover agents.
This would also compromise ambassadors and risk the lives of military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, the agencies argued that Bradley effectively placed the US security secrets into the enemies’ possession including the leader of the dreaded Al-Qaeda terrorist network.
The agencies were key players in the prosecution of Bradley as it presented evidence that Osama asked for and eventually obtained Afghanistan battleground information as well as communications published by WikiLeaks. The security agencies worked around the clock to ensure that the existing security loopholes that may be exploited by terrorists and enemies were sealed to mitigate dangers posed to the US national security.
Bradley Manning
Bradley developed a knack for computers at an early age. His activities as a private staff in the military meant that he could access sensitive information in the military database. The revelations made by Bradley during the prosecution indicated that he was convinced that he was acting on behalf of the American public who deserved to know all about the ‘Collateral Murder’ by the military in Bagdad.
By releasing the classified information to Assange, Bradley allegedly sought to clear his conscience about the deaths of the Reuter reporters, innocent children and men who were killed by hail of bullets from the US military Apache helicopter. Bradley took the position as he was convinced that the society should be based on justice as opposed to transparency and accountability.
WikiLeaks
The networks founded and administered by Julian Assange became a hotspot upon the release of the leaks to the public domain. WikiLeaks released classified military footage that portrayed the indiscriminate murder of ten Iraqis in New Baghdad including children and Reuter employees from an Apache helicopter. The military was part of the cover up. In fact, it did not reveal how the Reuter employees were murdered. The military indicated that it was not aware of how children were caught up in the collateral murder.
In a surprising turn of events, the investigations by the military concluded that the military personnel involved in the shooting acted according to the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement.
WikiLeaks obtained the classified rules of engagement through Bradley. WikiLeaks through its founder, Julian Assange engaged the US government in heated debates leading to the prosecution of Bradley and the eventual conviction to 35 years in prison.
WikiLeaks allegedly went to great lengths to validate the legitimacy of information obtained. The information was mostly obtained from military whistleblowers. It then disseminates the information to the public although some posed risk to the national security.
The access to information by the Al-Qaeda network compromised the lives of secret agents in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire Gulf Region. Professionals should hence endeavor to maintain integrity in executing their duties.
Situation from the stakeholders perspective
Military
The military personnel prosecuting Bradley’s case were explicit in stating the stand of the military on matters ‘espionage’ and classified information. In one situation when the military courtroom judge inquired from the prosecutor regarding the action that he would have taken if the reports were leaked to the dailies, he responded that the same charges would be pressed against Bradley.
The question was meaningful as it brought out what the military and the government considered ethical with regard to Bradley’s situation. The ‘yes’ answer revealed and presented the clear danger of whistle-blowing in the national security platform (Benkler, 2013).
The vigor that the prosecutor employed in executing the case was a signal that the military would employ aggressive tactics in interpreting law that would present the government with a large stick to execute unclearly defined national security exposures. According to the military perspective, Bradley had turned into a traitor and deserved dire consequences.
The Public
Typically, the public supports individuals who reveal thrilling revelations on impunity and corruption in the government circles. However, when the individuals are cornered, there is little the public can do above demonstrating in support. This was the case with Bradley currently serving a 35-year jail term. The public is divided in viewing Bradley as a traitor and a sainted whistleblower.
The Federal government and national security agencies
Bradley may have been a sainted whistleblower in the eyes of his supporters. On the other hand, he was a traitor in the eyes of the federal government and security agencies (Keller, 2013). The government pressed charges of ‘aiding the enemy’ against Bradley. In turn, he was charged with various counts of violating the Espionage Act. Besides, aiding the enemy is reprimandable by death.
Bradley
Inherently, Bradley performed a typical American act. That is, he stood alone in taking a large force head-on. He intended to perform a heroic crusade for the good of America and the entire world. He believed there was moral essence to expose the undertakings by the American government and the military. He believed he was standing on high ethical grounds and acting on behalf of humanity that deserved to know about military engagements in wars.
WikiLeaks
The American patriots view WikiLeaks as an enemy willing to support other enemies in an effort to bring down the United States. The network is alleged to supply the al-Qaeda terrorist network with crucial cables and information on military operations in the Gulf region.
On the contrary, Assange in particular view himself as a whistleblower that presents pressure valve hampered by individual risks although fueled through ethical courage mustered by the whistleblower.
WikiLeaks view the actions and motives by Bradley as components of the long-respected tradition of exposing the undoing by the incumbent and past administrations. WikiLeaks takes the view that governments are for, of, and by the people. Since it exists at the behest of the people, it reserves no right to secrets.
Major areas of conflict
The different stakeholders in Bradley’s case take different perspectives. Bradley believed that he was justified in releasing the leaks to Assange. Just like Bradley, Assange believed that the act of releasing the leaks to the public was morally justified since the secrets belonged to the public domain.
Assange uses the motivation as the driving force to release controversial information from different sources. On the other hand, the military and the federal government view the actions by whistleblowers as a threat to the national security of the United States.
International code of ethics
The Australian Computer Society code of ethics
The Australian Computer Society (ACS) values the professionals in executing the mandates bestowed to them by the members. The codes prescribed in the manuscript require the members to proceed with respect, decorum and efficacy of career in the arts and sciences of information processing.
The code requires the members to maintain high standards of aptitude and ethical conduct devoid of dishonesty and impartiality. It requires the members to serve with forthright openness and be loyal to employers. In this respect, members must subscribe to the requirements of the employer irrespective of their take on issues that may influence their relationship with the public, the employer and the public.
In view of Bradley case, the military would have been justified to act in the way it responded to the exposure of classified information. The code would have expected Bradley to act responsibly in his undertakings as a military officer. Bradley would have been expected to serve the interest of the federal government, his employer (the military) and the entire American population. Secrecy is highly regarded in national security matters.
It is typically necessary and justified in security issues. The charges pressed against Bradley were in support of the ACS values. The code places significant concern on individuals affected by the conduct of the member.
Bradley would have been expected to maintain high degree of secrecy to avoid putting the security of the US in the hands of the enemy including the Al-Qaeda network. The exposure of the diplomatic cables and classified information exposed the American agents to danger.
The British Computer Society (BCS) code of conduct
The code of conduct sets the professional standards of competence, behavior and ethical practice for computer operation in the UK. The code expects employers, customers, the public and other professionals to anticipate similar standards of proficiency and conduct from members of the BCS as expected from the distinguished members of other profession such as engineers (Gotterbarn, 1992).
The BCS sets standards of technical capacity that members must satisfy. It also stipulates standards of conduct that members must be conventional to and failure to which they are held responsible for any lapse. Accountability and competence are elemental for associates of a professional institution. The BCS has for decades contributed to the raising of standards of technical competence in the information systems community.
In view of the BCS code of conduct, Bradley acted in contradiction to the BCS stipulated conduct. The BCS believes that members should be aware of the accountability of its members. This is not only for members to possess but also to exercise the proficiency consistently according to high personal integrity.
The BCS revised the society’s code of conduct to ensure that the code remains sufficient and relevant to modern needs. It also gave widespread publicity so that the public is aware of the standards to expect from the members.
Conversely, if the BCS codes were to be applied in the Bradley case, the council would have reprimanded Bradley. Bradley had duty to his employer called the military. He would have been expected to carry out his responsibilities with appropriate care and diligence devoid of compromising the secrets of the military in accordance with the requirements of the military.
Bradley’s professional judgment was overruled and he had to bear the consequences of his actions. Members of the BCS are not allowed to disclose or authorize the disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of professional practice. Bradley violated the code by leaking classified information without prior written authorization by the military, and the government direction to release the information by a court of law.
Bradley compromised his responsibilities, as he did not seek to avoid being in a position where he became privy to information relating to activities that conflicted his professional responsibility. In this regard, the stakeholders held the position that Bradley acted in contravention of his professional position.
The IITP code of professional conduct
This obligatory code outlines moral and professional conditions for information technology professionals in New Zealand. The Institute of IT Professionals (IITP) was founded in 1960. The members of the institute shall conduct professional activities with decorum, honesty and respect that merit the trust of the society and profession.
The members shall employ honesty, expertise, judgment and inventiveness to add positively to the wellbeing of the community. In view of Bradley case, the IITP code would have required Bradley to take reasonable steps to enlighten himself and the employer of the economic, legal and social repercussions that would arise from his action of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.
The stakeholder position
The stakeholders in each of the codes of professional conduct have high regards for the professionals to act in accordance with the stipulated codes. The designers of the codes sought to have the professionals align to the standards that do not compromise the security of information in possession by the professionals.
The stakeholders hold the codes in high esteem. The members of the respective institutions are expected to treat the profession in stipulated standards devoid of compromising the position of the member and respect for the profession.
Ethical viewpoints
Ethical viewpoint means the way a professional views a situation in logical sense founded on a set of moral principles. Different professionals hold varied viewpoints depending on the circumstances. In view of Bradley case, different stakeholders held different viewpoints.
Bradley on his part held the position that his action to release leaks to Assange was justified by the fact that the military had intentionally withheld information that was sensitive to the American society. Bradley believed that releasing the information to the public domain would help in revealing the military action in the suburb of new Bagdad.
On the other hand, the military personnel, security agents and the federal government officials held the viewpoint that Bradley had acted maliciously and in contravention of the ethical standards stipulated under his profession as a security analyst.
The vigor via which the prosecution of the case by the military court martial took was evident that the military anticipated having Bradley behind bars for a long time. The prosecution had sought to have Bradley charged with aiding the enemy which is punishable by death.
Key differences between various ethical viewpoints
The different ethical viewpoints taken by the stakeholders were meant to justify the position taken. The military considered Bradley’s position as one that compromised the national security of the United States. By initiating charges of aiding the enemy, the court martial prosecution sought to prove that indeed Bradley was a traitor that deserved severe consequences.
Personal view on Bradley Manning
In the recent past, there have been significant discussions regarding professionals leaking information that pose risks to the stakeholders. WikiLeaks and Bradley have been topics raising international concerns on how professionals handle ethical issues. The fact is based on the volume and sensitivity of the information Bradley leaked to Assange and consequently released by WikiLeaks.
Discussions reveal that the media and authorities believe that there is a single central character to be concerned with in this regard. However, the protagonist is altogether different. Bradley would have been well intended to reveal his concerns about the undertakings of the government, security agencies and the military.
The code of ethics stipulated in the military codes expected Bradley to maintain the integrity of information by not revealing the information to outsiders.
The military personnel are bound by shared ethics and culture. It was wrong for Bradley to leak the information irrespective of the magnitude of the ills of the Bush and Obama administrations. This is founded on the fact that the revelations posed danger to the national security, the US citizen and agents outside the US.
Bradley independently leaked thousands of classified documents. The move did not make him a folk champion in the broader culture. Manning took matters in his own hands by taking the large forces of the government individually. His whistle blowing has dire consequences where national security is concerned.
This fact did not deter him from leaking the information, as he believed that there was ethical significance to render secrets visible to the public that deserved to know more. Bradley performed the act of self-sacrifice. However, there was an unavoidable manifestation of self-aggrandizement.
Some Americans are not ready to accept the novel version of informational cowboy. Some Americans hold the view that Bradley was hardly a well-intended whistleblower. Some indicate that he was ‘essentially a little person with bloated self-esteem and self-importance.
Considering the Daniel Ellsberg case, Bradley was treated rudely by the Obama administration. Ellsberg was criticized for leaking the Pentagon Papers. Contemporarily, he is viewed as a chronological figure who founded the much-required accountability to the America’s hearing and determination of the Vietnam War. Unlike Ellsberg, Bradley is legally endangered and living in the position between a hero and a villain.
Asked why he preferred to give the sensitive information of WikiLeaks instead of selling the documents to Russia or China, Bradley responded in true activist fashion, ‘It is public data belonging to the public domain and should be free (Ludlow, 2010).
Subjective opinion
Revealing controversial information
Civic-minded individuals that encounter what they trust to be corrupt and illegal conduct typically take it upon themselves to leak relevant classified information. The Bush and Obama administrations as well as the Congress are notorious for betraying the established norms of the US system.
These actions often incite whistleblowers to release classified information as a way of expressing discontent. Whistleblower laws that allow them an avenue for expressing dissatisfaction with federal and military activities motivate disgruntled employees within government circles.
Key factors affecting decision include the fact that most Americans are sensitive to acts of civil disobedience. The Bush and Obama administrations along with the Congress have infringed basic customs and serious law in the pretext of national security.
Civic-minded individuals are privy to the activities that motivate them to take controversial positions regarding the leaking of classified and sensitive information. Leakers are also motivated by the urge to get information to the public domain through the media to expose government guidelines to meticulous society discussions.
Ethical/legal concerns arising from the spread of internet
The development of technology is rapid. In fact, the development progressively affects lives in more ways than we are conscious about. It is imperative for the community to think constantly about the contemporary world we live in and the tools available for dealing with the changing world. The more tools that we develop the more explicit and implicit moral and legal issues that emerge.
The power of the internet to reach global locations comes with it issues in conducting business. New technologies for collecting, manipulating and disseminating information have significantly impacted on the use and spread of information. Alongside the development of new technologies, there are ethical and legal dilemmas that emerge. The pace and effectiveness of electronic information systems including the domestic and global networks and databases compel individuals to face completely new rights, laws and responsibilities.
Information is a source of power for the holder. It is essential to the success of individuals who have access to it. Developments in technology encompass communal and legal interactions.
It is hence important to make moral considerations in how information is utilized by those with access to information. The spread of the internet modernly touch lives of individuals, the place of work and most government levels. Even individuals without access to technology are considerably affected.
The rapid development of information systems legal issues lag behind technical developments. Information ethics bridge the widening gap as individuals and institutions discuss how the utilization of technology should proceed. Information morals involve choices people make relative to the rest of the society. It includes suitable behavioral standards and guidelines leading members of an occupation.
Ethical issues related to information systems comprise of the control of and right of entry to information. Confidentiality of information and the mishandling of the same as well as other considerations are essential in dealing with information ethics.
Conclusion
Globalization and the rapid increase in the use of information technology systems in the emerging knowledge society raise many ethical, legal and societal issues. The access to information, the freedom of expression and the right to privacy pose challenges and complex concerns to human existence.
Many advocates of civic-minded individuals consider information technology systems as a basic right for all humans with government information as part of the public domain.
It is imperative for the stakeholders to develop holistic, integrated and cohesive policies at national and international levels to guarantee effective and beneficial application of information systems. The policies will help in mitigating situations such as the Bradley and Assange’s cases.
Governments should also ensure that information that will not compromise national security is made available to the public for the public to assess the operations of the government. The citizens’ vote for the government hence, the public deserves access to information held within government circles.
The government, traditional media and security organizations should get unglued from the perception that there must be a single mastermind behind operations such as Assange’s WikiLeaks. Conversely, it is imperative for professionals to uphold the professional code of ethics in their respective professionals.
References
Benkler, Y. 2013, The dangerous logic of the Bradley Manning case. Web.
Carr, D. 2013, Whistle-blowers in limbo, neither a hero nor traitor. Web.
Gotterbarn, D. 1992, ‘British computer society code of conduct’, British Computer Society code of Conduct, pp. 1-5.
Keller, B. 2013, Manning and Snowden. Web.
Ludlow, P. 2010, ‘WikiLeaks and hacktivist culture’, The Nation, vol.1 no.2, pp. 25-27.
Porter, C. 2013, Who is Bradley Manning and why should you care? Web.
Walcerz, M. 2013, Legal and ethical issues in technology. Web.