Cowardice or heroics?

Last week, it was revealed that W. Mark Felt was “Deep Throat,” the

anonymous source who aided then-Washington Post reporters Bob

Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the investigation that led to the

resignation of President Nixon. Among the issues raised after the

announcement was whether Felt was a hero for his role in the story.

Chuck Colson, a member of President Nixon’s staff who served time in

prison for his involvement and is now a Christian radio broadcaster,

criticized Felt for breaking ethical guidelines and going to the

media, rather than to his superiors or to the president. In

retrospect, given the circumstances, was Felt’s decision morally

and/or ethically correct?

Does the end justify the means? Bringing to light the abuses of

government is a commendable goal. But do cryptic messages delivered

in whispers by a ranking official to a journalist, while skulking in

dimly lighted garages, present a portrait of courageous action? How

different really was W. Mark Felt from Richard Nixon in their shared

penchant for skulduggery, passion for intrigue, preference for

shadows, hidden agendas, personal motivations, and end runs around

acceptable ethical practice? It is all just too slimy.

The obligation to alert authorities of suspected evils, crimes and

sins is not in question. Rather, the issue turns on the matter of how

the material is communicated and to whom.

In uncovering cover-ups, the matter of responsibility comes to the

fore. A true whistle blower should be prepared to be held accountable

for his or her actions, to accept the personal consequences for

coming forth with knowledge that will benefit the public good. To

continue the pretense of loyalty to one’s superior by day while

leaking information by night is hardly the mark of a hero.

One of the criteria established by Jewish tradition on this

subject is that there must be no other means by which the desired

effect can be achieved. Judaism counsels that one who is concerned

with wrongdoing must come forward upon witnessing the wrong and

rebuke the wrongdoer privately. It is only if private rebuke is

unsuccessful that one may consider public informing.

Had Mark Felt exhausted all alternatives? Could it have been that

the only institution to which Mark Felt could turn was the Washington

Post? And if not able to inform his superior in the FBI of his

awareness of wrongdoing, should he not have shared his information

with prosecutors who were amassing a case against the administration?

With every drip, drip, drip of his leaking, Felt compromised his

integrity.

Footnote: In a 1972 conversation recorded on the Nixon tapes, top

aide H.R. Haldeman told the president that Felt was Jewish (he is

not). Nixon expresses shock that a Jew could have reached such a

senior post, and speculates that Felt might be leaking information

because he is Jewish.

Mark Felt did not leak information because he was Jewish. He

leaked information because he was a coward, a caricature of a spy

novelist’s imagination, rather than a man of character. Compared to

Mark Felt, Brutus was an honorable man.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

The prophet Daniel was forced to make the same type of decision

and was sent into the lion’s den for going against the rules and the

rulers, even though he was a government official.

From a purely straightforward point of view, no one should be

required to violate their conscience for the sake of work or nation,

particularly if it violates divine mandate. We should honor those who

protect integrity and honesty, especially when they make choices at a

personal risk. W. Mark Felt made the correct decision in making these

things public.

However, it appears from his record that he was convicted on the

very same charges he was reporting, and his reason for going public

may have been revenge rather than from a pure moral conscience.

Regardless of his reasoning, the crimes needed to be brought to

justice.

The question of whether or not he is a hero is determined on

whether or not he did it for spite or for integrity.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

One of the guidelines I try to live by is, “If you don’t have to

say something, don’t!”

In 1972, W. Mark Felt must have had significant motivation to say

something about what John Dean called “cancer in the presidency.” We

will never know all that motivated Felt to talk with Bob Woodward and

Carl Bernstein and motivate them to keep alive investigations into

the Watergate scandal.

Motivation is critical to morality versus immorality. Felt’s

actions all those years ago seem to fall into that large “gray” area

ethically.

We do know that Watergate changed American life, so that “ends” no

longer unquestionably justify “means” in partisan politics. Fairness

and justice have become more overtly central to public life in the

past thirty or so years because of investigations into that scandal.

Without knowing his motivations, we cannot definitively determine

what Felt’s morals and ethics were, but we know that he was effective

in helping us move toward more ethical and moral ways of living

within our American systems.

As deputy associate director of the FBI, Felt was certainly very

familiar with unethical, immoral and criminal behavior. He knew abuse

of power and an illegal break-in when he saw it.

Personally, I find Felt’s denials when directly asked if he was

“Deep Throat” to be blatant and reprehensible. But, perhaps he was

simply observing my “ ... say nothing” guideline, and I suppose that

if he had tried diversionary tactics we all would have known that he

was Bernstein and Woodward’s source.

Clearly and unfortunately, we will never know all Felt knew about

J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon’s protectors.

That those who betrayed the trust of the American people so

significantly during Watergate, particularly those convicted of

criminal activity in so doing, now question Felt’s ethics and

morality as Deep Throat would be laughable if it were not truly

hypocritical. And Jesus had lots to say about hypocrisy and

hypocrites.

I think this would have been the perfect time for those old

conspirators to follow the “If you don’t have to say something, don’t

say anything” guideline.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Fans of “Dilbert” and anyone acquainted with ordinary office

politics should have a pretty good idea about W. Mark Felt’s

situation. Whistle blowers or critics or nonconformists at all levels

know how high the stakes are, how difficult it is to know who you can

trust, whether to risk speaking up, and what course of action will do

the most good.

When you have a president involved in criminal activities, it is a

red herring for accomplices such as Colson to question the means used

to finally bring this powerful and unscrupulous bunch to justice.

If forced to pick between the two, an agent’s loyalty to the

United States, its democratic process and the Constitution should be

of higher value than his loyalty to the FBI. And most importantly,

conscience and personal responsibility cannot be surrendered or

delegated to superiors. Chain of command, deferring to authorities

and following orders does not excuse individuals of wrongdoing.

In Zen, each person must take responsibility, search within for

the right action and be guided by a spirit of “no harming.”

The proof that Felt’s decision to go to the press was the right

one was the length to which Nixon was willing to go to cover up. Had

Felt tipped him off by confronting him directly, we have every reason

to believe that Nixon would have continued to protect himself by

erasing tapes, destroying evidence and using his power against Felt.

As for Felt’s other superiors, Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas

described the FBI director and the attorney general as “Nixon

stooges.” In such a “David vs. Goliath” situation, the press can

level the playing field, and good investigative reporting does a

great service to society by exposing the truth.

Protecting sources is a time-honored tradition in journalism. I am

impressed by Woodward and Bernstein’s decision to keep their original

promise not to reveal the source because he questioned whether Felt

currently has the mental capacity to waive their agreement of

confidentiality. We should hope that the lofty purpose of a free

press and high standards of journalism endure.

Felt was presented with a genuine moral dilemma, that is, a

situation where he had to choose between conflicting goods.

It is of moral value to be loyal to an organization, faithful to

superiors and to keep oaths, but it is also of moral value to expose

crimes committed by elected officials.

Evaluating and weighing competing moral values is not easy, and

the best course of action will often not be obvious. These moral

dilemmas tend to fall within broad categories such as “truth versus

loyalty,” “individual versus community” and “justice versus mercy.”

For more about ethical dilemmas and a readable basic guide to

ethics, I highly recommend “How Good People Make Tough Choices:

Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living,” by Rushworth Kidder.

Felt made the right decision. If he sometimes vacillates about how

he feels about the choice, it is understandable that he regrets

having to compromise one standard in order to serve another.

The legacy of Watergate is that we must continue to hold our

government officials accountable. Concern about terrorism should not

be used to broaden executive powers, to violate or curtail civil

rights, or to create an atmosphere where criticism and dissent are

viewed as unpatriotic.

Felt’s motives do not have to be unmixed or beyond reproach in

order to credit him for taking the right action and contributing to a

great good.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa