The sentence quoted above illustrates for me in a poignant way what I consider to be one of the major flaws in the way our government is currently being run. If an informant on whose intelligence the decision to go to war may rest fails a lie detector test, I don’t think the appropriate reaction is to go looking for ways to justify ignoring the polygraph result. That is what a lawyer would do ("It’s not what’s true, it’s what you can prove"). Instead, I believe that our government officials have a duty to do everything they can to determine whether the informant is actually lying or not.
As a litigator, I have spent a fair amount of time looking through evidence—not in a search for the truth, but in a search for a “colorable argument”. That is my job—to find and make the best, non-frivolous arguments in support of my clients’ position. It is my job to do that even when I personally may not be persuaded that such an argument, if accepted, will lead to the truth, or even to the right result.
I submit that this is NOT the job of our government. Our government is (or is meant to be) a participatory democracy, not an adversarial system. Especially where national security is at stake, the focus should absolutely be on a search for the TRUTH, not on finding “colorable arguments” to support the administration’s position or goals.
Bush, et al have been at the vanguard of a conservatism that prides itself on a manicheist approach to issues, most notably the categorization of virtually everything as either Good or Evil. This is hardly a realistic or useful approach, and it is unfortunate that so many are attracted to its superficial simplicity (but then, look at the popularity of the Atkins diet). What is most pernicious is that these “compassionate conservatives” do not even act consistently with their oft-asserted world-view, precisely when it is perhaps most important to draw bright lines. Either Red River was lying, or he was telling the truth. Looking for a “false positive” rather than searching for the truth smacks of moral relativism and—gasp!—postmodernism. What are they, liberals?
Seriously, to the extent that the “search for truth” has any meaning left, it should be heavily apportioned to our government. Not only is there far more at stake here than in the average litigation, but the systematic and institutional protections (such as they are) that exist in our adversary system of litigation are not present in the operation of the federal government.
One of the more positive (if frustrating) themes I see forming in the Kerry-Edwards campaign is a desire to focus on policy and government over criticizing the outgoing administration, despite the bountiful political fodder there. Let’s hope its more than mere lip service.
Read Less...
Red River may have lied -- But can you prove it?
