By this time most summers, when everyone’s away, news editors are scrambling to find stories of substance. The silly season, it’s called. This summer, despite the hyper-ballyhoo around the baseball nonstrike, the silly season never really materialized. There was too much going on: collapsing stock markets, jailed CEOs, Pennsylvania miners, Western fires, European floods.

And, of course, Iraq. Those other stories made the headlines because they were pegged to real-time events. The question of intervening militarily to depose Saddam Hussein arose only because the Bush administration made it the news.

In itself, that’s not unusual. Governments everywhere set agendas, and journalists report them. But why open this debate now? Why crank up the Iraq question when commentators, policy analysts, and the public are on vacation? What’s the urgency?

The question matters in part because the facts on the ground haven’t changed much. Saddam is still viewed with repugnance, as wily as he is cruel. There’s still little desire, among those far or near, to have him remain in power. He’s still scheming to acquire more weapons of mass destruction to supplement those he’s already used. No news there.

Nor are the arguments for and against his ouster particularly new. Economic arguments center on the potential disruption of global oil supplies, the impact of a war on a lurking recession, and the cost of doing battle. Military arguments focus on the ability and readiness of American troops, the strategies and tactics best suited for a quick victory, and the vexing endgame questions. Political arguments include suggestions that the younger Bush wants to wrap up his father’s unfinished business from the Gulf War, and the impact of all this on the war on terrorism. And diplomatic arguments note the resistance to such an invasion from other nations, and the potential for a weakened Iraq to suck neighboring Turkey, Iran, and Syria into its vacuum and spark a regional conflagration.

These various ideas are long of tooth. They’ve developed a cadre of adherents and opponents with viewpoints more rigid than those of diehard baseball fans. You can as readily persuade a Red Sox fan to love the Yankees as you can, for example, encourage an oil-is-everything analyst to recognize that some issues are bigger than tomorrow’s gasoline supply. So on matters like these, debate can degenerate into little more than a sequence of antiphonal assertions, with each side lobbing unheard arguments at the other.

Except on one point: the extent to which Saddam has the capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction. That’s not the same as asking about his desire to deploy them, which is clear enough to need little debate. This instead is a question of what he possesses on the ground or has in the pipeline. And it generates a profound moral argument, with two rights pitted against each other in a short-term versus long-term tension.

To honor the moral authority of the short-term, you probably don’t invade. Despite the threat of long-term calamity posed by a nuclear-tipped Saddam, you simply don’t know enough to justify an invasion and its complex consequences. So you settle for peace now, though you risk an even bigger war later. Those who see ethics through a utilitarian lens, as a matter of the greatest good for the greatest number, may well support this viewpoint, arguing devastating consequences for lots of innocent Iraqis (and others) right now, in return for an uncertain future benefit. Taking up this side, you’ll think of yourself as a clear-headed realist.

To recognize the moral authority of the long-term, you probably do invade now — despite a significant short-term downside. Recognizing that some problems require immediate and unpleasant action — and no doubt falling back on surgical metaphors about inflicting pain to save life — you accept the economic, political, and diplomatic consequences for the sake of a higher-order good. Kantians, seeing ethics as a matter of fundamental principles that require us to act despite the consequences, will gravitate toward this viewpoint. Doing so, you’ll think of yourself as morally courageous.

What makes the debate so tough is that, right now, there’s a lot of right on both sides. Neither side is unethical. Each simply holds a different moral philosophy. But moral debate roots itself in facts. It can change as the facts change. If the Bush administration were to share the facts about Saddam’s weaponry — not simply by “making the case” at the 10,000-foot level, as Vice President Cheney has been ably doing, but by giving us the close-up detail on the ground — the scale could be tipped either way.

But then, maybe the administration is in no hurry to do so. Maybe the war to depose him has already begun — not with the 20th-century weapons of firepower, but with the 21st-century weapons of the global media. Imagine the heat Saddam’s colleagues must be feeling already. Think of the instability this debate must be engendering in Baghdad and in the Iraqi military. On balance, that’s a pretty clever way to use the silly season.

(c)2002 by the Institute for Global Ethics

“I am announcing today that the president must have the power to perform his duties within the framework of the Constitution. We cannot speak of democracy if we are not ready to play by its rules. The main aspect of democracy is the right of people to change a government if they do not like it.”

– Iran president Mohammad Khatami, announcing sweeping legislation meant to curb the power of hard-line clerics opposed to national reform. Khatami, twice elected on promises to open the economy and improve civil liberties in Iran, has been blocked repeatedly by far-right Islamic clergy, who hold much of the nation’s power. The New York Times observers that last week’s proposed reforms signal Khatami’s growing frustration as well as his willingness to challenge the conservative clergy more forcefully and publicly. One caveat: The Times notes that Khatami’s proposals “can be blocked by a religious panel called the Guardian Council, which has turned back reforms before, though never proposals so sweeping.”

BERLIN
More than two-thirds of the world’s nations face rampant corruption, according to a survey by watchdog Transparency International (TI), which also warns that conditions are worsening in industrialized nations.

Last year, 55 of 91 surveyed countries fell below the half-way mark on TI’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index. This year, that number climbed to 70 of 102 countries.

Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, and Iceland topped the list as the least corrupt. Bangladesh, Nigeria, Paraguay, and Madagascar sank to the bottom, according to coverage from the Financial Times.

TI chairman Peter Eigen last week warned that Latin America and South America had become rife with corruption, a problem accelerated by the “graft and misrule of political elites.”

While the growing international push to link development loans and donations to good governance is a positive step, it is far from enough, Eigen told the Times.

“The main additional task is to mobilize civil society, in developing countries in particular, to recognize that corruption is highly damaging,” Eigen said.

WASHINGTON
Three former WorldCom workers last week agreed to plead guilty and help the government target their former bosses in a probe of financial foul play, the latest in a shift of lower-level execs pointing prosecutors up the corporate ladder.

The three workers include two WorldCom accountants, and the company’s former controller, David Myers, who investigators had been eyeing for the lion’s share of the blame in bankrupting the firm.

But Myers and the others are expected to finger their boss, former WorldCom chief financial officer Scott Sullivan, who they say ordered them to inflate earnings by $5 billion from October 2000 through April 2002.

Indicted on seven counts last week, Sullivan now faces up to 65 years in prison.

Prosecutors hope the WorldCom defections will put pressure on Sullivan to explain what — if anything — former CEO Bernard Ebbers knew about financial fraud within the corporation.

To date, Ebbers has denied any knowledge of fraud, according to the AP.

When WorldCom was forced to go public with its accounting abuses — more than $7 billion in fraudulently booked expenses — the firm foundered, losing public trust and creditors’ backing.

While WorldCom hopes to recover under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, such revival may prove impossible if corporate malfeasance keeps crippling its image, reported the New York Times.

Last week’s turn of events mirrors a similar swing at Enron, where lower-level executive Michael Kopper last month agreed to plead guilty and help the government build a case against his bosses.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

NEW YORK
The New York Times, in a study based on statistics from Thomson Financial and corporate circulars, revealed that 14 executives from JDS Uniphase, based in Ottawa, Canada, and San Jose, California, accumulated more than a billion dollars from selling stock in their own company in the past three and a half years.

While other telecom companies, including many of the major U.S. players, were also the target of the Times report, the details of the profits made by the JDS Uniphase executives made headline news in Canada.

One experienced market expert quoted in the Globe & Mail, Dennis Gartman, called the insider profits astonishing and unconscionable.

The former CEO, Kevin Kalkhoven, is reported to have made $245.9 million while the present CEO, Jozef Straus, reportedly made $150 million over the past 42 months.

During this period the company stock plummeted from a high of roughly $132 at the start of 2000 to just above $3 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

While there are no allegations of any illegal activity on the part of the executives, given that the insider sales were duly reported, Mr. Gartman and other Canadian observers are quoted by the Globe & Mail as stating that such sales are evidence that these insiders did not have much faith in the company.

CINCINNATI, Ohio
In a strongly worded rebuke, a U.S. appeals court last week blasted the Bush administration for violating constitutional protections in its hunt for illegal immigrants with links to last September’s terrorist attacks.

In the days following September 11, the U.S. government rounded up more than 750 people for immigration violations discovered after the attacks. As of late June, 81 remained in custody — the rest having been deported or released, reported the New York Times.

Under a September 21 order, the Bush administration barred the public from attending the detainees’ hearings, saying that state secrets could be jeopardized, putting the public at risk.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, said the government had overzealously breached the Constitution, closing itself off to scrutiny and endangering civil liberties.

“The Executive Branch seeks to uproot people’s lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door,” Senior Judge Damon Keith wrote in the court’s opinion. “Democracies die behind closed doors.”

“When the government begins closing doors,” Judge Keith continued, “it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation.”

Upholding the complaint of a Democratic lawmaker and four newspapers, Judge Keith ordered the Bush administration to open up its deportation hearings to public scrutiny, reported the Washington Post.

“The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people’s right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately in deportation proceedings,” Judge Keith wrote.

Last week’s ruling affects only one case — that of a Muslim clergyman accused of overstaying his tourist visa and founding a charity accused of supporting terrorism — but could be cited as precedent in similar cases nationwide.

Already, trial court judges in Newark and Washington have issued similar rulings against the Bush administration, ordering it to open deportation hearings unless it proves — on a case-by-case basis — that such access would create a credible safety threat.

“Without question,” Judge Keith wrote last week, “the events of September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on our nation. But we as a people are united in the wake of the destruction to demonstrate to the world that we are a country deeply committed to preserving the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our democracy.”

The Bush administration may be waiting for a ruling in a similar, broader case in Philadelphia next month before deciding whether to appeal, noted the Times.

WASHINGTON
In a rare display of public criticism, a secret U.S. court last week blasted the Justice Department and FBI for colluding to violate the rights of U.S. citizens by sharing information gained from wiretaps and other surveillance.

Citing at least 75 cases of alleged FBI wrongdoing, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court condemned the federal government for lying in order to obtain wiretap and electronic surveillance permits.

Such permits were issued for intelligence investigations, which can be approved far more easily than can surveillance for criminal investigations, reported the New York Times.

To protect the public from unreasonable search and seizure, evidence obtained by intelligence investigators was not to be shared with criminal prosecutors unless they had the court’s approval.

But in practice, intelligence investigators broadly shared the information and lied to the court, and in some cases even sought surveillance permits at the urging of criminal prosecutors hamstrung by higher scrutiny, the court said.

The criticism was made in a private finding by the court, released last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently reviewing requests by the Justice Department for even broader surveillance liberties after last September’s terrorist attacks, reported the New York Times.

Committee head Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) hailed the court’s release as “a remarkable step forward for constructive oversight,” according to the Times.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the report was a wake-up call heralding a dangerous “end run around the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.”

“These disclosures couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Department of Justice,” ACLU associate director Gregory Nojeim told the Times. “They’ve just been given vast new intelligence powers and are seeking more.”

Justice Department officials responded by saying the rebuke applied mostly to FBI actions undertaken while President Clinton was in office.

But the court also criticized John Ashcroft, current head of the Justice Department, for trying to expand surveillance and evidence sharing between federal agencies in the war on terrorism.

Citing a March memo in which Ashcroft authorized eased firewalls between agencies sharing data, the court rebuffed Ashcroft, writing, “These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not.”

TOKYO
A Japanese court last week recognized for the first time that its nation’s military forces conducted germ warfare during World War II, but rejected a lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of Chinese victims.

Citing evidence from 180 plaintiffs, the Tokyo District Court admitted that Japanese troops “used bacteriologic weapons under the order of the Imperial Japanese Army’s headquarters and that many local residents died.”

But while such atrocities were “cruel and inhumane,” presiding Judge Koji Iwata ruled that the Japanese government is shielded from damages claims for acts committed during war, reported the Japan Times.

The court’s ruling marks a watershed acknowledgement of Japan’s illegal germ warfare, conducted primarily by the infamous Unit 731, which reportedly dissected live prisoners and released cholera, dysentery, anthrax, and typhoid on Chinese and Russian citizens.

Unit 731 is suspected of killing as many as 250,000 people in experiments conducted during the 1930s and 1940s, according to a report from the Associated Press.

In a series of defeated lawsuits, including one by Allied soldiers and civilians, the Japanese government has refused to acknowledge its activities while fighting the suits as illegitimate.

Japan’s Justice Ministry welcomed last week’s ruling, which it describes as upholding the nation’s 1972 treaty with China, in which China waived its claims for compensation in exchange for an apology.

Last week, plaintiffs in the case said they would appeal to the Tokyo High Court, where they hope to win an apology and roughly $84,000 each in compensation.

“The presiding judge has done what he can do” under current law, Wang Xuan, leader of the plaintiffs’ group, told the Times. “Japanese society will have to deal with this contradiction from now on.”

BOSTON
Harvard Law School (HLS) last week said it would lift its ban on military recruiting on campus, following government threats to withhold $328 million federal funding over the issue of discrimination against gays.

For more than 20 years, the law school has refused to give the U.S. military access to its Office of Career Services, citing the military’s policy of expelling its openly gay service members.

The Law School said the military’s policy blatantly conflicted with its own nondiscrimination rules, which prohibits bias on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors.

Employers, including the military, are asked to affirm similar nondiscrimination policies in order to use the school’s recruiting facilities. The military refused and was barred, HLS dean Robert Clark wrote in a memo last week.

Nevertheless, Harvard allowed a work-around solution through a student group, which could — and did — invite military recruiters to campus.

After investigating Harvard’s policy in 1998, the U.S. Air Force found it in compliance with a 1996 law threatening the funds of schools that impede on-campus military recruitment.

Last year, the Bush administration revisited the issue and changed the government’s stance, warning the law school in July that it would withhold federal funds unless it restored recruiters’ access.

Last week, HLS dean Robert Clark said the university had “no reasonable alternative” but to bow to the military’s pressure, according to a memo explaining the policy change to the school’s community.

While the military’s threatened cuts would not have affected student loans, they would have eliminated $328 million in federal funding for scientific and medical research throughout all of Harvard — 16 percent of the entire school’s operating budget.

Air Force spokeswoman Valerie Burkes said the warning was “consistent with applicable federal statutes,” and that other schools were being contacted, reported the Associated Press.

Dean Clark wrote, “I believe a significant majority of the Law School’s students, faculty, and staff oppose all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. At the same time, most of us reluctantly accept the reality that this university cannot afford the loss of federal funds.”

While calling military service “both honorable and essential to the well being of our country,” Clark added that the “decision to allow the military to recruit … does not imply that we support the military’s personnel policies.”

“The Law School condemns the military’s discriminatory practices and remains committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Clark concluded. “We are dedicated not only to the rule of law, but also to the advancement of a just society.”

Observers say other schools with nondiscrimination policies are facing similar pressure from the military, and are likely to follow Harvard’s example, reported the New York Times.

DALLAS
This week, a new mutual fund — the Vice Fund — hits the streets, hoping to make it big by pooling the money of investors tired of being good, going green, and working for social change.

The Vice Fund, which debuted September 3, puts invested funds into industries increasingly tarnished by bad press, street protests, and class-action suits — namely, oil and gas, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and defense.

“When it’s good, it’s very, very good…. When it’s bad, it’s better,” the Vice Fund’s Web site opines, offering $10 shares in a portfolio that is expected to include Boeing, Philip Morris, Raytheon, and gambling firm Harrah’s, according to CBS MarketWatch.

“To socially responsible investors I would say donate your time and money to good causes. But your investing should not be a political statement. It should be to make money,” Vice Fund co-manager Dan Ahrens told CNN.

Press reports note that the Vice Fund is not the first investment vehicle to hype the wages of sin, citing a fund opened by Burt Morgan a few years ago.

That fund, Morgan SinShares has since changed its name to Morgan FunShares, which invests in firms that make habit-forming products — from entertainment to food.

The Vice Fund will “never make it, because they’ll find out what I did,” Morgan told MarketWatch, saying, “Sin isn’t sellable, but fun is. But let them find out the hard way.”

LOS ANGELES
Nearly 750,000 Los Angeles students will soon be facing dry campuses following their school board’s decision to ban school-day soda sales — the latest salvo in a district-wide fight against student obesity.

According to state statistics, one-fourth of California children aged 9 to 17 are overweight by anywhere from 10 to 100 pounds, a problem many say is fueled by the sugar in sodas dispensed at school.

Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education decided to put the lid on such sales, banning soda purchases during the school day. The policy, already in effect at the district’s elementary schools, will spread to its middle and high schools by January 2004.

Critics of the measure, including the National Soft Drink Association, say sodas are being scapegoated in the current battle of the bulge, insisting that the problem is too complex to blame on a can of Coke.

“Physical education and physical activity are by far, more important in combating obesity than banning soft drinks from students’ diets,” industry spokesman Sean McBride argued to the Board of Education. “In the end, this is really about the couch and not the can.”

Board of Education member Mike Lansing piggy-backed on such concerns, saying he did not support the measure because it failed to go far enough.

“Why just sodas?” Lansing asked the Los Angeles Times. “Why not cheese chips? Why not candy or any fatty foods we are selling in our cafeterias? We don’t even prioritize physical fitness, yet we’re going to eliminate obesity by stopping soda sales?”

Supporters of the measure also voiced cautionary notes last week, explaining that soda sales have become an increasingly important tool in raising funds for extracurricular programs.

On-campus soda sales generate an annual average of $39,000 per high school and $14,000 per middle school in the Los Angeles district, according to figures from the San Francisco Chronicle.

A 2000 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 50 percent of U.S. school districts have contracts with soda companies given exclusive rights to campus sales, added the Times.

ONEONTA, New York
The owner of a New York fast-food restaurant was upbraided by angry residents last week after he rebuked his employees for giving $34 of bottled water to firefighters battling a nearby blaze.

Robert Beblavy, owner of a local Subway sandwich franchise, was roundly and soundly drummed by angry readers of the local Daily Star newspaper, which reported on his actions last week.

The story centered on four of Beblavy’s employees, who were part of a crowd watching 100 firefighters from 14 departments tackle a blaze that burned through a historic building in downtown Oneonta around midnight.

“Firefighters were yelling that they needed water and we watched other businesses and bars wheeling it out so we wanted to do something,” employee Thomas Angellotti told the Star.

Saying they had called Beblavy for permission, coworker Vanessa Perreca and the others doled out their store of water. “The firefighters were very appreciative, and we felt like we had done something, as small as it was,” Perreca said.

The trouble started the next morning when Beblavy ordered his employees repay him for the water.

“If they wanted to help out, why involve my closed business?” Beblavy questioned. “I don’t see how they felt they had a right to enter my premises, and I don’t feel they had a right to be good Samaritans with my property.”

Beblavy’s comments, published in the Star, prompted public outrage — as well as an outpouring of cash, checks, and bottles of water, delivered both to Subway from disgusted residents and to the firehouse for future use.

The next day, Beblavy recanted, saying he had been misunderstood. “It’s a terrible miscommunication,” he later said. “Looking at everything that transpired, I think my employees did a good job.”

From GradSchools.com:

“Over 80 percent of prospective business graduate students surveyed feel that MBA programs today need to be retooled to include a greater emphasis on ethics….

“Over 1,200 prospective graduate students who indicated an interest in business degrees while researching programs at [information site] GradSchools.com were asked three specific questions in the survey, which was conducted online.

“The survey also revealed that, in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, over one-third of those surveyed are reconsidering their educational focus. The scandals have also caused some MBA candidates to rethink their career choices, and there seems to be a conflict among them. When asked, ‘Are you likely to seek a job working for corporate America after the recent accounting scandals?’ over 15 percent of those surveyed said they were ‘less likely,’ while 20 percent were ‘more likely.’

“‘It’s clear that students with an interest in pursuing graduate degrees in business may be reevaluating their education and career goals,’ said Mark Shay, president of GradSchools.com. ‘At the same time, there’s a growing indication that prospective MBA students want to see more ethics training in the MBA curriculum, which seems to be a reflection of recent events.’

“He adds, ‘There also appears to be a growing disenchantment with corporate America among prospective graduate students. However, whether this ‘mini-trend’ continues remains to be seen.’…”

“War would end if the dead could return.”

– Baldwin (Stanley Baldwin, British statesman and prime minister, 1867-1947)