Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: The Ethics Triangle - Case Study Example

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: The Ethics Triangle. Human society is ultimately dependent on the functioning of its’ public administrators and their perception of their duty. It is the public administrator who constitutes the foundation of a society’s cohesion and effective functioning and is instrumental in the actual execution of policies adopted to advance progress in a chosen direction. When the public administrators’ execution of duty is firmly rooted in ethical grounds, it can justifiably be expected that the administration will contribute to the optimal growth of society. These ethical expectations in the execution of public duty can be better understood, all available courses of action identified and the correct choice facilitated when a philosophical approach which encompasses virtue, principle and consequence is adopted. When the public administrator executes his duty guided by the balanced combination of these three elements, public interests will definitely be advanced. This combined approach, in which public duty is defined and measured in terms of virtue, principle and consequence, is termed the ‘Ethics Triangle.’ (Svara. ). Ethical behavior is the soul of public duty. In this context, the current controversy surrounding United States Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, makes for an interesting case study. Gonzales’ character and behavior, when measured against the requirements of the Ethics Triangle, fall short of expectations. Alberto R. Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas and graduated from Harvard Law School. He served in the United States Air Force from 1973 – 1975 and is the recipient of several awards in the field of law and civic activities. Gonzales’ association with President George W. Bush dates back to his three year term as General Consul to then Governor Bush in Texas. This was followed by his appointment as Texas Secretary of State from 1997 – 1999, when he served as Senior Advisor to Bush, chief election officer and Governors’ liaison on Mexican and Border issues. He then served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, before following Bush to the White House as Counsel to the President in 2001. The President appointed Gonzales the United States Attorney General on 3 February, 2005 (DOJ Web site). Gonzales has earned the reputation of aggressively defending Bush’s policy of the all out U.S. War on Terrorism and advocating the contravention of the Geneva Convention in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects. He is accused of procrastination in granting public access to White House records – particularly of Republican Presidents, and of advancing the President’s executive privilege. He is also criticized for his connections to the energy industry and is suspected of covering up details of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s links with the energy task force. He is an aggressive advocate of the death penalty (SourceWatch Web site, April 2007). In recent months, Alberto Gonzales has come under fire from a range of people for the controversy surrounding the renewal of the Patriot Act, the alleged misuse of National Security letters by the F.B.I. in the attempt to collect personal data from telephone, internet and financial companies to spy on American citizens in the War Against Terror and, above all, for his role in the dismissal of eight United States Attorneys in December 2006. United States Attorney’s are political appointees and are routinely replaced at the start of a new Administration. However, the firing of eight United States Attorney’s in the middle of a President’s term is a departure from the routine and has stirred up a hornets’ nest centering round the reason for the dismissals, which are suspected to have been politically motivated and not performance based, as claimed by the Department of Justice. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has placed himself in the center of the controversy by issuing contradictory statements about the dismissals and the extent of his direct involvement. At a Press Conference on 13 March, 2007, Gonzales claimed to have not been directly involved in the process and held his former Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, responsible for the evaluation all 93 U.S. Attorney’s on the basis of performance, identifying the weak performers and drawing up the list of the eight who were ultimately ousted. Subsequently, in the course of a NBC News interview on 27 March, 2007, Gonzales changed his position. He now admitted that he had been aware that the procedure for the dismissal had been underway, vaguely remembered discussions on the issue and had signed the final list without having any say in the decision as to “who should or should not be – asked to resign.” Next, in his preliminary statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 17 April, 2007, Gonzales admitted that, after the 2004 Election, Harriet Miers, former Counsel to President Bush, had suggested replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Gonzales said that he had rejected her suggestion, instead asking Sampson to draw up a list of Attorney’s who were “weak performers.” He conceded that he had been periodically informed as to the progress of the review and had approved the final recommendations (Ragavan, April 2007). The Attorney General’s credibility was further undermined by his obfuscating responses to questions from Senators on 20 April, 2007, at the hearing of the Judicial Committee. Gonzales repeatedly resorted to claims of lapses of memory when confronted with direct questions as to whether he was involved in the evaluation process of who was to be dismissed and as to who had decided the list of the final eight who were fired. Calls for his resignation are now being heard across party lines, although Gonzales continues to enjoy the confidence and support of President Bush at present (Kellman. April 2007). In contradiction to the above statements by Gonzales, documents released by the Department of Justice in the third week of March, under Congressional pressure, revealed that the Attorney General had participated in a meeting to discuss the dismissals on 27 November, 2006. Gonzales had approved a ‘five – step plan,’ which included intimating the Republican Senators of the concerned States of the impending dismissals, gearing up for the expected political repercussions, identifying replacements and preparating to secure their Senate confirmations. This directly contradicted Gonzales’ earlier contention that he “was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussion” (Jordan. March 2007. Page 2). Gonzales reiterated that the choice of names for dismissal had been delegated to Sampson. Definite accusations that the dismissals were directed against those Attorneys who were not considered to be “loyal Bushies,” according to a memo from Sampson, are now being leveled against Gonzales (Jordan. March 2007). Kyle Sampson’s testimony before the Senate on 30 March, 2007, made it clear that Gonzales had been involved in discussions pertaining to the dismissals right from the initial stages in early 2005 (Arena and Barrett. March 2007). Coming to the specifics in the cases of the eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired, the ‘performance versus politics’ controversy certainly seems to be justified. The Department of Justice itself has acknowledged that Bud Cummins, the Governments’ Chief Prosecutor in Little Rock, Arkansas, was asked to resign so that former White House aide, Tim Griffin, a protégé of Karl Rove, President Bush’s Political Advisor, could be given the appointment. In the case of San Diego U. S. Attorney, Carol Lam, suspicion remains that her dismissal was a consequence of her successful prosecution of former Republican Congressman Randy Cunningham for corruption (Johnson. February 2007). Margaret M. Chiara, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was an opponent of the imposition of the death penalty – a position diametrically opposed to the White House stand on the issue (Slevin. March 2007). David C. Iglesias of a New Mexico had run afoul of the GOP for his failure to aggressively prosecute voter fraud (Eggan and Kane. April 2007). Paul Charlton of Arizona, widely acknowledged to have run an office which was a ‘model of professionalism,’ had set in motion the procedure for the prosecution of Republican Congressman, Rick Renzi for alleged corruption (Blumenthal. March 2007). John McKay of Washington State had declined to prosecute voter fraud charges to challenge a Democratic victory in 2005 (Smith. March 2007). Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago pursued the probe into the leaking of the identity of the CIA operative, Valerie Plame, which resulted in the conviction of former Vice-Presidential aide Lewis Libby for perjury. Fitzgerald had also brought corruption charges against former Republican Governor, George H. Ryan (Eggen and Solomon. March 2007). It is only in the case of the eighth Attorney, Kevin V. Ryan, that no aspersions of wrongdoing have emerged. Alberto Gonzales’ character and behavior do not emerge unscathed when subjected to scrutiny in the light of the ‘Ethics Triangle.’ The Ethics Triangle postulates that a public administrator should perform his duty by incorporating into his actions the best combination of virtues, principles and consequences which would lead to the advancement of public interest. When reviewed against the standards of virtue, Gonzales’ character and integrity have definitely been undermined by his response to this controversy. He has deliberately resorted to prevarication – openness and honesty are not part of his character. He has lied about his involvement in the discussions about the ouster of the Attorneys. When confronted with evidence contradicting his stand and showing his involvement in the discussions and the entire process, he has again resorted to vague admissions of participation, qualified by denials of wrongdoing. He has attempted to use his former aide as a scapegoat to evade responsibility. Until the present, he has refused to come clean with all the details as to the extent of his involvement – resorting to the flimsy excuse of lapses of memory. It is difficult to view Gonzales as a man of conscience or a man of character. When we consider character to be one of the ideals which constitute the points of the Ethics Triangle, Gonzales’ character is revealed to be false, thus undermining the fidelity of his actions to ethical expectations. By no reach of the imagination can he be said to have displayed strength of character. Integrity and commitment to telling the truth are universally recognized virtues – both are lacking in Gonzales’ character. The element of virtue is totally lacking in his actions in this particular controversy. When judged on the basis of principle, Gonzales’ behavior again does not clear the bar. The firing of the U.S. Attorney’s is obviously not performance based. The reasons range from deviations from the White House stand on issues to retaliation for the prosecution of Republican big-wigs. Evidently, Gonzales has not given any consideration to the worth and dignity of the eight individuals involved. Their performances and their contributions to society have not been respected. There is absolutely no evidence of a credible review of performance having been carried out by the Department of Justice in identifying the ‘weak performers.’ The only criterion by which their worth has been evaluated has been their extent of adherence to unquestioning political loyalty – Are they ‘loyal Bushies?’ They have been penalized for challenging illegal acts of corruption by Republicans – in other words, they have been penalized for advancing the larger interests of society. Gonzales’ actions have not incorporated the principle of treating each individual as an end in himself or herself. He has treated the eight U.S. Attorney’s as mere cogs in a political system, who can be fired arbitrarily at his will, without explanations or consideration as to the consequences of the dismissals to their careers or financial situations. Fairness in personnel decisions, which is one of the hallmarks of an ethical public administrator, has been overruled. Undoubtedly, the dismissed Attorneys have been treated unfairly. There has been no tolerance of dissent from Gonzales’ perception of the White Houses’ stand on issues and the tenet of social justice has been totally ignored. Thus, justice, the ideal which constitutes the second point of the Ethics Triangle, has been disregarded in Gonzales’ behavior as a public administrator. When we judge Gonzales by the consequence of his actions, it is evident that he has not advanced the greatest good of the greatest number. He has been motivated only by narrow, partisan politics and has used all the resources under his command to advance the interests of the Republican Party, even at the cost of implicitly sanctioning corruption and fraud. The interests of society at large have been subordinated to the interests of a few elite White House officials and Republicans. The dismissed Attorney’s contribution to society in terms of prosecution of corruption and crime has been disregarded. This will discourage others from aggressively prosecuting charges against Republican interests and in the long run, undermine the very fabric of justice in society. The greatest good, which is the third point of the Ethics Triangle, has been ignored by Gonzales. Gonzales’ behavior again falls short when viewed in the light of duty. He is a public servant whose foremost obligation is towards the people. His duty is the promotion of public interest. However, Gonzales has shown that his perception of duty is loyalty to President Bush and the White House. This alone has guided his actions. His responsibility to the public and to his organization has been totally ignored and subjugated to his loyalty to his political superiors. By attempting to circumvent Senate approval of U.S. Attorney appointments by using the Patriot Act, Gonzales has actually encouraged the undermining of the democratic process. His partisan politics have eroded the credibility of the Department of Justice and will interfere in the impartial functioning of U.S. Attorneys in the future. Their fear of retaliation from Washington will deter them from the impartial execution of their duties. Above all, Gonzales’ rejection of the element of duty is demonstrated by his blatant repudiation of his accountability to the public. He has consistently lied, blocked access to documents and refused to give an open account of his role in the controversy. Public interest, which is the central ideal of the Ethics Triangle, has been harmed by Gonzales’ actions. He has failed in his duty as a public administrator. In conclusion, we can assert that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has deviated from ethical behavior. He has been motivated by a blind loyalty to his political superiors and this characteristic has dominated all other traits of his character. He has subordinated public interest to political expediency. His decisions have not been based on the optimum balance of virtue (character), principle (justice) and consequence (public interest) that should guide the public administrator in the execution of his duty. The ethical approach advocated by the Duty Triangle has not played a part in his behavior. His unethical behavior has undermined the democratic process, hindered justice and shown his disregard for integrity and commitment to truth. He has forfeited all rights to hold public office. References. Arena, Kelli and Barret, Ted. (March 30, 2007). CNN Online. Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on attorney firings. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/fired.attorneys/index.html Blumenthal, Max. (March 20, 2007). The Nation Online. The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal Eggan, Dan and Kane, Paul. (April 20, 2007). Washington Post Online. Senators Chastise Gonzales at Hearing. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR20070419 02935.html Eggan, Dan and Solomon, John. (March 20, 2007). Washington Post Online. Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR20070319 02036.html Jordan, Lara Jakes. (March 24, 2007). ABC News. Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2978026 Johnson, Kevin. (February 6, 2007). USA TODAY. Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aidex.htm Kellman, Laurie. (April 20, 2007). Yahoo! News. Attorney General doesn’t satisfy critics. Associated Press. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_go_co/gonzales_prosecutors Ragavan, Chitra. (April 18, 2007). Gonzales’s Trail of Comments May Haunt Him U.S. News Online. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070418/18gonzales.htm?s_cid=rss: site1. Slevin, Peter. (March 25, 2007). Washington Post Online. Eyebrows Are Raised In Mich. Over Reasons for Prosecutors Firing. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR20070326 00482.html Smith, Jeffrey R. (March 26, 2007). Washington Post Online. Ex-Prosecutor Says He Faced Partisan Questions Before Firing. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR20070324 1122.html SourceWatch Web site. (April 24, 2007). Albert R. Gonzales. Retrieved April 26, 2007 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alberto_R._Gonzales#Bush_administration _U.S._attorney_firings_controversy. Svara, James. ( ). The Ethics Primer. United States Department Of Justice: Office Of The Attorney General. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Biography. Retrieved on April 26, 2007. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html Read More