The "phone-hacking" scandal, 13 July 2011

Today's illegal voicemail-access news in Britain was dominated by two big developments: the specifics of Prime Minister David Cameron's call for an inquiry into the matter, which Cameron previously had made known he would seek, and the withdrawal of News Corporation's bid for the British Sky Broadcasting Group, aka BSkyB. There were also more calls in the U.S. for investigations into News Corp., but to inject my own opinion, not one of those calls is backed by any specific evidence of wrongdoing -- yet.

• Prime Minister Cameron's inquiry will have two parts. The first will "investigate the culture, practices and ethics of the press, its relationship with police and the failure of the current system of press self-regulation," according to the Daily Mail. The second will look into "what went wrong at the News of the World and possibly other papers." The inquiry will be headed by Lord Justice (Sir Brian) Leveson, "a respected senior judge" according to the Guardian's profile of Lord Justice Leveson.
  
  The reason for the divided inquiry is to prevent information about News of the World or other specific papers from prejudicing or otherwise affecting the ongoing criminal investigations and any prosecutions that might arise out of the investigations. I'm certainly not the only one, though, who thinks that the broad and not entirely well-defined charter of the first part of the inquiry is just as likely to produce information that might adversely affect the investigations.
  
  The inquiry will have the power to summon witnesses to testify under oath and in public. While those who are not British citizens, like Rupert and James Murdoch, cannot be compelled to appear, if they refused to do so, they "would have to avoid setting foot in the UK for the duration of the inquiry or risk being found in contempt of court," according to unnamed "Whitehall sources" cited by the Daily Mail.
  
  The Guardian has more details about the proposed inquiry in its account. The BBC account is skimpier on details about the inquiry but assembles links to a number of other, smaller developments which I'll be ignoring here in the interest of getting some sleep tonight.
• Not much to say about News Corp.'s dropped BSkyB bid: here's the BBC article, here's the Guardian account.
  
  No one knows whether News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch will make another play for BSkyB down the line, after public anger has diminished. The Guardian, though, cited unnamed "company insiders" who claimed that "Murdoch was not making a tactical retreat and that a future bid for total control of BSkyB was now unlikely." News Corp. might even have to give up its existing 39% stake in BSkyB if Ofcom deems it not to be a "fit and proper" owner. No one knows how likely such a determination is.
  
  According to the BBC article, some are calling for James Murdoch, Rupert's son, to resign as chairman of the BSkyB board.
• Though not formally part of Prime Minister Cameron's description of Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry, these remarks of the Prime Minister have gotten a lot of attention in the UK press:
  

  The people involved, whether they were directly responsible for the wrongdoing, sanctioned it, or covered it up, however high or low they go, must not only be brought to justice they must also have no future role in the running of a media company in our country.
  

  The Guardian has provided the full text of the Prime Minister's remarks.
• Last night it was only Sen. Jay Rockefeller calling for U.S. government investigations into whether News Corp.'s alleged bad actions in Britain might have been reproduced here. Today, it's Peter King (R-NY), asking
  

  the F.B.I. to investigate whether journalists working for News Corporation newspapers tried to obtain phone records of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as one British newspaper claimed, citing anonymous sources.
  

  Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) have asked the Justice Department to investigate; Lautenberg suggested that the Securities and Exchange Commission should look into the matter as well. As far as I can tell, both senators were motivated by the same anonymous account as King.
  
  Now, I'm as ready to believe the worst of tabloid reporters as the next, but it seems to me the atmosphere is getting all too conducive to the making and spreading of false allegations. Do I think it's possible such attempts were made? Of course. On the other hand, a lot of things are possible. You have to apply some logic and assess risk versus reward before you send F.B.I. agents off to chase down a possibility.
  
  Illegally acquiring phone records would be a violation of people's privacy, and a ghoulish one at that if the records belonged to dead people. Obviously, given what we know of how such information was used by British private investigators and their press employers, such violations have the potential to be quite serious.
  
  However, is the possibility of finding such serious violations as important as keeping watch on homegrown fanatics who might be looking to make deadly political statements to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks?
  
  Given the reality that the F.B.I. already can't do everything we collectively want it to do (any more than it could on 10 September 2001, I remind you with sadness), adding a new task would mean that the Bureau would have to cut back or to give up entirely on something it's already doing.
  
  Does the "evidence" on the table, an anonymous account in a British paper, warrant the F.B.I. switching its priorities? In my opinion, not yet. An investigation probably will be in order at some point, but until we see something more concrete, I'd say the Bureau has better things to do. (And yes, I've considered that the culprits will have extra time with which to cover their tracks.)
  
  On a lighter note, Sen. Lautenberg brought up the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.S. law that allows the federal government to prosecute U.S.-based corporations for bribery overseas. The alleged bribery of London police officers might violate the FCPA.
  

  Citing the act’s accounting rules, he added, “If indeed bribes were made and were not properly recorded, this too may be a violation of law.”
  

  If the bribes "were not properly recorded"? There are accounting rules for bribes?
• The Wall Street Journal claims that Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. advisors have considered selling News International, thus shedding all his British newspapers. The article is behind a paywall so I have no other details.