The Ethics of Mark Felt

The Deep Throat story has so many ethics angles.  You have a very elderly, somewhat enfeebled man whose secret was outed by family members with their own personal monetary interests; a law enforcement officer who didn't reveal the secret to law enforcement but rather to the press; and a press with an enormous bias toward facilitating more whistle-blowing.    No wonder the Mark Felt story is prompting so much debate and commentary on the ethics of disclosure.  (For a journalist's perspective, read this.)

I saw Alexander Haig on TV this weekend and agreed with him.  Felt had an important duty as a high-ranking law enforcement official.  Felt should have (1) stayed on the job and disseminated what he knew to fellow law enforcement officers; or (2) resigned and disseminated what he knew to law enforcement officials.  I would grant an exception to the duty to reveal to law enforcement officials if that would have been a futile act, but the futility standard is a high one and I have trouble imagining the facts that would necessitate revelation to the Washington Post.  I also grant that civil disobedience is sometimes justified, but that would require a compelling reason and a willingness to face the consequences.  Unless there's a lot more to the story, the best I can say about Felt is that his misconduct is partially mitigated by his subjective belief that revelation was appropriate.

Comments

[Rob Hyndman]

My $.02 -

I think Felt did the right thing. L. Patrick Gray, his boss at the FBI - the highest "law enforcement official" at the FBI - was a Nixon loyalist and John Mitchell was involved in the coverup. Law enforcement wasn't going to get anything done, and Felt knew it. I bet he knew very well that in order to expose the full scope of the corruption he was going to have to be on the inside and act effectively as undercover agent ...

Given the scope of what Felt knew he probably knew very well what everyone else understands - trying to stop government corruption - or any corruption for that matter - from the outside is very difficult.

And on balance, I think it's a good thing for high government officials to feel the need to be wary that their colleagues may well be less motivated by loyalty than by a regard for law and order. Consider it an important check on the pervasively corrupting influence of power.

A little bit less loyalty, and Watergate probably would never have gotten off the ground.

[Cathy]

"I would grant an exception to the duty to reveal to law enforcement officials if that would have been a futile act, but the futility standard is a high one and I have trouble imagining the facts that would necessitate revelation to the Washington Post."

I think these are exactly the facts that would warrant such an excusal. If you want to frame it in terms of futility, I don't think it's a question of fellow law enforcement officials not taking him seriously. It's that the information related to the chief law enforcer in the land. How does one use channels controlled by the boss to complain about the boss? Particularly when the boss has already shown an inclination to disregard the rules, how can one believe that he won't suppress the investigation? Or retaliate?

Given these circumstances, finding an alternative avenue where the information could be vetted strikes me as being the responsible thing to do, and quite possibly the only real option available.

[John Steele]

Rob & Cathy:

Thanks for commenting. Both of you seem to support the "futility" angle of Felt reporting within government. I am still open to agreeing that futility applied, but I have a few comments in response. First, reaching for the futility excuse and revealing anonymously can be far less costly than going the offical route, so there is a perpetual risk that futility will be invoked too readily -- will be invoked out of self-protection rather than out of fulfillment of duty. Second, even if reporting to one law enforcement official seems futile, reporting to several, or reporting to different law enforcement officials may not be. So, going to the Washington Post isn't yet justified. Third, in keeping this secret for decades, Felt has deprived us of the ability to test his choice. The better route, if futility was the problem, would be to reveal and take the heat. That's why I am still concluding, albeit tentatively, that Felt's conduct is a mitigated breach of duty, not a justified breach.

BTW, both Rob and Cathy have excellent web sites well worth visiting. The links are in their posted names next to their comments.

[shallow]

And you base this "futility" requirement on what ? Is there really an obligation of law enforcement "offices" (which, I am not sure that Felt was one because he was subject to the political process) to stay within the chain of command which appeared to be quite dirty, itself. Perhaps it wasn't futile, but, for better or worse Congress made Felt's position subject to political scrutiny, and this scrutiny may have been triggered not by just speaking to other people in the institution, but rather by going public in a way that could not have been ignored.

[John Steele]

Shallow:

You ask, "Is there really an obligation of law enforcement 'offices' (which, I am not sure that Felt was one because he was subject to the political process) to stay within the chain of command which appeared to be quite dirty, itself."

What you've suggested isn't far off from my suggestion that a law enforcement official could make unauthorized disclosures if "futility" existed. (I also acknowledge that sometimes civil disobedience is called for.) We may be disagreeing on whether or not working within channels was futile for Felt, and whether Felt had choices other than "either my boss or the Washington Post."

[David Giacalone]

I believe the Nixon Administration was far more likely than most to demand loyalty to the President over loyalty to law and the public interest. I thought so as a recent-college graduate when the Watergate scandal was unfolding, and I still believe it today.

One reason that Felt may have avoided going to his bosses is that he would have almost certainly been cut off from any further information. Staying as a mole might have been the best way to seeing that justice was done.

[Bill Freivogel]

The night Archibald Cox was fired was the only time in my 65 years that I actually contemplated the possibility that someone (Nixon) could "take over" the government. That feeling subsided quickly. Nevertheless, Felt must have felt that way every day, knowing what the rest of us did not know. I don't blame him a bit.

Bill Freivogel
www.freivogel.com