what lieutenant downs told me in basic training when he told me before the first battle, when he told me when the soldier turned against us, when he told me when we were torturing north kosanese-- he told me my job is to be obedient and follow orders. he should have told me my job was to follow legal orders. i, gi joe, no high school, nothing beyond high school, very limited potential, i'm supposed to understand a legal order from an illegal order? you bring this to a court to air the entire complexity of the situation. the private's story would receive a full hearing. he could bring anyone with the same type of training and experience with lieutenant downs. what about major stuart, who had to kill another officer because that officer was killing innocent civilians?

what would you recommend? in his case, there would be a full investigation. he did his duty. if you cannot stop an officer in the process of murder and they don't respond to voice warnings, then this is the only way to stop the action. you must take that action. this is the next wrinkle in this hypothetical. you can safely go with a north kosanese unit, and they're going to show you atrocities being committed by south kosanese. you're interested and curious about why are we at war. what are our allies doing? when you first told me some days or weeks ago that war had broken out, i had made an enormous effort to get a reporter into the north kosanese theater. that's the enemy.

you're going to send someone over there? i'm very interested, as a news organization, in having all perspectives. if i can get an independent reporter-- at times we've had to take reports from the enemy from less than independent reporters-- if i can get one into north kosan, you bet. what do you think about that? peter, i admire your courage. it's stupidity, general. perhaps it is. if you want to stick your neck out and jeopardize your safety by trying to go behind the enemy's lines, assuming they're enemies of the united states, and you are a u.s. citizen, if you take that chance, you're on your own. the military has no authority over you whatsoever. we understand that and know that in wars, it's happened. we also know reporters have died in the process.

do you have problems with it other than his safety? i'd be interested, frankly, in his observations when he gets back. you'd like to see the tape yourself, right? perhaps he could provide important intelligence, but it's quite hypothetical. i don't think this would happen. it happened in cambodia, and we lost reporters. it happened in north vietnam. we didn't get americans into north vietnam, but we got third-country nationals into north vietnam, and those reports occasionally appeared on television screens in the united states, western europe. i'm unaware of that. mr. jennings, you've got the chance to go with the north kosanese unit. they will show you atrocities by the south kosanese. but as fate would have it, they aren't able to get there because there's a skirmish, there's some confusion, and in fact, the north kosanese are about to ambush

a unit of south kosanese soldiers. i'm afraid to say that as a reporter-- and i hope this is taken as the hypothesis it is-- as a reporter, i think you make a commitment going in. you understand going in that the possibility exists that you may come upon a south kosanese unit. you also make the decision going in that you could come upon an american unit. my feeling would be as a reporter that you'd have to make that decision before you went, and that if you're in, you're in. i live in fear of coming upon an american unit as well as a south kosanese one but... you would film the north kosanese shooting american soldiers.

well, i guess i wouldn't. i'm going to tell you now what i'm feeling rather than the hypothesis i drew for myself. if i was with north kosanese that came upon americans... i think i would do what i could to warn the americans. even if it means not getting the live coverage? it would mean my life, and i don't have much doubt about that. i'm very glad this is a hypothetical. i do not think i could bring myself to participate in that fashion. other reporters might have a different reaction. mr. wallace? other reporters would have a different reaction. such as? they would regard it simply as another story they are there to cover. they're going to cover enemy soldiers shooting and killing american soldiers?

mm-hmm. yes. could you imagine how they would report that to americans? surely, i can. could you do it? would i do it? i don't know that i would. i find it very difficult to believe, i'm astonished, really, to hear peter say that. you're a reporter-- granted, you're an american-- but you're a reporter covering combat between north kosan, south kosan, and the ally. i'm a little bit at a loss to understand why because you're an american you would not have covered that story. when we go back to vietnam, there were all kinds of reporters who did indeed go in to hanoi. everybody wanted to go there. why would a reporter say, "i won't cover that because i'm unhappy at what's happening there"? don't you have a higher duty

as an american citizen to do all that you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting the fact? no, you don't have the higher duty to-- no, no. you're a reporter. your job is to cover what is going on in that war. people know that americans are getting killed in that war. lord knows it's a hypothetical. i'd get on the horn with peter and say, "what do you mean--" i think he's right. i chickened out. i played the hypothetical hard, but i think he's right. they've got the same problems that downs has. what's the problem, general scowcroft? the problem is the job as opposed to a higher cause. first of all, i think you're americans first,

and you're journalists second, just as i think that downs-- sure, he's a unit commander, and he's got these terrible ethical problems. but we do live by the rules of society, even situationally in the broad sense, we can't get away with things like that. what's wrong with photographing this attack by north kosan? simply because what's it worth? it's worth 30 seconds on the evening news as opposed to saving a platoon? what difference does it make on the evening news? you see some americans get killed. so the reporters should say, "americans, these guys are about to get you," and you die. that's really what the question is here. yeah. and your answer is? i don't know. [laughter] i agree with mike, intellectually, i really do.

i wish at the time i'd made another decision, but it wasn't the one i made at the moment. i would like to have made his decision. general westmoreland? well, it's rather repugnant to me, and i think it would be repugnant to the american listening public to see on film in the united states an ambush of an american platoon by our national enemy. uh, the conclusion that would be drawn is that the network is in cahoots with the enemy. general, the question is raised, actually, in the cities of this country, in which you say, "if you knew a murder would take place ahead of time, "would you cover that story? "would you let the object of that murder know? would you let the police know?"

i've answered this question before. i think i would surely not let the man or the woman be murdered. i would let the authorities know. then you say, "all right, "under those circumstances, now, move it over into war." i'm going back and forth as i sit here. i understand all the stresses and strains that are going on. it's a hell of a dilemma to be in. i think... i don't know what the hell i think. you'd be calling me back, i hope, to tell me it wasn't such a stupid decision. he has the same problem downs has-- that's what i object to. are there different standards here? there are different kinds of issues here. it's unfortunate, ethically, to confuse the downs case-- the torture case, the killing of prisoners--

and this particular case. in the downs case, we're saying that torture and the killing of prisoners are a violation of something that never should be done. you should never kill the innocent. you should never torture. the case downs was building was that he, in principle, could kill the innocent or torture, under given circumstances. under certain circumstances. it is a different moral case when you have an affirmative obligation. that is the question of should you try your best to protect american lives or how do you balance your affirmative obligation to protect american lives and to report the news. there are different kinds of moral questions here. major stuart and colonel connell, i can see the venomous reaction you have. what we're asking the reporter on the scene to do is keeping in mind that that individual

is not a combatant. we expect our combatants to do, in the normal course of their duties that which is heroic at all times. we're now, all of a sudden, charging the reporter with doing the heroic when that is not... maybe for them it's superheroic to jump up and yell and scream and warn the americans. i think that's different, however, than that which we expect of ourselves while in uniform and in a combat situation. colonel connell? i feel utter contempt. two days later, they're both walking off my hilltop, they're 200 yards away, and they get ambushed. they're wounded, and they'll expect marines to get them. they're just journalists. they're not americans. is that a fair reaction? yeah.

can't have it both ways. a fair reaction. but i'll do it. that's why i'm contemptuous of them-- and marines will die going to get a couple of journalists. representative gingrich? first of all, i think you put the journalists in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as major stuart said. i want to go back to what peter said about his technology and his profession. on your own network, the night of the raid against libya, you were talking live with the reporter in the hotel room, who said, "i think we're in the middle of a bombing raid. i will hold the telephone on the balcony." all of us have to confront three things. there is no world war ii environment where suddenly you say, "we're all americans.

nobody will tell the nazis we're coming at normandy." we're in a chaotic, small-war environment and will be for the rest of our lives, particularly if deterrence works. second, the technology is exploding around us. it may be amateurs-- "hi, i've got a dish satellite receiver and a minicam. would you like to buy some stuff?" third, i don't think we're very good, right now-- i think this panel... i find it fascinating-- at deciding who are we. are we americans first? are the south kosanese then ours? is it as bad to see our frnds killed as to see our own children killed? we're at the cutting edge in this discussion of the technology, of the reality. all i would say is the military, i think, has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through

the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have. congressman stokes, that's a pretty powerful statement. it is obviously a very troublesome ethical dilemma, but i think it also has a great deal to do with where the media places its priorities. in the first place, when peter went up on the north kosanese side, obviously he had made some type of decision there. he certainly wouldn't take pictures with the north kosanese of the south kosanese trapping them. obviously the reason to go up there was to get the type of the picture that he got. he had made some type of decision when he first went up there. this is something that is, it seems to me, not the military's problem, but the media's problem.

they have a problem of trying to set their priorities in terms of whether they're journalists first or americans first. that cannot be solved legislatively. that's a professional decision that they'll have to come to grips with. admiral service, i'm the president, and i'm very unhappy with what's going on in north kosan. we're losing men, losing the morale, losing public opinion. you're in charge of a naval air force unit off the coast of kosan. the south kosanese have informed us that the north kosanese are building a base. the base has facilities to manufacture weapons, supplies, and other materials. it's a communications network.

now, i want you to strike that target. sounds like a good one. just bomb the whole thing? what the hell? let's go after the whole enchilada. all those people can inflict damage on us in one case or another. they are the enemy. we even got some icing on your cake this time because in this instance there's an extra benefit from bombing this air base. major madness is the leader of the north kosanese, and he's a cult figure for the guerrillas. our intelligence tells us that major madness every day gives an inspirational speech broadcast throughout north kosan from that base at 12:00, and he's there every afternoon. he's never there in the morning. now, you have a choice to make. you have the option of deciding

whether to strike that base at 9 a.m. or 3 p.m. wihtout violating any confidences here, i'd probably have a way to get to him if i know he's that predictable a person. i'm taking that option away from you. that's my prerogative. that's not fair. all's fair in love and war. all right. what will you do? what's the weather like? there's no risk either at 9 a.m. or 3 p.m. we'll go at 3:00. why? there's the bigger package. we'll get madness in his headquarters. you have another option. major madness is not on the base. he lives in the compound off the base. he's there with his wife and his children. he's giving his broadcast every day.

will you bomb him? yes, but i wouldn't be bombing his wife or his children. once again we get it down to a collateral business and what is up to me. in this particular case, i think the guidance would be very clear about what i would get. take him out. yes. including his family and his children? yes. it doesn't matter if he's married. that's not the dilemma. is he a military target? based on your description, he is. our president's a military target. absolutely. he's the commander in chief. you couldn't find a better target. that was a great try, but your air raid failed. i'm the president. general jones, i need some help because we're losing this war.

you remember when we had our last meeting of the joint chiefs, you talked about the nuclear bullet. the nuclear bullet is a backpack device-- a nuclear device that one man can carry into an encampment like that, and the only damage would be to that base. there's no larger damage, but i want to use a nuclear device because we must put a stop to our losses, and i want your advice, as the chairman of the joint chiefs, whether or not it's reasonable for me, at this point, to use that nuclear bullet. i'd recommend against it. why? i think the escalation is not warranted in this case. there's no likelihood of damage to anyone beyond that base. it will be a decisive factor in winning this battle with the north kosanese. this is it.

i don't believe it will be as absolute and decisive as you've stated. i'm convinced of it, general, and i'm ordering you, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out this order. the national command authority consists of the president and the secretary of defense. first thing i would do is get with the secretary of defense. i'm glad he's general brent scowcroft because i've got great confidence in him. i'm not talking to him. i'm talking to him. you're not leaving the oval office until you give me an answer. you'll take my order, carry out this mission, or you'll resign. i'm not going to resign. you're going to carry out the order? no. you can fire me. i want this to be fully discussed in the national security council.

the nation expects it when they gave you the sole authority to make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons that it be something that is pondered very carefully, and not just one individual being convinced that that is the thing to do. what if we go through with it over your objection? first, i assume you fired me. yup. my vice chairman, i'm confident, will act the same way i will. i'd have to fire you, too, general meyer? yes. i may just decide i was going to retire or resign. general scowcroft, can you help me out on this? i think it's a political stupidity, not a moral issue. i would be inclined to resign because the implication of using nuclear weapons under these circumstances has such global ramifications that it would be an act of gross political stupidity.

i don't give a nuclear weapon this moral aspect, but it think it has political ramifications that make it the wrong thing to do, and i would resign publicly. can i comment? i think there's a mix here. i think the fire bombings in tokyo were worse than hiroshima, and dresden was worse than nagasaki, but the world has now invested the concept of a threshold with a moral bearing. we'd lose all of nato the following morning. we'd be kicked out of germany. the implications for our capacity to function as a society for a president stupid enough-- we've had them-- to do what you're suggesting would be so horrendous-- it would so fundamentally violate all of our underlying bases of freedom that i would hope that they would all resign. i suspect literally news of the resignations

would reach the field faster than the orders could be transmitted down the chain of command. assume that it's approved by the president, congress to use this nuclear bullet, and you could safely place that nuclear bullet at this airfield. mr. downs? yes, i would do it. you'd probably be happy to do it. before we end this thing, i've got something to say to you all from my infantryman's point of view. we've discussed what a lieutenant goes through, a lieutenant who has to make stressful decisions-- even though they were highly stressful-- for the purpose of this conference. this is one man, by himself. he must make these life-and-death decisions. he has to have a higher ethic or morality than people who do not make these decisions,

and he must live with them afterwards. from an infantryman's point of view whose value is to return home to his family, if he makes a decision, and it's split-second, it's combat-oriented, then why is that less moral than a man who would make a decision to drop bombs which kill unarmed soldiers and/or civilians? and that is thought to be a great thing. this must be taken into consideration in discussing the ethics and morals of someone like this lieutenant, who sounded like he made ruthless decisions, when all that was driving him was his personal morality and ethics and knowing these decisions involve men's lives, both his own and others'. you're under orders and under fire. you'll try to do the ethical thing. yes. without ethics, morals, and control, you become a mob, your army disintegrates, and you lose your honor and dignity as a nation.

the question in this broadcast was whether loyalty sometimes requires keeping a vow of confidentiality even when the secret is a dirty or a dangerous one. when the stakes are as high as they are with nuclear weapons, what is the ethical thing for a soldier to do? next week, back to the courtroom. several weeks ago, we looked at a murder trial. this time, a civil case where lawyers and judges battle over a deadly defective product. join us then for truth on trial. captioning made possible by the annenberg/cpb project captioning performed by the national captioning institute, inc. captions copyright 1988 the trustees of columbia university in the city of new york

this has been a production of... in association with... columbia university seminars on media and society is solely responsible for the content of this program.