Plausible Deniability

from encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com

Plausible deniability is a political doctrine originally developed in the United States of America in the 1950s and applied to operations by the then newly formed Central Intelligence Agency The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Plausible deniability involves the creation of power structures and chains of command loose and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and, later, other bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures -- up to and including the president himself -- but that the existence and true source of those instructions could be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong and it was necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility.

The doctrine had two major flaws. First, it was an open door to the abuse of authority; it required that the bodies in question could be said to have acted independently, which in the end was tantamount to giving them license to act independently. Second, it rarely worked when invoked; the denials made were rarely plausible and were generally seen through by both the media and the populace.

(For an extended essay on the logical/philosophical issues, see: D. Walton, "Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof")

Top

What Janet Jackson really exposed: plausible deniability often doesn't work
By BILL VIRGIN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Thursday, February 5, 2004

For a decade as dreary and deplorable as the 1970s, it sure is enjoying an inexplicable wave of nostalgia.

They've revived the music, the clothes, the TV shows -- and now they've revived the concept of "plausible deniability."

Executives of CBS and MTV and the umbrella company of both, Viacom, have been frantically relying on plausible deniability as a defense mechanism against the storm of controversy following Janet Jackson's "take it off" routine in the Super Bowl halftime show.

"Planned? Heaven forfend, how can you suggest such a thing? We never imagined something like this would happen. It was an accident, really it was. It was ... a wardrobe malfunction!"

"Wardrobe malfunction" is rapidly becoming the least credible defense in American current events since "I did not have sex with that woman" (Bill Clinton) or even going back to "I'm not a crook" (Richard Nixon, in dismissing the suggestion he was tied to a "third-rate burglary.")

And Nixon, coincidentally enough, is where the concept of plausible deniability gained prominence.

Plausible deniability was actually around much earlier than that -- it evolved in the early days of the Central Intelligence Agency as a way to insulate the president from recriminations stemming from the CIA's less pleasant covert operations. Something goes wrong, or word leaks out? "I had no knowledge of that," the president says, maintaining what he hopes is a wall of plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability relies upon the lack of a paper trail or witnesses who can say "but we did tell you." Only in the movies do people lay out in written and exacting detail their schemes for world domination, or something slightly less odious. The Nixon White House might have gotten away with plausible deniability had it not been stupid enough to make tape recordings of administration officials discussing not just dirty tricks but how they planned to cover them up.

MTV, the producer of the notorious halftime show, didn't have to be told explicitly to use a little nudity to juice up the halftime show. A nudge and a wink, a dollop of innuendo and suggestion (all far more subtle than the halftime show itself) was all that was necessary. "We want something edgy. We want to appeal to males 18-to-34." And when the predictable fury ensued, all involved could give a collective shrug, deny any knowledge of what was planned and make the requisite acts of contrition.

One problem, though -- the strategy isn't working. In fact, plausible deniability often doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work? A couple of reasons. If those trying to employ it have exhausted whatever reservoirs of credibility or goodwill they were banking on, they're in trouble. Boeing Chief Executive Phil Condit attempted to paint the various ethical lapses at the company as nothing he had direct knowledge of or contact with. Maybe he didn't. But the board was dealing with such an accumulation of issues and headaches that plausible deniability wasn't of interest to it, and it accepted his resignation.

Corporate executives also like to promote the image of being hands-on, in touch, fully aware of what's going on throughout their domain. In touch, that is, right up to the moment people start asking uncomfortable questions such as: Did you know about this situation? When did you know about it? And why didn't you know about it?

Then comes the torrent of plausible-deniability excuses: No one told me. Lower-level executives kept me in the dark. If the auditors/accountants didn't catch it, how could I? I can't be everywhere. That approach doesn't work because it suggests not only that the in-command image was a lie but that the executive is too clueless to have had the CEO's job in the first place.

The public also has a healthy and justified skepticism about the sincerity of any apology that accompanies the "I knew nothing" stories, further undermining the approach.

Never mind whether it was intentional, do you really think CBS and MTV are all that sorry for the incident? Of course you don't, because you live in the real world.

Oh sure, the TV network may have to fork over some fines, and they may have to endure a few months of harrumphing from politicians and regulators. But they may also figure that's worth the conversation, the attention and the viewers brought in by the tantalizing prospect of "hmm, wonder what they'll show next?" Cynically enough, they may be right.

Like an unsheathed body part, plausible deniability is popping out everywhere these days. Martha Stewart is trying the plausible deniability route in her insider trading case. The strategy has problems, because 1) prosecutors charge she's floated two different stories, 2) she used to work on Wall Street so she has more than a passing familiarity with the rules, and 3) she was the chief executive of a publicly traded company, which means she really had to know the rules of the game.

Former Enron Chairman Ken Lay is trying plausible deniability to argue he had no idea what was going on at the corporation he supposedly ran. Prosecutors have been thwarted to date by a lack of physical evidence, but if some of those already charged start flipping on Lay, the "I was in the dark" boat starts taking water.

Seventies music and clothes and TV shows may fade from popularity (we can only hope) but plausible deniability isn't going away anytime soon. For many politicians, business executives and celebrities, it's the only defense available -- shaky though it might be. Ignorance may contribute to bliss, but when it comes to bosses, public opinion, regulators and juries, ignorance comes off an awful lot like "I couldn't think of anything better." Top

Photos of Coffins Draw U.S. Crackdown
By Monte Morin Los Angeles Times Staff Writer April 23, 2004
[from the full story, below] Government and military leaders acknowledge that such images carry power and can sway public opinion. In 1999, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, said a decision to use military force was based in part on whether it would pass "the Dover test," as the public witnessed the images of the war dead arriving home. However, at a news briefing Thursday, Molino said the policy was not driven by concerns of public opinion. "It's a policy that reflects what the families have told us they would like by way of the treatment of remains of the loved ones who have made that sacrifice," Molino said.... "This is about government censorship, not sensitivity," said Colin Crawford, L.A. Times' assistant managing editor.

A website dedicated to publishing censored pictures and documents released dozens of photographs of coffins containing American war dead, which caused the Pentagon on Thursday to renew its ban on releasing such images to the media.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD: War casualties —Captions for two photographs in Section A on Friday described coffins carrying U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. The coffins, however, could have come from either Iraq or Afghanistan. See story, A9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures of flag-draped coffins filling aircraft cargo bays and being unloaded by white-gloved soldiers were obtained by Russ Kick, a 1st Amendment activist in Tucson who won their release by filing a Freedom of Information Act request.

Air Force officials initially denied the request but relented last week and sent him more than 350 pictures of Iraq war dead arriving at the military's largest mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

The unexpected posting of the photos on the Internet caught the Pentagon by surprise and provoked a ripple of media attention to pictures the government had been trying to suppress. Several major newspapers planned to publish the newly released photos on their front pages today.

Soon after the photographs were posted on the Web, the Department of Defense barred their further release to other media outlets, saying the photos violated the privacy of troops' families.

Military officials said that the media have been banned from taking pictures and videos of returning war dead since 1991 and that release of the Dover photographs was a clear violation of this policy.

"Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified," said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.

There have been exceptions to the policy. Molino said he could not explain what conditions prompt a public ceremony. "At Dover, as a rule, there is no ceremony. It's a ritual more than a ceremony, to my mind," he said.

The Pentagon's insistence that the images should remain censored also came one day after two military contract employees in Kuwait were fired for taking pictures of flag-draped coffins there and sending one to the Seattle Times, which published it Sunday.
Maytag Aircraft Corp. said that it had fired Tami Silicio, 50, and her husband, David Landry, because they "violated Department of Defense and company policies by working together" to take and publish the photograph, company President William L. Silva said in a news release Thursday.

The picture shows several workers inside a cargo plane parked at Kuwait International Airport securing 20 flag-draped coffins for the trip to Dover. Silicio, who took the picture, told the newspaper that she hoped it would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen troops. "It wasn't my intent to lose my job or become famous or anything," Silicio said
.
Government and military leaders acknowledge that such images carry power and can sway public opinion.
In 1999, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, said a decision to use military force was based in part on whether it would pass "the Dover test," as the public witnessed the images of the war dead arriving home.

However, at a news briefing Thursday, Molino said the policy was not driven by concerns of public opinion.
"It's a policy that reflects what the families have told us they would like by way of the treatment of remains of the loved ones who have made that sacrifice," Molino said.

"Keep in mind that any media coverage at a graveside, for instance, is entirely up to the families," Molino said. "The appropriateness of that, the degree to which they want the press at the individual family services, is entirely up to them. But what we're talking about is the policy that deals with the transfer of remains along the way."

In a perhaps ironic twist Thursday, military officials said that the pictures posted on Kick's website, the Memory Hole, thememoryhole.org, were taken not by media photographers but by military personnel.

At a news conference, Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the photographs were taken for historical purposes.

Several news executives said Thursday that they had not known about the existence of such photographs, a fact that came to light only when Kick filed his request.

"We were not aware at all that these photos were being taken," Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, was quoted as saying in the paper today.

Two networks, ABC and NBC, made the availability of the pictures the lead item on their newscasts. Numerous newspapers told Associated Press that they planned to publish one or more of the photographs in today's editions.

"This was the first we had known that the military was shooting these pictures," said Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC's "World News Tonight."

At the Seattle Times, photo editor Barry Fitzsimmons said that the decision to run Silicio's picture was "an easy call" and that the paper had been getting "90% positive feedback."

The paper did not plan to run the Dover Air Force Base photos, however.

Many papers did plan to, including the Los Angeles Times.

"This is about government censorship, not sensitivity," said Colin Crawford, L.A. Times' assistant managing editor for photography.

At the Boston Globe, Michael Larkin, deputy managing editor for news operations, said, "We are using two of the photos.
"I don't know how that can be disrespectful to the families. They are official photos of flag-draped coffins being treated with respect by military personnel."
---------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Ban on Coverage of War Dead Upheld
(AP) Washington June 22, 2004

The Senate refused [54-39] on Monday to change a Pentagon policy banning media coverage of America's war dead as their remains arrive in flag-draped caskets.

"It's an outrage," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said the Pentagon directive that requires strict censorship, "issued just as the Iraq war began ... prevents the American people from seeing the truth about what's happening...."

"During the Afghan war during this administration, flag-draped coffins were filmed at Dover, and during the Kosovo conflict President Clinton was on the tarmac to receive the dead," Lautenberg said.

Citing privacy questions on the eve of the Iraq war a year ago, the Pentagon reiterated the ban and began enforcing it at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland and Ramstein Air Base in Germany.... Senator John Warner (R-Va) argued that the ban should continue "to preserve the most important priority, and that's the privacy of the families."

From: Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (p.329):

"RUMSFELD AND FRANKS met with the president and the NSC the morning of Wednesday, March 5, in the Situation Room. The multicolored slides and briefing papers, all marked Top Secret/Polo Step, began with a single page that said in large letters that were more than a quarter-inch high:

The term had been on most of the classified war planning papers because the Pentagon lawyers believed the designation would allow them to protect the documents from being disclosed to Congress or under the Freedom of Information Act. The argument was that "pre-decisional" documents were a part of internal deliberations and not subject to disclosure. It was a legal dodge that some other veteran government lawyers thought probably would not withstand a court test."