There are times when the American populace needs to be put through a values clarification exercise. An example: when a charity solicits us for a contribution, we often respond that we cannot afford to give. What we really mean is that we would rather spend money on a movie, new clothes or a couple of beers. On a macro, social policy basis we also have trouble clarifying our values. We rail against excessive health care costs, but we do not ban cigarettes or alcohol, or mandate that overweight people all attend Weight Watchers. We have technology to prevent a drunken driver from starting an automobile while inebriated, but after a DWI conviction do we consider mandating that safeguard?
This brings us to the main point: why are we investigating CIA officers instead of bankers? On Monday August 24th, the New York Times had a front page article heralding that Attorney General Eric Holder was naming a veteran prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation techniques during the Bush Administration. The purpose of the investigation is to decide whether or not to bring criminal prosecutions. Here is the obligatory disclaimer so human rights advocates can move on and finish reading this piece. If there are bona fide legal abuses of prisoners’ civil rights, then by all means the Department of Justice, the military or other governmental bodies should thoroughly investigate such abuses and bring criminal cases, if warranted.
The actions of CIA officers should be examined in context. Post-9-11, the government adopted a philosophical stance on terrorism and the threat to the US homeland. The stance was that the United States was in mortal danger from jihadists and other terror organizations and, unchecked, these terrorists had the capability of inflicting untold harm on the American public. Thus, as always, the CIA mandate was to protect the country. Post 9-11, these were extraordinary times and the danger was real and imminent. Possibly extreme measures were needed to obtain information and protect Americans.
Every intelligence gathering or law enforcement agency probably has a small minority of unbalanced individuals who go overboard in exercising authority. My guess is that 99.99% of CIA, FBI and other agents are professional, disciplined, well-trained patriots acting in good faith and with the highest motives and integrity. These are professionals who give up time with their families on a GS pay scale to protect us. How do we repay them? Post-hoc, we investigate them. The average citizen has no idea what this means. These officials being investigated may have to hire their own attorneys, pay for their defense out of pocket and hope to be reimbursed for these expenditures if exonerated. This does not take into account the psychological strain on the individual, the public humiliation, opprobrium of friends and neighbors and the strain on families. Moreover, there is a chilling, trickle down, effect on others in the agency. No risks will be taken and the best and brightest in the agency will avoid being involved in interrogations. DOJ investigations take a long time and that is one large cloud to be under.
Contrast the treatment of CIA officials with the treatment of the principals in the financial industry who caused the 2008 market meltdown:
- Rating agencies received a fee from the institutions that were being rated and essentially conspired to inflate ratings to the detriment of investors;
- Stock brokers did not disclose the riskiness of investment products being sold to investors;
- Real estate brokers pushed clients into houses they could not afford and conspired with mortgage brokers, banks and clients to obtain bogus financing;
- Purchasers knowingly falsified their applications as to income and assets to obtain a larger mortgage or any mortgage;
- Investment bankers took the suspect paper, packaged the paper into collateralized debt obligations and sold them to pension funds;
- Pension fund managers had a fiduciary duty to investigate what they were buying, but instead chose to reach for a few extra basis points of yield to earn a bigger annual bonus;
- Lawyers willing created CDOs and derivatives on the CDOs. They counseled clients to provide the skimpiest of disclosures and misled investors.
The mortgage and housing arena is but one part of the financial meltdown and there are more principals in the financial industry worthy of investigation. But the reality is that few individuals and companies are being investigated. The standard apology for this lapse is that investigations would disrupt the economy. Who could have really understood the magnitude of these problems? This did not occur during my administration! Let’s let bygones be bygones.
That approach is too facile and disingenuous for my tastes. For the average working man the catastrophic result has been lost homes, depleted retirement accounts, broken families and lost dreams.
Who is more deserving of prosecution, members of the financial industry or members of the CIA? Patriots versus Scoundrels. People who tried to save lives versus people who destroyed lives. People earning a GS pay scale versus Goldman Sachs executives scheduled to share in $11.4 billion in bonuses for the first six months of 2009. A values clarification moment –you decide!
loading...
