|
| |
Senate
911 Committee Refuses Lie Detector Test
August 8, 2002
Dear Editor,
I find it very telling that Senator Hatch refuses to allow the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence to submit to polygraph examination.
I find it even more telling that the reason the FBI wants them to run the test is to find out if any
of them [read "which of them"] leaked the information to the news media on what
intelligence agencies knew before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Take the test, Hatch. Come clean with the citizens you represent, and stop presenting a double
standard for truth.
Sterling D. Allan
See "Intelligence Knew" index at
www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/IntelligenceKnew/
P.S. I would have to agree that Loren Pearce's comment below holds
validity. The FBI is part of the cover-up, and we cannot trust them to give us honest results.
=================
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/aug/08082002/nation_w/760012.htm
Forget Lie Detector Test, Hatch Says
Thursday, August 8, 2002
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PROVO -- The FBI's request that members of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence submit to polygraph examinations violates the U.S. Constitution, said Sen. Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah.
"Under the separation of powers, we cannot put up with this, especially from
an agency that we oversee," said Hatch, a member of the committee.
Last week, the FBI asked members of the committee to submit to lie detector tests
to determine whether any of them leaked information to the news media on what intelligence agencies
knew before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Hatch, who was quoted in The Daily Herald, said he and other senators are
refusing to take the test.
Hatch said the leaked information was already published by the time the
intelligence committee found out about it.
See also
 | Polygraph
Hypocrisy - Washington Times article shows that the same congressmen refusing
to use the polygraph also insist on its use in other, less-than provable contexts.
|
Feedback
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Senate 911 Committee Refuses Lie Detector Test
Sterling:
Have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless of who the perpetrator is, I am totally
opposed to lie detector tests. I have never taken one, and probably never will as they are not
reliable and not admissable
in court. It is truly trusting in the arm of flesh, something man made in his puny attempt to get at
the truth. When they are infallible and conducted by moral individuals, then I would agree to them.
In this case, it is even more outrageous to have the FBI, who congress oversees and who has its own
problems of corruption, to conduct the tests. This is another case of the fox guarding the
chickens. We either elect a moral congress or we are going to have to put up with having them
leak national security information. But having congress subject to lie detector tests is not
the answer.
Loren
I would have to agree that Loren Pearce's comment holds validity. The FBI is part of the
cover-up, and we cannot trust them to give us honest results.
Sterling
[Before Loren's
Comment]
From: "David Skousen" <davids@formula4success.com>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Cc: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@qwest.net>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Senate 911 Committee Refuses Lie Detector Test
Okay, would somebody please tell me how the "separation of powers"
doctrine means that one branch should NOT balance one or the other which makes up our
"free" government?
If separation means total separation, and one branch is not allowed its legal
right to control the tyranny of the other, then the separation of powers doctrine has changed. What
is it now, Mr. Hatch? It sounds like Mr. Hatch's branch refuses to recognize, in certain cases, the
power of the other branches to question his activities.
I thought we were all endowed by our Creator with the SAME rights, pulling down
the "I'm better than you" crowd to be equal with the rest of us.
Is it time for Mr. Hatch (Brother Hatch) to be separated from his power?
--David
[After Loren's Comment]
From: "David Skousen" <davids@formula4success.com>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Senate 911 Committee Refuses Lie Detector Test
Yes, I think Loren has a wiser approach and I agree with his astute reasoning. My point was that
Hatch's argument for not taking the test was that it violates the Separation of Powers, and I don't
understand the validity of Hatch's argument.
Perhaps one of our patriots needs to invent a lie detector test for the one administering the lie
detector test. In that case, perhaps paying a huge fee to a famous actor (female) or football star
to administer the second test would make the results acceptable to the public, even in court. No
doubt. As everyone knows, famous people know all the answers, because the media is always asking
their opinions. Heck (I got that from a Lenno Show), the last time a Hollywood idol told his opinion
on how to cure AIDS, his last statement was, "Go figure." So everybody pulled out their
wallets.
--David
Lie Detectors
are Notoriously Inaccurate
From: "joel acheson" <joeljed@hotmail.com>
To: <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Senate 911 Committee Refuses Lie Detector Test
Sterling:
I totally agree that I would never submit to a lie detector test on any grounds. The test can be
skewed by the testor and/or the testee, if (s)he knows a few basic concepts. They are notoriously
unreliable, and this is the reason they are inadmissible in court. Hatch got it right on this one --
particularly, as you have pointed out, since it is the foxes who want to test the chickens!
Joel
| |
|
