[3029] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The issue is near-perjury by high ranking U.S. government off icials.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Blaze)
Tue Jul 21 14:33:09 1998
To: perry@piermont.com
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:40:32 EDT."
<199807211640.MAA09604@jekyll.piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:22:25 -0400
From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
>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.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure where the purjury line is, but
the vast majority of congressional testimony isn't given under oath.
I've testified two or three times (depending on how you count), and
never been sworn in. Most hearings (probably including those from which
the quotes in the EFF FAQ were taken) are more like technical presentations
or position statements to help the members decide how to vote (at least
in theory - the cynic might say it's to create the impression of fairness
and openness). It is the rare exception where witnesses are sworn in,
and rarer still that a committee even has the power to force testimony.
Of course, this does not mean that the public should tolerate public
officials who lie or provide misleading data to our lawmakers, regardless
of whether they commit a crime in doing so.
-matt
>
>> 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
