Chelsea Manning’s story is filled with nuance. It isn’t easy to claim an informed opinion and at the same time declare her actions completely moral or completely immoral. When Chelsea Manning leaked classified information to WikiLeaks, she may have thought she was doing the right thing. Maybe she didn’t think that, and wanted attention or approval. I think that it’s important to remove speculative motive in order to understand the action and results of the action.

Looking at the situation objectively, it is apparent that Manning broke the law. She leaked secret classified information to WikiLeaks. As someone who has gone through the security clearance process, there is no ambiguity as to whether or not data is classified. There is no ambiguity as to whether sharing classified information is legal. Indeed, Manning described her process for taking the information: “I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file.” These aren’t the actions a person takes when they are following the law.

One exception to this law would be if Manning could be considered a whistleblower. Under whistleblower protection laws, federal employees are allowed to disclose information that is evidence of abuse/violations, dangerous actions, mismanagement of funds, etc… In my opinion, Manning would not fall into this category, as she leaked more information than needed to just provide evidence of wrongdoing. Manning actually searched the information out, as opposed to being a firsthand witness. And some of the information that was leaked was harmful to the safety of the United States and its allies. For example, some documents contained the identities of foreigners who were aiding the United States in war zones. This information is harmful to the country and does not provide any evidence of wrongdoing, so it wouldn’t be protected by whistleblower protection laws.

This specific case is interesting because of a series of extraordinary factors. Before and during the time that Manning was leaking information, she kept in contact with several online persons. Chat logs of the conversations were recorded and provide a glimpse into Manning’s thought process. At one point she described her role in the war, saying, “i was a part of something … i was actively involved in something that i was completely against.” Second, Manning has been undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria, which has also turned her into a public figure and quasi role model for other people who may be facing similar issues or decisions. Third, President Obama chose to commute the majority of Manning’s sentence before he left office. The combination of these three factors resulted in a divisive and politicized landscape within which people pass judgement.

Ultimately, I believe that both Manning’s sentencing Obama’s commutation of the sentence were just actions. A precedent needed to be set as to the punishment associated with leaking classified information. If Manning was given a light sentence or no sentence at all, it would be a sign to all government employees and contractors that classified information isn’t really as secret or important as the government says it is. This could have small impacts, such as employees disclosing classified information to their spouse over dinner, and large impacts, such as an employee following in the footsteps of manning to release information that is irreparably damaging to the safety of the United States. However, it is important to remember the individual at the center of the precedent. With an understanding of Manning’s motivations, it is reasonable to commute the remainder of her sentence. Prison is meant ultimately to rehabilitate, and Manning expressed responsibility for her wrongdoing.

Manning isn’t a hero. She isn’t a traitor. She’s a flawed person like you or me.