Posts tagged ethics

The Ethics of Whistleblowing

1

Source: https://mises.org

By

The Ethics of Whistleblowing

 

Snowden - Mises

Image credit: http://mises.org

[This is Part I of a two-part analysis of ethical and legal questions pertaining to whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing. The second part of the analysis is here. In this first part of our analysis we look at the principles of contract and confidentiality as applied to whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing.]

Recent revelations about the extent and details of the massive NSA surveillance program have been made possible mostly by the actions of a single whistleblower, Edward Snowden, presently in hiding from the wrath of the US government, whose shameful and frightening secrets he has now made public knowledge. Despite repeated denials by its officials, it is now evident that the NSA runs a data-collection and spying network which collects masses of data on the private communications of non-US citizens, and some private communications on US citizens. It does so without requirement for any individual warrants for its targets, and without requirement for any probable cause with respect to any of the individuals whose communications are collected. Instead, the entire program operates under a broad procedure-based warrant system, whereby a special clandestine court hears submissions from the government in secret and then dutifully approves general procedures for mass surveillance, without any adversarial argument being raised by any other party. The warrants allow mass surveillance and storage of data at the discretion of NSA analysts, and these warrants are clearly at odds with the principle of eschewing unreasonable searches.[1]

Proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, Snowden is presently facing charges from the US government for theft of government property and unauthorized disclosure of defense and intelligence material.[2] He is also subject to widespread vilification in the establishment media, where he has been branded as a “traitor” and a “cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood.”[3] Glenn Greenwald, the main journalist responsible for publication of the leaked material, is also in the crosshairs of the media, and has been accused of committing a felony for publishing the leaked material.[4] He has also been questioned by establishment media figures as to whether he should be charged with a crime for having “aided and abetted” Snowden.[5] This, of course, is preferable to a sack over the head and a bullet to the brain, but it is a far cry from creating an environment for openness and transparency in government conduct.

For supporters of the massive power apparatus of the US government, Snowden is a criminal, deserving of scorn and imprisonment (or for some, just plain murder). To others such as myself he is an intrepid investigator who succeeded in exposing government wrongdoing where others had failed. But even to some of his supporters Snowden is a hero of the “law-breaking” variety — a man who “stole” government documents to expose the activities of its most corrupt and secretive agencies. Such a circumstance gives cause to stop and examine the basic assumptions of government claims to ownership of the secret information it collects. Implicit in the charge that documents have been “stolen” and that there has been “unauthorized disclosure” is the requirement that the documents and information in question are legitimately owned by the government, and that communication of their contents legitimately requires government authorization.

FULL STORY

The world ends in just four days; no need to keep flossing

0
Your clock is ticking, even if it's not the Mayan calendar driving it. Each day that passes is one less day you have available to practice love, forgiveness, compassion, ethics and morality.

Credit: www.naturalnews.com

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com

By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The world will come to an end in just four days, and that’s a huge relief because it means we can all finally stop flossing. I doubt your dental health is going to dramatically change before 12/21/12. You can also stop taking out the trash and paying all your bills.

Over the next four days, we can pig out like obese, flatulent kings, paying no heed to the mountains of junk food, pies and donuts we consume, since obesity won’t really matter after the Mayan calendar comes to an end on December 21st and the universe implodes.

We can stop returning rented DVDs… Tell people what we really think, right to their face… Ask out that pretty girl (or cute guy) you’ve always admired on the off chance that they might have liked you too. What’s to be afraid of? We’re all dead in four days anyway.

Or, you could use the time to ask for forgiveness. Earn a little heavenly karma by engaging in random acts of kindness. Work to make amends in the few days you have remaining.

The choice is up to you. There are only four days left: What will you make of them?

The LIFE question

In truth, your physical life on this planet is quite limited. It may not be four days, since the Mayan calendar prophecy is a wild misinterpretation, but it might be four thousand days (about eleven years). It’s certainly not forty thousand days, as that’s over a hundred years.

So the real question becomes this: You have X number of days remaining in your life. What will you make of them?

Whether X is 4 days or 4,000 days isn’t really relevant. Your physical life experience is limited in duration, and that means you have a limited amount of time to fulfill your purpose for being here.

What is that purpose? I believe it is to experience personal growth and learn how to love. This is what most of the NDE survivors (Near Death Experience) report when they return to Earthly life. In the moments after this life, they are judged on their spiritual growth, the ethics of their actions, and whether they learned how to love.

Your clock is ticking, even if it’s not the Mayan calendar driving it. Each day that passes is one less day you have available to practice love, forgiveness, compassion, ethics and morality.

The universe isn’t coming to an end on December 21st, but your physical experience is coming to an end before you know it. When that day comes, and you face judgment for the totality of your life’s actions, how will your life appear in the eyes of the universal Creator?

That’s the question worth considering this coming Friday, the so-called “Mayan prophecy” day.

And when the world doesn’t end on Friday, you may wish to interpret that as all of us having a second chance to do better. How will you use the rest of your life to do better?

Canadian Supreme Court mulls end-of-life decision process

0

Source: http://www.cbc.ca

By Leslie MacKinnon, CBC News

Can doctors withdraw life-support without family’s consent?

The emotionally charged question about whether a doctor should have the authority to order life-support tubes pulled from a minimally conscious patient without the consent of the patient’s family was the subject of a Supreme Court of Canada hearing Monday.

The case is about Hassan Rasouli, who has been on a ventilator and feeding tube for the past two years at Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, after bacterial meningitis destroyed parts of his brain following surgery for a brain tumour.

Rasouli, at first in a coma, was deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state, but that diagnosis was changed to one of “minimal consciousness” after he seemed to wake up and could occasionally give a thumbs-up sign, or grasp a ball.

Nevertheless, Rasouli’s doctors at Sunnybrook didn’t change their minds that he should be taken off hydration and feeding systems and moved into palliative care.

Rasouli’s family sought an injunction to prevent removal of the tubes, and then argued successfully at two lower court levels that the doctors did not have to right to halt use of the life-preserving equipment. The doctors appealed those decisions to the highest court.

Outside the court in Ottawa Monday, Rasouli’s daughter Mozhgan said, “My father represents the value of life … I know that he wants to be alive.” She continued, “It is unfair, it is unfair — he should be treated like anyone else.”

(more…)

Eli Lilly admits to more than $200 million dollars worth of doctor payoffs

0

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com

By: Willow Tohi

Prozac. Cialis. Cymbalta. If you have a television or read magazines, you’ve heard of their drugs. Eli Lilly, out of Indiana, makes billions of dollars every year off the sale of their patented chemicals, which are used to suppress the symptoms of disease in the human body. Founded by a chemist in the late 19th century; today the pharmaceutical giant has offices in 18 countries, and its products are sold in 125 countries, with revenues exceeding $20 billion annually.

Eli Lilly admits to more than $200 million dollars worth of doctor payoffs  Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036816_Eli_Lilly_payoffs_doctors.html#ixzz23f0hwJTmMost of their arsenal is available in other countries for much less money than it is here in the United States, as is the case with most prescription medication. The reason, the pharmaceutical industry claims, is that the health care systems of other countries demands affordable medication, and they need somebody somewhere to foot the research bill, so they can get the next patents lined up before others expire, allowing generic versions of their drugs to become available on the market. That leaves us Americans, with our broken healthcare system, footing the bill of their continued financial success.

We’re not only footing the bill, we have to deal with how the pharmaceutical machine warps the medical system. While historically a trade secret, it is standard operating procedure for pharmaceutical giants to pay doctors and other healthcare professionals to promote their drugs. Seducing doctors into becoming mouthpieces for a share of their bottom line is where it begins, but it ends up dictating your options.
(more…)

The Agony of Newt Gingrich

0

Source: http://www.patheos.com

By David French

I’ll never forget the moment.  It was very late on election night in November, 1994, and I was at a friend’s house transfixed by election coverage.  The Republicans had done it.  Led by Newt Gingrich, the combative Georgia congressman, they had ended decades of Democratic dominance in the House, they were taking the Senate, and Bill Clinton was on the ropes.

Here was the triumph, recorded for posterity on YouTube:

YouTube Preview Image

This was the “Republican Revolution,” the moment when the party — demoralized by defeat in 1992 — was reborn, when the grassroots conservative movement cultivated by Ronald Reagan finally achieved Air Force One, ethics, repVictories in Congress would be followed by victory two years later, and Reagan’s vision of a conservative America would finally be realized. It was a great night.

Sadly, it was also our best night. What followed was perhaps the most agonizing slow-motion train wreck of my political life.

Our champion walked into the arena, faced off against Bill Clinton, and was crushed. For those with long political memories, the stories are well-known:

-Gingrich shut down the government partially because he was annoyed at his seating on Air Force One . . . and admitted it to the press.

-He was the first sitting Speaker reprimanded for ethics violations, with the vast majority of Republicans voting against him.

Complete story here: http://www.patheos.com

Related Post:

Ron Paul Ad Shreads Newt Gingrich’s Unethical Madness and Immoral Inconsistencies

Newt Gingrich – Serial Adultery

Newt Gingrich Wants the Constitution to Die

Gingrich – Not All Love in Iowa

Newt Gingrich in 60 Seconds (New TV Ad by Ron Paul)

Reasons Why Conservatives Should Think Twice About Gingrich

Newt Gingrich ~ For The Record

HouseSpeaker Gingrich ordered 2pay $300,000 for ethics violation

HouseSpeaker Gingrich ordered 2pay $300,000 for ethics violation

8

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

“Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.”

House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday.

The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker’s chair.

With so much at stake for each side — the survival of the GOP’s speaker and the Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of the House — partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.

All but two of the votes against the punishment were cast by Republicans, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), many of whom said they believed the sanction — especially the financial penalty — was too severe.

Two Democrats, Reps. Earl F. Hilliard (Ala.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.), voted against the punishment. Taylor said the measure should have specified that the $300,000 come from personal funds, not campaign coffers or a legal expense fund. Hilliard did not return telephone calls.

In addition, five Democrats voted “present,” many of them saying they believed the sanction was not severe enough. “If Newt Gingrich did what they said he did, he should have been censured,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), one of the five who voted “present.” A censure, second only in severity to expulsion, would have threatened Gingrich’s speakership.

House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday’s bipartisan resolution of the case. “We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong,” said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.

But even as they brought the case to a close, committee Republicans and Democrats traded potshots over the chaos of the last two weeks, during which an agreement for lengthy televised hearings collapsed amid partisan bickering.

The ethics case added to the last congressional session’s fierce partisanship, as Democrats sought to embarrass House Republicans with it in last year’s elections. Lawmakers in both parties said they hope the vote to punish Gingrich will help ease those tensions.

“If our action today fails to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity,” said Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), ethics committee chairman.

Similarly, President Clinton, when asked about the matter, said: “The House should do its business and then we should get back to the people’s business.”

For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994. That year, he led his party to the promised land of control of the House and Senate, only to threaten it when he was blamed for two partial government shutdowns during the battle over the budget, making him seem reckless. Then he complained about his treatment on a long flight aboard Air Force One, making him seem petty. The GOP narrowly retained its House majority last November, giving him a brief reprieve. The next month, he admitted to the charges brought by the ethics subcommittee.

The speaker was barely visible yesterday, staying away from the House floor during the 90-minute debate and vote on his punishment. He was in his office and did not watch the proceedings on television, according to spokeswoman Lauren Maddox. Gingrich left late yesterday afternoon for a two-day GOP House leadership retreat at Airlie Farm and Conference Center in Fauquier County, Va. As he left, he was asked if he was glad the case was over. He smiled broadly and said “yes.”

House Democrats had considered trying to force a vote yesterday on reconsidering Gingrich’s Jan. 7 reelection as speaker — the first for a Republican in 68 years — but decided against it, fearing it would distract from the harsh punishment being meted out. In addition, Democrats believe enough damaging information has been presented to tarnish the speaker, Democratic leadership aides said.

“This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich should remain speaker,” said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), the ethics panel’s top Democrat in the Gingrich case. “In the days and weeks to come, Mr. Gingrich and each member of this House should consider how these charges bear on the question of his speakership.”

In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.

Johnson called the reprimand and financial penalty “tough and unprecedented. It is also appropriate,” she said. “No one is above the rules of the House.”

The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is looking into the use of tax-deductible charitable contributions to finance the college course Gingrich taught, which was at the center of the ethics case, and the ethics committee is making the material it gathered available to the tax agency.

At a closed-door meeting of House Republicans yesterday morning, the speaker noted his agreement to accept the sanction, which the ethics committee approved on a 7 to 1 vote Friday night, and said he wanted to get the matter behind him, according to lawmakers who attended.

Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders’ characterization of Gingrich’s rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. “That argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee’s report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. “The gray got grayer when you read the report,” he said. “When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.”

But some lawmakers said the $300,000 financial penalty, described as a reimbursement to the ethics committee for the additional cost Gingrich caused it when he gave it false information, was too severe.

“I was willing to swallow hard and vote for the reprimand, but when they add the $300,000 assessment . . . that’s excessive,” said House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), one of three committee chairmen to vote against the punishment.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee, said of Gingrich’s violations: “They are real mistakes but they shouldn’t be hanging offenses.”

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, DeLay said: “The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach.” He closed by declaring: “Let’s stop this madness, let’s stop the cannibalism.”

The last phrase echoed the May 31, 1989, resignation speech of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who called on lawmakers “to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end.” Wright resigned in an ethics scandal triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.

Despite the partisanship that surrounded the Gingrich ethics case for more than two years, DeLay’s speech provided the only spark of yesterday’s debate. With Gingrich willing to accept the punishment, the outcome was never in doubt.

Still, more lawmakers were on the floor than for the average House debate; many of them were reading Cole’s report. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.), presiding over the debate, took the unusual step of reading aloud from the House rule that admonishes lawmakers to “maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect” at all times.

As they have since Gingrich publicly admitted to the charges Dec. 21, Republicans sought to minimize the speaker’s misdeeds while Democrats tried to make them more sinister.

Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), a member of the ethics investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich, called the speaker’s submission of false information to the panel “a comedy of errors.” But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it a “violation of trust. . . . We trust each other that we will deal truthfully with each other.”

Republicans also sought to portray the question of using charitable donations to finance projects that appeared to have a political intent as a matter of unsettled tax law. But Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer (D-Ohio), a member of the ethics panel, countered that “ethical behavior may be more important when the lines are blurred than when they are clear.”

Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), who had been the ethics panel’s top Democrat, was among those who voted “present.”

He withdrew from the Gingrich case last week after being implicated in the leaking of a tape recording of a telephone conference call involving the speaker, which Republicans said was illegally made.

McDermott did not return telephone calls.

Staff writer Kevin Merida contributed to this report.

[CIM Comment: photo added to yhe original story.]

Go to Top