LGBT activist Chelsea Manning filed to run for Senate in Maryland, and will challenge sitting Democratic Senator Ben Cardin in the primary. While it is her right to run, the Democratic party should denounce her candidacy and voters should reject her.

Manning is a traitor. Not “alleged,” or “accused,” but an actual, convicted traitor. Serving as an intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, Manning — then known as Bradley — stole videos of American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 700,000 military and diplomatic documents, many of which were classified. Manning sent the files to WikiLeaks, which published them in 2010 and 2011. In 2013, a military court found her guilty of espionage and sentenced her to 35 years.

The reason Manning is not in jail and can run for office is Barack Obama commuted her sentence in January 2017, in one of his final acts as president. Obama argued that Manning’s punishment was disproportionately harsh compared to other leakers.

In contrast to Edward Snowden, who fled justice and sought a pardon, Manning stood trial and, beginning with her arrest, spent seven years in detention. That time was difficult for her, as she transitioned from male to female, went on a hunger strike to protest what she said was bullying and mistreatment due to her gender identity, and attempted suicide. Obama did not dispute Manning’s espionage conviction — and therefore refused to pardon her — but deemed seven years sufficient punishment.

As with Snowden, Manning’s case is complicated. Supporters consider her a whistleblower, because some of the information she leaked revealed incidents in which American forces killed civilians. It’s not unreasonable to think the United States was wrong to keep this secret, and that Manning performed a service by informing the public.

However, like Snowden, she leaked a large, unfiltered cache of information, most of it legitimately classified.

Manning’s leak included over 250,000 diplomatic cables dating back to 1966, embarrassing various governments. Communicating privately is both reasonable and beneficial for diplomacy, while presuming anything could become public — and taken out of context — hinders cooperation among nations.

More egregiously, the nearly 500,000 Army reports Manning gave to WikiLeaks included the names of Afghan informants working with the U.S. military, putting their lives at risk. The documents also provided details of Army operations, helping the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents.

Leakers And Internet Radicals

Manning’s most ardent defenders downplay or willfully ignore these negative consequences. Similarly, Snowden’s most ardent defenders praise him for revealing spying on American citizens and allied democracies while downplaying or ignoring that he also revealed U.S. intelligence practices to adversaries and enemies, such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, and ISIS.

In this way, they’re acting like the group I called “internet radicals” — so fixated on criticizing the United States and the broader Western establishment that they end up helping authoritarians.

This misses a fundamental truth of international relations: Power is relative. Though the United States often deserves criticism, the world — and many causes internet radicals support, such as individual freedom — are not better off when authoritarians gain at America’s expense.

Regarding Manning’s leak, the United States deserves criticism when bad intelligence or recklessness leads to civilian causalities. But the U.S.-led International Security Force and the elected Afghan government it supports are a lot better than the Taliban and other Afghan insurgent groups.

Afghan civilians who provide information about insurgents — often from Taliban-controlled territory — are putting themselves at risk to fight for basic freedoms internet radicals often take for granted, such as the right to vote, or for girls to go to school. Giving insurgents the information they need to hunt down those informants is indefensible.

Don’t Vote Manning

Journalist Glenn Greenwald — a famous internet radical who helped Snowden disseminate U.S. intelligence secrets — defended Manning’s candidacy, arguing that preferring Cardin means supporting:

old white straight men in power at the expense of marginalized minority candidates such as Manning

This is the worst type of identity politics. Judge Manning not by her actions, but by the category to which she belongs.

There’s value in diversity — in government and other influential institutions — because different types of people offer different perspectives. And people of a given identity in positions of power sends a signal, reducing their marginalization.

However, the value of diversity does not override the importance of individual choice. Manning chose to steal information from the United States and provide it to WikiLeaks, thereby breaking the law, helping the Taliban, and putting Afghans and Americans at risk. She pleaded guilty to 10 charges, got convicted of 21 more, but acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy.

This ruling strikes me as correct — she helped enemies of the United States inadvertently, rather than deliberately—but I don’t know exactly how much prison time is appropriate punishment. The seven years she served? The 35 to which she was sentenced? Something in between?

Manning didn’t commit the sort of crime, such as rape or murder, that raises concerns her release might create a public safety risk. Therefore, while it would have been wrong to pardon her, I do not have a strong opinion on Obama’s decision to shorten her sentence.

But she definitely should not be elected to the Senate.

Everyone in Congress gets security clearance by virtue of their election. Manning violated her oath when she had security clearance in the Army. At best, she didn’t realize the ramifications of what she was doing. At worst, she decided her judgment is superior to the law, and that the risk to American and allied lives was worth it.

If elected, Manning would not be credible when reciting the oath of office. She’d be an ongoing information security risk.

I have no idea whether Chelsea Manning stands a chance of getting the nomination, let alone winning the general election. But she already released an ad and started fundraising. And recent years have taught that long-shot candidates sometimes win, especially when they start with this much name recognition.

Laud her work on behalf of LGBT causes. Agree with her positions on various issues if you’d like. But do not support her candidacy.

Manning should not be in Congress. Not because of who she is. But because of what she did.