Dec 8, 2004

Looking for the truth.

by Cliopatria

HNN’s editor-in-chief, Rick Shenkman, posted a productively disconcerting entry on his blog POTUS on December 7. He starts with a discussion of the potential reliability of George Tenet’s memoirs. He then moves on to a fascinating anecdote concerning H.R. Halderman’s memoirs. What is truth indeed.

In today’s Washington Post, there’s a good article on that large scale arson job on a housing development in Maryland the other day.

Is it eco-terrorism? Could be. The development placed a wetland at risk. Racism? Also a possibility. The development would extend a largely African-American neighborhood.

Or maybe someone just likes to set fires. Lacking further evidence, the investigators are going to have a tough time.

One troubling thing. The article suggests that if it is eco-terrorism, the FBI takes over. The implication is that other motives don’t merit such attention. Why not? Here’s another example of the hate-crime mentality toward law, in which the depravity of a crime is determined not by the act, nor even by the intent behind the act, but by the motive that drives the intent.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Maarja Krusten - 12/10/2004

Personally, as an historian, I find records far more reliable than lore. Memoirs are fine to read but tricky as a source of evidence. Let's face it, an official writing his memoirs is no different than any of your acquaintances who recouts to you the reasons for a marital split or departure from a job. People are people. You're going to hear the person's spin on things and rarely is an individual going to be candid enough to delve deeply into his or her own errors or misjudgments. Occasionally, an official rises above this and produces memoirs which stand up well to the later release of contemporaenous arecords.

I'm generally disappointed in the fact that so few historians take an interest in the release of documents or in archival matters. The silence in the historical community implies, perhaps wrongly, that historians don't care what goes into the painstaking release of government evidence. Too many of them act as the records magically release themselves, in a neat and tidy process. Having worked at the National Archives with some of its most sensitive records, I know this is not the case. There is plenty of written evidence of the problems--and numerous people available to be interviewed about them--but for reasons that are a mystery to me, no historian has looked into archival challenges and crises.

Personally, I view the work of an historian as similar to the work of an auditor. Consider the auditing standards available at http://www.gao.gov/govaud/yb/2003/html/chap75.html#1035029. Of particular interest are the criteria for assessing evidence:

"Tests of Evidence
7.52 Evidence should be sufficient, competent, and relevant to support a sound basis for audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations:

a. Evidence should be sufficient to support the auditors’ findings. In determining the sufficiency of evidence, auditors should ensure that enough evidence exists to persuade a knowledgeable person of the validity of the findings. When appropriate, statistical methods may be used to establish sufficiency.

b. Evidence is competent if it is valid, reliable, and consistent with fact. In assessing the competence of evidence, auditors should consider such factors as whether the evidence is accurate, authoritative, timely, and authentic. When appropriate, auditors may use statistical methods to derive competent evidence.

c. Evidence is relevant if it has a logical relationship with, and importance to, the issue being addressed.

7.53 The following presumptions are useful in judging the competence of evidence. However, these presumptions are not to be considered sufficient in themselves to determine competence. The amount and kinds of evidence required to support auditors’ conclusions should be based on auditors’ professional judgment.

a. Evidence obtained when internal controls are effective is more competent than evidence obtained when controls are weak or nonexistent. Auditors should be particularly careful in cases where controls are weak or nonexistent and should, therefore, plan alternative audit procedures to corroborate such evidence.

b. Evidence obtained through the auditors’ direct physical examination, observation, computation, and inspection is more competent than evidence obtained indirectly.

c. Examination of original documents provides more competent evidence than do copies.

d. Testimonial evidence obtained under conditions where persons may speak freely is more competent than testimonial evidence obtained under compromising conditions (for example, where the persons may be intimidated).

e. Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is not biased or has complete knowledge about the area is more competent than testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is biased or has only partial knowledge about the area.

f. Evidence obtained from a credible third party may in some cases be more competent than that secured from management or other officials of the audited entity."

Maarja Krusten - 12/9/2004

Please see my recollections of converstions I had with Haldeman on the quality of his memoirs, as posted on POTUS.

Oscar Chamberlain - 12/8/2004

Good point Ralph. Federal law does limit the responses of federal officials. I was not blaming the FBI official in change who is following law and regulation.

I seem to remember that the Attorney General named eco-terrorism as one of a number of forms of terrorism requiring federal attention. But if I'm right, that raises a host of related questions: For example, is terrorism an act or an intent plus the act? And if the latter, who determines which intentions are terrorist ones?

I can actually make some arguments each way.

Jeremy Rich - 12/8/2004

I listened to the report of the fire on NPR this morning. If I was a smart lobbyist for the developers, then I would be throwing around the word "eco-terrorist" immediately to discredit possible protests against other developments in the area and to push the FBI to take an active role in the investigation.

I have no idea if this was the actual motive, of course. However, I do think the term of "eco-terror" is becoming a useful way of pushing through building projects and other things that might create opposition on ecological grounds. I know groups like the ELF are real, but I wonder how much mayhem they actually inspire in comparison to how much attention they receive.

Ralph E. Luker - 12/8/2004

Oscar, Isn't it the case that whether the FBI intercedes in a case depends on whether it is clear that a violation of federal law has occurred. I doubt that merely setting fire to some building necessarily violates federal law. Whether a violation of federal law has taken place would depend on other factors: what building it is, whether there is terroristic intent, etc. Otherwise, the investigation is the responsibility of state or local authorities. I don't see how you get around this unless you want to federalize all law enforcement authority.