GW for example doesnt want his fellow comrads to have to testify under oath....Isnt this just admitting to guilt?
2007-03-20 12:49:28 · 27 answers · asked by PUBLIC CORRUPTION 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Polygraphs are accurate just for your information. That is why they give people them alot of times to join the FBI and CIA....To those who think they arent...why dont you go take one, because I have. It took 7 hours,and I passed with flying colors. They dont hold up in court, but I would have rather take one than have had to go to court...
2007-03-21 05:20:50 · update #1
You can not be forced to incriminate yourself so that takes care of that issue; You can be charged with impeding an investigation or obstructing justice when it comes to someone else.
and if you don't want to it's up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence
2007-03-20 12:53:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but a polygraph is not admissible because it doesn't know if you are telling the truth and in a court of law it is highly prejudicial!
The oath is taken to tell the truth, like in courts! It does not mean they are lying, but that there statements if found false can get them into serious consequences. Without it, they can say anything they want with impunity!
Given what we know so far, and that is there may be an Obstruction of Justice regarding the firings, and multiple lies have already been told by the white house, including a year of e-mails, there is plenty not in them, it is imperative that if they lie they be held accountable.
Bush's unwillingness to let them be sworn does say a lot because this whole administration has done nothing but lie! Bush is fighting tooth and nail to keep them from giving taking the oath like any other person! They have a right to a lawyer!
2007-03-20 13:03:34 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is no longer legal to require someone to take a polygraph test in a criminal or civil case.
And refusing to testify under oath may lead people to think you're guilty but it's not a sign of guilt. Maybe you are just trying to keep related but irrelavant information private.
That being said, I think that Karl Rove is not wanting to testify under oath because his testimony will refute earlier statements Gonzales and make Gonzales look like a liar.
2007-03-20 12:54:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the pres can claim national security and not have them testify. Also, even if they were guilty, the Pres is the only person who has hte power of pardon. If he wanted to he could just pardon them for their wrong doings. Gerarld Ford did it to Nixon. Plus you can refuse to take a polygraph test because they are not completely accurate or reliable. They are beatable. For these reasons they are inadmissable in court.
2007-03-20 12:53:45 · answer #4 · answered by Edmund Dantes 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say not. Possible reasons for NOT taking it might be that other questions asked during the test might be too personal, too sensitive, or lead to other unknown subject matter that the person doesn't want public?
Think about it if YOU were in the chair being tested. There are some things you wouldn't want made public right? And you couldn't lie without being detected, so either way something would come out that you didn't want to be known by anyone!
2007-03-20 12:54:59 · answer #5 · answered by love_2b_curious 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, its called the fifth amendment. There are a lot of loopholes and laws that can get someone into trouble if they talk about themselves.
Stop trying to ask loaded questions about GW. Seriously, this is the kind of question a 5th grader asks his mom.
2007-03-20 13:14:08 · answer #6 · answered by Burch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he's trying to protect the people who will be testifying. GW is not testifying so he's not protecting himself. I think there is much more to this case than what is publicly known. Sometimes the public can know too much, look what they do with the facts, they twist them, turn them inside out and use them as a weapon against eachother.
2007-03-20 12:52:19 · answer #7 · answered by jprofitt303 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No this is just ensuring that the Dems can not go on a Joe McCarthy type of witch hunt as they desperately try and find something GW has done wrong....
Where were your cries for this when your hero Clinton fired 93 the same way...hmmmmm 93 is OK...8 is wrong...
Your thinking is one sided...the wrong side
2007-03-20 12:54:40 · answer #8 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No its not in this country your Innocent until proven guilty. Defendants also have option not to testify. some do not do well under cross even if not guilty! I am not saying these persons are guilty or not just answering your question. If you already have your mind made up any answer other than one you support Will not suffice and therefore they wont get Best answer even if deserved
2007-03-20 12:53:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the administratioin products to is permitting a antagonistic congress to grill his closest advisors under oath a pair of count that doesn't upward push to the point of illegality or scandal. that's politics at its worst and exhibits purely what a team of time dropping puling partisan pukes the democrats could be while they get slightly power to abuse.
2016-10-19 05:06:43 · answer #10 · answered by dudik 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋