The Duty of Lying
February 28, 2002

by Joe Sobran

     Wartime always brings expansions of state power, 
together with erosions of moral and constitutional 
standards. No sooner had the 9/11 attacks occurred than 
the Federal Government started assuming new powers and 
abridging old freedoms in the name of national security. 
And voices in the press were quick not only to defend 
these measures, but to call for even more of them.

     Last fall an essay in the WALL STREET JOURNAL 
pointed out that Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow 
Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt had, during wartime, 
grossly violated the Constitution they were sworn to 
uphold. Was the author warning that a new war might also 
endanger constitutional law? No! On the contrary, he was 
arguing that the "war on terrorism" might also justify 
violations of the Constitution like those of these three 
"great" presidents. Past violations serve as precedents 
for new violations.

     Of course this begs the question by assuming that a 
president who disregards his oath of office can deserve 
to be called "great." From a constitutional point of 
view, by the measures of limited government, personal 
freedom, and the rule of law, Lincoln, Wilson, and 
Roosevelt were our three worst presidents.

     Oddly enough, the arguments for lower moral and 
constitutional standards in wartime are coming not from 
the liberal and socialist media, but from the allegedly 
"conservative" press, which you might expect to defend 
the Constitution, the rule of law, and basic morality. 
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has all but endorsed the use of 
torture against enemies -- not just to extract 
information, but to inflict punishment. NATIONAL REVIEW 
has run several articles calling for toppling foreign 
governments and for assassinating foreign rulers.

     Now the JOURNAL has weighed in again with a piece by 
Joseph E. Persico arguing the merits of government lying 
during wartime. He offers as a model the lies Roosevelt 
used against Germany during World War II. Persico plays 
down the fact that Roosevelt didn't just plant lies to 
fool the Germans during the war; he lied to Americans to 
draw them into the war in the first place! His first lie 
was his oath of office, which he never intended to honor. 
And he never stopped lying.

     Not that Persico seems to mind; he thinks lying in 
whatever he deems a good cause is a positive virtue. 
Another of his heroic liars is Winston Churchill, who 
forged documents to convince Roosevelt that the Germans 
had designs in the Western Hemisphere. He even supplied 
"proof" that "the Germans already had 5,000 troops in 
Brazil poised to threaten the Panama Canal."

     "It was all a tissue of lies fabricated by the 
British," Persico writes. "But Roosevelt was not about to 
scrutinize to death intelligence that would help him lead 
American public opinion along the course he wanted, war 
against Germany." Roosevelt cited this "intelligence" in 
his speeches and fireside chats. These lies were welcome 
to his ears, and he gladly relayed them to Americans who 
trusted their president to tell them the truth. After 
all, their lives and their sons' lives were at stake.

     In retrospect, and after six decades, you might 
think people would draw the lesson that "democracy" and 
"self-government" are meaningless if government officials 
can deceive the electorate in such vital matters. After 
all, aren't "We the People" supposed to be making the big 
decisions, on the basis of accurate information?

     Maybe honorable people do draw this lesson. But the 
lesson drawn by the WALL STREET JOURNAL is just the 
opposite: that lying to the public can be a legitimate 
and desirable government policy -- even a governmental 
duty.

     And if lying to the public -- in a good cause, of 
course -- can be a right and duty of government, may it 
not also be a right and duty of journalists? Isn't it the 
patriotic duty of journalists to support and if possible 
assist their government in wartime?

     Last week we learned that a  JOURNAL reporter had 
been horribly murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. This 
was a shocking violation of the immunity journalists are 
traditionally entitled to as noncombatants whose role is 
to report facts honestly and impartially. Is it possible 
that the killers of Daniel Pearl saw him not as a 
noncombatant, but as an active agent of the U.S. 
Government?  Nothing can excuse or justify such savagery, 
but compromising the neutrality of journalists could 
furnish it with a deadly pretext.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/020228.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2002 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not 
be published in print or Internet publications 
without express permission of Griffin Internet 
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested 
individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."