Despite former President John F. Kennedy's adage, the sole justification for laws is to benefit and protect the citizens they govern. Each person, valuable within himself, is what our government was created to uphold. Any appeal to the benefit of "the Nation," "the Economy" or "Society" forsakes its aim by failing to support the value of the very individual on which the laws were founded.
On Dec. 23, Chinese pro-democratic activist Chen Wei was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power" in communist China. Wei has written a number of essays, exclusively published by foreign websites, that call for political and social freedom in his country. For his activism, he was sentenced to nine years in prison with an additional two years of political rights revoked.
Across the Pacific, a similar case is underway in our constitutional republic. The military officer who presided over the hearing of Pvt. Bradley Manning — the intelligence analyst who supplied tens of thousands of classified documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks - has recommended Manning face court-martial. With this recommendation, Manning moves one step closer to potential life imprisonment.
It's unclear whether Wei, who insists his actions are protected under the Chinese constitution, did anything technically illegal; however, Manning undoubtedly broke American laws, by adding unauthorized software to a classified computer, among other things. But the relevant question has yet to be asked: At what cost and to what benefit were Manning's acts performed?
Prosecutors have argued that Manning's actions put American security at risk, "aiding the enemy" by indirectly providing al-Qaida with classified documents. Yet many of these documents contained data that compromised American integrity — not security — such as the video of a careless and unsettling helicopter strike that left 11 Afghan citizens dead. With this insight, the acts of Manning and WikiLeaks have an obvious and honorable intent: to counter rampant governmental concealment in an effort to promote transparency and the awareness of citizens.
In releasing classified documents, neither Manning nor WikiLeaks intended to support terrorist organizations, just as Wei, in writing anti-communist propaganda, does not intend to affront the Chinese people. Rather, these whistle-blowers and activists seek to aid the citizens of their respective countries.
They question and undermine the apparent authority, secrecy and unaccountability that their governments exercise. These governments, in prosecuting the individuals who disclose their transgressions, act out of strict self-interest, not the interest of the citizens whom the administration is meant to serve. I recognize and acknowledge Manning's wrongdoings and do not consider him altogether unaccountable. Unfortunately, WikiLeaks temporarily published the identities of a number of Afghan informants, leading to terrorist retaliation.
Yet, despite these failures of foresight, the main costs are primarily associated with the governments and political figures whose integrity has been undercut by the revelation of their misconduct. Their corruption and backroom dealings have been exposed, and they seek to reprimand those who have laid them bare. However, the safety of American citizens has yet to be compromised; no terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens have occurred due to the leakage of classified information. In fact, it's reasonable to say that the increased transparency and heightened consciousness has benefited global citizens immensely. Yet our government still persists with the implication that U.S. citizens are at the service of their country, not vice versa.
Dyllan Furness is a philosophy and English junior at UF. His column appears on Tuesdays.
