Who Watches the Watchmen?
An atmosphere of trust collapsing all around.

Mr. George is an editorial writer for the New York Post.
March 7, 2002 10:10 a.m.

ui custodiet ipsos custodes? It's a Latin phrase that translates roughly into, "Who watches the Watchmen?" Put another way, who keeps an eye out on those charged with maintaining public trust and order?

Given recent events, it's an important question to ask.

In his recent NR cover story, Rod Dreher referred to the scandal involving pedophilia in the Boston archdiocese as the Catholic Church's Enron. In its own cover feature last week, Newsweek made the same analogy — while also borrowing the same "Sins of the Fathers" title (apparently, Doris Kearns Goodwin is editing that magazine now).

The comparison is an apt one — though it would be more accurate to say that the Boston archdiocese has been more like Arthur Andersen: By ignoring its moral and fiduciary oversight role, both the church and the accounting firm helped contribute to what became a far-reaching tragedy.

In both cases, basic wrongdoing (seemingly criminal in the case of the bankrupt energy company, clearly so in the case of the priests) was compounded by the failure of those with a responsibility to insure that rules were being followed. Instead the watchers closed their eyes to what was developing.

The results, of course, were catastrophic.

Enron's immediate victims — workers and investors — lost money, stability, and confidence in the future. The victims of tragically ill men of the cloth — children and their families — lost innocence, emotional stability and confidence in the future.

But it would be dangerous to see either of these scandals in isolated context. The failures of men are relatively self-contained. When institutions fail, they have serious ripple effects. Enron/Arthur Andersen had been shining examples of modern businesses. The Boston diocese is part of the broader American Catholic Church — which in turn is part of worldwide Catholicism.

Enron's failure has repercussions on other innovative industries. Andersen's incompetence or sloppiness has repercussions on the entire accounting practice. Combined, the two helped sow suspicion and uncertainty into the markets. Unfairly or otherwise, free enterprise is undermined when institutional distrust is injected into the system. There has to be some objective accountability.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

A sense of distrust or institutional corruption in organized religion is even worse. The very job of a priest is to inspire trust, act as a confidant and spiritual. The violation of that trust on an individual basis can create doubt in even the most faithful. The sense of betrayal is all the greater when the broader spiritual organization appears more willing to protect its own institutional reputation rather than doing what is best for its congregation's members.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Large institutions seem to be failing the trust test on grand scales…Business…Religion…

How about government? Former President Clinton helped create distrust and suspicion by misusing government agencies and powers in order to serve his own wayward personal agendas.

George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney came in to restore honor and dignity to the White House. In one major respect, they have succeeded. Their leadership on the war on terror has certainly invigorated the country's patriotism and sense of national honor.

On the other hand, a legitimate need for secrecy in the context of national security seems to have been overtaken by the administration's belief that secrecy and executive prerogative must be the order of the day first and foremost.

Last week, this played out in several ways — the cumulative result being the White House helping contribute to the sense of distrust in institutional authority that is rapidly becoming the zeitgeist.

The Justice Department finally agreed to turn over records on the Boston FBI's handling of mob informants in the 1960s to Dan Burton's Government Reform Committee. But it took Burton — a good conservative chairman — threatening the administration with a congressional contempt citation. Going back to spring of 2001, John Ashcroft had refused to hand over the material. Finally, in October, Bush asserted executive privilege to block any release.

The documents speak to allegations that the Boston FBI (what is it about Beantown and institutional corruption these days?) allowed innocent men to sit in jail for crimes — including murder — that they didn't commit. The story is even uglier in that the guilty parties were, in fact, mob guys-turned-FBI-informants. One Joseph Salvati spent 30 years behind bars for a murder he didn't do.

Thus, again, the pattern reappears: crimes are committed; an institution that is supposed to punish the guilty and protect the innocent — in this case, the FBI — ends up doing exactly the opposite. Multiple miscarriages of justices were allowed to continue over the course of decades.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Burton is answering that question by investigating fully. He's trying to shed light into one institution by using his own institutional authority. More power to him.

Yet, while the administration was acquiescing to Burton's request, it faced three adverse court situations. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the Energy Department to release information with respect to Cheney's task force. Last Thursday, another U.S. Judge Emmet Sullivan accused the administration of "stalling," while hearing Judicial Watch's lawsuit pushing for the release of task force documents. A third judge, Paul Friedman, also rejected the administration's argument that a separate Judicial Watch-filed case should be thrown out of court. Earlier this week, Friedman went ahead and ordered half a dozen federal agencies to release task force records within the next two months." Ironies abound, of course: All three jurists are Clinton appointees, yet the principal conservative watchdog group that made Clinton's life hell is now apparently gearing up to do the same with the Bush crowd.

None of this even speaks to the Government Accountability Office's lawsuit filed two weeks ago against the vice president.

Given the current atmosphere, the vice president's position — principled, as it might be — is treacherous. At a moment when major institutions appear to be shaking society's collective faith after large public betrayals, Cheney's actions can only engender suspicion. A CBS poll found that 77 percent of the public thought that the administration was either hiding something or lying when it comes to Enron and related matters. Even allowing for the bias usually to be found in a CBS/New York Times survey, these are disturbing numbers.

The vice president may very well have a good constitutional case to be made in keeping the information on the energy task force close to his vest. He may sincerely believe in the importance of protecting the institutional strength of the executive branch.

However, given the atmosphere of trust collapsing, there is a moral case which the vice president should pay heed. Protecting the institutional integrity of the executive requires handing over all the energy task force material — as soon as possible.

Ultimately, the success of the war will be determined on the field. Yet, the constant "drip, drip, drip" of an administration having multiple battles in court and with Congress can undermine the very skillful ethical platform which has been the Bush's greatest strength since he first declared himself a candidate. It's what sets him apart from his predecessor and his 2000 opponent. Similarly, it is what causes the American people to give him such latitude in prosecuting the war.

If that sentiment — that basic trust — evaporates, it will be tragic for the administration and for the nation.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?