FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Dangerous Lack of Rigor

by BRIAN J. FOLEY

Two recent events reveal the lack of rigor that has come to pervade our public sphere: the failure of the UN (or anybody else) to question seriously the case for war against Iran, and the first presidential “debate.”

At its annual meeting, the UN General Assembly squandered an opportunity to invite U.S. and Israeli officials to produce their evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, and to substantiate their claims that if Iran builds a bomb, it presents a threat to world peace and security that cannot be “contained.”  As I’ve written here, such a process would be easy to set up in the UN or Congress. Indeed, any country could host such a tribunal.

Instead, the world slouches toward a replay of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The case against Iraq was built on flimsy and fraudulent evidence. That’s common knowledge – now.  But it could have been common knowledge then if the case against Iraq had been tested rigorously beforehand.

What’s painfully missing in our public discourse is cross-examination.  Lawyers have long agreed with jurist John Henry Wigmore’s assessment: “Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” Indeed, a criminal defendant’s right to cross-examine witnesses against him is enshrined in the Constitution.  In cross-examination, the questioner can probe where the facts came from and whether they’re built on faulty perceptions, mistaken memory, flawed methodology, untamed ambiguity, bias, or outright lies. The questioner can pin down a person’s position, clarify ambiguities, expose inconsistencies and logical flaws.  People are cross-examined every day in countless minor court cases across America, yet we routinely fail to cross-examine officials who claim it’s necessary to send U.S. troops to their deaths, kill and maim thousands of innocent people, and spend billions of dollars. We apply more rigor to a restaurant’s application for a liquor license than to a President’s war cries.

Had then-Secretary of State Colin Powell been cross-examined during his now-infamous February 5, 2003 presentation to the Security Council– a presentation mainstream U.S. media patsies reported as convincing  – the U.S. case would have been exposed as built on coerced confessions, lies, illogic, forged evidence, fear-mongering, and an interest in stealing Iraq’s oil.  Support for the war would have eroded. It’s shocking that such inquiry isn’t required by law, given U.S. leaders’ track record of defrauding Americans into war.

The U.S. case against Iran appears at least as flimsy – if not an out-and-out con job  – as its case against Iraq.  The UN, Congress, and corporate media’s failure to examine it is unconscionable.  It’s not as if no one knows this is a problem.  The New York Times and Washington Post actually issued mea culpas in 2004 for failing to ask rigorous questions about the U.S case against Iraq. No lesson was learned, apparently.  Instead of questioning the case against Iran, U.S. corporate media appear to be helping the Obama Administration make its case for war.

A brief example: On this year’s anniversary of 9/11, the Associated Press treated readers to an “exclusive” story that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees inspections under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), had “received” new intelligence about Iran’s bomb-building, from the U.S., Israel, and “at least two other Western countries.”  (George Jahn, “AP Exclusive: New Intelligence on Iran Nuke Work”)  The AP’s sources: six anonymous diplomats.  Anonymous diplomats? Really? This was newsworthy only in that it revealed a patent, comically cynical attempt to manipulate a public already over-manipulated with 9/11 remembrances into supporting a war.

A lack of rigor also pervaded the October 3 presidential “debate.”  These debates follow a format negotiated by the candidates with the business-funded Commission on Presidential Debates.  Not surprisingly, the debates are set up to avoid serious questioning – there’s no cross-examination! You can’t be on a college, or even high school, debate team if you refuse to submit to cross-examination, but you can rule the most powerful and destructive country in the world.

It’s a sign of our lame-brained, select-a-fact times that our leaders never have to face serious questioning, even when they threaten to get us into another war. Maybe that’s what it means to run the country as a business: empty-suited CEOs drive their companies over cliffs while espousing platitudes to angry, scared – and silent – employees. But we’re still a country, not a company. We must question authority.  If we don’t, history’s judgment will be against us.

Brian J. Foley is a law professor. Email him at Brian_J_Foley@yahoo.com  See his blog  Lawpaganda.

 

Clearance Sale of Vintage
CounterPunch T-Shirts!

We’ve marked down some of CounterPunch’s most popular t-shirts to only$8.00,including the CP shirt featuring Alexander Cockburn’s own scrawl.


Brian J. Foley is a lawyer and the author of A New Financial You in 28 Days! A 37-Day Plan (Gegensatz Press). Contact him at brian_j_foley@yahoo.com.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 28, 2017
Andrew Moss
Why ICE Raids Imperil Us All
March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
Binoy Kampmark
Cyclone Watch in Australia
Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
Lawrence Davidson
Moral Failure at the UN
Pete Dolack
World Bank Declares Itself Above the Law
Nicola Perugini - Neve Gordon
Israel’s Human Rights Spies
Patrick Cockburn
From Paris to London: Another City, Another Attack
Ralph Nader
Reason and Justice Address Realities
Ramzy Baroud
‘Decolonizing the Mind’: Using Hollywood Celebrities to Validate Islam
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto in India: The Sacred and the Profane
Louisa Willcox
Grizzlies Under the Endangered Species Act: How Have They Fared?
Norman Pollack
Militarization of American Fascism: Trump the Usurper
Pepe Escobar
North Korea: The Real Serious Options on the Table
Brian Cloughley
“These Things Are Done”: Eavesdropping on Trump
Sheldon Richman
You Can’t Blame Trump’s Military Budget on NATO
Carol Wolman
Trump vs the People: a Psychiatrist’s Analysis
Stanley L. Cohen
The White House . . . Denial and Cover-ups
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail