LOGICAL FALLACY OF THE WEEK
From Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies: This week’s logical fallacy is the
second of four Fallacies of Distraction. The fallacy is ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. This is a special case of the fallacy of False Dilemma (see vol. II, no. 23). It assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false. “Lack of proof is not proof,” according to one expert on logic.
Examples:
· Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
(Editor’s Note: The following examples of an “Argument from Ignorance” are offered by The Compass Society Newsletter and are not those offered by Stephen Downes, author of “Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies.”)
· Since my religious belief system cannot be disproven by the scientific method, I am free to claim that my belief system is a scientific theory and is just as true as Darwin’s scientifically proven theory of evolution.
· Since we only see some evidence of global warming, and have not proven it to the satisfaction of everyone, it must not be happening.
Proof: Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true (or false) even though we don’t know whether it is or not.
(Editor’s Note: You can find the full list of Stephen Downes’ logical fallacies by going to www.intrepidsoftware.com and click on “logical fallacies,” then click on “How to Use This Guide,” then click on “Next” at the end of the guide. These steps take you a “Table of Contents” that lists all of the logical fallacies presented here.)
TORTURE AND ABUSE IS OUR OFFICIAL POLICY
From the editor: The Oct. 25 issue of The New York Times reported that the White House is “insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.”
In a by-line story by Eric Schmitt, the Times said, “…in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday (Oct. 20), Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.”
The McCain provision would ban the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” of any detainee held by the United States government.
The Times reports, “Mr. McCain rejected the proposed White
House exemption, which stated that the measure ‘shall not apply with respect
to clandestine counterterrorism operations operations conducted abroad, with
respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are
carried out by an element of the United States government other than the
Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the
president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the
United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.’”
The proposed wording of the amendment tries to make it sound like the exemption would be consistent with “the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party.” On the contrary, it is saying that our Constitutional protections such as due process and treaties such as the Geneva Convention Accords “shall not apply.” The wording “an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense” presumably is doublespeak which refers to the C.I.A.
According to the Times story, “The White House has threatened to veto any bill that includes the McCain provision, contending that it would bind the president’s hands in wartime.”
“The matter will probably be settled in a private meeting in the next week or two among four senior lawmakers: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative C.W. Bill Young of Florid, both Republicans; and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, both Democrates,” according to the Times.
EDITOR’S CALL FOR ACTION: As a Vietnam War veteran, I urge voters to contact these Senators and Representatives to let them know that such a policy places our combat soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in danger of being tortured should they be unfortunate enough to be captured by insurgents in those countries. In addition, such a policy is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and our own Constitution. It is an insane policy and does not result in “actionable” intelligence. It only serves to place our own troops--and our country--in even more danger of retaliation by terrorists.
Also on the subject of torture and abuse of detainees, A new book by Col. Janis Karpinski (recently demoted from Brig. General) entitled, “One Woman’s Army,” details how an official policy of torture was transferred from our prison facility at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq by Major General Geoffrey Miller and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Col. Karpinski is the only high-ranking army officer to be disciplined in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, and, ironically, is the only high-ranking officer who had no authority to counter the direct orders that allowed prisoner abuse and continues to allow it in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Appearing on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” broadcast on Tuesday, Oct. 25, she implicated her superior officers such as General Sanchez as well as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who wrote the original memo that made a psuedo-legal argument for the use of torture during interrogation of prisoners.
THE NEW YORK TIMES “MESS”
From the editor: Following are excerpts from a remarkable series of articles published during the last two weeks by The New York Times on the reporting of Judith Miller and the extraordinary lack of oversight of her reporting by the publisher and editors of the newspaper. In our view, the articles document how much the leadership of The New York Times was willing to look the other way in return for Judith Miller’s unprecedented access to the White House inner circles during the run-up, invasion, and aftermath of the war in Iraq. The articles also strip away, and properly so, Miller’s attempt to depict herself as a journalism martyr and reveal her as an opportunistic mouthpiece of Bush Administration propaganda—especially on the primary justification for the war in Iraq—the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Judith Miller on her confidential source, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Judith Miller writing about her four hours of testifying to the Grand Jury on the Valerie Plame leak in an article appearing Oct. 16:
“On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name “Valerie Flame.” Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.”
“When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a ‘former Hill staffer.’ I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill. Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don’t recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson”
“During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment ‘embedded’ with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.”
Ms. Miller testified to 3 confidential conversations with Libby: June 23, July 8, and July 12, 2003, two days before Robert Novak’s column identifying Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.
The Miller Case (NY Times Reporters on Judith Miller’s Story): A triple by-line story written by Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak, and Clifford J. Levy that also appeared Oct. 16:
“But Mr. Sulzberger (NY Times Publisher) and the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller’s conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not know review Ms. Miller’s notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the “Valerie Flame” notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday (Oct. 13).”
“Interviews show that the paper’s leaders, in taking what they considered a principled stand (on the issue of protecting confidential sources), ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.”
“This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk (of going to jail),” Mr. Sulzberger said.
“In the year after Mr. Engelberg (Miller’s editor at the Times for six years) left the paper in 2002,…Ms. Miller operated with a degree of autonomy rare at The Times.”
“Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as the investigative editor, said that Ms. Miller once called herself, ‘Miss Run Amok.’ I said, ‘What does that mean?’ said Mr. Frantz, who was recently appointed managing editor at The Los Angeles Times. ‘And she said, ‘I can do whatever I want.’”
“On July 30, 2003, Mr. Keller became executive editor after his predecessor, Howell Raines, was dismissed after a fabrication scandal involving a young reporter named Jayson Blair.”
“Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, ‘she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm.’”
“Although criticism of Ms. Miller’s Iraq coverage mounted, Mr. Keller waited until May 26, 2004, to publish an editor’s note that criticized some of the paper’s coverage of the run-up to the war.”
“Ms. Miller said she was proud of her journalism career, including her work on Al Qaeda, biological warfare and Islamic militancy. But she acknowledged serious flaws in her articles on Iraqi weapons.”
“’W.M.D.—I got it totally wrong,’ she said. ‘The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them—we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job I could.’”
Bill Keller on the Miller Case: In an email to The Times Public Editor Byron Calame, Executive Editor Keller commented on Lessons Learned. The email was also disseminated to The Times staff on Oct. 21, 2005.
“First, I wish I had dealt with the controversy over our coverage of WMD first thing upon becoming executive editor. At the time, I thought I had compelling reasons for kicking the issue down the road. The paper had just been through a major trauma, the Jason Blair episode, and needed to regain its equilibrium.”
“Second, I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the leak investigation I had sat her down for a thorough debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own….As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman (The Times Washington bureau chief) about the extent of her involvement. This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.”
“Third, when the appeals court (including one judge regarded as a friend of press freedom) unanimously rejected our case and it was clear we were going to lose in the Supreme Court, I wish I had tried to throw my weight behind a search for compromise (to keep Miller out of jail and protecting a confidential source).”
Miller in Response to Keller’s Email: “Bill, I wish you had spoken to me before accusing me of misleading Phil Taubman and of being entangled with Libby in your message to the staff….I know how important it is for the paper to protect its reputation, but I have my reputation to protect also.
Byron Calame on the Keller/Miller emails: Calame, The Times Public Editor, reported on Oct. 23. “Mr. Keller is right. The paper should have addressed the problems of the coverage (of WMDs) sooner. It is the duty of the paper to be straight with its readers, and whatever the management reason was for not doing so, the readers didn’t get a fair shake. One ethical problem emerged when Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, asked Ms. Miller if she had pursued an article about Valerie Plame, the C.I.A. operative, or her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Ms. Miller said in an interview for the retrospective that she “made a strong recommendation to my editor” that a story be pursued. ‘I was told no.’” But Jill Abramson, the Washington bureau chief in 2003, said Miller never asked to pursue such an article.
Comments