Retired four-star Gen. James Cartwright was caught leaking top-secret, classified information to the New York Times and Newsweek. When the leak was first discovered, he denied lying about the information to the FBI back in 2012. Military ethics are being called into question.
Just this week General James Cartwright admitted that he had made false statements to federal investigators. At the heart of the matter was that when Cartwright became vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007, he was required to sign non-disclosure agreements; 36 of them, in fact. Here is where it gets ethically “interesting.” General Cartwright retired in 2011, but he still had a top secret security clearance.
As a condition of his retirement, he was required to sign a “Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement.” The agreement leaves little doubt in terms of its warnings: disclosed information could damage and injure the United States and its security. There were no gray areas offered here, Cartwright exactly understood the damage classified document leakage could cause.
Military Ethics: Information in a Book
In 2012, Cartwright was shown classified information; top-secret information, in a book written by David Sanger for The New York Times. The General adamantly denied providing the material to Sanger. Then there was another leak the government called to the Cartwright’s attention. The investigators asked if he had provided classified information to Daniel Klaidman, at Newsweek. He denied that as well. The coincidences were too obvious to ignore and the government charged him with violating the terms of the non-disclosure documents. He finally admitted he was the source of the information and he was charged.
The charge of making false statements to the federal government investigators can carry a five-year sentence. By admitting his misleading of federal investigators, Cartwright’s plea agreement will probably insure he should face no more than six months in prison. Regardless of the punishment, this is a clear breach of Military Ethics.
Abuse of Power – Why?
A four-star general has a wealth of classified, top secret information at his or her disposal. Even at retirement, the general officer fully understands the burden of information that must never be disclosed. It is a matter of national security and national secrecy. General Cartwright signed 36 documents pledging that information would not be released even after retirement. Military ethics are at stake as is national security and secrecy – so what was he thinking?
Why then would he risk everything to commit this information breach and then lie about it to investigators? After an ethical career of service why ruin a legacy?
I believe it is “Opportunity.”
While a general, General Cartwright was by all accounts a highly successful man. He had power, prestige and position. Generals, as they say in the military, are next to God except for one thing: money. Now don’t get me wrong, an officer of Cartwright’s grade and responsibility can pull down $280,000 a year – and that ain’t bad, but it ain’t the big money, the media appearance and influence money. The test of any ethics in any organization including military ethics is the temptation to violate for some form of personal gain.
Despite the non-disclosure documents and the “minor details” of national security, the general was willing to trade integrity perhaps, for the promise of being a friend to the media. He was working on a good start with the New York Times and Newsweek; how far away could he have been with radio, television and being a “go-to” expert? In our media-hungry, content-hungry world, not far away at all. Military ethics be damned – it appeared that being the “go-to” guy was worth it (if only you don’t get caught).
The general, with access to everything confidential within his sphere considered himself as gate-keeper; almost as if it was his information to buy and sell, rather than the top secret material his country (our country) asked him to keep safe. He lied to the government investigators because he was above their laws. He was the general and above the law. He saw an opportunity for himself and he took it. Taking an opportunity is in effect snubbing your nose at (in his case) military ethics.
In his quest for opportunity the general forgot the concept of ethics. He made a choice and now he must pay the consequences.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
You can’t believe how disturbed I am about this. Back in 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, many Americans lost their lives. Then on April 18, 1942 we re-retaliated. That mission was kept an absolute secret.
Can you begin to imagine today if the 4 Star general, who is the object of this discussion, would have been involved with this mission? Unfortunately it’s all about money and greed. And that’s sad.
My response to this is that he should lose his military status and of course his income
and be put on trial for treason.