Der Träger des Whistleblower-Preises 2003 Dr. Daniel Ellsberg
zum Whistleblower-Fall von Mark Felts („Watergate-Skandal“)
Am 31. Mai 2005 ist durch eine Veröffentlichung der US-amerikanischen Zeitschrift
„Vanity Affairs“ und deren ausdrückliche Bestätigung durch den Betroffenen weltweit
bekannt geworden, wer der bislang namentlich unbekannt gebliebene und lediglich
als „Deep Throat“ bezeichnete Whistleblower im „Watergate-Skandal“ war: Mark
Der 1914 geborene Mark Felts war damals Vizedirektor der US-amerikanischen
Bundespolizei FBI und hatte seine brisanten Insider-Informationen über die im „Weißen Haus“ sitzenden Hintermänner des Einbruchs in das Wahlkampfbüro der „Demokratischen Partei“ den beiden Journalisten der „Washington Post“(Bob Woodward und Carl Berstein) zur Verfügung gestellt und damit ein politisches Erdbeben ausgelöst. Das Bekanntwerden dieses „Watergate-Skandals“ führte 1974 schließlich zum Rücktritt des damaligen republikanischen US-Präsidenten Richard Nixon und seiner Regierung.
Der Träger des von IALANA, der VDW und der Ethikschutzinitiative vergebenen
„Whistleblower-Preises 2003“, Daniel Ellsberg, hat dieser Tage zum Whistleblowing
von Mark Felts folgende aktuelle(n) Stellungnahme(n) abgegeben:
„Felt was one of a dozen people who had access to information that the White House
was lying. I'd like each of those [other] people to ask themselves why they weren't
Deep Throat, how they justified not sharing that information with the world. We desperately need more Mark Felts right now, and we needed them back in 1964. He
played an important part in holding the government accountable, and should receive
an honorary Nobel Prize. At the same time, I think he has lots more to tell, and I hope
he tells it.“
Und an anderer Stelleon the Pat Thurston Show, KSRO, Santa Rosa, CA:
Mark Felt understandably felt a conflict of loyalties here, to his secrecy oath, his agency, and to the president on one hand, and on the other hand, to the Constitution,
which is what he and I had taken an oath to. We don't take an oath to a commanderin-chief, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution in this country. That was clearly being violated by the president, who could not be held accountable without an insider like Felt revealing what he knew. So, I'm very glad he did it, he did the right thing, and I'd like to see him get a Pulitzer Prize from the journalistic profession.
There's a good possibility that there are members of his family that are listening to us as we speak right now, since he's a member of our community. He may be listening himself.
I want to congratulate him and thank him. I think he's a hero. I think he
acted courageously, and rightly, and I do understand that he has mixed feelings
about that, even now, because it's clear from the Vanity Fair article that he still has
great loyalty to his agency, the FBI, and to his service, and probably to other presidents that he served.
But he was right in realizing that his loyalty to the Constitution and the country overrode his loyalty to a president who was abusing his office. So I want to thank him.
und schließlich Daniel Ellsberg on KPIX TV, San Francisco:
I am very glad that Mark Felt has revealed himself, and I hope he is in an emotional
state and mental state that he can tell us a lot more now, about what led him to do it,
how he did it, and what else he knew. I'm sure he has a lot else to tell us. I had always hoped that the person who did this would reveal himself while he was still alive, and that other whistleblowers would do the same, in order to take responsibility for what they did, and let people see them, and see that they did it for honorable, patriotic, courageous reasons, and encourage other people to do it.
Felt seems conflicted in the article. He seems like he's ashamed,
and he doesn't want to bring dishonor on his family for having revealed secrets. His
family is saying "You're a hero." What's it like to be a whistleblower?
Virtually every whistleblower--we're talking about insiders who have made unauthorized disclosures of things that their bosses, their agency, their president doesn't want known, because those things are embarrassing--these are all people who signed oaths that they would not reveal information. They signed them, of course, not knowing exactly what crimes they would be called on to conceal as a result of that. So all of them--myself included--feel at some point a conflict of loyalty: a loyalty to their boss, to their team, to their promise, and on the other hand, a loyalty to the Constitution, which is actually what we civilians were sworn to uphold.
We didn't swear an oath to uphold the Führer, in effect, or the secretary general, or the president. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. And when the president is clearly violating the Constitution, by deceiving congress on reasons for going to war, or he's clearly violating his oath to uphold the law, as Nixon was doing, what is your highest loyalty?
Clearly, Felt acted, ultimately, on what he felt was his highest loyalty to the Constitution, and to the country. And I think he was right. But that doesn't
relieve him from a gnawing sense that he's breaking a promise, that he's letting
down a team. He clearly still respects the FBI, and wishes them well, and doesn't like
to embarrass them.
But when their boss, the president, is embarrassing the country by violating the law,
or, as in my case, getting us into a wrongful war--and I would say that applies to the
current president--then I think people who know that, and who have documents,
should realize that their highest loyalty is to this country, or in the case of a war, to
our troops in the field, who are not being well-served by keeping secrets about their
having wrongfully been sent there.