On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department determined the price of ruining a man's reputation. For $4.6 million, the department settled a lawsuit with Steven J. Hatfill, a doctor and former Army scientist who was identified as a "person of interest" in 2002 in the anthrax-by-mail case of the previous year, during which five people died after coming into contact with anthrax-laced letters. The investigation and resulting public scrutiny caused irreparable damage to Hatfill's reputation, resulted in the loss of his job and destruction of his future hopes of employment.
The government's probe into Hatfill's life asked very publicly if he was a terrorist, and a fearful public more occupied with punishing the guilty than protecting the innocent played along. The government leaked Hatfill's name to display the progress it was making with the case, and the media threw his name over the airways like the case had already been decided.
The media has avoided taking responsibility for Hatfill's desecrated reputation, although it is not clear that it even should. Reporter Toni Locy, who covered the case while working for USA Today, has refused to give her sources for the information she used in her articles in court; she claims she has forgotten many of them and wants to protect the others. Some have used her case as an example of why there needs to be a federal shield law safeguarding the identities of anonymous sources. And while Locy's reports questioned the strength of the government's evidence against Hatfill, columnist Nicholas Kristof of the The New York Times strongly suggested that Hatfill was the source of the anthrax attacks.(Hatfill filed suit against the Times for defamation because of Kristof's columns; the case has since been dismissed.) In both of these instances, the vital role of the media in reporting on important stories of public interest was cited as justification for its role in ruining Hatfill.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Justice Department hasn't learned anything from the settlement of Hatfill's case. While it agreed to pay Hatfill the $4.6 million, it has yet to admit any liability in the case and only decided to settle "in the best interest of the United States," which might mean something if it weren't so ambiguous.
It seems likely that the government will continue to do whatever it deems necessary in conducting investigations, regardless of the consequences to a person's well-being. Certainly, the Justice Department's handling of Hatfill demonstrates that it has learned nothing from the case of Richard Jewell, who was suspected in the 1996 bombing at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. At least Jewell was afforded an apology from then-Attorney General Janet Reno for the disclosure of his name. At the time of the apology in 1997, Reno stated, "What I need to do is to make sure that we take steps to try to avoid something like that in the future." Evidently, her personal vow meant nothing to future investigators.
For Hatfill, an apology from John Ashcroft would not even carry the symbolic weight of Reno's apology. Even though Ashcroft was responsible for naming Hatfill on national television, an apology from the former attorney general would only be a personal decision on his part. An apology from the current U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, and a vow to change procedures in the department would at least hold some hope that government investigations into future suspects or persons of interest will be more cautious about revealing the suspect's identity and conducting investigations in the public eye.
In cases dealing with terrorism, for the media and the public, the suspect is never assumed to be innocent. For those assumed guilty, there is no amount of money that can heal a damaged reputation.
Wu graduated in the spring with degrees in Plan II and music.
Be the first to comment on this article!