General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts) Sat Nov 10, 2018, 10:34 PM Nov 2018

An officer may not tolerate a lie (Lt. Col. Paul Yingling)

This is the letter Lt. Col. Paul Yingling sent to journalist Thomas E. Ricks, about then-National Security Advisor H R McMaster. A little bird tells me the contents will be important soon:

Tom,

I haven’t anything to say to you regarding HR. He is my friend and my advice to friends is private. However, I would like to clarify a point regarding the honor code of the officer corps.

An officer may not tolerate a lie.

It is not enough that everything an officer says is true. This standard is too low; it allows an officer to omit facts that are relevant to the matter at hand.

It is not enough that everything an officer says is true and complete. This standard is too low; it allows an officer to remain silent while others lie.

An officer may not tolerate a lie. This standard requires not only that everything an officer says is true and complete, but also that an officer must correct anyone who lies in his or her presence. An officer can never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.

A minor example illustrates this point. Prior to my retirement, my chain of command insisted that I have a public retirement ceremony. Such a ceremony would include the public reading of an award citation stating that the secretary of the Army valued my service. I informed my chain of command that if they read such a statement in my presence, I would be obliged to correct the record. They cancelled the ceremony.

You are welcome to use this statement in its entirety, attributable to me by name.

An officer may not tolerate a lie.

Regards,
Paul

An officer may not tolerate a lie. And a little bird tells me this is about to become important.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

An officer may not tolerate a lie (Lt. Col. Paul Yingling) (Original Post) Recursion Nov 2018 OP

Yes, VERY important. elleng Nov 2018 #1

Civilian courts ain't shit compared to UCMJ. Phoenix61 Nov 2018 #2

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #3

elleng

(131,053 posts)

1. Yes, VERY important.

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2018, 10:38 PM

Nov 2018

Phoenix61

(17,009 posts)

2. Civilian courts ain't shit compared to UCMJ.

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2018, 11:23 PM

Nov 2018

It's a much higher standard and proving an offense can be much easier.

keithbvadu2

(36,869 posts)

3. the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2018, 01:33 AM

Nov 2018

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

https://parade.com/86289/marilynvossavant/telling-the-truth-02/

Telling the Truth
September 2, 2009 - 9:15 AM - 0 Comments
Marilyn vos Savant
By Marilyn vos Savant

Alano Gray (New York, New York) writes:

Marilyn: I’ve been working in a legal environment for ten years. Believe it or not, most attorneys cannot explain the difference between “the truth,” “the whole truth,” and “nothing but the truth.” You once wrote a brilliant definition of what differentiates them, but I’ve been unable to locate it in your archives. Can you repeat it?

Marilyn responds:

Here’s the original question and answer, abbreviated:

Ed Hausafus of Eagle Creek, Oregon, writes:

Marilyn: When swearing in witnesses, court clerks ask them to promise to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” What is the difference between the three? And if there is none, why don’t they just ask witnesses to promise to be truthful?

Marilyn responds:

There’s a difference. And the truths are all stated explicitly because some people try to weasel out of promises while still insisting that they’ve kept them. First, witnesses are asked to tell “the truth.” This means that they must not lie in response to a question.

Second, they’re asked to tell “the whole truth.” This means something else. For example, if a governor says that “in my state, we’ve moved 17,000 people from welfare to work” and omits adding the fact that in his state, 25,000 other people moved from work to welfare at the same time, he has told “the truth” but he hasn’t told “the whole truth.” That is, the net effect was that 8,000 more people were on welfare, not 17,000 fewer.

Third, witnesses are asked to tell “nothing but the truth.” This is yet another concept. For example, if a person tells the truth in response to a question and then adds a lie, he or she has told “the truth” but he hasn’t told “nothing but the truth.” And although none of this will stop truly dishonest people, at least it gives us good ammunition to charge them with perjury.

Reply to this discussion