American Spy Post #6

Throughout the trial, both Hunt and Liddy were faced with the decision of whether or not to turn in their superiors in the government. They chose different paths, each with their own consequences. Hunt, for months, chose to remain silent about their involvement. Eventually, he changed his mind and believed that it was better to plead guilty and tell the court everything he knew. He also encouraged the other members of the Watergate Seven to do the same. Hunt told them that the prosecutors knew about the majority of what had happened, so it was useless to still claim information to the contrary. This did not sit well with some of the men: especially a man named Gordon who promptly asked to be transferred to the deadlock section of prison so he wouldn't be near Hunt. Hunt writes, "We would never speak again. I didn't know it at the time, but my friend would later write that he [Gordon] had formed an elaborate plot to have me poisoned in jail if the White House ordered, and going to deadlock was part of the plan" (298). At the time, Hunt believed that he was doing the right thing and that by being fully open in court, justice could be served. What he didn't know, was that the people that he was supposed to be protecting had noticed his actions and were making plans to eliminate him if needed.

Taking the opposite position, Liddy never told the entire truth in court, instead choosing to protect his superiors even though it led to extended time in prison. Even after Nixon's resignation, he never changed his story, saying "the soldier owned his allegiance to the prince, no matter whom the prince may be" (311). He chose to remain loyal to those who had been in power for no apparent reason or gain for himself. In court, Liddy even refused to tell the truth, gaining himself added years in prison. Hunt describes one such instance, "When asked if he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Liddy replied, 'No!' He was subsequently cited for contempt of Congress and returned for sentencing to Judge Sirica, who angrily added an additional eighteen months to his sentence" (312). Because of his continued refusal to help in the investigation, Liddy added years to his time in prison, but he continued to do the same thing because he thought that it was the right thing to do. The choices that we make in life all will have consequences. Sometimes, no matter what we decide to do, we will still be forced to deal with what happens as a result. Also, as a result of our actions, we must be prepared to accept responsibility for what we have done during our lives. These are the lessons that E. Howard Hunt and the other members of the Watergate Seven learned, and they are the lessons that we must learn and apply to our lives.

American Spy Post #5

Throughout the Watergate trial and proceedings, E. Howard Hunt and his wife, Dorothy, risked their own lives in order to help the others who were involved in Watergate- whether they deserved it or not. Dorothy risked her safety and became involved in the proceedings by ferrying money from a "Mr. Rivers" in the government to the families of the men who were involved in Watergate. Hunt describes his wife's actions, "Withing a couple of days, Mr. Rivers instructed Dorothy to drive to National Airport and go to a particular wall pay phone, where she would find a locker key taped to the bottom. This she did, opening a nearby locker that contained a blue plastic airline bag, which she brought home" (255). This bag contained three months of expenses for the men involved. By following these directions and delivering the funds, Dorthy became involved with the criminal case. If she had been found out, she would have been subpoenaed and could have been imprisoned along with her husband for her participation in illegal activities. Instead of worrying about herself, she put the families of the Watergate Seven ahead of herself and brought them the money they needed to survive.

E. Howard Hunt also risked further imprisonment in order to protect his superiors in the government. He outright lied in court about the involvement of many people in the Watergate trial so that they too would not be indicted and imprisoned. Hunt could have been found guilty of lying on the stand, but he still followed through. He writes, ". . . I now believed that my only recourse was to lie and obfuscate, protecting the people in power for two reasons: First, as a good soldier, I was falling on my sword to protect them, as promised. . ." (295). Hunt was willing to risk himself in order to protect others, although his motives may not have been as pure as Dorothy's. He believed that if he protected these other men, he could receive a reduced sentence and, ultimately, a pardon from President Nixon. Eventually, Hunt changed his testimony and told of the involvement of everyone in the Watergate Scandal, all the way up to President Nixon. This change led to the impeachment trial of Nixon, and ultimately, his resignation as president of the United States.

American Spy Post #4

Throughout the entire Nixon Administration, there were many decisions that were made that put the good of the Republican Party or the government as a whole, above what was the ethical choice. For instance, the Nixon Administration was discovered to have been taking excessive amounts of money from corporations, essentially, as bribes. In exchange for a generous "donation" to the Republican Party, a company would expect that a piece of legislation that they did not want to pass would be stopped. Hunt describes an article by Jack Anderson that revealed one of these instances. He writes:

Columnist Jack Anderson had published an article on February 29, 1972, revealing a memo from International Telegraph and Telephone lobbyist Dita Beard that promised the Nixon administration $400,000 from the company to finance the Republican convention if some annoying antitrust litigation for the multinational company was conveniently dropped. (198)

This company was trying to bribe the government. The Nixon administration could easily have denied this unethical proposal, but instead, they selfishly accepted the money and met the demands of the company in exchange for money. There were many other deals like this that went through during this time, but columnists such as Jack Anderson brought them to the attention of the people, causing great annoyance and pain in the government.
As a result of his columns, Anderson was singled out and E. Howard Hunt and his colleagues were told to stop him at “all costs”. They took this order to mean an assassination so they began making plans to dispose of Anderson. Hunt and his colleague, Liddy, justified their plans by saying that Anderson had caused harm to his country and had betrayed many undercover agents. He writes, "Liddy and I, feeling that Anderson had done such harm to the country by exposing foreign-based CIA agents who might be imprisoned and/or killed, spent a lot of time concocting ways to get rid of the pesky journalist" (199). Hunt believed that it was his duty to stop this man in order to save the lives of others. They faced the question of when it is ethical to kill one man in order to save the lives of many. This question is posed in much of our culture including many movies and books. It is also the question that was posed in class through the question "would you rather have your sibling or the cure for cancer?" This asks whether you would have your sibling die in order to find the cure for cancer and save millions of people, or would you rather have millions die of cancer in order to save the life of your brother or sister. It is a question that has no easy answer and everyone hopes they will never have to face. Unfortunately, some people will have to face it in their lives.

American Spy Post #3

Through out his life, E. Howard Hunt was forced to make many decisions about what was the right thing to do. In his work, he chose his job and president over his own code of ethics. This choice would eventually land him in jail for his major part in the Watergate scandal. Even though Watergate was the culminating event of his career, while he worked in the White House, he was involved in many other similar ventures. For example, when the white house and CIA were having problems with a man, John Ehrlichman, leaking classified information to the press, he is called in to find dirt on him to damage his image. Hunt and his partner, Libby took this to an extreme when they donned disguises and broke into the office of Ehrlichman's phychiatrist. They even go through the cabinets and make it look like the work of a drug addict. When the police discover the break in, another man is blamed. Hunt writes, "The office break-in was discovered on Monday. Police arrested a local drug addict, who conveniently confessed to our crime in return for a suspended sentence. Otherwise, the operation remained secret until disclosed by John Dean in April 1973" (189). Hunt shows very little remorse for the fact that another man received the sentence for their actions. In fact, Hunt does not appear to have any remorse at all for what he has done.

The idea of breakins to obtain classified information, over time, eventually rose to a culmination: Watergate. The staff of the White House eventually began to see these breakins as an easy way to solve a problem. The emotional effect that their actions cause becomes less and less. Hunt even describes this journey in relation to a drug addiction or alchoholism. He writes, "The road to Watergate was traveled in such small, incremental steps that by the time the situation arose, the break-in would seem a natural thing to do. Aren't all vices the same? The alcoholic, (...) has to have his first sip at some thime; the drug user, (...) has her first taste of bliss; (...) every criminal commits his first, usually small, crime" (191). At the time, E. Howard Hunt did not see the eventual cause of his actions; in prison, when he wrote the book, he is able to look back and see the obvious path that it took him on.

On the Waterfront

In the movie, On the Waterfront, the characters have many different views of what is a traitor vs. a whistle blower. These opinions are based on their position in society and their personal experience with the mob that runs the loading docks. Edy, the policeman, and the priest all consider an informant on the mob a whistle blower and someone who is doing the right thing. Edy believes this because her own brother was killed by the mob and the priest believes this because of the injustices he has observed on the docks. The policeman believes that the public has a right to know what is truly happening and justice should be served. On the other hand, there are several people who believe that turning in the mob would be a treacherous betrayal. Most obvious are the people who run the mob. They believe that a person who informs the police of their behavior is a traitor and must be dealt with. Because it would be their own necks on the line if they were found out, it is obvious that they should think this way. Terry starts out believing that he would be a traitor if he turned in the mob because he has ties to it. The leaders of the mob give him favors and make his life easier at the docks. Also, his brother is high up in the hierarchy of bosses. Terry believes that he is not doing anything wrong as long as he can convince himself that his participation in the mob's activities have not directly affected anyone else. Once his words and actions lead to the murder of his brother, he sees the injustice that is being done and vows to gain revenge. It is possible to see the views of the characters in the move On the Waterfront, by observing their personal experiences and connections to the events and actions of the mob that runs the loading docks.

I think that there are several factors that determine the difference between a traitor and a whistle blower. A traitor is usually a person who selfishly seeks personal gain for themselves and is willing to turn in the people that trust them for this gain. They do not care what happens to the people that they betray, and they don't care if they destroy the lives of the people they betray. In contrast, a whistle blower is someone who sees something that is not right and risks their life, wealth, relationships, and affluence to make something right. And although the position that a person is in relation to the informant determines their view of traitor vs. whistle blower, the effects of their informing, in my opinion, is what makes a person a traitor or whistle blower.

All My Sons- Family v. Society

In the play All My Sons by Arthur Miller, many of the characters are forced to face a choice between society and their family. By far the most obvious example of this is of Joe Keller. During WWII when he was manufacturing parts for the military, he chose to weld over the cracks in the parts. Later, when Chris finds out that he in fact did this, Joe offers the explanation of family to Chris. Joe tells Chris, "For you, a business for you!" (70). Joe believes that he can rectify the fact that his choice led to the deaths of 21 men with the fact that he did it to provide a comfortable living for his family. Another example of how a character must choose between society and family, is Chris' decision to take his father to jail. He is doing what society would condone as the "right thing" to do, but it drives his father to commit suicide. Chris is willing to break up his family in order to have a clear conscience, but his mother, Kate, knows what it will do. She says, "How long will he live in prison?- are you trying to kill him?" (84). Kate knows that Joe will not be able to live with himself alone in prison, and she ends up being correct, as shortly after she says this, Joe shoots himself. Throughout the play All my Sons, the characters must decide between the values of society and the lively hood of their families, and they must find a way to live with the consequences of the choices they make.

In our everyday lives, we too must make decisions like this. In my opinion, there are varying circumstances that determine whether or not a person should do the things that society condones, or the things that will benefit their families. Through experiences, our ethical code is revised and changed, gradually getting better and better. From this ethical code, a person must decide when to side with their family vs. society. An person must also take into account the consequences of their actions. When an action hurts others, like Joe Keller's decision to cover up the cracks in the parts, this action cannot be condoned by saying that it was done for family. One should not place themselves ahead of others, although, in our world today, that is the norm. In this way, we can decide when it is right to place family ahead of society or vice versa.