![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 23:01:33
alexandra,
you know my love of paradox. i have extracted one from the current u.s. legal situation, or so i think.
on this matter i defer to an eminist U.S. jurist. you can see her credentials.
the paradox is that of an investigation which, if successful, will undermine national security. and yet the charge brought against the defendant in the case (Libby) is that of perjury and obstruction of justice in the conduct of an investigation into an alleged breach of national security, which is being pursued because the breach endangers national security.
I congratulate our Administration in confronting us with a situation that will make Philosophy 101 intersting again.
would dennett say that we are kludged together and so tolerate logical fuzziness? but is not this a matter that is difficult to kludge?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/10/devil-in-details-cia-leak-case.php
this jurist is quite well credentialed and knows how the executive branch operates, as you can see by her resume.
now if this were fictional it would find its way into my favorite book, "Pardoxes from A to Z" (I took my name from Zeno's paradox, and indeed feel like a tortoise trying to catch Achilles in figuring all this out).
is dennett right? as kludges can we hold ourselves together?
or am i being paranoid? but if so i have excellent references.
or if it is a mere paradox, and the case is a ruckus over nothing, it nonetheless is interesting to consider a fictional government faced with such a dilemma.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 18:23:35
In reply to the perils of paradox, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 23:01:33
hmm.
is it more of an inconsistent standard than a paradox?
Posted by zeugma on November 2, 2005, at 18:54:30
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 18:23:35
> hmm.
>
> is it more of an inconsistent standard than a paradox?i dont think so.
the investigation is such that it jeopardizes national security by revealing classified information.
and the crime itself was to strip the CIA of its power by outing an operative whose importance must remain unknown.
i don't see an inconsistent standard.
i see a problem. prosecuting will bring even more of the CIA's secrets to lights, by making cheney et al. testify. that can hardly be desirable for the CIA.
and yet letting the bush admin off the hook shows that the admin is beyond the reach of the law, they can even jeopardize national security and it doesnt matter.
we do not and cannot know the extent to which security has been compromised.
we do not and cannot know how much further an investigation would compromise national securty- because for cheney to say what, where, and when they knew what they knew, unless there is to be a secret trial-which i cannot imagine- further strips the CIA of necessary secrecy.
where is the inconsistent standard? i dont think the jurist was complaining about an inconsistent standard, but about the risks the bush admin placed the american people in, and about the even greater risks invoved in a thorough investigation.
and yet to be less then thorough leaves room for even greater breaches.
i do not think this case will be determined by trial. but i do think it will be resolved.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 2, 2005, at 20:29:21
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 2, 2005, at 18:54:30
i thought i knew everything last night.
now i know that i did not know.
the awful daring of a moment's surrender
which an age of prudence can never retractsleep deprivation
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 4:00:18
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 2, 2005, at 18:54:30
Ah. I haven't been watching the news over the last couple of weeks I'm afraid. I don't really know what is happening...
Posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 22:59:47
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 4:00:18
well it resembles some kind of paradox of deterrence.
if you can only deter an enemy (White House) by sincerely threatening retaliation (bringing all kinds of classified attention to light that may indict high officials) which you know you will not want to carry out, since it will then be pointless and self-destructive (because release of said information compromises the CIA even further), you will not be able to form the intention to retaliate because you know you won't fulfill it.
from "Paradoxes from A to Z" by Michael Clark
I suggest the defense strategy relies on this paradox, making the investigation toothless because it will compromise national security.
it has some elements of prisoners' dillema as well
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:20:08
In reply to the paradox of deterrence, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 22:59:47
although i am reviving a moribund thread, i would be remiss in neglecting an article that explains better than I could the inner workings of this paradox. I believe that present events having to do with the rather frequent leaks these days having to do with the present administration and the CIA are a variation on this theme, inasmuch as no country can function as a house divided (as Lincoln put it).
It goes without whose moral stature I consider superior, when comparing Nixon with the present figure in the position. I weep for what has happened to my country.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:30:02
In reply to Re: the paradox of deterrence (cont.), posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:20:08
sorry if what i am writing isn't clear to anyone, all i am trying to say is that we in the U.S. have a government that has been behaving very strangely for the last five years. And this is not the place to spell it out.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:33:07
In reply to the perils of paradox, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 23:01:33
i urge anyone curious enough to bother with these posts to read the article by Sandra Jordan. She spells it out beautifully.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:34:23
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox(cont.), posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:33:07
article referenced in the first post of thread (time to go to sleep).
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 17:37:23
In reply to Re: the perils of paradox(cont.), posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:34:23
oh zeugma, i'm sorry.
i'll admit...
i didn't understand what you were talking about
(didn't know the political situation or the paradox)
but i'm sorry i just didn't respond.i have to work...
but i promise you...
i shall read the link
re-read your posts
and try and say something sensible in the next month.sorry...
Posted by zeugma on November 26, 2005, at 21:06:29
In reply to Re: ((((((zeugma))))))), posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 17:37:23
no apologies needed.
i tend to get too worked up and then i can't coherently explain anything.
the CIA brought an investigation into the outing of an operative by Libby two years ago.
problem is that the trial may require that classified documents be declassified, in which case the CIA (and by extyension the nation) could be put in danger. cause these documents that chronicle white house transgressions likely will not only detail CIA wrongdoing, but also out our entire intelligence service.
my guess is that libby and the white house figured the CIA would not press an investigation too far lest it destroy itself as a working organization.
that is the paradox of deterrence: your weapon is so powerful it destroys everything and so can't be used rationally.
of course the white house is playing the same game by inviting its own set of indictments, but i will guess the investigation will hinge on how much classified information is to be released. the information may well cause criminal charges to be brought against the entire administration. but what is the likelihood of that?
I suppose it hinges on a lot of things none of us will know, unless it all comes out... well, enough of this conspiracy talk...
btw the British allege that Blair talked Bush out of bombing al Jazeera, that revelation (if true, and no reason to suppose it isn't) does not make me feel that current administration respects human life excessively. It is why I have been so troubled lately.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2005, at 1:18:01
In reply to Re: ((((((zeugma))))))) » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 26, 2005, at 21:06:29
> i tend to get too worked up and then i can't coherently explain anything.
Ah yes, I know that feeling rather well. I think... That is what I do at times too... In this case... I think it is my lack of knowledge. For example: who or what is Libby???
> the trial may require that classified documents be declassified, in which case the CIA (and by extyension the nation) could be put in danger.How is the nation put in danger?
>cause these documents that chronicle white house transgressions likely will not only detail CIA wrongdoing, but also out our entire intelligence service.
Oh. So the CIA and the entire intelligence service is in danger... But not the average joe, surely ;-)
> my guess is that libby and the white house figured the CIA would not press an investigation too far lest it destroy itself as a working organization.Ah.
> that is the paradox of deterrence: your weapon is so powerful it destroys everything and so can't be used rationally.Gottcha!
:-)Though :-( really, of course.
> of course the white house is playing the same game by inviting its own set of indictments, but i will guess the investigation will hinge on how much classified information is to be released. the information may well cause criminal charges to be brought against the entire administration. but what is the likelihood of that?
Not very
Not very
> btw the British allege that Blair talked Bush out of bombing al Jazeera, that revelation (if true, and no reason to suppose it isn't) does not make me feel that current administration respects human life excessively. It is why I have been so troubled lately.I understand.
I have been feeling pretty troubled about the current state of affairs in the world as well...
And in reading about wars / conflicts.
And in reading about Germany...
And a bit about the science / economic stuff that contributed to the Hitler situation...
And yeah, I actually...
Feel rather afraid too.I have been thinking...
I don't think politicians should be rich.
I think they should get an average salary.
Because if they are rich there is too much temptation for them to look out for them and their own.
If they are middle class then they are more likely to have their eye to there...
I worry when people buy their way into politics
When fame / money buys one political power
I worry about priorities of the people who are likely to be attracted to politics...
I think the majority of leaders...
Their priorities frighten me.
Economic growth over welfare of individuals
Etc etc.
But you get that the world over
Right through the history of the world
:-(
:-(
It frightens me.And politicians are supposed to be civil *servants* they are supposed to serve the interests of the *whole* population. and when the majority of the population is not very well off at all and thats not even on the agenda... well then something is very wrong IMO.
The main thing I have heard about why politicians need their high salaries and perks is that without that they would be too open to corruption and bribes.
In response I think... That their present high salaries and perks don't seem to help them resisting either corruption or bribes.
If someone does that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and dismissed in disgrace.
The other reason I have heard is that without the high salary incentive why would someone want to do it?
In response I would say - why do people become academics, or do volountary work for greenpeace or global policy forum or whatever? Because they genuinely want to help make a difference (some of them). Typically... People don't do those kinds of things for the money. They do them because of some kind of conscience... (except some peoples in academia but I think you get what i mean). it isn't like there is a shortage of people who know what they are on about.
So...
So there.
And maybe...
Those who are in it for the money / power would piss off back to their corporations...
And somebody who actually wants to help the majority of the population might do it just because they want to help.
Posted by zeugma on November 27, 2005, at 13:38:59
In reply to Re: ((((((zeugma))))))), posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2005, at 1:18:01
> > i tend to get too worked up and then i can't coherently explain anything.
>
> Ah yes, I know that feeling rather well. I think... That is what I do at times too... In this case... I think it is my lack of knowledge. For example: who or what is Libby???>>Libby was an aide of Vice President Cheney. When he was indicted for perjury by a probe initiated by the CIA to investigate the outing of a secret operative, Libby resigned.
>
> > the trial may require that classified documents be declassified, in which case the CIA (and by extyension the nation) could be put in danger.
>
> How is the nation put in danger?
>
I don't know. I don;t know what, if anything, the CIA is doing besides the things we read here all the time (secret prisons in Rumania and the like). I do know that the former head of the CIA division that was seeking to find bin Laden resigned in disgust and wrote a book, "Imperial Hubris", strongly denunciatory of bush Administration policies.
> >cause these documents that chronicle white house transgressions likely will not only detail CIA wrongdoing, but also out our entire intelligence service.
>
> Oh. So the CIA and the entire intelligence service is in danger... But not the average joe, surely ;-)
>
hopefully not. What current controversies here revolve around is that it seems the CIA told Bush that Saddam and bin Laden had nothing to do with one another, that Iraq had no WMD's, and that an invasion was baseless. When the CIA inspector (not a secret operative) who had gone to West Africa to examine the evidence that Saddam had procured uranium from there, as the Bush Administration alleged, his report was that none was found and that the only documents supporting the allegation were known forgeries. It is believed that the outing of his wife (who WAS a secret operative) was an attempt to get revenge on an organization that had failed to produce trumped-up evidence to help convince the American public that war with iraq is necessary.
hope this little bit of background works by way of clarification.-z
> > my guess is that libby and the white house figured the CIA would not press an investigation too far lest it destroy itself as a working organization.
>
> Ah.
>
> > that is the paradox of deterrence: your weapon is so powerful it destroys everything and so can't be used rationally.
>
> Gottcha!
> :-)
>
> Though :-( really, of course.
>
> > of course the white house is playing the same game by inviting its own set of indictments, but i will guess the investigation will hinge on how much classified information is to be released. the information may well cause criminal charges to be brought against the entire administration. but what is the likelihood of that?
>
> Not very
> Not very
>
> > btw the British allege that Blair talked Bush out of bombing al Jazeera, that revelation (if true, and no reason to suppose it isn't) does not make me feel that current administration respects human life excessively. It is why I have been so troubled lately.
>
> I understand.
> I have been feeling pretty troubled about the current state of affairs in the world as well...
> And in reading about wars / conflicts.
> And in reading about Germany...
> And a bit about the science / economic stuff that contributed to the Hitler situation...
> And yeah, I actually...
> Feel rather afraid too.
>
> I have been thinking...
> I don't think politicians should be rich.
> I think they should get an average salary.
> Because if they are rich there is too much temptation for them to look out for them and their own.
> If they are middle class then they are more likely to have their eye to there...
> I worry when people buy their way into politics
> When fame / money buys one political power
> I worry about priorities of the people who are likely to be attracted to politics...
> I think the majority of leaders...
> Their priorities frighten me.
> Economic growth over welfare of individuals
> Etc etc.
> But you get that the world over
> Right through the history of the world
> :-(
> :-(
> It frightens me.
>
> And politicians are supposed to be civil *servants* they are supposed to serve the interests of the *whole* population. and when the majority of the population is not very well off at all and thats not even on the agenda... well then something is very wrong IMO.
>
> The main thing I have heard about why politicians need their high salaries and perks is that without that they would be too open to corruption and bribes.
>
> In response I think... That their present high salaries and perks don't seem to help them resisting either corruption or bribes.
>
> If someone does that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and dismissed in disgrace.
>
> The other reason I have heard is that without the high salary incentive why would someone want to do it?
>
> In response I would say - why do people become academics, or do volountary work for greenpeace or global policy forum or whatever? Because they genuinely want to help make a difference (some of them). Typically... People don't do those kinds of things for the money. They do them because of some kind of conscience... (except some peoples in academia but I think you get what i mean). it isn't like there is a shortage of people who know what they are on about.
>
> So...
>
> So there.
>
> And maybe...
>
> Those who are in it for the money / power would piss off back to their corporations...
> And somebody who actually wants to help the majority of the population might do it just because they want to help.
>
>
>
>
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Writing | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.