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.

American Spy Post #2

Later in his career, E. Howard Hunt found himself facing two extremely important events in American and World History- The Bay of Pigs operation, and the Kennedy Assassination. Both of these situations posed ethical dilemmas to Hunt and the people he came in contact with. In the Bay of Pigs operation, there came to be a conflict between what Kennedy was telling the public and what was actually occurring. In fact, Hunt tells us, "Worse, on April 12, he [Kennedy] actually promised reporters at a news conference that the US would not invade Cuba. Somehow he expected the invasion to happen in a vacuum where the world wouldn't notice that fifteen hundred men had landed on a Cuban beach" (120). Because Kennedy promised this, the Bay of Pigs operation instantly went from undercover to extremely secret. This lead to Kennedy's decisions to attempt to quiet down the operation and to make it less noticeable. These changes ultimately lead to the failure of the operation. In this instance, we can see that it would have been a better choice to continue with the lie than to try and cover things up. This attempt at cover up lead to the captures and deaths of over a thousand men. Would it have been better to lie to the people of America and the world and same the lives of these men? or would it have been more "right" to save their lives and honor one's word. This is a huge dilemma that one must face in their lives; one's character and the person one becomes is based on what one decides in response to this question.
Later, Hunt describes several theories for the Kennedy assassination. One of these theories is that a CIA operative, Cord Meyer, had arranged the killings. The reasoning behind this is the fact that Meyer's wife, Mary Pinchot was having an affair with Kennedy. It has been suggested that, seeking revenge, he arranged Kennedy's murder. Hunt writes, " The theorists suggest Cord would have had a motive to kill Kennedy because his wife was having an affair with the president" (133). This situation also brings up several questions. First of all, is the question of revenge. Is revenge ever worth it? Also, would Meyer have been so hurt by his wife's affair that he would arrange for the murder of her lover, President Kennedy? In this instance, we may never know the real cause of the Kennedy assassination so we will never know if this is truly what happened. In our lives, we must be able to make decisions that we can reconcile with our conscience and that will cause the least harm to others.

American Spy Post #1

The biography that I have chosen to read this quarter is American Spy by E. Howard Hunt with Greg Aunapu. E. Howard Hunt was an employee of the OSS and CIA beginning in WWII, through the cold war era through the Watergate Scandal with Richard Nixon. Hunt spent much of his career abroad, fighting communism in countries such as Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, China, and Japan. Throughout his many years at the CIA he often carried out activities such as phone taps, recruiting agents and obtaining pertinent information from defectors. He also was a major player in the Watergate Scandal (which I will address later). Many of his activities were blatantly illegal, yet by their completion, Hunt was able to help contain the influence of the Soviet Union and in many instances, prevent all out nuclear war.

A career in the OSS and CIA was saturated with suspicion and distrust. No one could ever be sure who was on their side, or who was an enemy. A best friend, or even a spouse could be an agent, placed to obtain classified information for their country. One always had to be on the lookout for a foreign agent. During his training for the OSS, Hunt tells of how his group of 12 people had been told that there was an OSS agent amongst them. Everyone was immediately suspicious and learned that they could not trust anyone. At the end of the session, everyone was told to write down who they thought the agent was. The vote was for Hunt, who obviously was not the agent. The trainees were never told who the real agent was. Hunt writes, "We were never told who the real agent was, if there even was one- that piece of information might have been just another layer of disinformation set to work against our psyche" (15). The test that the trainees went through were designed to test their psychology, rather than their strength or brawn.

Throughout his career, Hunt would find that much of his duties would have to do with manipulating people. In order to recruit informants, one first had to befriend them or bribe them. In one instance in Uruguay, Hunt worked to recruit the chief of police of the city of Montevideo. In order to gain his trust and bribe him, Hunt takes the man out to lunch at an expensive club. After dining with the man, on such things as lobster and steaks, Hunt flat out asks the man to tap embassy phones. Hunt describes the encounter, saying, "I shrugged and took a casual sip from my brandy glass. 'Chief,' I said, 'I can make the taps with or without your help, the difference being that if we do it together, we can share the take'"(101). Hunt is obviously manipulating the man. By telling him that with or without his cooperation, the phones will be tapped, he lays out an offer that the Chief almost cannot refuse. He offers a reward for something that can be done without his help (or so the Chief is told). This brings up several ethical dilemmas. The first is that of how Hunt is obviously manipulating the chief. He has bribed him with money and expensive food in exchange for the betrayal of classified information. Hunt condones his actions with the idea that it is for national security and the good of the United States. Another ethical quandary is that of the Chief of Police. He can take a handsome bribe, which will pad his wallet nicely, but in exchange he must betray the secrets of his homeland. In this case, the Chief chooses to take the bribes.

We also should examine our own motives. If we were given the chance, would we betray our country, possibly causing the deaths of hundreds, in exchange for money, or would we stay true to our home land and refuse a bribe that could significantly improve our way of life? Also, if we were given the choice, would we deliberately manipulate another person to obtain information that could save the lives of hundreds of citizens of our country? Throughout our lives, we will all face a time when we are forced to examine our ideas and decide what we truly will strive for, and how much we are willing to sacrifice to obtain it.

.

.

.

Hunt, E. Howard, with Greg Aunapu. American Spy. Boboken,

New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007.