Ethics Newsline®

When Chile’s aging former strongman, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, was indicted last week on charges of murder and kidnapping, I was reminded of an extraordinary day that I spent in the Chilean capital, Santiago, in the mid-1990s. First, some background.

Pinochet’s infamous rule, which began in 1973 with a coup against the Marxist-leaning president, Salvador Allende, ended in 1990. Chile’s National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation published its report in 1991. Amid massive controversy, the Commission offered state-sponsored murderers immunity from prosecution in return for their complete truth-telling.

From those findings the Commission built a meticulous historical edifice. It pointed to horrendous crimes — deaths, disappearances, torture, rapes — by the right-wing regime. Yet the economy, which had been sliding toward a Cuba-like paralysis under President Allende, had become one of the beacons in South America. As a gesture of reconciliation, Pinochet’s successor, President Patricio Aylwin, allowed the general to remain as head of the armed forces.

In that context, I was invited by Mónica Jiménez de Barros — a former member of the Commission, an early target of Gen. Pinochet, a member of the Institute’s advisory council, and one of the most morally courageous people I know — to give a daylong seminar on ethics for some leading public figures in Santiago. From the opening introductions, it was clear this would be quite a day. At a table toward the rear sat a group of liberal editors and writers — long-haired, fiery-eyed, passionate, and articulate. At a table down front were two close-cropped colonels in crisp uniforms who defiantly introduced themselves not merely as army officers but as officers in “General Pinochet’s army.”

As we began, I shared with them a framework for thinking about right-versus-right dilemmas, particularly those that pitted justice against mercy. Mónica then shuffled the tables to put officers and journalists together. When we began our small-group discussions of several dilemmas, I steeled myself for outbursts and rage.

They never came. Somewhere in my files there’s a photograph of a well-starched colonel and a bohemian journalist leaning across a table toward each other, gesturing. But there’s nothing fractious in their interchange. Instead, they’re deep in conversation about the moral issues surrounding one of the dilemmas.

At the end of the afternoon, one of the colonels sought me out. Shaking my hand — clutching it, in fact, until he’d finished what he had to say — he told me that he wished everyone in the army could have been there. As he spoke, his eyes were moist with feeling.

A moment like that says something powerful about the ability of moral dialogue to bring opposing sides together. But it says even more about the courage of Chileans of every political stripe to face up to the degradation of state-sponsored terror and lay it to rest. The details of those crimes have resurfaced in the wake of Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia’s charges. So have some old questions. Should a tyrant stand trial for his crimes, or should a society seek healing by moving beyond the punishment of a frail octogenarian? It’s the same dilemma that faced the National Commission, where justice cried out for punishment while mercy demanded some kind of forgiveness.

Yet the judge’s bold indictment last week also raises new questions. Does it indicate that Chile has matured to the point that it can implement the kind of justice where murderers get their due? Or does it merely indicate that Chile has hardened to the point of exacting revenge? Will Gen. Pinochet’s pending trial respect a core tenet of the National Commission, which is that those who tell the truth win amnesty? If he tells all, will ethics demand that he be forgiven even though the evidence demands that he be punished? Whatever the outcome, will Chilean society be the better or the worse for it?

That last question matters most. Its answer, I think, lies with the colonels and the bohemians of today. If Pinochet’s prosecution drives them back to their respective tables of animosity and distrust, Chile itself will be the loser. But if both find closure to a grisly chapter in their nation’s grand history — so that they can continue in civil dialogue with one another — the judge’s effort will have been well rewarded.

©2004 Institute for Global Ethics

“Troops crossed the line of departure.”

– U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert, speaking on October 14 to CNN in an attempt to deceive insurgents in Falluja about the timing of last month’s U.S.-led offensive. The military’s attempt to dupe insurgents — the attack actually did not start until three weeks later — was part of a disinformation campaign that also effectively deceived U.S. viewers of CNN.

“Information is part of the battlefield in a way that it’s never been before. We’d be foolish not to try to use it to our advantage.”

– Unnamed senior Bush administration official, discussing the government’s use of psychological operations, also known as “psy-ops”

“The movement of information has gone from the public affairs world to the psychological operations world. What’s at stake is the credibility of people in uniform.”

– Unnamed senior Defense Department official, discussing the potential threat posed by psychological operations, propaganda, and disinformation used by the government

LONDON
The British government’s effort to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects was dealt a severe blow last week by the country’s highest appeals court, which rejected the policy as a violation of U.K. law and principles.

In an 8-to-1 ruling, the special panel of the House of Lords said the government’s policy contravened Britain’s heritage of freedom as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory.

In passing the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, the British Parliament gave Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government the right to lock up indefinitely a subset of foreigners without charging or trying them.

That policy, which mirrors a Bush administration position struck down in June by the U.S. Supreme Court, threatens a fundamental premise of the nation’s liberty — “freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention” – Lord Hoffman wrote in a caustic denunciation.

“The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these,” Hoffmann wrote, according to the New York Times. “That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

The justices told Parliament to either scrap the detention policy as a violation of European human rights, or amend it so the policy no longer covers only foreign suspects who would be tortured if deported.

“What cannot be justified here is the decision to detain one group of suspected international terrorists defined by nationality or immigration status, and not another,” Lord Bingham of Cornhill wrote.

The country’s new Home Office head, Charle Clarke, said the current detainees — 17 men, according to press estimates — will not be released until the government has time to consider its position.

LOS ANGELES
Energy firm Unocal Corp. last week agreed to settle charges that it turned a blind eye to atrocities allegedly committed in Myanmar, also known as Burma, by military forces protecting the company’s $1.2 billion oil pipeline.

Last week’s announcement ends two lawsuits filed against California-based Unocal over allegations that villagers were raped, murdered, and forced into labor to build the pipeline between 1993 and 1998.

Fourteen anonymous villagers, backed by U.S. human rights groups, filed the lawsuits, which Unocal fought until a federal court ruling in June set a trial date for last week, reported the Associated Press.

On the same day that trial was to begin last week, both parties said the courtroom showdown would be called off in favor of a settlement that will pay villagers and fund education and living condition improvements.

While the precise terms were not disclosed, attorneys issued a joint statement saying the deal would “provide substantial assistance to people who may have suffered hardships in the region.”

California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who last year warned Unocal on its treatment of workers abroad, last week called on the company to provide details of the settlement, according to the AP.

“I made it very clear to Unocal over one year ago that we need a coherent explanation as to why they continue to operate in Burma, a country in which American companies are now banned from making new investments,” Angelides said. “Because the allegations of human rights violations — which include murder, rape, and slave labor — are so severe, nothing short of full transparency and a full commitment to human rights by Unocal will suffice.”

While the United States banned corporate involvement with Myanmar in 1997, Unocal continues to operate there under a waiver due to contracts that predated the law, noted the Reuters news agency.

Unocal, which has weathered sharp criticism for its continued involvement with the country’s repressive regime, says its contracts have helped improve the education, health care, and economic opportunities for locals, added Reuters.

A joint status report on the settlement must be filed with a federal court by February 1, 2005.

WASHINGTON
After weathering more than two years of scandal, Time Warner agreed last week to pay $510 million to settle civil and criminal charges related to accounting irregularities at its AOL operations.

The proposed deal centers on more than $400 million in AOL income that was improperly booked as advertising revenue, along with other transactions from 1999 through 2002 still under review.

The settlement calls on Time Warner, which merged with AOL in 2001, to pay $300 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and $60 million to the Justice Department.

The firm also will be required to adopt institutional reforms and ante up $150 million for a civil litigation fund for shareholders who have sued the company over the scandal, which cost them billions of dollars, reported the New York Times.

Anticipating the proposed penalties, Time Warner already has set aside $500 million, noted the Washington Post.

While parts of the deal still need approval, news of the settlement raised hopes that Time Warner will be able to strengthen its revenues as regulators loosen strictures slapped on the firm two years ago.

As a signal of the détente, AOL and Time Warner have promised to cooperate with continuing investigations, and the Justice Department said it would defer criminal prosecution for two years and drop it altogether if the company reforms, according to the Post.

Still, regulators said Time Warner will have to earn back their trust, warning that no executives have been given immunity and that the government will be watching the firm to make sure reforms take hold.

If the company fails, “the deal is off, and they are in a world of trouble,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey told USA Today.

WASHINGTON
Federally backed mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae used improper accounting techniques for more than three years, skewing its books and misleading investors, according to a review by regulators.

The examination of Fannie Mae’s financial records was undertaken by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after rival mortgage firm Freddie Mac fell foul of accounting rules in 2003.

The Freddie Mac scandal forced a $5 billion restatement and the removal of five senior executives, reported the Reuters news agency. Fannie Mae and its top executives likely face a similar fate, analysts warned last week.

SEC chief accountant Donald Nicolaisen last week said Fannie Mae “did not comply in material respects” with two standard accounting practices,” helping the company to hide revenue volatility from investors from 2001 to mid-2004.

The SEC review found that Fannie Mae improperly booked $13.5 billion in losses and $4.5 billion in profits over the years, likely forcing the firm to restate revenues by a total of $9 billion, reported the Washington Post.

Last month, Fannie Mae chairman and chief executive Franklin Raines said such a restatement was likely, insisting that the accounting rules were “highly complex” and that the firm always “intended to do the right thing.”

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the supervising agency slammed for being asleep at the wheel when Freddie Mac’s abuse came to light, disputed Raines’ contention, issuing a scathing report in September that called Fannie Mae’s accounting violations “pervasive and willful,” according to the Post.

“It’s not a matter where they made a good-faith effort to try to comply with the rules,” OFHEO director Armando Falcon, Jr., told lawmakers. “They did not comply with rules that they clearly understood.”

While the SEC and others continue investigating, a Fannie Mae spokesman last week said the company “will take the steps necessary to comply fully with the SEC’s determination.”

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to face tough scrutiny last week over its procedures for approving and monitoring the safety of drugs, with lawmakers urging the agency’s head to protect a prominent whistle-blower.

Twenty-two members of Congress signed a letter to acting FDA head Lester Crawford, asking about reports that whistle-blower David Graham, who testified last month about FDA problems, has been facing retaliation by agency officials.

The letter asks that an alleged “smear campaign waged by some within the agency” be investigated, with “appropriate action … taken against those who were involved,” reported the Associated Press.

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the agency would “not comment on personnel matters.”

In related news, advocacy groups last week released the full results of a 2002 survey of FDA scientists that examined the researchers’ confidence in the FDA’s drug-approval and safety-monitoring processes.

The survey, released only after a vigorous Freedom of Information Act claim, found that while a majority have confidence in the FDA drug-approval process, more than a third were only “somewhat confident” or had no trust in the safety decisions.

Roughly two-thirds of the researchers were not at all confident or only somewhat confident that the agency adequately monitors the safety of drugs once they are put on the market.

Nearly one-fifth of the surveyed scientists said they had come under pressure to approve a drug despite concerns about its safety, efficacy, or quality. More than one-fifth said scientific dissent was either discouraged or stifled entirely, reported the Washington Post.

“The scientists’ concerns warrant further investigation as Congress reviews drug approval practices at FDA,” Union of Concerned Scientists executive director Kathleen Rest said in a press release.

BRASILIA, Brazil
More than 90 people, including the former head of the Central Bank, should be investigated for probable money laundering, a congressional probe in Brazil has concluded.

Punctuating years of questions and investigative sorties, Congress last week released a 742-page report examining suspected money-laundering transactions worth $80 billion to $150 billion.

The findings of the so-called Banestado investigation are preliminary and may be amended by Congress before the final version is put to a vote this week, reported the BBC.

The report names 91 people, including several prominent figures, as likely perpetrators of money laundering from sources spanning drugs, smuggling, and other crimes, noted the Reuters news agency.

Among those singled out are former São Paulo mayor Celso Pitta and former Central Bank president Gustavo Franco, who established bank account rules that facilitated many of the suspect fund transfers.

Some have accused the government’s investigation of being politically motivated, reported Reuters.

From Cornell University:

“In a study to determine how much the public fears terrorism, almost half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should — in some way — curtail civil liberties for Muslim Americans, according to a new survey released today (Dec. 17) by Cornell University.

“About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fundraising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.

“Conversely, 48 percent of respondents nationally said they do not believe that civil liberties for Muslim Americans should be restricted….

“The survey also examined the relation of religiosity to perceptions of Islam and Islamic countries among Christian respondents. Sixty-five percent of self-described highly religious people queried said they view Islam as encouraging violence more than other religions do; in comparison, 42 percent of the respondents who said they were not highly religious saw Islam as encouraging violence. In addition, highly religious respondents also were more likely to describe Islamic countries as violent (64 percent), fanatical (61 percent), and dangerous (64 percent). Fewer of the respondents who said they were not highly religious described Islamic countries as violent (49 percent), fanatical (46 percent), and dangerous (44 percent). But 80 percent of all respondents said they see Islamic countries as being oppressive toward women.

“‘Our results highlight the need for continued dialogue about issues of civil liberties in time of war,’ says James Shanahan, Cornell associate professor of communication and a principal investigator in the study….

“Shanahan notes: ‘Most Americans understand that balancing political freedoms with security can sometimes be difficult. Nevertheless, while a majority of Americans support civil liberties even in these difficult times, and while more discussion about civil liberties is always warranted, our findings highlight that personal religiosity as well as exposure to news media are two important correlates of support for restrictions. We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding.’

“Researchers found that opinions on restricting civil liberties for Muslim Americans vary by political self-identification. About 40 percent of Republican respondents agreed that Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts, compared with 24 percent of Democratic respondents and 17 percent of independents. Forty-one percent of Republican respondents said that Muslim American civic groups should be infiltrated, compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of independents.

“On whether mosques should be monitored, about 34 percent of the Republicans polled agreed they should be, compared with 22 percent of Democrats. Thirty-four percent of Republicans said that profiling of Muslim Americans is necessary, compared with 17 percent of Democrats.

“The survey also showed a correlation between television news-viewing habits, a respondent’s fear level, and attitudes toward restrictions on civil liberties for all Americans. Respondents who paid a lot of attention to television news were more likely to favor restrictions on civil liberties….”

“Liberty is not merely a privilege to be conferred; it is a habit to be acquired.”

– David Lloyd George (British statesman and prime minister, 1863-1945)

Among FTSE 100 companies . . .

Source: Cranfield School of Management’s “2004 Female FTSE” index.

We take it for granted that public corporations must publish a financial audit. Should they also publish an ethical audit?

Surprising though it sounds, there’s movement in this direction — and for good reason. Audits have several purposes: They open a transparent shaft into the bowels of prior years’ finances, and encourage good practice in the current year. But they’re also predictive. Audits help investors answer the question that matters most: Is this company a good bet for the future?

In today’s complex world, the answer to that risk-analysis question doesn’t come through financial numbers alone. It requires a consideration of non-financial issues — environmental impact, community relations, employment conditions, and a host of other topics related more to ethics than to finance. Get these wrong — stonewall an environmental disaster, offend the local populace, blow off health or safety issues — and the results can wreck your reputation and tank your stock just as surely as a financial mess-up.

How can investors tell whether a company is at risk in these areas? And how can they compare companies regarding non-financial matters? At the end of the 1990s, such questions helped launch the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Its goal: to bring consistency to corporate reporting on economic, environmental, and social issues.

In the last several months, two more initiatives out of Europe have helped elevate non-financial reporting on the corporate agenda:

• A listing of global companies has appeared that ranks the quality of their non-financial reporting. It was put together by the United Nations Environment Program and the London-based consulting firm SustainAbility, with the addition this year of Standard & Poor’s, the credit-rating agency. The recently published listing ranks several of the largest European businesses in the top 20, including BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, and Unilever. But only two U.S. firms (Ford and HP) are in the top 20 — perhaps reflecting the fact that U.S. companies have been forced to grapple with new financial-reporting strictures in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, leaving little time for non-financial reporting.
• Britain’s Department of Trade and Industry has released guidelines for corporations preparing their “Operating and Financial Review” statements. The new standards require corporate directors to include “information relating to their environmental, employment, and social and community policies to the extent necessary for shareholders to understand how these are impacting the business and wider community.” The phrase “to the extent necessary” remains deliberately vague. It avoids the highly specific questions that characterize the GRI. Yet the new U.K. regulations are no mere fuzz: The act contemplates criminal penalties for “recklessly approving” a non-financial report.

How important is this trend? Rob Lake, who looks after corporate governance and social responsibility issues for the $150 billion portfolio of Henderson Global Investors in London, likes the GRI reporting structure but worries that it “sets out to be all things to all people.” He feels comfortable with the new U.K. approach that, as he says, simply requires a board to “tell shareholders anything it thinks they should know about strategy.”

Would this kind of reporting have warned the public of scandals brewing at Enron or Parmalat? Maybe not, although Mr. Lake notes that “regulation of this sort might create more space and create more comfort for [insiders] who are trying to screw up their moral courage to take a stand” against fraud and corruption.

But the important point here, as Mr. Lake emphasizes, is that “in this day and age, a whole host of things must be done well by companies that want to be successful for their shareholders.” Among them are these “broad ethics-related issues,” which he says are now “seen to have value in market terms.”

If this trend holds, twenty-first-century directors will need to practice a new kind of moral futurism. Just as they now use sophisticated strategies to foresee financial risks, they must develop methodologies to look over the horizon and foresee ethical, social, and environmental risks that have not yet arisen. Needed now are innovative conceptual frameworks for creating reports so penetrating and far-seeing that no director or investor could be excused for allowing another Enron or Parmalat to happen. Non-financial reporting at least gets us started down that track.

©2004 Institute for Global Ethics

“Every CFO has been pushed at times to take something that is clearly black and white and color it a shade of gray. But when the chief executive is shot at, he uses the chief financial officer as a human shield. Being a CFO has become one of the riskiest jobs in America.”

– Kenneth Goldman, a former chief financial officer (CFO) at six firms over 20 years, talking to the New York Times about new pressures put on officers by the new reporting and ethics requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. (“Where Have All the Chief Financial Officers Gone?,” New York Times, Nov. 28)

NEW YORK
Under pressure from officials, fans, and Congress, the Major League Baseball Players’ Association agreed last week to renegotiate its contract in order to put some teeth into the league’s steroid testing program.

The players’ decision authorizes bargaining between the association and Major League Baseball (MLB) commissioner Bud Selig’s office, with a deal expected before spring training begins.

Hanging over the negotiations is the threat of regulation by Congress, whose members hit the TV talk-show circuit last week to stump for change, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) swinging an especially big stick.

Major League Baseball’s current program is an “incredibly weak, disgraceful, once-a-year testing. I mean, it’s a joke,” McCain said. “It’s time for us to introduce legislation if necessary.”

“The important aspect of this issue is that high school kids all over America believe that this is the only way they can make it,” McCain added. “This is the tragedy of steroids. And we all know that it will destroy a young person’s body. And that’s why we’ve got to bring this to a halt.”

The issue of steroids re-ignited after reports from the San Francisco Chronicle and ABC-TV’s “20/20″ highlighted testimony and interviews in which long-whispered rumors of steroid use were called fact.

Implicated were some of sports’ marquee names: New York Yankees’ Jason Giambi, San Francisco Giants’ home-run sensation Barry Bonds, and Olympic sprinter Marion Jones.

Jones, who has denied using steroids and threatened to sue for defamation, is also the subject of a new International Olympic Committee investigation over the allegations, noted the Associated Press.

The negotiations between the players’ association and MLB officials are expected to focus on four key points: substances tested for, frequency of testing, off-season testing, and punishments, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Most press reports point out that steroid testing in baseball’s minor leagues is far more stringent and punitive than it is in the major leagues, where much of the abuse is believed to take place.

MLB began testing players for some steroids in 2003, with between 5 percent and 7 percent of the 1,438 tests returning a positive result, according to the New York Times.

Under the current MLB contract, a positive steroid test results only in mandatory counseling.

WASHINGTON
U.S. methods of gathering intelligence on Iraq came under harsh criticism last week following the forced release of confidential memos accusing a top-secret military taskforce of both violently abusing Iraqi captives and of intimidating U.S. agents who questioned their methods.

The allegations were leveled in memos secretly and tightly held by the Bush administration, which was forced to release the documents by a federal court responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

The documents include a memo written by the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), who said two of his staff members had been threatened and harassed by interrogators in Iraq who had been abusing prisoners, reported the Associated Press.

Press reports note that there is no indication that the memo, written months after the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal broke, resulted in any action by the Pentagon or its top attorneys, who were aware of the memo.

The special-forces taskforce in Iraq allegedly beat prisoners, then targeted DIA officials who had complained about and documented the mistreatment. The special forces troops took the DIA agents’ car keys, told them to keep quiet about what they had seen, and said they would monitor the agents’ email, according to the Washington Post.

Other FOIA documents included complaints from the FBI that military interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were using “highly aggressive interrogation techniques” and mistreating terror suspects, but stopped short of labeling the activities as outright abuse, reported the AP.

While the lead complainant, FBI counter-terrorism expert Thomas Harrington, said it appeared the concerns resulted in no action by the Pentagon, the head of the Guantánamo base said “appropriate actions were taken.”

In other news, a senior CIA operative sued the agency last week for allegedly retaliating against him after he contradicted administration contentions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraqi war.

The agent’s suit was given the green light last week by a court that will look into charges that CIA management harassed him, then sought to defame and discredit him for refusing to follow the party line, reported the Post.

The man’s lawsuit alleges that CIA managers ordered him to falsify information to back the supposed threat of WMD, then launched spurious investigations to ruin his career, eventually firing him for “unspecified reasons” in August 2004.

“The notion that CIA managers order officers to falsify reports is flat wrong,” CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher insisted to the Post. “Our mission is to call it like we see it and report the facts.”

WASHINGTON
Eight U.S. soldiers currently serving in Iraq sued the U.S. government last week, arguing that the military’s “stop-loss” order automatically extending their tours of duty was an unfair violation of their rights.

The soldiers’ suit claims that their contracts with the military never disclosed the possibility of stop-loss extension, which was invoked last June by the government, reported the New York Times.

The government says the stop-loss policy, first invoked in the first Gulf War, makes for a better military by protecting unit cohesion during especially dangerous times. Critics say it is a back-door method of prolonging tours of duty and enlarging the military when it runs short of volunteers.

The current stop-loss order is affecting roughly 7,000 soldiers in Iraq at any one time, according to press reports.

While a handful of reservists have sued upon being called up for service, last week’s suit marks the first legal action taken by soldiers already in the thick of the Iraqi war, reported the Associated Press.

Only one of the soldiers, David Qualls, agreed to be named in the suit, with the others — John Does 1 through 7 — saying they feared retribution or more dangerous assignments if their names were known.

Qualls said he, too, worries about the repercussions of the lawsuit, which he filed while home on a brief Thanksgiving leave, but told the Times that doing what he feels is right for his family and other solders must come first.

“You’ve got thousands of people over there in the same situation as me, and somebody’s got to do something. Why not have it be me?” he said. “I can’t worry about what people will say.”

“You should know I’m not against the war. This just isn’t about that,” said Qualls, a former full-time soldier who signed up for a one-year term with the Arkansas National Guard in July 2003. “This is a matter of fairness.”

“My job was to go over and perform my duties under the contract I signed,” he told the Times. “But my year is up and it’s been up. Now I believe that they should honor their end of the contract.”

Military and legal issues experts who spoke with the Times said that while the lawsuit might bring unwelcome attention to an increasingly controversial policy, the men likely would lose in the end.

“Rarely have we seen people win such cases,” legal expert and former Army captain Phillip Carter told the Times. “At best, this is symbolic protest.”

A federal judge last week refused to grant a temporary restraining order for Qualls, upholding the extension of his tour of duty and ordering him back to Iraq.

In other news, 23 Army reservists who refused to follow an order for a mission they believed to be unnecessary and dangerous will be punished, but not court-martialed, the military said last week.

The reservists, who will face demotions and/or extra duties, refused to transport a load of fuel last October, saying their vehicles were insufficiently armored and that the fuel was tainted and would be useless on delivery.

Although military investigators backed some of their claims as credible, punishment will still be meted out, reported the AP.

“They felt they didn’t have the proper equipment to do the mission they were ordered to do, and are being disciplined for failing to follow orders,” said military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan.

WASHINGTON
The Defense Department’s inspector general last week said that 10 people — eight commanders and two lawyers — were primarily to blame for the sexual assault scandal that erupted at the Air Force Academy last year.

The scandal was set off by an anonymous complaint to members of Congress that the Colorado Springs-based academy of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) was ignoring, silencing, and punishing female cadets who claimed to have been assaulted by fellow cadets.

Following that anonymous email, nearly 150 women stepped forward to accuse male cadets at the academy of raping or assaulting them, leading to a series of investigations and recriminations.

After an internal Air Force investigation pinned most of the blame on cadets, a congressionally appointed panel said the problem more accurately lay with Air Force officials shielded from blame by that earlier probe, reported the Washington Post.

Inspector General Joseph Schmitz then took up the matter, investigating the roles played by 31 people, 21 of whom he said last week bore no responsibility for the scandal, according to the Agence France-Presse.

Instead, Schmitz fingered eight Air Force commanders and two legal counsels for failures that helped keep “the magnitude of the problems from becoming visible to USAF leadership, and prevented effective criminal investigations,” according to the Post.

The scandal was caused by the “failure of successive chains of command over the past 10 years to acknowledge the severity of the problem,” Schmitz wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, summarizing his report into the scandal.

“Consequently, they failed to initiate and monitor adequate corrective measures to change the culture until recently,” he added, according to the Associated Press.

“Many leaders in positions of authority could have been better role models, could have been more vigilant in inspecting those placed under their command, failed to guard and suppress sexual misconduct among cadets, whether or not prosecutable as specific crime, and failed to hold cadets accountable for such misconduct,” Schmitz concluded.

Air Force officials last week said much progress had been made, noting that all of the academy’s senior leaders had been replaced since the scandal broke and promising further reforms.

FRESNO, California
As expected, nine automakers sued California last week over the state’s tough new emissions law, which took effect in September and aims to reduce by 30 percent the auto pollution contributing to global warming.

At issue is whether California has the right to set statewide emissions standards that are tougher than those favored by Congress. The state says yes; the automakers — along with a handful of dealers — say no.

Despite evidence that auto emissions are contributing to global warming, Congress long has balked at demanding significantly cleaner cars, mandating only minor improvements in fuel efficiency.

Because states are barred from leapfrogging Congress on fuel standards, California decided to take aim at another standard: pollutants, especially the carbon dioxide pumped out by auto tailpipes.

California’s new law would phase in steep declines in emissions beginning in 2009, setting more demanding standards for car classes ranging from compacts to mammoth SUVs, according to the Associated Press.

California, which pioneered the fight against smog, has a special right to enact tougher rules than Washington under a special provision of the Clean Air Act. Under that law, all other states have the right to follow either California’s lead or Washington’s weaker rules, reported the New York Times.

Last week, automakers filed suit, saying California has no right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under its Clean Air Act waiver, since the Bush administration last year refused to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas tied to global warming, according to the Associated Press.

While automakers worry that California’s tougher rule would drive up costs and consumer prices, they also fear the possibility that other states would follow suit, creating a bifurcated nation of emission regulations.

Automakers joining the suit include BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen. Honda and Nissan are considering similar action, according to the Times.

Last week’s lawsuit coincided with the release of a biennial report from the Union of Concerned Scientists examining smog pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles sold in the United States.

The report, which studied vehicles sold by the six automakers with top U.S. sales from the 2003 model year, ranked Honda at the top and General Motors at the bottom, reported the AP.

While efforts to combat smog-creating pollutants have been improving, little progress has been made on fighting the release of global-warming gases like carbon dioxide, said David Friedman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program.

“In terms of heat-trapping gas emissions, automakers have been running in place for almost the last 20 years,” Friedman told the AP. “The industry is more or less ignoring global warming when you look at the products they’re putting on the road.”

The New York Times notes that gas-guzzling SUVs have erased any gains made by cleaner smaller cars, causing the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States to decline since the late 1980s.

BALTIMORE
Battles between the government and the press flared last week in both Baltimore and Denver, where leading newspapers were denied access to officials complaining about their coverage.

In Maryland, the Baltimore Sun last week sued Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr., over his November 18 order barring state officials from speaking to two Sun journalists whom he has accused of writing inaccurate stories.

The lawsuit punctuates a longstanding feud between the Republican governor and the state’s leading newspaper, which endorsed his rival in 2002 and which he accuses of liberal bias, reported the New York Times.

Ehrlich last month barred his staff and all workers in state agencies from speaking to a Sun columnist as well as the paper’s statehouse bureau chief.

After weeks of refusing to meet with Sun editor Timothy Franklin to discuss the situation, the paper decided it had no choice but to sue.

“If the First Amendment stands for anything, it’s that government can’t retaliate against individuals based on their views,” Franklin told the Times. “And that’s exactly what Governor Ehrlich has done in this case.”

“No governor, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to pick and choose whom state employees speak to based on whether the governor approves of their views,” Franklin added in a letter to readers.

After refusing to comment for weeks, the governor’s office last week finally agreed to talk with Sun editors on Dec. 17, reported the Associated Press.

Also last week, Army officials at Colorado’s Fort Carson decided to block the Denver Post’s access to the base after the paper published a piece about soldiers’ complaints about their medical care.

Fort Carson officials yanked the Post from an email list that sends event invitations and official statements to newspapers “as a direct result of Fort Carson not being given fair and balanced treatment,” spokesman Lt. Col. David Johnson charged to the Associated Press.

Post editor Greg Moore last week said he hopes that Army officials rethink their position before the paper is forced to find another remedy — procedural, legal, or otherwise, according to the AP.

“Other newspapers and media organizations have reported on the issue. Our story was thorough, and balanced the concerns of soldiers with substantial response from the military,” Moore said. “It’s our job to investigate issues like these and explain them to our readers, many of whom have family members serving in the military.”