To some, they are models of bravery, risking their lives in Iraq to report on the war and feed hungry children.

To others, they are exponents of irresponsibility, causing their government huge turmoil and expense to extricate them from danger.

Either way, the three Japanese hostages, released last month after a harrowing televised ordeal showing knife-wielding Iraqi insurgents threatening to kill them, pose a question central to our age: When do individual acts of courage constitute reckless endangerment of the larger society?

Given the weekend escape of Thomas Hamill, a U.S. contractor held by Iraqi militants since April 9, the issue takes on new resonance. But it’s not a new question. Examples abound of injured mountaineers airlifted to safety, single-handed sailors rescued from storms, lost hunters found after intensive wilderness searches — all of whom express courage even as they impose significant costs on the culture that saves them. In these examples, the courage is more physical than moral: While there’s nothing illegal or unethical about the acts that got them into difficulty, it’s hard to attribute high moral purpose to their motives.

The case of the Japanese hostages is different. Nahoko Takato, 34, went to Iraq to launch a charitable organization to help street children. Freelance photographer Soichiro Koriyama, 32, and freelance writer Noriaki Imai, 18, went to chronicle events of relevance to a nation that has 550 troops stationed there. Moral courage — which can be defined as the willingness to endure significant danger for the sake of high principle — would appear to characterize their actions.

In the United States, the return of hostages often inspires a hero’s welcome by the public. Indeed, that was the official U.S. response to the Japanese case. “If nobody was willing to take a risk,” said Secretary of State Colin Powell, “then we would never move our world forward. And so I’m pleased that these Japanese citizens were willing to put themselves at risk for a greater good, for a better purpose. And the Japanese people should be very proud that they have citizens like this willing to do that.”

Japan, by contrast, was anything but proud. Returning home, the three were met with an onslaught of criticism, berating them for shaming their nation. “Reckless,” said Yuriko Koike, the environment minister. “They must consider how many people they caused trouble to because of their action,” added Yasuo Fukuda, the Japanese government’s spokesman. The government, in fact, is billing the former hostages $6,000 for their airfare home. Their misdeed: ignoring a government travel advisory warning citizens not to travel to Iraq, and putting their personal interests above those of their society.

On its face, the case raises fascinating distinctions between Japanese and U.S. culture. The former sets great store in hierarchy, consensus, and the submission of the individual for the good of the community. The latter admires individuality, entrepreneurial daring, and a deliberate rebellion against conformity.

But this situation is about more than culture. It raises equally interesting questions about courage itself. Often portrayed as an unconditional good, courage can in fact morph into selfishness. What keeps it from doing so are the qualities that distinguish moral courage from its physical counterpart — the deep-seated moral values that give a principled motivation to the willing endurance of risk.

So the real question for the Japanese hostages is about their motivation. Did they, by exposing themselves in Iraq in ways that led to the hostage-taking, further endanger Japanese troops? Did they make it harder for the Japanese government to maintain its troops in Iraq without facing growing pressures to follow the example of Spain and pull them out? If Japan did face these pressures, was that a good or a bad thing? Were these three hostages, like whistle-blowers, identifying an embarrassing problem that needed exposure? Or were they, like teenage joyriders, thrilling to their own adventures with a reckless disregard for the potential damage to themselves and others?

Most U.S. citizens, I suspect, would join Colin Powell in applauding these hostages in their desire to do good. But there’s a sobering reminder here that the expression of courage, physical or moral, can often have side effects. Even at its purest, courage can create new hardships for onlookers, bystanders, and members of the families and communities of the courageous ones. We’re accustomed to asking, “Who will my courage benefit?” We need also to ask, “Who might it harm?”

©2004 Institute for Global Ethics

“Never, before now, has there been such a temptation in Rai — especially in its main news broadcast — to mold all information in the shape of the parliamentary majority and the government. The absence of common rules, the anomalous concentration of power in the hands of one man, and the obvious, unresolved conflict of interest that this has given rise to, hurts both broadcasting and the credibility of our democracy.”

– Lilli Gruber, a leading Italian TV journalist, explaining her resignation last week from her job at state broadcaster Rai. Gruber quit after criticizing the media power held by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who sits on the board of Rai and whose family owns Italy’s three main private TV stations. Berlusconi and his allies have been pushing for even greater media consolidation, which Gruber says threatens the impartiality of the news and the solidity of Italian democracy. Rai management called her allegations “wrong and ungenerous,” according to the BBC. (“Top Italian TV News Reader Quits,” BBC, Apr. 28)

SEATTLE
After April’s surge in violence in Iraq, U.S. news outlets struggled last week with how best to balance an accurate portrayal of the war’s increasing death toll with respect for the privacy of affected families.

The issue came to a head last month after a ban on photos of dead soldiers was breached by the Seattle Times, which published an image of 20 flag-draped coffins being loaded onto a plane headed for Germany.

Tami Silicio, a contract worker for Maytag Aircraft in Kuwait, took the photo. “I guess my feelings were so built up — my heart was so full of grief,” she told the Reuters news agency. “And it came out in the picture,” she said.

“The picture is about them, not me, about how they served their country, paid the price for our freedom, and the respect they receive on their way home from our military personnel at our air terminal,” she wrote in an April 16 email to the Times.

Silicio and her husband David Landry were fired by Maytag for passing along the photo to the press in violation of the military contractor’s policy. They returned home to Seattle last week.

Silicio, backed by many news organizations, has criticized the U.S. military’s embargo on such photos, saying the images are part of responsibly portraying the cost of war and honoring those who have died.

Last week, the U.S. Defense Department said it would not relax the ban on filming flag-draped coffins, insisting that the goal is not to sanitize the war but to maintain the privacy of victims’ families.

The 1991 rules officially barring such photos were relaxed to allow the release of coffin images following the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and during the war in Afghanistan, reported the Reuters news agency.

The Bush administration decided to strictly enforce them shortly before the war on Iraq began, noted Reuters.

The debate over displaying images of the dead quickened last week, after USA Today devoted part of its front page to showing 116 snapshots of the 134 U.S. soldiers killed during the previous month in Iraq.

The New York Times took similar steps earlier in April, reported Editor & Publisher. The Washington Post maintains an online gallery of those killed during the war and in the months since major combat was declared finished.

TV entered the fray last week as well, with ABC’s Friday evening “Nightline” airing an expanded show to read aloud the names of the more than 600 Americans killed since the start of the war.

The nation’s largest owner of TV stations, the Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, ordered its eight ABC affiliates across the country to drop the show, contending that the content was “motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.”

“Nightline” host Ted Koppel rejected Sinclair’s statement as baseless, saying the show had no political agenda. “I think it can be seen just as powerfully by people who are totally supportive of the war as those who aren’t,” Koppel told the Washington Post.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) last week issued a scathing rebuke to Sinclair, according to CNN.

“Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,” McCain wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group. “I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.”

WASHINGTON
Despite paying more than $300 million in penalties for alleged infractions in the past four years, 10 companies have been awarded $7 billion in Iraqi reconstruction contracts, according to a report last week from the Associated Press.

The 10 firms, all of which have settled charges with the federal government since 2000, have been accused of 30 violations, including rigging bids, improper billing, delivering faulty military parts, and damaging the environment.

Under a Clinton-era law designed to cut down on fraud, companies — even those that settle to avoid conviction — could have been barred from contracts if they had been penalized during the three previous years.

President Bush suspended that law within three months of taking office and killed it altogether less than a year later, easing the way for penalized firms to reenter the bidding pool, reported the AP.

“We have not made firms pay the price when they screw up,” former Pentagon official Peter Singer, who helped oversee military and contract work in the Balkans, contended to the AP.

“But it’s not the company’s fault if it has a dumb client,” he added. “I’m not blaming the companies, I’m blaming the government.”

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Justice Department last week said it was opening a criminal investigation into charges that Republican aides in the Senate raided Democrats’ computer files on judicial nominees.

The allegations have led to recriminations from both sides of the aisle, with Democrats accusing the aides of criminal acts and Republicans filing ethics complaints based on the pilfered material.

Many of the 4,670 documents in question were lifted from Democrats’ computers and reportedly detail discussions with liberal groups about blocking President Bush’s most conservative judicial nominees.

Republicans, who charge that the documents indicate ethical misconduct, have been blasted in turn for allegedly criminal acts in taking the material from government computers, reported the New York Times.

In March, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms released a 65-page report concluding that two aides to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, snatched the documents. Both aides have left their positions.

The Justice Department last week announced that it had gone beyond the Beltway in the hope of finding an impartial outsider — top Manhattan federal prosecutor David Kelley — to look into the charges.

CHICAGO
The former federal prosecutor heading the internal anticorruption unit at the Teamsters Union last week resigned, accusing union president James P. Hoffa of impeding two inquiries into alleged corruption.

The Teamsters, long suspected of ties to organized crime, agreed to broad federal supervision in 1989 to settle a federal racketeering lawsuit, according to a report from the New York Times.

Part of the union’s plan was to establish an internal watchdog group — Respect, Integrity, Strength and Ethics (RISE) — five years ago to root out problems and make sure none resurfaced.

Last week, RISE head Edwin Stier walked away from the post, writing that Hoffa “has backed away from the Teamsters’ anticorruption plan in the face of pressure from self-interested individuals.”

Joining Stier in resigning from the Teamsters’ anticorruption program last week were 20 other investigators and lawyers, as well as a 10-member advisory panel, reported the Times.

Hoffa called Stier’s allegations “reckless and false” and characterized the falling out as a territorial dispute centered on whether Stier’s group or federal agencies should investigate certain charges.

“We think Ed is resigning because we’re not letting him do whatever he wants to do, “Teamsters general counsel Patrick Szymanski told the Times. Szymanski’s comment related to issues involving funding and jurisdiction.

Stier last week disputed that his stepping down was a reaction to having his toes stepped on, saying Hoffa was blocking an investigation into kickbacks in Houston and mob corruption in Chicago.

DENVER
Janus Capital Group, one of the first firms singled out in last year’s crackdown on alleged mutual fund fraud, agreed last week to pay more than $225 million to settle state and federal charges of market timing — quick trades designed to capitalize on small price fluctuations in stock price.

Denver-based Janus will pay $50 million in restitution, $50 million in civil penalties, and reduce the fees it charges to investors by $125 million over the next five years, reported the Associated Press.

The agreement will settle the company’s problems with New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who first fingered Janus last September for alleged market timing.

While market timing is legal, many mutual fund companies, including Janus, tell average investors the practice is not allowed. When they bend the rules for powerful clients, it cuts into smaller investors’ earnings, which regulators say is unfair.

Under terms of last week’s deal, Janus also will pay $1.2 million to the state of Colorado to fund investor education and future enforcement, as well as to pay for attorneys’ fees, according to the AP.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also may get in on the deal, though the agency’s five commissioners must approve the settlement first, noted the Washington Post.

Janus, which replaced its CEO two weeks ago, last week issued a statement saying the deal marked a “huge step forward for the firm” and would help restore “complete trust” in the firm.

The new CEO, Steven Scheid, told the Post, “These agreements reflect Janus’ commitment to do whatever is necessary to earn investors’ confidence. We realize our business is built on trust and we’re dedicated to upholding the highest ethical standards in everything we do.”

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

OTTAWA
Nortel, the former Canadian corporate star in the technology sector, suffered another severe blow with last week’s disclosure that the first half of its 2003 profits will be halved due to inappropriate accounting for losses and expenses.

The firm probably also will have to restate the second half of 2003. The firm’s independent review is being closely watched by the Ontario Securities Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

There is increasing speculation that financial results as far back as 2001 may have to be reexamined.

There also is bound to be controversy surrounding the $140 million that the senior officials, including Nortel CEO Frank Dunn, obtained for the now-impugned 2003 financial results.

The Nortel board of directors fired Dunn and two other senior officers “for cause.”

Dunn will be replaced by William Owens, a former commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet during the first Gulf War.

Nortel’s stock plummeted more than 30 percent in one day, dragging down U.S. tech stocks and serving as the primary cause of a triple-digit loss on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Nortel stock is more than 95 percent down from its peak in 2000.

MONTREAL
Faced with a growing number of violent crimes, Canadian doctors there say they soon must decide whether to play a greater role in helping police by reporting gunshot victims and drunk drivers involved in accidents.

The evolving issue was examined last week by the CBC, which noted that physicians associations in Montreal, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island are reexamining the ethics of their interaction with police.

The questions come as a growing number of gunshot victims are being dropped off at Ontario emergency rooms, leading to fears of violence bleeding into the ER and about patients’ possible future retaliation.

“If somebody is shot, we can expect retaliation generally,” Edmonton police officer Brad Doucette told the CBC, noting that if police know about gunshot victims, they may be able to prevent future violence.

Further debate centers on whether doctors should share with police the blood-alcohol tests of drivers involved in accidents — a move that could make the streets safer, but would violate traditional doctor-patient confidentiality.

“We would be happy to collaborate in whatever needs to be done, but I think it’s going to take a legislative change,” Dr. Roy Purssell, head of emergency medicine at Vancouver Hospital and an advocate of doctor-police cooperation, told the CBC.

BALTIMORE
After losing a two-year legal battle, the University of Maryland last week disclosed details about how it pays its two most prominent coaches, highlighting debates over college sports and salary equity.

The university contracts show that men’s basketball coach Gary Williams and football coach Ralph Friedgen both are guaranteed more than $1.1 million in annual compensation.

University of Maryland athletic director Deborah Yow says such lucrative deals are simply the cost of staying competitive in the high-stakes world of college sports, reported the Washington Post.

“There’s a philosophical question,” Yow said. “Is any coach worth being paid seven figures? That’s a separate conversation than the reality of: Are we or are we not going to be competitive?”

“I’m not mired in that philosophical question,” she added.

But math professor and faculty senate chair Joel Cohen said that question ought to be addressed. “What does it say about the whole commercialization of the school?” he asked.

Adding fuel to the debate, the contracts highlight incentive clauses offered to both coaches: in Friedgen’s case, a bonus of $75,000 for graduating 75 percent of his players, and $225,000 for making it to the championships.

“You look at the proportional size of each bonus, and it’s not very hard to see where, over the long term, the priority and focus are going to be,” Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist contended to the Washington Times.

Friedgen also can receive a $50,000 bonus each year if he keeps all of his football players from getting in trouble with university rules, law enforcement, and the NCAA, noted the Times.

Details of the contracts were released following a two-year legal battle with the Baltimore Sun, which won the right to see the contracts under a state Court of Appeals ruling last month.

From the Gallup News Service:

“As the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision on racial segregation in public schools approaches, recent Gallup polling finds that the vast majority of Americans (90 percent) acknowledge that educational opportunities for black children have gotten better since 1954. But other results indicate that equality in education remains elusive.

“According to the new survey, a majority of adults (59 percent) think that black children in the United States do have educational opportunities equal to those of white children, but nearly 4 in 10 (38 percent) say that they do not. Nearly one-third of those who believe that black children do not have equal educational options say that the situation is due to discrimination (31 percent) rather than some other reason (68 percent).

“In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared on May 17, 1954, that racially separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and in violation of ‘the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.’ At that time, 17 southern states and the District of Columbia had mandatory racial segregation in their public schools, and several additional states left the issue to the discretion of individual school districts. In the early 1950s, challenges to the legality of segregated schools filtered up to the Supreme Court from South Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. These were consolidated into a single case that became known as Brown v. Board of Education….

“In a unanimous decision, destined to change the face of race relations in the United States and to kindle the passions and hopes of a nascent civil rights movement, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to create separate schools for children based on their race….

“At the time of the decision, a Gallup Poll found that Americans were closely divided on the Supreme Court decision…. A bare majority (54 percent) approved of the ruling, while a large minority of 41 percent disapproved.

“Now, 50 years later, the results of a new Gallup Poll on Race and Education suggest that while important and unmistakable progress has been made, the nation still has a significant distance to travel. As noted, while 90 percent recognize improvements in education for black children since 1954, nearly 4 in 10 (38 percent) believe that educational opportunities remain unequal.

“Opinions on educational opportunities diverge sharply along racial lines: two-thirds of blacks (68 percent) hold the belief that black children do not have education parity with white children, compared with only one-third of whites (34 percent) taking this position. And while large majorities of both blacks and whites feel that progress has been made in educational equality over the past 50 years, this belief is significantly more prevalent among whites (92 percent) than it is for blacks (77 percent)….”

“I would define true courage to be a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.”

– William Tecumseh Sherman (U.S. general, 1820-1891)