So now we know. Deep Throat, whose leaks to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post eventually helped unseat the Nixon administration, is officially W. Mark Felt, the No. 2 at the FBI during Watergate. An article published last week in Vanity Fair by the Felt family’s lawyer, John D. O’Connor, makes the identification, now confirmed by Woodward and his journalistic partner, Carl Bernstein.

Thus ends one of the most compelling mysteries of the twentieth century. Ended, too, is an entire cottage industry of speculation about Deep Throat’s identity. Left behind, however, are three ethical questions. The first two are modest and immediate, while the third has so much moral gravity that it may never be fully settled:

1. Felt maintained rigorous silence for decades. To their credit, so have Woodward and Bernstein. But the Deep Throat story has generated a small fortune in books, film, and the sale of the journalists’ Watergate papers to the University of Texas Library for $5 million. Felt never made a penny. Should he? Is there an ethic of fairness that should compel the journalists to give him a share of the wealth that, without him, never would have been generated?

2. Was there in fact a Deep Throat? Or was the character a fictional composite of several sources, conflated by Bernstein and Woodward into one person for the sake of literary economy in All the President’s Men? Some students of Watergate question whether one person could know all that Deep Throat knew. More intriguing is the book’s report that whenever Felt had something to share, a clock would appear drawn on page 20 of Woodward’s home-delivered copy of the New York Times. How, skeptics ask, could a high-visibility FBI official regularly make his way unseen to Woodward’s door before dawn to do that — especially since he dared bring no one else into his plot? Felt may indeed be some part of Deep Throat, but are there other Deep Throats out there, still undivulged? If so, what are the ethics of passing off a composite character as a real person — the kind of journalistic malfeasance for which Washington Post writer Janet Cooke had her Pulitzer Prize revoked in 1981?

3. The tough question, however, lies in Felt’s own ethics. Was he a hero or a traitor? His case revolves around a classic right-versus-right dilemma of the loyalty-versus-truth variety. As an agent of the FBI, his loyalty lay in upholding the Constitution. His duty was to protect the justice system, keep confidences, and support the presidency. His fidelity, in other words, was to the established chain of command, and any wrongdoing needing exposure or redress should have been worked out within that chain. It was ethical, in other words, not to speak up.

©2005 Institute for Global Ethics

“I’m the guy they used to call Deep Throat.”

– W. Mark Felt, who spent more than 30 years at the FBI, becoming second in charge during the time of the Watergate inquiry (“I’m the Guy They Called Deep Throat,” Vanity Fair, July 2005)

* * *

“I think Mark Felt behaved treacherously. I’m unable to see the nobility of the enterprise, sneaking around in garages, moving pots around, handing over material he got in the course of the investigation.”

– Charles Colson, special counsel to Richard Nixon, who served seven months in prison (“What Officials of Era Think of Revelation,” New York Times, June 1)

* * *

“What do you do as an FBI agent when you have knowledge of corrupt activities and no one will give you an audience? The U.S. attorney doesn’t want to be bothered. Do you salute and sit down and go work a stolen-car case? Or do you go where you are going to get a public airing?”

– Frank Scafidi, a 25-year veteran of the FBI (“FBI Veterans Reflect on Ethics and Obligations,” USA Today, June 1)

Special to Newsline from Editor Carl Hausman

WASHINGTON
The stunning disclosure that the former No. 2 man in the FBI was the legendary Watergate source Deep Throat has provoked a national debate on the ethics of whistle-blowing, with some characterizing 91-year-old Mark Felt as a civic-minded hero while others say he betrayed a public trust.

Writing in the New York Times, political reporter Katharine Seelye noted that while many observers say that Felt played an honorable role in helping expose government misconduct, Felt’s “role as a newspaper informer raises questions about the obligations of officials at institutions like the FBI.”

“Should those obligations be defined as adhering to the regulations of the bureau and the laws about releasing secret information?” Seelye wrote. “Or is there a higher calling when law enforcement officials think that they are being obstructed at the highest levels of government?”

Retired FBI agents interviewed by USA Today expressed mixed emotions about Felt’s actions. James DeSarno, former head of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, said that by divulging information to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, Felt broke a law against releasing information being heard by a grand jury.

“The government’s trust that was placed in him was somewhat tarnished,” DeSarno said. “Isn’t that why there are three separate branches of government? And one of the branches of government isn’t the press.”

Others are reserving judgment until Felt’s motives are clarified. Presidential historian Robert Dallek noted that Felt expected to be named head of the FBI after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, and was resentful that Nixon passed him over and appointed an outsider to oversee the agency.

“If this was a vendetta, then that would devalue what he did,” Dallek told the New York Times. “But people never operate strictly out of one motive or another. He was clearly offended by the constitutional breaches that had occurred, but he was probably fueled by a certain amount of resentment at the politicization of the FBI.”

Money issues also clouded the issues swirling around the revelation. NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert noted that Felt and his family were motivated to reveal his identity not only so Felt could have his “day in the sun,” but also for profit. “They do think they also can make some money,” Russert told MSNBC. “They’ve been very open about that. They can pay off tuition bills. Mr. Felt said that the other day. I don’t think there’s any other dark secret behind it.”

In any event, Felt probably will not be prosecuted for releasing the information, according to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “It happened a long time ago,” Gonzales told the Associated Press. “The department has a lot of other priorities.”

Gonzales would not comment on whether Felt was a hero or criminal, saying he would “leave it to history to make that determination,” echoing comments by President Bush, who also declined to weigh in on the matter.

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court last week overturned the 2002 obstruction-of-justice conviction of Enron accounting firm Arthur Andersen, ruling that the jury instructions had been sufficiently flawed to warrant a retrial.

The court’s unanimous decision centered not on Arthur Andersen’s guilt, but on the instructions given to the Houston jury by Judge Melinda Harmon, reported the Associated Press.

Texas-based Enron, which was Andersen’s largest client, was put under federal investigation in October 2001 after admitting that it had detected massive bookkeeping fraud. That same month, lawyers for Andersen began vigorously reminding employees to shred documents per company policy.

Over the next four weeks, Andersen engaged in what the government called an “unprecedented campaign of document destruction” — shredding two tons of paperwork and stopping only when the firm received a government subpoena — reported the Chicago Tribune.

The Justice Department accused Andersen of trying to obscure the firm’s role in hiding Enron’s fraud. Andersen said it was simply following longstanding policy on destroying notes and draft documentation.

A Houston jury heard the case and convicted Andersen on just one count of obstruction of justice, with Harmon giving the firm the maximum sentence of a $500,000 fine and five years’ probation.

Under the weight of the indictment and conviction, Andersen collapsed, shrinking its U.S. workforce from 28,000 to 200 people, most of whom are handling related shareholder litigation, according to the Tribune.

Last week, the Supreme Court said that conviction was flawed because the jury was misdirected to decide only whether the shredding had impeded the government’s investigations, not whether it had been done with illegal intent to hide criminal acts.

“The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the unanimous court. Judge Harmon “failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing,” he noted. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required.”

In addition, Rehnquist concluded that trying to keep information from investigators “is not inherently malign,” saying Andersen’s reminder to employees to shred documents was akin to advising someone to “invoke his right against compelled self-incrimination,” noted the Washington Post.

Those findings were hailed by business groups, which said that document destruction was vital to daily business operations and not necessarily suspect.

While some groups — as well as lawyers for former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling — said the court’s decision may undermine the rest of its related cases, others were less impressed.

“Anything dramatic like this we tend to overreact,” Dan Hedges, former Houston U.S. Attorney, told the Houston Chronicle. The case “really doesn’t stand for much beyond the fact that you need to be more careful with jury instructions.”

“Today’s decision is certainly not going to bring Andersen back,” former Andersen employee Steve Weinstein told the Associated Press, “but I think what it does is help set the record straight and really clear the name of the 28,000 innocent people who lost their jobs.”

Acting Assistant U.S. Attorney General John Richter said the government is considering its options, which include retrying the case against Arthur Andersen with better jury instructions, noted the Chronicle.

TEL AVIV
In a sprawling scandal that continues to spread, Israeli investigators say as many as 60 national and international firms may be tangled in a web of corporate espionage sparked by a vengeful divorcé.

Since last November, police and computer experts have been finding “Trojan horse” programs secretly installed on computers of some of the country’s top companies, with pilfered information showing up in the possession of their rivals.

A “Trojan” is a program that is hidden within an apparently harmless message or program, secretly doing its work within the recipient’s computer. Trojans are often a form of spyware, a computer program that secretly sends data back to the author of the malicious program.

Local divisions of Ace Hardware and Hewlett-Packard are among the victims. The Bezeq phone monopoly has been hacked, though three of its subsidiaries are suspected of sponsoring Trojan attacks on rival companies, reported the Associated Press.

“It’s getting bigger every day,” Nir Nateev, who heads the Tel Aviv police computer and cybercrime department, told the AP. “In the end, there will be dozens (of companies) involved.”

Though no charges have been filed yet, police have placed 12 people in jail and eight others under house arrest, questioning CEOs, CFOs, and other executives who allegedly profited from stolen information.

Three of Israel’s top private investigative firms have been implicated in the scandal, accused of using software that stole company secrets and put the information on a server computer registered in London.

Police suspect that a vengeful ex-husband, Michael Haephrati, installed the program on the computer of author Amnon Jackont, his former father-in-law, posting Jackont’s in-progress manuscript and other files to the Internet. Haephrati reportedly then sold the program to private investigators and others.

British, German, and U.S. authorities have been cooperating with the Israelis in tracking down the extent of the corporate espionage, Israel’s “biggest business scandal in decades,” according to the AP.

Business professor Amir Barnea of the prestigious Interdisciplinary Center University, last week said part of the problem could be the country’s fiercely competitive approach to business dealings.

“Unfortunately some managers may lose the distinction between a legitimate fight for survival and doing illegal acts,” Barnea told the AP.

Leading Israeli economic commentator Sever Plocker added that the scandal may have far-reaching implications for the country’s corporate climate.

“People don’t like to invest in countries where companies do some very unethical things,” Plocker said. “I think it is bad for Israel, bad for the image of Israel, and nothing to be proud about.”

MOSCOW
Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was sentenced last week to nine years in prison for tax evasion and fraud, ending a trial that critics say was a thinly veiled vendetta against a political rival of President Vladimir Putin.

Khodorkovsky was arrested by masked gunmen in fall 2003, kept in a metal cage during trial, and given only one year less than the maximum penalty sought by prosecutors, reported the New York Times.

Khodorkovsky, an ascendant oligarch and founder of the powerful Yukos oil company, was convicted of six charges, as was his Yukos colleague and codefendant Platon Lebedev. The men also were ordered to pay roughly $613 million in taxes and fines.

While few thought Khodorkovsky was wholly innocent of the charges, press reports suggested that the law had been selectively and brutally applied to him after he broke an unspoken rule and challenged Putin by funding rival political candidates.

Critics suspect that Putin targeted Khodorkovsky not only for stepping out of line but in order to take control of his company, which was largely dismantled after his arrest, with its primary asset becoming the property of Putin’s government after an auction some believed to be rigged, according to the Times.

Yukos released a statement denouncing the verdicts as “a gross travesty of justice produced by a judicial system that has not only been content to be maneuvered to destroy Mikhail Khodorkovsky, but also is intent on bringing down Yukos.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a member of the House’s International Relations Committee who traveled to the Russian court for the verdict, last week denounced the proceedings as a sham.

“This political trial, tried before this kangaroo court, has come to a shameful conclusion,” Lantos fumed. “The conclusion of this trial was predetermined politically.”

The Moscow government insists it was legitimately and simply cracking down on corruption.

Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are both expected to appeal their convictions.

Many observers say the targeting of Khodorkovsky has soured the business climate in Russia, spooking Western investors and sparking capital flight — which tripled to $7.9 billion the year after Khodorkovsky’s arrest, noted the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court last week rejected a lawsuit by the state of Ohio, which claimed that a federal law requiring state prisons to permit religious observances by inmates violated the separation of church and state.

The court’s unanimous ruling means that Ohio must defend itself against legal claims by a handful of inmates who say they wrongly have been denied the means to practice their religion while in prison.

Plaintiffs include a Satanist, a Wiccan, members of a sect called Asatru that worships old Norse deities, and a racial separatist who serves as an ordained minister of the Christian Identity Church, reported the Associated Press.

Ohio claimed that the 2000 law in question — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act — unconstitutionally favored religion by encouraging inmates to align themselves with religions in order to win privileges and freedoms denied to others.

Last week, the Supreme Court rejected that charge, saying the law, which applies to state prisons and mental institutions that accept federal funds, toed an appropriate line between church and state.

It also rejected Ohio’s argument that allowing religious observances could impose too great an administrative or safety burden on prisons, noting that the federal law waived religious accommodations when compelling reasons exist.

“Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

DURBAN, South Africa
A close friend and former advisor of South Africa’s deputy president Jacob Zuma was convicted last week of corruption and fraud related to financial payments between the two men, possibly killing Zuma’s chance to take the presidency in 2009.

Citing “overwhelming” evidence, Judge Hillary Squires read his 165-page ruling on national television, finding Zuma’s former financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, guilty on two counts of corruption and one of fraud.

The conviction stems from roughly $180,000 in illegal kickbacks paid by Shaik in exchange for Zuma’s help in winning business deals, reported the Agence France-Presse.

Shaik also was convicted of attempting to broker an $80,000 bribe between French arms company Thomson-CSF in exchange for Zuma’s help in shielding the firm from investigation over a suspect arms deal, according to the AFP.

“The case is convincing and really overwhelming,” Squires wrote in his ruling, adding that there is compelling evidence of “a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for help, and Zuma’s readiness to give it.”

Prosecutors had declined to file charges against Zuma, saying they would first go after Shaik to make sure they had “a winnable case,” according to the BBC. They now may file criminal charges against Zuma, press reports noted.

Though Zuma retains strong support within the African National Congress, press reports warned that last week’s conviction may put an end to his chances of winning the presidency in 2009, when President Thabo Mbeki is scheduled to end his second term.

UNITED NATIONS
A 25-year veteran diplomat in the United Nations last week became the first official to be fired over wrongdoing related to corruption within the organization’s $64-billion Oil-for-Food program.

Longtime U.N. official and Cypriot diplomat Joseph Stephanides was fired for “serious misconduct.” He said he would appeal to clear his name, insisting that “justice will be made and I will be exonerated.”

An interim report released in February by independent investigators named three U.N. officials suspected of wrongdoing. Stephanides, who was among the named, was suspended while the U.N. investigated.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week fired Stephanides for allegedly tampering with the awarding of a contract involving the inspection of humanitarian goods entering Iraq.

Stephanides is accused of steering contract analysts into awarding the contract to a British firm, Lloyd’s Register Inspection Ltd., even though its bid was higher than that of a French firm.

The Associated Press reports that investigators say British officials may have pressured Stephanides to steer the contract to U.K. interests since French firms already had won a handful of bids.

Benan Sevan, the U.N. official in charge of the 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program, remains under investigation, according to a spokesman for the independent panel headed by Paul Volcker.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

NEW YORK
Conrad Black, the former Canadian newspaper magnate, has resigned from the board of directors of Hollinger International, the operating company of his former worldwide newspaper empire following a series of allegations of financial improprieties.

Hollinger, whose newspapers included the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph of London, is suing Black and other associates for allegedly pilfering over $400 million from the company over a seven-year period.

The company claims that Black used the funds to finance his lavish lifestyle and social life with some of the world’s most powerful individuals, some of whom he also put on his advisory board for his newspaper empire.

Black, who is counter-suing for defamation, also is facing civil and possible criminal investigations by U.S. authorities, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

ZURICH
Scientists in Switzerland recently announced that they had been able to distill trust — a hard-won component of vital human relationships — into a nasal spray, the science journal Nature reported last week.

Researchers at the University of Zurich joined with others to study the effects of the hormone oxytocin, which reacts naturally with the human brain during bonding activities like massage and sex.

Noticing that elevated concentrations of oxytocin occurred in women during and after birth, they wondered whether the hormone encouraged the trust and attachment needed for child-raising, reported the Associated Press.

The answer, they concluded, is yes, citing a study of 178 men who played a trust game involving money, placebos, and shots of nasal spray laced with oxytocin.

Researchers found that subjects who unknowingly received oxytocin were more likely both to trust a stranger and to trust them with larger amounts of money compared to subjects who received a placebo.

To eliminate the chance that oxytocin was simply encouraging the willingness to take risks rather than trust, the scientists then ran the experiment again, this time asking subjects to trust a computer rather than a stranger. The oxytocin effect did not show.

“Oxytocin specifically affects an individual’s willingness to accept social risks arising through interpersonal interactions,” the researchers wrote in Nature.

While the oxytocin effect had a relatively short window — peaking after about 50 minutes and wearing off after two hours — scientists noted that it may have applications both positive and negative.

While it could be useful in treating people with social anxiety disorders, they also noted that it could be misused to abuse people’s trust in financial and political situations, reported the Associated Press.

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

“…The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press … finds that by 37 percent to 28 percent, the general public opposes changing the Senate rules to stop the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. But a relatively large number of Americans (35 percent) have no opinion on the matter. Among the minority who have followed the story fairly or very closely, a majority (54 percent) opposes changing the rules on Senate filibusters.

“About as many Americans blame President Bush (38 percent) as blame congressional Democrats (34 percent) for the stalemate over judicial nominees….

“The survey shows that Washington’s springtime battles are generally not resonating -¡ interest in the ethics complaints against House Majority Leader Tom Delay is even lower than in the filibuster controversy. However, these fights are taking a toll on opinions of the nation’s political leaders. President Bush’s overall job approval rating stands at 43 percent, down from 49 percent in late March. That equals the lowest mark in Bush’s presidency (43 percent in April 2004).

“Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) say Republicans and Democrats in Washington have been bickering and opposing one another more than usual this year, continuing an upward trend. This is a stark contrast to the beginning of Bush’s first term in office -¡ both before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -¡ when a significant proportion saw the parties working together more to solve problems.

“Although neither party is escaping blame, the damage to the Republican Party’s image may be more severe. Just 35 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing; 50 percent disapprove, up from 44 percent in March of this year, and 42 percent a year ago. Public approval of Democratic leaders is only slightly higher (39 percent approve, 41 percent disapprove), but has remained unchanged over the past two years.

“These generally unfavorable views may have political ramifications for incumbents seeking reelection in 2006. While by more than two-to-one (49 percent to 23 percent), more say they approve than disapprove of their own representative in the House, this is comparable to measures of satisfaction in the summer of 1993, a year before the historic midterm elections in 1994 in which the Democratic Party lost its majority in the House….”

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

– Edmund Burke (Irish statesman and orator, 1729-1797)