Ethics Newsline®

If John Negroponte is confirmed as President Bush’s choice for the new post of director of national intelligence, lots will change on the espionage front. But one thing won’t: the need to protect the identity of spies who gather intelligence overseas. Publish their names and you may be condemning them to death — particularly when they’re spying on terrorists.

Similarly, lots will change on the journalism front if bloggers continue, as they have in recent weeks, to help bring down such media figures as CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather and CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan. But one thing won’t budge: the need for reporters to protect the privacy of their sources. Remove that protection, and the access to information so crucial to democracy will dry up as fewer insiders tell reporters what’s really going on.

These two needs are closely related. They both arise in professions devoted to gathering, analyzing, and reporting information. Such information may pertain to national security and be known as intelligence. Or it may involve government and be called news. Getting such information, as a spy or a reporter, depends on keeping confidences about identities. Either way, its justification rests on a core moral argument concerning transparency: The public benefits from knowing things that some important people want to hide.

Espionage and journalism, then, are two sides of the same coin — or, more aptly, bickering siblings in the same family. So perhaps it was inevitable that a case would arise pitting journalism against espionage in a high-stakes, right-versus-right dilemma. Such a case broke into the news again last week when a federal appeals court ruled that two reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times, could be jailed if they refused to divulge their sources to a grand jury investigating an intelligence-related matter.

The grand jury wants to know who revealed the name of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. The revelation came shortly after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an op-ed article accusing the Bush administration of distorted evidence to justify going to war against Iraq. Her name first appeared in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, who said two unnamed administration officials had confirmed that she was a CIA “operative.”

Both Cooper and Miller also spoke to administration sources, who gave them the same information. U.S. law makes it a crime to reveal an agent’s identity. So while the appeals court noted the common-law right of journalists to protect their sources in nearly every state in the union, the judges cited a 1972 Supreme Court case (Branzburg vs. Hayes) in determining that journalists have no right to protect those committing crimes. Hence last week’s ruling against the journalists.

Complicating this case are several twists:

• While Cooper published what he learned, Miller talked to her sources but never wrote a story naming Valerie Plame. But the court, recognizing that the crime was committed not by the reporter but by the source, found it made no difference how, or whether, the leaked information was ever used.
• In a strange irony, the court found against the two journalists based on secret evidence from the prosecutor that neither they nor their lawyers were allowed to see. In fact, the public release of the court’s opinion includes a number of pages that have been deliberately blacked out. “I risk going to jail,” Ms. Miller told the New York Times, “for a story I didn’t write, for reasons a court won’t explain.” And, she might have added, for an action — withholding information from the public — eerily similar to the action of her accusers.
• Valerie Plame appears to have been outed as an act of revenge by administration officials seeking to punish her husband for his contrarian views — a point raised by Cooper in his published story. The appeals court anticipated the objection that the requirement for journalists to divulge their sources might “discourage future leaks.” But as Judge David Tatel wrote in a concurring opinion, “discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.”

Clearly this truth-versus-loyalty dilemma raises profound moral arguments on both sides. As the nation sets out to refocus and strengthen its intelligence communities in the face of threats from the low-intensity warfare of the terrorists, it can’t tolerate a catty, tit-for-tat political culture that uses criminal leaks for partisan purposes. The focus of the grand jury must be to look beyond the journalists to the leakers themselves, who need to be run to ground.

But if the grand jury, by doing so, punishes the journalists and thereby promotes a spirit of self-censure in the news media, it risks replacing the First Amendment with a short-sighted, ends-justifies-the-means logic. Democracy depends on reining in the powerful by calling them to account. That often happens through leaks. There’s little doubt that the nation is better off because of leaks about Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Clinton-Lewinsky, and the public outrage that followed.

Whatever resolution is found for this right-versus-right dilemma, then, one thing is clear: It can’t be solved by pretending that any of the three institutions involved in this case — the courts, the media, and the intelligence agencies — are wholly wrong. There’s right on all sides. Our task, as a nation, is to determine which is the higher moral argument. Only in that way will we begin to produce clear policies to keep these two siblings from clashing — and to keep the public from losing faith in the ethics of these three crucial institutions.

©2005 Institute for Global Ethics

“Given the high stakes involved — the future of our children and our grandchildren, not to mention the future of the planet as we inherited it — which approach are you willing to bet on?”

– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), arguing last week that the United States needs to abandon its halting approach to fighting global warming for more definitive action. McCain is cosponsoring legislation that would “impose modest emission limits in the United States and establish a trading system” for pollution credits, reported the Washington Post. McCain’s comments last week came as the Kyoto treaty on global warming took effect. Ratified by 141 nations, the treaty may be rendered more symbolic than substantive after President Bush pulled out of the agreement in 2001, claiming it would hold back the U.S. economy, according to the report. (“Kyoto Treaty Takes Effect Today,” Washington Post, Feb. 16)

WASHINGTON
A federal appeals court last week ordered two journalists — Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper and the New York Times‘ Judith Miller — to expose their sources for a prominent story or face jail time.

The reporters are among those tangled up in the exposure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name was leaked after her husband, a former U.S. ambassador, criticized the Bush administration for misleading the public about Iraq.

The leaking of Plame’s name, allegedly done by Bush administration officials as retaliation against her husband, is a possible felony.

Both Miller and Cooper received Plame’s name from leakers. Though Miller never published Plame’s name, both she and Cooper are being targeted for refusing to reveal their sources, thereby sheltering possible criminals.

Cooper and Miller, who say they promised their sources anonymity, face up to 18 months in jail if they refuse to obey the ruling by a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Floyd Abrams, who is defending the journalists, said he would appeal the ruling to the full circuit court, reported the New York Times.

Robert Novak, the columnist who first exposed Valerie Plame’s name and attributed his information to two senior Bush administration officials, has declined to comment on his role in the story.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the strong-arming of Cooper, Miller, and others in the case may be generating support for a federal “shield” law providing absolute protection for reporters promising anonymity to sources.

“I think the issue surrounding freedom of the press transcends arguments over the ideology or the competence of present-day media,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), co-sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the House’s conservative Republican Study Committee.

“Americans love to hate journalists almost as much as they love to hate politicians,” Pence added, according to the Times. “But we are united in our understanding that a free and independent press is central to the survival of liberty.”

While 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, the piecemeal regulation is not always effective in keeping state and federal judges from punishing reporters who do not reveal their sources.

STRASBOURG, France
Europe’s highest court last week ruled that the much-publicized conviction of two environmental activists for libeling fast-food giant McDonald’s was unfair, saying the U.K. government violated their free speech rights and failed to provide them with the necessary help to even the legal odds.

The European Court of Human Rights Last week faulted the U.K. government for failing to provide the duo with legal help, concluding that the 1997 trial consequently had been unfair, reported the Guardian.

During the trial, David Morris and Helen Steel, who represented themselves in the courtroom, were found guilty of libeling McDonald’s via pamphlets handed out in front of the chain’s restaurants in the 1980s.

The activists distributed, but did nor write, a pamphlet titled “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s.” While upholding some of the pamphlet’s claims, the 1997 ruling found that the material libeled McDonald’s via allegations that it was contributing to starvation in the Third World and that its food was linked to cancer.

Morris and Steel, who were ordered to pay roughly $140,000 in damages.

While those damages were reduced on appeal, the pair ultimately filed suit against the U.K. government, alleging that the whole trial had been impossibly skewed and unfairly limited their right to free speech.

In their arguments, the couple noted that U.K. law required them, rather than the pamphlet’s author, to prove that its contents were wholly accurate. McDonald’s was not required to prove the claims were false.

The European Court of Human Rights last week agreed, ruling that their free speech rights had been violated, saying there is “a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate.”

The court also ruled that the U.K. government wrongly ignored the disparity of legal resources between the relatively poor defendants and a behemoth plaintiff like McDonald’s.

“The denial of legal aid to the applicants” deprived them of effective legal representation and “contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald’s,” the court concluded.

The U.K. government was ordered to pay the pair more than $45,000 and offer them a retrial on the original charges. The government has three months to appeal, noted the Reuters news agency.

McDonald’s, which was not party to the latest case, declined to comment, other than to say that the original “allegations related to practices in the 1980s. The world has moved on since then and so has McDonald’s.”

JERUSALEM
Citing “insufficient evidence,” Israel’s attorney general last week said he would not prosecute Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for illegal campaign financing. Charges, however, will be filed against Sharon’s 40-year-old son Omri.

The elder Sharon was accused of creating shell companies to funnel foreign funds into his 1999 bid to take over leadership of the right-wing Likud party. Foreign financing of political campaigns is illegal in Israel.

Sharon has denied any wrongdoing, saying his two sons were solely responsible for handling the finances of his campaign, reported the Reuters news agency.

Omri, who is a close advisor to his father and a member of the Israel’s parliamentary Knesset, was indicted last week on criminal charges of fraud, breach of trust, and perjury, reported Reuters.

In order to prosecute the case, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz must ask the Knesset to lift Omri Sharon’s immunity — a step he plans to take, according to the BBC.

Last week’s news was good not only for Sharon, but possibly for the newly hopeful peace process, which likely would have been set back had Sharon’s leadership been put in question, reported Reuters.

WASHINGTON
Boeing’s former chief financial officer was sentenced last week to four month in prison for conspiring to hire a U.S. Air Force procurement official while she was still on the government payroll.

In addition to prison, Michael Sears was slapped with a $250,000 fine for his role in hiring Darleen Druyun, the Air Force’s former No. 2 weapons buyer who last year admitted biasing contract awards in favor of Boeing.

Druyun is serving nine months in prison for violating stipulations meant to protect the procurement process from bid rigging and personal favors, reported the Reuters news agency.

After the secret side deal came to light last year, Congress froze a $20-billion Boeing contract, the Pentagon launched a review of all of Druyun’s deals, and Boeing ousted both Druyun and Sears. Boeing’s CEO resigned a week later.

Last week, Sears apologized for his actions, telling the judge, “I know what I did was wrong and I’m truly sorry.”

In pre-sentencing papers, U.S. attorneys suggested that Sears was not solely to blame, faulting Boeing executives for apparently turning a blind eye to Sears’ efforts to hire Druyun, according to Reuters.

“The senior management of Boeing did not confront the obvious legal and ethical issues presented by these employment negotiations,” charged U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty. “Rather than reacting with concern … these Boeing executives appear to have accepted the negotiations as business as usual.”

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck last week said senior officials at the company mistakenly believed all processes were being followed appropriately.

The scandal over Druyun’s revolving-door deal to work for Boeing after helping the firm win lucrative government contracts has done severe damage to Boeing’s reputation, according to the Washington Post.

“Ten years ago Boeing had a different reputation on the Hill than other contractors. They were seen as cleaner,” Project on Government Oversight executive director Danielle Brian told the Post. “Now when you hear Boeing, you think scandal. I think it’s going to take years for them to recover from all of this.”

While regulators have declined to file criminal charges against Boeing for a handful of the awarded contracts, investigations continue.

NEW YORK
Major League Baseball’s steroid habit continued to make headlines last week with allegations flying as far as the homeruns slammed out of the park by allegedly doped-up heavy hitters. Among the developments:

• Jose Canseco, the American League’s 1988 most valuable player, launched his new tell-all book on steroid use in professional baseball by naming names, saying he helped a handful of the sport’s top players inject themselves with steroids. His controversial remarks implicating Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and others, were dismissed by some critics as a stunt to fuel book sales with lies, reported USA Today.
• Canseco’s confessional book prompted questions about what to do with awards and records racked up by juiced-up ballplayers. Former Boston Red Sox outfielder Mike Greenwall, who lost the MVP award to Canseco in 1988, last week said the issue should be revisited. “Where’s my MVP?” Greenwell complained to a local Florida paper, according to the Reuters news agency. “(Canseco’s) an admitted steroid user. I was clean.”

• Despite those requests, Major League Baseball executive vice president Sandy Alderson last week said the organization likely would not undertake reviews of past steroid use based on Canseco’s charges. Saying MLB was a different organization in the 1990s when steroids apparently became widespread, Alderson told USA Today that MLB was committed to learning and to putting the past behind it. “The commissioner isn’t looking backward; he’s looking forward,” he said last week.
• Major League Baseball also took time last week to deny allegations that it ignored FBI warnings about steroid abuse in the mid-1990s. According to the Associated Press, FBI special agent Greg Stejskal told reporters that he informed baseball officials that Canseco and others were using illegal steroids. Saying his warnings apparently fell on deaf ears, Stejskal said that while Major League Baseball may not have sanctioned steroid use, “they certainly looked the other way.” But the MLB official allegedly alerted to the steroid use last week denied the report, saying, “It did not happen.”

STAUNTON, Virginia
A rural Virginia school board last week voted to continue a controversial program in which elementary school students leave class for religious Bible lessons, saying the program was a proud tradition of the community.

Staunton’s program gives students in first, second, and third grades a free pass for Bible lessons during school hours. More than 80 percent of the district’s students are enrolled in the Weekday Religious Education (WRE) program, reported the Washington Post.

Similar programs are under way across Virginia and in at least 32 states, according to Slate.

After such programs were challenged on church-state grounds in the 1950s and 1960s, school boards relocated them from on-campus facilities to nearby churches, conforming to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

For some parents, such maneuvering is insufficient. They say the programs stigmatize non-Christian children who stay on school grounds and burden school systems by sacrificing academic lessons even as federal testing demands get tougher.

After its program was challenged by parents, the Staunton School Board held a hearing last month on the future of WRE and how to balance its popularity with the fact that local populations are diversifying.

“The reason we are in existence is to bring children the good news of Jesus Christ,” proponent John Kauffman, Jr., explained. “If we eliminate this program, the next generation of children will be worse than the ones that we have now.”

Such sentiments are what concern parents like Steve Grande, a Jewish man wondering about how his daughter will be treated when she declines to attend the local WRE program.

“My concern is that from what we’re hearing tonight, not only is Christian outreach taking place, but it also sounds like some missionary work is taking place as well. And this is taking place while students are supposed to be in school learning,” Grande told the meeting, reported the Augusta Free Press.

Although the Staunton School Board voted 5-to-1 to continue its WRE program, it said it would revisit the issue in a year.

Edward Scott, a local pastor and the only board member to vote against continuing WRE during school hours, said the board’s decision unrealistically “allows us to tell ourselves that if we work hard at it and pray over it, then we can make it work.”

“The school system has no right or responsibility to be in the business of offering religious education. In fact, it expressly has the legal responsibility to stay out of religion. Religion is something that is intensely personal, and it should be taken care of by parents in the home and in churches, not schools,” Scott said, according to the Augusta Free Press.

BRUSSELS
Under new air passenger rights instituted last week by the European Union, European fliers left stranded by delayed flights or bounced from overbooked ones have the right to demand increased compensation from airlines.

The new rules, which have elicited outrage and at least two pending lawsuits from travel associations and airlines, are designed to crack down on industry practices that critics say put customers at the mercy of airlines.

Under the new rules, passengers refused boarding because of overbooking can demand compensation of $325 to nearly $780 depending on the length of flight, reported Deutsche Welle, Germany’s international broadcasting service.

Passengers whose flights are delayed significantly or cancelled without sufficient notice also have the right to compensation, in some cases including meals, accommodation, and free travel back to their point of origin. Such passengers were mostly out of luck under the old rules, according to Deutsche Welle.

Airlines say the new rules will increase costs that will be passed on to passengers, making the profit-starved airlines even weaker while simultaneously angering fliers facing higher ticket prices, reported the BBC.

Airlines also charge that the new rules are unfair because they may make them liable for cancellations and delays brought on by bad weather or other disruptions out of their control.

But EU officials last week said that airlines are exempted for problems caused by “extraordinary circumstances,” such as strikes, security threats, and terrorism, noted the Associated Press.

Industry lawsuits challenging the new rules will not be heard until September or October.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

QUEBEC CITY, Quebec
The Premier of Quebec has demanded explanations for major security lapses at some of the largest dams in North America operated by the crown corporation Hydro-Québec.

Earlier in the week, TV journalists from Radio-Canada, the French-language public television network in Canada, startled the premier and the Canadian security establishment by demonstrating in reports how they could roam freely deep inside some of the major hydroelectric dams that provide electricity to millions of consumers in Quebec and the northeastern United States.

The journalists found unguarded tunnels that went deep into some of the largest generating stations in the world as well as deserted control rooms.

In the wake of these television reports, Premier Jean Charest has demanded daily reports on the state of enhanced security measures.

Hydro-Québec immediately hired more than 150 security guards to provide 24-hour security at all of the major installations.

Canadian utilities across Canada also have begun security risk assessments at their installations to ensure that the breaches in Quebec are not repeated with their operations.

From Watson Wyatt:

“U.K. workers’ attitudes towards senior management are significantly worse than those of their U.S. counterparts, with less than a third expressing trust and confidence in their leaders, according to Watson Wyatt.

“In its WorkUK and WorkUSA surveys — which involve a representative sample of over 15,000 private sector workers in the U.S. and U.K. — Watson Wyatt found that while 51 percent of employees in the U.S. had trust and confidence in the job being done by their organization’s leaders, only 31 percent of U.K. workers felt the same.

“‘Clearly there may be cultural factors at play here when we compare the U.K. and U.S.,’ said Andrew Cocks, European head of employee research at Watson Wyatt. ‘But nevertheless, U.K. business leaders can take little comfort from these results. There is a clear need for a better dialogue between management and employees and the development of a real climate of openness and trust, especially if we are going to compete effectively with the U.S. in the new ‘cheap dollar’ world.’

“Watson Wyatt found that employees’ ratings of senior managers in the U.S. had risen from a low of 44 percent in 2002, following Enron and other high profile corporate scandals. There is no evidence for a similar upward trend in the U.K. survey.

“‘Lack of confidence in senior management does not just make for a difficult atmosphere at work,’ said Andrew Cocks. ‘Our research shows that it can hit the bottom line hard. In an employee survey we recently conducted for a major European company, belief in senior management proved to be the strongest leading indicator of new product sales and was their top business performance indicator.’

“According to Watson Wyatt, effective communication is a key way in which leaders can build trust with employees. Despite this, and only months before the implementation of the new EU Directive on Informing and Consulting Employees, only 30 percent of UK workers believe that management explains the reasons behind major decisions and as few as 18 percent believe that management successfully involves employees in decision making….”

“Let the people know the truth and the country is safe.”

– Abraham Lincoln (16th U.S. president, 1809-1865)