0620 - CrossEx

Despite the laughable spectacle of U.S. Senators pretending to question job applicants (they don’t question, they bloviate), there remains unused the keen blade of cross-examination to reveal truth. To explore this almost-lost art, we turn the microphone over to our distinguished Senior Counsel. The discussion will examine: (1) technique; (2) evasions, and (3) the use of that fine old Latin slogan falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in all). The subject is highly appropriate this year, what with Court nominations and many investigations, and specially appropriate this very day, because the U.S. House of Representatives spent last night in convulsions caused by the call from Rep. Murtha, a grizzled hawk and a Democrat, for troop withdrawals from Iraq. The debate – or name-calling – needed some classier techniques.

The all-important marks of good technique are: a) focus on the question until it is answered, and b) precision in phrasing. Take Iraq (you take it, not us): the question may be phrased: Should we get out of there this very day? Or, should we get out of there quickly, after proper preparations and with a strike force in reserve? Or, as we recommend, try the real cross-examiner’s serial question. The Republicans, discovering that the U.S. public has lost its taste for Iraq, put up a phony House resolution calling for instantaneous cut-and-run. They suppressed the Murtha alternative (prepare and keep a strike force in reserve). The Democrats, being Democrats, didn’t seem to know the real technique. Our Staff Counsel says what was needed was a sequence of questions, starting with: Do you agree the invasion started on false information? [Note that this is agreed by all.] Then, ask: Has the present Secretary of Defense made mistakes in the occupation? [this is pretty well admitted by all]. Then comes the zinger, when you ask if the occupation would be continued to be managed by Rumsfeld and Company, well known occupation-botchers, should we get out? Force the answer from the witness, that’s the way.

As for evasions, almost all political discourse in Washington consists of evasions, also known as answering a different question. Every single press conference consists of a reporter asking a tough question and the evasive fellow at the lectern answering a question not asked. In Court, the examiner simply listens closely and then repeats the question, pointing out the evasion. At a press conference, the guy at the lectern says “I just answered that”, when in fact, he didn’t. The U.S. press corps, smelling blood, is getting better at this.

You will also note that politicians whose veracity is at stake always point out that either they said something else that was true (e.g., Saddam was a bad person), or that their opponents said the same thing (e.g., Democrats voted for the war). The sharp examiner would stick to the single point where the victim obviously lied (like Cheney saying Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack). Prove the single falsehood to the jury, and the witness is deemed falsus in omnibus . That’s real technique. The usual political choice, though, is the ad hominem attack, which is almost always irrelevant to the issue under debate (a good example is Cheney’s five draft deferments, true but proving nothing). Calling a war veteran a coward may not work either (though Kerry suffered from the Swift Boat attacks). But that’s all clumsy: stick to pinning the witness to the wall with your stiletto. Prove the victim specifically false on one point, and you’ve won.

You Readers in Anguilla should not, of course, even think that anything said here about political matters has any application to our Smiling Island. Notta tall, notta tall.

Next time: AXATraffic [OO #621]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home