This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Lies

edited July 2007 in Politics
Steve said on this thread that "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. A lie requires knowledge that it is a lie." He said later that this idea was discussed in an earlier thread. I've looked, but I can't find it.

Many of my criminal clients (and quite a few of my divorce clients) would love it if this were so. Attorney General Gonzales would also be pleased. Sadly, this is most definitely NOT the case in court.

What do you think?
«1

Comments

  • Lying is the act of providing false information with the intent to mislead another person. Intent would indicate knowledge.

    If you provide false information without intent, that is not lying. It is ignorance. For example, if I tell you that Hannibal crossed the Alps sometime around 1800 AD, and I honestly believe it, I am an ignorant idiot. I'm not, however, lying.

    How is that not the case in court? My guess is that the only reason the courts uphold their strange definition of a lie is because they cannot prove or disprove that a person knows a piece of information.
  • edited July 2007
    Main Entry: lie
    Function: verb
    Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
    intransitive verb
    1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
    2 : to create a false or misleading impression
    I'm not sure how you can argue that the definition of the lie is based on the perceiver of the lie. The lie occurs when it is made, not when it is perceived as a lie.
    Post edited by cosmicenema on
  • I still say that the speaker must know that the statement is untrue for it to qualify as a lie.
  • I still say that the speaker must know that the statement is untrue for it to qualify as a lie.
    I think I misinterpreted hungryjoe's initial statement. I would agree with this statement but it seems somewhat moot. Lie or ignorance; there's a fine line in terms of intent, but the damage is likely the same.
  • edited July 2007
    Lying is the act of providing false information with the intent to mislead another person. Intent would indicate knowledge.

    If you provide false information without intent, that is not lying. It is ignorance. For example, if I tell you that Hannibal crossed the Alps sometime around 1800 AD, and I honestly believe it, I am an ignorant idiot. I'm not, however, lying.

    How is that not the case in court? My guess is that the only reason the courts uphold their strange definition of a lie is because they cannot prove or disprove that a person knows a piece of information.
    A mistake of fact is simply a mistake. A lie in court is a falsehood. If any evidence is allowed as to state of mind, he declarant's belief would be construed by a reasonable person standard. For instance, if I really, really believed that the kid was not my child in spite of the DNA test that says there's a 99.99999% chance that the kid IS my child, and then I testified in court that the kid was not my child, the Court would consider my statement a lie.

    Further, the fact finder can form it's own opinion about the credibility of the declarant. So, if someone says there are WMD's in Iraq when the WHOLE WORLD knows there are none, the fact-finder could find that the declarant was lying regardless of the declarant's belief.

    Take Gonzo's testimony - His testimony was contradicted by Goodling, Comey, FBI Director Mueller, Negroponte, members of Congress, his own previous testimony, and various documents. Regardless of Gonzo's belief, Congress can find that his statements were at least untruthful and probably outright lies.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • I still say that the speaker must know that the statement is untrue for it to qualify as a lie.
    Okay - I'm a Supreme Court Justice. Truth or lie?
  • Surely you must think there is a distinction between lying and making verifiably false statements?
  • TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY

    Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

    Whoever -
    (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
    or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
    authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
    declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
    declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
    true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
    any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
    (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
    under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
    28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
    matter which he does not believe to be true;

    is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
    provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
    than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
    statement or subscription is made within or without the United
    States.
  • Surely you must think there is a distinction between lying and making verifiably false statements?
    What if I really, really believe that I'm a Supreme Court Justice?

    How about this:
    Pat Tillman was not murdered. Truth or lie?
  • edited July 2007
    Logical fallacy of bifurcation. Truth and lie are not mutually exclusive opposites. True and false are mutually exclusive opposites. You're also using a logical fallacy of equivocation to say that truth and true are synonymous.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited July 2007
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY

    Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

    Whoever -
    (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
    or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
    authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
    declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
    declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
    true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
    any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
    (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
    under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
    28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
    matter which he does not believe to be true;

    is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
    provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
    than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
    statement or subscription is made within or without the United
    States.
    That's perjury, not lying. All perjuries are lies, but not all lies are perjuries. If every lie in court was prosecuted as a perjury, there would have to be a special perjury court. Perjury is a sort of uber-lie about a material fact.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Is there a passage of code you can quote that legally defines a lie outside of perjury, or is this merely based on precedent?
  • Logical fallacy of bifurcation. Truth and lie are not mutually exclusive opposites. True and false are mutually exclusive opposites.
    Okay. Is either statement, that I'm a Supreme Court Justice or Pat Tillman was not murdered a lie?
  • edited July 2007
    If you believe it, you are not lying, according to the definition of the word.

    10 PRINT "Definition: To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
    20 INPUT $joeresponse
    30 IF $joeresponse = "That's not how it works in court" THEN GOTO 10
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited July 2007
    Because we can easily find out who the Supreme Court Justices are making such a claim can easily be found to be a lie. For all we know you may be a Supreme Court Justice posting here in disguise as a lawyer. Either way you are claiming to be something that is easily verifiable.

    As for Pat Tilman, was it murder or manslaughter? Was it on purpose or was it an accident? To say that Pat Tilman was killed by one of his own men would not be a lie. To say it is murder would require proof.

    If joe Schmoe on the street made those two statements the first would easily be a lie while the second would not. It would be an opinion only until the truth of the matter came to light.

    As for your earlier statement about WMDs... EVERYONE in the Intelligence community thought he had them! I'm more inclined to believe that either:

    a. He had them.
    b. He fooled the world into thinking he had them as a show of strength.
    c. Bush lied.

    I'm even on the first two but the last one I put no faith in.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited July 2007
    Is there a passage of code you can quote that legally defines a lie outside of perjury, or is this merely based on precedent?
    Take a look at this family law case. There are set standards for determining whether a child declarant is lying and/or reliable. There are nine factors to weigh:

    1. Motive to lie.

    2. Character of the declarant. The basis of this factor is whether the
    child had a reputation for telling the truth.

    3. Were the statements heard by more than one person.

    4. Spontaneity of the statements.

    5. Timing of statements and relationship between child-declarant and
    witness.

    6. Assertions of past fact.

    7. Possibility of faulty recollection.

    8. Circumstances surrounding statements.

    9. Whether cross-examination can reveal lack of knowledge.

    The case I linked to is just an everyday example of how a Court weighs all these factors.
    Because we can easily find out who the Supreme Court Justices are making such a claim can easily be found to be a lie. For all we know you may be a Supreme Court Justice posting here in disguise as a lawyer. Either way you are claiming to be something that is easily verifiable.
    You didn't say anything about whether the statement could be independently verified. You said:
    I still say that the speaker must know that the statement is untrue for it to qualify as a lie.
    I don't know it's untrue that I'm a Supreme Court Justice. I believe it with the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns. Under your definition, that's not a lie.

    As for your earlier statement about WMDs... EVERYONE in the Intelligence community thought he had them! I'm more inclined to believe that either:

    a. He had them.
    b. He fooled the world into thinking he had them as a show of strength.
    c. Bush lied.

    I'm even on the first two but the last one I put no faith in.
    EVERYONE? Pretty extraordinary statement. Easily disporoved if I can find one counterexample. Hans Blix said they weren't there. Joe Wilson wrote that there wasn't any yellow cake. So, it wasn't everyone. What about Curveball's reliability? The administration put a lot of stock in what he said. But it turned out he was as unreliable as they come and anyone who took the time to check knew it.

    What's the more extraordinary claim? That a tin-pot dictator with poor decorating taste fooled the world or that an administration whose top law enforcement officer is being investigated for perjury and whose Vice-Pesident's chief of staff was convicted of perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstruction of justice lied about whether the tin-pot had the WMDs??
    As for Pat Tilman, was it murder or manslaughter? Was it on purpose or was it an accident? To say that Pat Tilman was killed by one of his own men would not be a lie. To say it is murder would require proof.
    The article says that he was shot three times in the forehead, that it appeared from the spacings that he was shot by an M-16 from no more than 10 yards away, and that there was no sign of enemy fire on the scene. Sounds pretty murder-y to me. Read the article again. Do you think anyone lied? Does it matter if the Army, the Pentagon, and the administration really, really wanted to believe their stories or were they simply LYING?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • What's the more extraordinary claim? That a tin-pot dictator with poor decorating taste fooled the world or that an administration whose top law enforcement officer is being investigated for perjury and whose Vice-Pesident's senior aide was convicted of perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstruction of justice lied about whether the tin-pot had the WMDs??
    If the US Intelligence community were the only one to say he had WMDs than I would side with you on this one. You seem to forget that WMDs was only one of many reasons given for invading Iraq.

    Back to your Supreme Court Justice lie... When a truth is obvious any person who claims something that is the opposite of that obvious truth is is either crazy or a liar. I know you are going to parse my words or otherwise dissect them but I'm trying to deal with the slippery slope of your argument (at what point is it a lie even if you believe it to be true).

    I still believe that it is not a lie if you believe it to be true. Even if what you say is found to be false it is still not a lie as a lie requires knowledge that you are spreading a falsehood willingly and knowingly.
  • edited July 2007
    If the US Intelligence community were the only one to say he had WMDs than I would side with you on this one. You seem to forget that WMDs was only one of many reasons given for invading Iraq.
    Steve, that's exactly what happened. The case for war was primarily built upon the WMD threat. Now, I'll agree that other reasons are given. In my opinion, this is the area in which this war is the most like Vietnam. I remember people talking about it. No one could really explain what we were doing there to anyone else's satisfaction. The reason would always change. They'd say it was Tonkin. The problem was that they couldn't really prove it. Then they said it was that we couldn't back down on our commitment to Nguyen Van Thieu. No one cared. Then they'd say we couldn't let the dominoes begin to fall . . .

    Just like Iraq. First it's WMD's. Oh, that doesn't work? Then it's Al Qaeda. That doesn't work? Then it's that Saddam was a dictator? You don't care? Well then, it's because they hate our freedom.

    Tell me this: Do you think the authorities lied about Pat Tillman? Did they lie about Jessica Lynch? She testified to Congress that they lied. Did they? Someone did. Either the authorities or our Ms. Lynch lied. So who was it?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Steve, that's exactly what happened. The case for war was primarily built upon the WMD threat. Now, I'll agree that other reasons are given. In my opinion, this is the area in which this war is the most like Vietnam. I remember people talking about it. No one could really explain what we were doing there to anyone else's satisfaction. The reason would always change. They'd say it was Tonkin. The problem was that they couldn't really prove it. Then they said it was that we couldn't back down on our commitment to Nguyen Van Thieu. No one cared. Then they'd say we couldn't let the dominoes begin to fall . . .
    Are we just going to ignore the reason why we have been over there for the past 50 years, which would be the our economic interests in the oil?
  • Are we just going to ignore the reason why we have been over there for the past 50 years, which would be the our economic interests in the oil?
    Oh, you're trollin' now . . .
  • edited July 2007
    I'm confused by that statement. Are you saying that is just leftist propaganda?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • edited July 2007
    I'm confused by that statement. Are you saying that is just leftist propaganda?
    No. I suspect you're trying to bait me into this situation:

    Joe: Reasonable suspicion about oil tomfooleries in Iraq.

    Steve: You don't understand supply and demand as well as I do. I LOVE the oil companies and believe everything they tell me. We owe our lives to the oil companies and I worship them every day.

    Jason: You're a CCCCRRRRRAAAAAAZZZZZZZY conspiracy theorist (OMG!) if you don't think everything is just fine and the oil companies are our bestest of friends. I'll pray to the oil gods to forgive you for your sins. I win the thread.

    WIP: Bonzai!!!111

    It's happened before.

    Edit: Just something that's been bugging me about "crazy conspiracy theories": Re-read this bit from the Tillman article:

    *snip*

    Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

    *snip*

    See, that could reasonably be construed as a conpiracy. All that's required for a conspiracy is an agreement to do an act or ommission. Why do you think there are conpiracy crimes in state and federal criminal law? What is the point of RICO? To prosecute conpiracies, specifically the mafia. Do you believe in organized crime? Then you believe in conspiracies. The Lincoln Assassination was an actual conspiracy. No all conspiracies are "crazy conspiracy theories." I'm becoming weary of the phrase "crazy conspiracy theory" being used as a cudgel.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • There is absolutely no doubt that conspiracies exist. However, you're suggesting an organized corporate-government cabal. Each time that you broaden a conspiracy to include more people -- or an entire industry -- the chances that the conspiracy can survive under its own weight decrease. That is why large-scale conspiracies simply don't succeed in maintaining secrecy. Why are there no whistle-blowers here if we're going to go back to the blood-for-oil conspiracy theory? I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the same people who drop the ball on simple policy initiatives, fail to keep internal memos secret, bungle PR coordination, and allow approval to plummet are capable of organizing and enforcing such a conspiracy. The mafia is very good at internal enforcement of such a racket, because the mob isn't open to public scrutiny and has the power to operate outside the law. Politicians are rarely successful at such efforts.
  • edited July 2007
    The plot to kill Caesar was a political conspiracy. The Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot was a political conspiracy. The plot to assassinate Lincoln was a political conspiracy. The Teapot Dome Scandal was a political conspiracy. Watergate was a political conpiracy. Iran-contra was a political conspiracy.

    Antitrust law is a booming industry. It doesn't just concern monopolies. It also concerns itself with agreements to engage in anti-competitive behavior, which is by it's very nature a conspiracy. Some of these agreements can be pretty complicated, like the one in this Complaint.

    What I object to is the trend I'm seeing of people yelling "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIST!" anytime someone suggests that there might be a problem with business or government or that things in general might not be hunky-dory.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • ...
    WIP: Bonzai!!!111
    I crack up every time I read one of these.
    The longer a FRC thread gets, the probability of "Bonzai!!!111" approaches 1?
  • edited July 2007
    The problem, Joseph, isn't that the conspiracies can't exist -- as I've already said in this thread. The problem is when the crazy crackpot conspiracy theorists take small amounts of non-connected information, mingle them with their own political suspicions, and then skip steps in logic to arrive at a conspiracy theory that serves only to substantiate their own need for a paranoiac rush.

    I tell you what. Let's take all the political conspiracy theories on the Internets right now and divide the total by the number that have turned out to be true. I'll bet the percentage that are substantive are less than .001.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • I have no problem in recognizing that crazy crackpot theories for what they are. I just don't want people to start associating real conspiracies with the crazy crackpot ones.

    Just like this from a previous post quoting from the Tillman article:

    *snip*

    Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

    *snip*

    If someone actually has those emails, we'd have pretty good evidence of an actual conspiracy to cover up the real story of Tillman's death. What I don't like is when people hear "Pat Tillman" and "conspiracy", they immediately yell "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!"
  • Do you have any such documents that directly indicate politico-industrial collusion to declare war for the purpose of controlling oil supply?
  • In one of the articles from the ancient thread, Cheney is quoted as saying that the oil in Iraq "is the prize."

    I was doing a document review just a couple of months ago involving state tax implications for a corporate merger. Company A bought Company B. The DOJ found that the merger would be anti-competitive and required Company A to divest itself of the assests of Company B. So it did, and got into a mess with their state taxes. The issue was whether the acquisition of Company B was done in the normal course of business.

    Now, at a conference held some time before the merger, the CEO of Company A said that Company B was a "prize." No joke. The state found this statement very persuasive that Company A intended to acquire Company B in the normal course of its business.

    So, Cheney's statement (and everything else I've come to know about Cheny - read that Washington Post series that I linked to in a previous thread) leads me to believe that he wants that oil.

    I know what you'll say about the complexity of the required conspiracy, but I don't think it has to be complex at all. I'm no corporate type, but I think that only Cheney and maybe a couple of high level people in the industry would have to know.
Sign In or Register to comment.