The Duty of Lying

Sobran's , Griffin Internet Syndicate ^ | 2/28/02 | Joseph Sobran

[TEXICAN II]

The Duty of Lying February 28, 2002

by Joe Sobran

Wartime always brings expansions of state power, together with erosions of moral and constitutional standards. No sooner had the 9/11 attacks occurred than the Federal Government started assuming new powers and abridging old freedoms in the name of national security. And voices in the press were quick not only to defend these measures, but to call for even more of them.

Last fall an essay in the WALL STREET JOURNAL pointed out that Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt had, during wartime, grossly violated the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. Was the author warning that a new war might also endanger constitutional law? No! On the contrary, he was arguing that the "war on terrorism" might also justify violations of the Constitution like those of these three "great" presidents. Past violations serve as precedents for new violations.

Of course this begs the question by assuming that a president who disregards his oath of office can deserve to be called "great." From a constitutional point of view, by the measures of limited government, personal freedom, and the rule of law, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt were our three worst presidents.

Oddly enough, the arguments for lower moral and constitutional standards in wartime are coming not from the liberal and socialist media, but from the allegedly "conservative" press, which you might expect to defend the Constitution, the rule of law, and basic morality. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has all but endorsed the use of torture against enemies -- not just to extract information, but to inflict punishment. NATIONAL REVIEW has run several articles calling for toppling foreign governments and for assassinating foreign rulers.

Now the JOURNAL has weighed in again with a piece by Joseph E. Persico arguing the merits of government lying during wartime. He offers as a model the lies Roosevelt used against Germany during World War II. Persico plays down the fact that Roosevelt didn't just plant lies to fool the Germans during the war; he lied to Americans to draw them into the war in the first place! His first lie was his oath of office, which he never intended to honor. And he never stopped lying.

Not that Persico seems to mind; he thinks lying in whatever he deems a good cause is a positive virtue. Another of his heroic liars is Winston Churchill, who forged documents to convince Roosevelt that the Germans had designs in the Western Hemisphere. He even supplied "proof" that "the Germans already had 5,000 troops in Brazil poised to threaten the Panama Canal."

"It was all a tissue of lies fabricated by the British," Persico writes. "But Roosevelt was not about to scrutinize to death intelligence that would help him lead American public opinion along the course he wanted, war against Germany." Roosevelt cited this "intelligence" in his speeches and fireside chats. These lies were welcome to his ears, and he gladly relayed them to Americans who trusted their president to tell them the truth. After all, their lives and their sons' lives were at stake.

In retrospect, and after six decades, you might think people would draw the lesson that "democracy" and "self-government" are meaningless if government officials can deceive the electorate in such vital matters. After all, aren't "We the People" supposed to be making the big decisions, on the basis of accurate information?

Maybe honorable people do draw this lesson. But the lesson drawn by the WALL STREET JOURNAL is just the opposite: that lying to the public can be a legitimate and desirable government policy -- even a governmental duty.

And if lying to the public -- in a good cause, of course -- can be a right and duty of government, may it not also be a right and duty of journalists? Isn't it the patriotic duty of journalists to support and if possible assist their government in wartime?

Last week we learned that a JOURNAL reporter had been horribly murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. This was a shocking violation of the immunity journalists are traditionally entitled to as noncombatants whose role is to report facts honestly and impartially. Is it possible that the killers of Daniel Pearl saw him not as a noncombatant, but as an active agent of the U.S. Government? Nothing can excuse or justify such savagery, but compromising the neutrality of journalists could furnish it with a deadly pretext.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at "http://www.sobran.com/columns/020228.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2002 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in print or Internet publications without express permission of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to interested individuals if you use this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available by subscription. For details and samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

[TEXICAN II]

Light your torches & pry up the cobblestones. Its time for the rabble to answer a thinking man, with the only tools they may have at hand. Reprinted with permission as granted by the publisher.

[uncbob]

In retrospect, and after six decades, you might think people would draw the lesson that "democracy" and "self-government" are meaningless if government officials

SIX DECADES
Average boob voter can't remember last week

[buffyt]

SO TRUE!!! For example just try to remember all of Clinton's crimes in order and in detail. The average voter doesn't even try or want to remember these things. They are all too fat and happy right now.... sigh.....

[meenie]

If government has a duty to lie, I nominate it for a decoration above and beyond the call of duty. I thought the basis of democracy was a well informed public. Dumb and dumber seems to be the order of the day with our education system and government propaganda. This country is headed for tyranny or revolution with its disinformation and progressive elimination of public discourse.

[Pistias]

There are instances when lies are justifiable--only in the circumstances, not as a general rule. And as much as equality-loving citizens may chafe at it, sometimes leaders do know better (i.e., more knowledge and/or more brains) than we do, and thus will want to do things that average joe thinks is unnecessary or foolish. Of course such a power will be abused by the wicked, but what necessary or good thing do the evil not f*** up for everyone else?

[freeeee]

There are instances when lies are justifiable--only in the circumstances, not as a general rule. And as much as equality-loving citizens may chafe at it, sometimes leaders do know better (i.e., more knowledge and/or more brains) than we do, and thus will want to do things that average joe thinks is unnecessary or foolish. Of course such a power will be abused by the wicked, but what necessary or good thing do the evil not f*** up for everyone else?

Whatever type of system of government you're describing, it isn't representative government. This issue stikes at the very heart of where just government derives its powers: from the 'Consent of the Governed'.

That isn't what the American people signed up for when they entered into the contract known as the Constitution.

[uncbob]

That isn't what the American people signed up for when they entered into the contract known as the Constitution.

It's what the signed up for when they decided the government should be big brother and provide retirement systems, medical care etc etc

[freeeee]

I agree. Too few people make that connection.

Paraphrasing from memory: "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."

There's an interesting fictitious short story called, "The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okankanofee (sp?) Swamp" that makes this point very well.

[Pistias]

There are some things representative governments do well, and some things they do poorly. By their nature, they make tactical decisions poorly because--obvioulsy--you can't run a war by votes and win. That's why we have an executive--to balance the awkward Congress (and conversely, the Congress is slow to balance the rashness of the executive). In certain instances, the preservation of the nation and the free dissemation of information will come at odds. Hypothetically, which would you prefer, to be told the absolute and complete truth and thereby allow an enemy to know enough of your plans to defeat you, or to be lied to and win the war?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"just try to remember all of Clinton's crimes in order and in detail." OK. Let's see. Monica wanted to "get with" Bill. Bill let Monica perform oral sex on him several times, but always urged her to stop before he ejaculated. One time however, she begged him to let her continue, and she did and he left a semen residue on her blue dress. (Bad technique?) Meanwhile Clinton was being sued in a civil action for sexual harrassment. Note the difference between being sued in a civil action and being prosecuted for a crime. Paula Jones alleged that he exposed his genitals to her in a hotel room and asked her for oral sex. She refused and according to her account, he said "OK". At a pretrial deposition for the civil action, he was shown a lengthy definition of sexual contact written in legalese and asked if he had ever had sexual contact with Monica. He said "no", later claiming that the definition was worded so as to allow for assymetrical sexual contact -- ie, A has sexual contact with B, but B doesn't have sexual contact with A. To prove he committed a crime a prosecutor would have to prove, not only that he lied (and given the case law, that's harder than one might expect), but that the lie was material to the civil action. The standard here, remember is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I haven't heard much on why it would be material to the issues raised in the civil action, but maybe you can help out on that point. Interestingly, the civil action was dismissed before trial. Essentially the judge held that even if every allegation Paula Jones made were true, Clinton's conduct would not constitute sexual harrassment. (Is that right? In retrospect, I don't understand why Clinton's lawyer wasn't able to postpone his pre-trial deposition until that issue had been settled. There's no need for anyone to give a deposition if the facts alleged aren't actionable.) In any event, a Republican controlled House of Representatives charged Clinton on four counts. He was tried by the Senate. Republicans held a majority in the Senate but still acquitted him of all charges. No prosecutor has ever brought a case. I don't have a TV, so I feel like I missed a lot. So feel free to add in what I've missed. Make no mistake. I think Clinton is a Bad Man. And I think Bush is a Good Man. But Bush is the one with a record. And drunk driving is a serious offense.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"There are instances when lies are justifiable". Like when parents tell their children that Santa Claus exists?

[Pistias]

Sounds like bait to me, but f%&* it...personally I think Santa is a bad myth to tell kids--it makes them think their parents are liars, promotes pagan worship, and for what?

...relevance, or was that humor?

[uncbob]

I think Santa is a bad myth to tell kids

Santa is gettin kids ready for Communism
Guy wears a RED SUIT
Sees you when you sleeping and awake
Keeps a list of who's naughy and nice
Gives handouts without paying for them

[Pistias]

Da, comrade! Merry Christmas from the Kremlin! (ever notice how funny that place looks? elves!)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

It's an interesting case because most people don't even recognized it as a lie, but all the elements are there: (1) it's false; (2) they know it's false; and (3) they say it with the intention that their children believe them. That last point is the key one.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Actually, the story is that he brings presents to _good_ children. Turns out that Jewish and Muslim kids are never good. Chrisitian kids from rich families on the other hand, turn out to be _very_ good ;-)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Isn't Tom Delay the guy who wanted to spend Billions on pork for his District and hold up the President's budget until he got it passed? Does the "average fat and happy" voter in your district remember that?

[TEXICAN II]

Mr. Sobran seems to argue to hard issues, issues which many in our society have long forgotten even exist. Such a condition brings constant violation of very nearly every rule of law, principle of religion, and even common sense itself. As individuals and as a society, we have ceased to examine issues and actions. Indeed, Mr. Sobran has become a common target, of what I regard as a mob, simply because he has the audacity to raise an issue.

I gained a certain perception of 'mob' from the text by Jose Ortega Y Gasset-The Revolt of the Masses. This man described the historical transition of society from one of a more fixed and layered structure, accepted, willingly employed, and appreciated for its inherent value and utility by all, to our current circumstance where rabble ( fools with no credentials beyond their mere existance ) presume a position beyond their capacities. Certain consequences ensue, & thus this man wrote a short text on the obvious. This extreme turn has been in process for so long now, its results very nearly cease to shock anyone. Indeed, those who point to the issue are regarded as strange-which is another of Mr. Gasset's consequences. So recently has society turned this corner completely, that we must be reminded that even a recent major civil rights leader ( circa 1965? ) admonished his followers in the midst of one of his most famous speeches, to respect societal structure by accepting the 'work ethic', and the desired rewards would come faster than they realized, with fewer negative consequences.

The consequences of these changes which gain my attention have become the ends of all modern government and are the irreversable and complete control of our society and total taxation of every economic event-but that is a distraction from the article above.

I think the import of this article is simply that, when lying by governmental officials becomes the rule ( and it does seem to have become pervasive ), we have a very real problem. One of a magnitude which is beyond the normal scope of the rules of governmental procedures. That would have very great implications-all bad.

[TEXICAN II]

Sir, or Madame, I do not quarrel with your colorful illustration, but I do wish to thank you for illustrating my contention that Libertarians seem to have a certain fixation on sexual acts. I know not from whence they come, but curiously, they seem want to view & discuss many issues in these terms. Of course, I may jump to this point too easily-one of the subjects whom you discuss was either engaged in some liason of either espionage, influence peddling or one of a sexual nature, every waking moment. So you have only focused on one third of his activities. Perhaps I should apologize & withdraw my observation, but on the otherhand...

[TEXICAN II]

Your #16 illustrates, I think, a certain dismissivness if not outright hostility to Christianity, which I find occasionaly in the strict libertarian-and you make a very incorrect remark for one who is labeled 'consistent'.

Jews constantly strive to follow strict rules ( the Orthodox are renowned for this ), require this of their children every moment of every day, and frequently reward them. Jewish children are thus, expected to be very good. Moslems are said to do so, and I suspect they also hew to common traits of human nature, but I have never paid much attention to their habits, and owing to recent events, I have even less interest in 'learning' about their culture.

The gifts, when they appear excessive, and the materialism, are bad in result, but are I think, more a sign of modern societal trends than they are indicative of traits of certain religions. Thus I do quarrel with the object of your humor. In fact, I think you are in search of such a target and streach to facilitate an attack. This leads me to have much less interest in what you have to say.