With Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), the concept of whistleblowers has gained a lot of national and even global attention. Coupled with the importance of Wikileaks in the 2016 U.S. election, a lot of people want to know if whistleblowers deserve justice, and why.

Whistleblowers are people who release information, usually from government agencies, that they believe the public should know about. Since releasing classified information is a crime, whistleblowers usually seek asylum in foreign countries. For example,  Edward Snowden is currently residing in Russia, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is located in Ecuador.

While Edward Snowden’s situation is well documented, Assange’s is less known. He founded Wikileaks in 2006, but gained headlines around 2010 with the release of several classified documents, logs and files on the War in Afghanistan as well as the Iraq War, supplied by Chelsea Manning.

Chelsea Manning was formerly in the military, and gave thousands of classified files to Wikileaks in early 2010. Wikileaks then published the files. This process is an example of the reason of why Assange’s legal status is complex. He doesn’t steal the files himself, but he has other whistleblowers give files to him, which he then publishes. The U.S. government has tried to prosecute him under the suspicion that he encouraged the whistleblowers to turn over classified information, however, they were unsuccessful as Assange’s actions are protected under the First Amendment (Freedom of the press).

Manning is currently serving a 35 year prison sentence, with a tide of controversy following her. Several petitions surfaced, asking for a pardon, reduced sentence and/or leniency. Although Manning apologized for her actions in court, she accomplished her mission: showing the errors and brutality of the Iraq War, and war in general. She tried to show that war was not worth the cost. One of the videos she leaked depicted 2 reporters with cameras (which were mistaken as weapons) being gunned down by a helicopter. This video gained national attention in 2010, which is generally considered the turning point of Iraqi War support.

Arguably one of the most notorious whistleblowers in history is Edward Snowden. He released information on the NSA’s global spying program, causing outrage from not only U.S. citizens, but citizens and the governments of other countries. After arriving in Russia, the U.S. prevented Snowden from moving to Latin America, his initial political asylum, by revoking his passport and “threatening other countries from taking in Snowden,” according to Snowden’s legal consultant Glenn Greenwald.

Snowden refuses to return to the U.S. to stand trial because of the Espionage Act of 1917, and how it “effectively hinders a person from defending himself before a jury in an open court, as past examples show,” according to his legal representative Jesselyn Radack. The United States has asked Snowden multiple times for him to return, to no avail.

Answering the question of whether or not whistleblowers should have justice can be answered simply by the word ‘whistleblower’ itself. Whistles are blown by referees when something wrong happens. It is true that leaking classified government files on purpose can be punishable severely, but the morality of some of these cases are the issue. Snowden just wanted people to know about the United States’ government’s spying antics. Manning wanted to spread the message about the ineffectiveness of the Iraq war. Assange just wants the world to know about our leaders’ misconduct, and provide an outlet for ‘whistleblowing.’ If the nations’ governments who hunt whistleblowers could make certain cases  a subjective matter, then the United States, as well as the world, could be a better, more transparent place.