The New York Times is reporting that biodefense researcher Dr. Steven Hatfill will receive a 4.6 million dollar settlement from the United States government for deliberately destroying his reputation in the prolonged and ultimately fruitless investigation of him as a key suspect in the “Anthrax letters” case that killed and seriously harmed several people in 2001. According to Hatfill’s attorneys, the FBI leaked information to the press about Hatfill being a “person of interest” in the case, and even after it was clear he wasn’t the culprit, they failed to clear his name.

Mark Grannis, a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, said his client was pleased with the settlement.

“This case has been about how the press behaves and how the government behaves,” Mr. Grannis said. “The good news is that we still live in a country where a guy who’s been horribly abused can go to a judge and say ‘I need your help,’ and maybe it takes a while, but he gets justice.”

I’m reminded of Richard Jewell, the man whose name was leaked by the FBI as the prime suspect in the 1996 bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta. His experience was very similar, but, while he filed several lawsuits against various media outlets, he never sought civil restitution from the government. It’s a shame that anyone should have to seek this kind of justice, but encouraging that such justice can sometimes be obtained.

According to an article in The Vancouver Sun, former U.S. Secretary of State, General Colin Powell criticized George W. Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the Iraq War and the American occupation. He was giving a speech at the Vancouver Exhibition & Convention Centre, and he went on to acknowledge his part in building a global case for the Iraq War by delivering a now infamous speech to the United Nations:

Powell told the audience that he wouldn’t have agreed with the decision to go to war had he known that the data about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction was exaggerated.

Powell said that every word of what he called his “infamous” presentation about WMD had been vetted by the intelligence community – “and I had no reason to disbelieve it.”

The former secretary of state has previously described his prewar UN speech as a “blot” on his record.

Powell went on to say that the Bush administration fell into “disarray” over how to govern Iraq after it overthrew Hussein.

“If we had handled the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad differently then we wouldn’t be where we are today,” said Powell.

He went on to call upon our next president (whoever he may be) to draw down U.S. troops and hand over power to the Iraqi government. From a 4-star general with a record like Powell’s, one hopes the new American guard will give his advice serious consideration.

I’ve just been checking out this book, and it seems to offer some interesting insight into how social conscience relates to capitalism and the market. Corporations that don’t exercise social responsibility end up failing, the thesis goes, which would seem to be valuable support for the notion that capitalism works– that agents of corporate fraud can’t, ultimately, survive in a free market. I’ll let you know how the book turns out, but here is an interesting excerpt from the first chapter:

As evidenced by the number of ethical missteps in the news, today we pay the piper as we tally the sorry record of organizational wrongdoings, infractions, and white-collar crimes, all of which can be traced to a diminishing interest in standards, controls, integrity, and that nineteenth-century commodity known as good reputation. Yet as a society, we define ourselves by the values we choose to emphasize. Beginning in the 1980s, a frenzied quest for efficiency led to the endorsement of individualism over community. The resulting emphasis on short-term returns encouraged a speculative frenzy in the stock markets and merger mania on Wall Street, variously described as “the casino society” [2] and a “circus of ambition,” [3] attacked in the Oliver Stone film Wall Street, and satirized in Tom Wolfe’s popular book The Bonfire of the Vanities. [4] The reputation of the business community as a whole fell to an all-time low. On into the 1990s and today, companies like E. F. Hutton, Drexel Burnham Lambert, and Salomon Brothers committed very public ethical wrongdoings, while others saw their reputations become severely tarnished. Once-giant organizations took a fall, never to recover to their previous grandeur. As suggested by Fombrun, [5] the corporate world has squandered much of its reputational capital and its ability to survive and thrive in the years to come.

When I signed the ONE Campaign pledge in 2005, I held more or less the same beliefs I hold now. I believe that the more government there is, the less freedom that government’s citizens have. I believe that more freedom for each individual is a good thing. I believe it’s healthy for society and for the economy. I believe that when the government constrains an individual’s ability to lead his life as he sees fit, it weakens society and the economy. I believe some government is necessary, but very, very little. Just enough, in fact, to mediate citizens’ conflicting choices. That is to say, my rights extend only so far as the next person’s.

I signed the ONE Campaign’s Declaration, because, at the time, I believed that the government could prevent future threats to our nation by helping countries that are more likely to devolve into terrorist havens. I was, and still am, offended by America’s failure to recognize that our civil liberties are inherent, and not something we have because we are Americans. As a reaction to that, I thought we ought to be doing more to recognize the lives of those living outside this land of milk and honey. And, of course, I’m deeply affected by the plight of people suffering the world over from poverty and disease.

Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about those motives. My government’s duty isn’t to protect me from the possibility of a threat. It’s duty is to protect me in the actual moment of danger. And, while my government is failing to recognize that our rights are unalienable, no balance can be struck by simply spending more money on the issues that force us to recognize the lives of those living outside our comparatively comfortable borders.

I’ve also faced up to the hypocrisy of condemning domestic welfare programs as ineffective and tyrannical while condoning international welfare programs that seek the same ends. These Third World countries, like many of my fellow Americans, need help. Many of them are in grave need. But paying their bills and sending them supplies that will merely be consumed is no real help at all from one government to another. The ONE Campaign’s motives are good, and I support their goals of ending the corruption that wastes these resources, but I believe their intended methods will never solve these problems.

For these reasons, I rescinded my ONE Campaign pledge earlier today by taking my name and e-mail address off the campaign’s list. Their form asked for a reason, and this is what I wrote:

After careful consideration of the issue, I’ve decided that foreign aid should consist of educational and diplomatic outreach to nations in need, rather than resources which will be continuously consumed with no explicit plan for solving the essential problems of poverty and disease. We should devote ourselves to helping countries that want our help, but not to supporting their continued state of insolvency.

Further, concerned Americans should send consumable aid (money, food, supplies, etc.) directly to the people in need, rather than to our own government (which is where any increase in government spending will come from) in the hopes that they will send it on to those countries in need.

As I wrote to ONE, I do believe there is a way that the United States can help. While flawed, our government is a model for how to build a sustainable nation that can resist collapse caused by either external or internal pressures. Traditionally, we devote a lot more diplomatic resources to countries that threaten us or from which we stand to gain. But, if our government were as limited as it should be, much of that kind of diplomacy would be unnecessary. On the other hand, struggling nations could benefit from a different kind of diplomacy through which we could offer needed guidance. As the expression goes, talk is cheap, and any country can afford it if we’re willing to extend it freely to governments wishing to develop under free, democratic principles.

And, still, my heart aches for those who live on empty stomachs and with bodies ravaged by disease. Many of them are children who will never know what it’s like to be my age. I’m not going to encourage my government to take more liberty from me under the guise of helping those who suffer elsewhere, because I believe that will only lead to continued suffering.

I will, however, make a more personal pledge. I will make a more concerted effort to do something about that suffering myself. I’ll encourage others to do the same. Real people, not amorphous governments with ulterior agendas, can make a difference. That’s you; that’s me; that’s each and every one of us.