[ExI] plamegate: the plot thickens

[Richard Loosemore]

spike wrote:
> 
> spike wrote:
>> ...  Can anyone suggest a context out of which the
>> sworn testimony "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," would
>> agree with the three paragraphs of the memo...
> 
> 
> Spike,
> 
> ...
> 
>> I am sure the same import could be found with various other wordings and 
> pieces of missing context, without having to hypthesize an edit of 
> Plame's memo itself.
> ...
>> "The letter alleging Niger's attempts to purchase uranium, although 
> probably a fake, is serious enough that we need someone on the ground to 
> nail down as much hard information as possible.  ...
> 
> Richard Loosemore.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, Richard.  The judge in the case *disallowed* almost all
> classified documents to be entered into evidence, perhaps reasoning that it
> would be too advantageous to the defense, who have access to all the
> classified documents.  The prosecution would have access to only that which
> was released by the security personnel.  The defense did in fact argue that
> the evidence needed was not seen.  Introducing the documents with pieces
> missing allows the jury to fill in with their imagination.
> 
> Even still, the memo reveals that Plame is Wilson's wife and that she works
> at the CIA.  Libby testified he did not recall who he heard that from.  The
> jury thought that a lie.  Well now we see there was a memo well before
> anything happened, so a lot of people could have known, including reporters.
> 
> Notice the similarity to Keith Henson's case.  The judge disallowed the
> critical defense witnesses, such that it came down to having the jury decide
> if Keith did in fact scare the church leaders, based on the church leaders'
> action of hiring private detectives to watch him 24/7 at great expense (to
> see if he had a cruise missile in his Palo Alto home we must suppose.)  So
> the church leaders bought the evidence with which to convict him.
> 
> We have here two clear cases where the courts are being used for something
> other than what they are intended, as dealing out political punishment.
> 
> spike

Spike,

Respectful of your position here, but I have to say that I apply my own 
understanding of cognitve science/psychology and AI to political 
questions such as this one, and so here is how I stand on the situation:

The most important thing to do in cases like this is to evaluate the 
sheer number of constraints that come to bear on the situation.  (This 
is a deep truth about how the mind works, hence my reference to 
psychology etc).

What that means, here, is that we need to look at Libby's actions and 
statements, and the context on which they sit:  he was not convicted of 
making one single, isolated statement that was false.  [Yes, 
*technically* he was, but the purpose of a court is to evaluate single, 
isolated transgressions in their context, even when all that stuff in 
the context consists of pieces that cannot separately lead to lots of 
little convictions].  He was convicted of making a false statement in 
the context of a situation that screamed of massive deception by himself 
and many others.  The "massive deception" could never, as I say, be 
evaluated and proved in toto, but it is there, and to anyone looking at 
that context his false statement was clearly part of a larger picture.

Turning now to Plame.  Her "false" statement was completely isolated, 
with very little impact or relation to the context.  It was not part of 
any larger pattern, by any stretch of the imagination:  it was not 
constrained by large numbers of little indications that pointed to 
massive, systematic deception in order to avoid conviction for what 
looked like a crime.

In blunt terms:  everything pointed to the fact that Libby lied about 
many things, lied deliberately, and lied to cover up a crime.  None of 
these things (to repeat myself again) could separately lead to a 
conviction, but the jury had to try to understand his remark in context. 
  On the other hand, nothing pointed to the fact that Plame lied except 
one email that could have other interpretations, nothing indicates that 
she lied deliberately, and she did not appear to be covering up anything 
larger.

This, I think, is why the scales are not equal.  Plame deserves the 
benefit of the doubt:  Libby does not.  The only thing that tells us 
this is the complete context, not the two tiny facts taken in isolation.

Sadly, I also see the analogy to Keith Henson differently, and in a 
quite massive way.  The Libby case was the tip of an iceberg that was 
analogous to the massive use of money, power and influence by a powerful 
force to crush two individuals (Wilson and Plame-Wilson) who were 
standing in the way of an attempt to start an unjustified war.  Keith is 
similarly the victim of money, power and influence by a powerful force 
trying to crush him.

With respect,



Richard Loosemore.