 
|
Nonibdula
 |
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 |
|
chieromancer
 |
polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and easily beaten.
anybody can read anything into them, and there goes all your credibility.
that's why they are not allowed in a court of law. |
|
Oh Suhnny Day
|
Nope! Either exercing their rights, or just fearful that justice won't really serve them! |
|
rollo_tomassi423
|
Not necessarily but it is a good indication that they are afraid of being indicted for perjury. |
|
The Archive
 |
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. |
|
Edmund Dantes
 |
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. |
|
slp9209
|
I had to take one of those years ago for a job and I was not hired because they said that the polygraph stated that the name I gave them was not my name What a crock lie dectectors are not alwats correct look it up |
|
mrphaka
|
no one has to justify themselfs, its up to others to prove their guilt! |
|
Edward
 |
No sir...but it sure as heck won't look good..... |
|
William S
|
Polygraphs are not accurate, so I wouldn't take one about something important either.
Refusing to testify under oath, though....well, people don't generally take the 5th because they're innocent. |
|
fuufingf
 |
he doesnt care what we think...his dad and mom taught him to lie |
|
Jack
|
It can look bad, but appearances are not proofs of facts in question. ANYONE can be tricked. If forced to answer in a yes or no format, it would look very bad for you if I asked you if you had stopped murdering. In such a question, you are unable to answer in any way other than harmful to yourself. Beware. The enemy is cunning, and you can fall prey to their devices.
It doesn't prove anything. Be willing to take the time to learn the truth. Don't jump to conclusions. |
|
Emilyy<3
|
i wouldn't testify under oath. i dont even believe in god so putting my hand on a bible wouldn't mean much. |
|
mr_crankypants
 |
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. |
|
love_2b_curious
|
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! |
|
jettaum97
|
No, testimony can be damaging. Does not mean someone is lying. Of course in GW's case, that is why. Him and all his little pals are full of BS and do nothing buy lie to get what they want. |
|
airbob61@verizon.net
|
no, the results of a polygraph test are not admissible as evidence in court. Direct or indirect evidence is necessary to convict. |
|
cantcu
|
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! |
|
Burch
|
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. |
|
cuetee220
|
Polygraphs dont really mean anything in court because they arent 100% garunteed. Not testifying is considered failure to cooroperate and or with holding imformation |
|
watzzzup
|
No. They are uninformed. |
|
I know what I know
|
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 |
|
Real Estate Para Legal
|
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 |
|
Garnet
|
Not necessarily. But it can rule the person out. However, there are some people
who can even 'fool a polygraph.' The way I see it, if that's what it takes to prove
innocence or guilt, I'd do it. Wouldn't you? : } |
|
Sugar
|
No. You don't have to. It is in the constitution. |
|
Departed
 |
off course it is |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
