[3027] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The issue is near-perjury by high ranking U.S. government off icials.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Tue Jul 21 13:07:06 1998
To: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
cc: Eric Young <eay@cryptsoft.com>, C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>,
Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>, John Lowry <jlowry@bbn.com>,
Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu>, gnu@toad.com,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, dcsb@ai.mit.edu, e$@vmeng.com,
cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:02:44 CDT."
<896C7C3540C3D111AB9F00805FA78CE2013F82D7@MSX11002>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:40:32 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
"Brown, R Ken" writes:
> "literally true though utterly misleading"
>
> In other words what we now call "spin doctoring" or, in previous eras
> of the world "public relations" or "advertising". Or as someone once
> said (was it about the Peter Wright trial?), being "economical with the
> truth".
>
> Isn't that how most people assume they talk anyway?
You are making it sound much better than it is.
When a Congressman questions a high ranking federal government
official under oath, and asks "did you know where X was on the day in
question", answering "I didn't see him that day" isn't acceptable when
you had a phone call from him telling you his whereabouts.
When asked if the Government could break a given code, an irrelevant
but literally true answer was given. This is the exact equivalent of
the evasion I noted before. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if
this is perjury. I suspect that it is not, but it is certainly
unacceptable even if legal.
> Most people will thinlk that evidence given to such a
> committee is self-serving, if not actually honest.
I don't.
What was done was a lie. Direct questions were answered in a way that,
although technically not perjury, was certainly very close to the
line.
When asked if particular codes could be broken, answers were given,
under oath, that were deliberately deceptive -- this done in an effort
to delude congress. I do not think that is acceptable in our society,
and if it is common, that is no excuse. If it is indeed an everyday
occurrence, that is a sign of the sick state of our democracy, not
something to be cheerfully laughed off.
Perhaps others find it acceptable for government officials to lie to
congress under oath, but I don't. I don't think that the bulk of the
American public finds this acceptable, either. Unsurprising, perhaps
-- but not *acceptable*.
Perry
