How is it that Congress can point the finger at the FBI or the Executive branch, then refuse to take a lie detector test when requested? There have obviously been leaks; why hamper the investigation when its quite obvious that this is where they are coming from? Lawmakers Refuse Lie-Detector Tests Members of the House-Senate panel probing intelligence breakdowns are refusing FBI requests that they take lie-detector tests to reveal the source of a leak about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "I don't know who among us would take a lie-detector test," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "First of all, they're not even admissible in court, and second of all, the leadership [of both parties] have told us not to do that." The chairmen of the intelligence committees, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., asked the FBI to investigate after the White House complained that the leaks were "alarmingly specific" and could compromise the war on terrorism, the Washington Post reported today. But now the probe's "unprecedented scale has angered some lawmakers, according to people close to the investigation. The lawmakers are unhappy that the FBI, an agency they oversee, is investigating them." Shelby fumed to the Associated Press today, "Here we are investigating the FBI for huge failures, and now we're asking them to investigate us." The probe violates the government's separation of powers, he said. "You know the Senate and, I assume the House, has always investigated their own." 'Grave Concerns' Senate plurality leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., voiced similar concerns. He has "grave concerns about the congressional separation of powers issues raised by having one branch of government asking to polygraph employees of another branch," a spokesman told the Post. Shelby said he thought the FBI had questioned all 37 members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Agents have also grilled 60 congressional staff members and officials at the CIA, the Defense Department and the National Security Agency, the Post reported. "Now the FBI can open dossiers on every member and staffer and develop full information on them. It creates a great chilling effect on those who would be critical of the FBI," Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor and former House deputy general counsel, told the Post. "The FBI, with their great boots, are tramping around on ground that is privileged and privileged for good reason, to preclude intimidation of members." 'Ironic' But Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., found his colleagues' complaints amusing. "I do think it's ironic that an investigation has been requested into this particular leak that you are referring to by the bipartisan leaders of the Ethics Committee. And then when the investigation goes forward, at the request of the committee themselves. Then people start complaining about, 'Oh, my goodness, they're asking us questions,'" he told Fox News. The FBI is trying to discover who disclosed information to CNN about communications in Arabic that hinted at an attack on the United States. The NSA intercepted the messages Sept. 10 but did not translate them until Sept. 12. AP has reported that the communications included the phrases "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin." The intercepts were not translated until Sept. 12. "It's a very akward situation for the FBI and members of Congress, and again I think it's a little silly," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the committee. 'If We Can't Trust Our Nation's Leadership ...' "I've said before if you've got to go around and give your members of Congress polygraph tests, then we've got a more serious problem than just leaking sensitive information out. If we can't trust our nation's leadership with sensitive information, then we ought to go back and start all over again." But some lawmakers have shown they can't be trusted. Perhaps the most notorious is Sen. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, D-Vt
Congress is the one that asked the FBI to investigate the leaks, and now that a polygraph gets mentioned they want to back off it. Very suspicious actions. Very suspicious indeed. I don't what they could be hiding.
There is not a lawyer alive who truly trusts polygraphs. Since congress is made up of lawyers, this is not surprising at all. I wouldn't take a polygraph either- there is a good reason that these tests are not admissable in courts.
Article was from NewsMax. I don't know how I fudged the link...its fixed. That last sentance did seem out of place with the rest of the article, but I included it even though it appears to not be part of the article, but an add-on opinion to the article I posted in its entirety.
If Cheney will take one about his Halliburton stock, ties to the energy industry and how they effected his national energy policy, I'm all for the congress getting theirs as well.
LOL, Jeff... if Bush will take one regarding his insider Harken deal, then I'll start chewing on my hat! (I don't have a hat I like, but what I've got is in no danger.)
Jeff/Ms. Jeff, You know Congress is made up of more than just Dems, right? This isn't a partisan issue, its a national security issue.
Wait, I didn't realize this is a partisan issue. I want Hillary to take a polygraph about the 1000 bucks she turned into a 100k the first time she "played" cattle options. I want Robert Rubin to take a polygraph concerning the connection between the Clinton White House, Citibank, and Enron. I want Joe Lieberman to take a polygraph about the money he received from the accounting lobby to ease restrictions on big business accounting. I want Al Gore to take a polygraph about the money funneled into the DNC from the Communist Chinese Army. I want Barney Frank to take a polygraph about the gay prostitution ring that his intern was running out of Frank's office. I want Sheila Jackson Lee to take a polygraph about how often she washes that bulletproof hairdo when she gets all gussied up. This is fun. I have changed my mind about polygraphs.
Sure, but the problem is that the administration has been trying to circumvent the congress in its war efforts. There has been no public debate and not even a congressional debate until hearings this week. Hell, even half of the administration disagrees with Bush on how and when to invade Iraq. Iraqi experts the administration approved even said at hearings this week that the problem with Iraq isn't removing Hussein, it's figuring out what to do once he's gone. Some believe that removing him without a plan of what to do next could make the situation WORSE. The ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee (Biden (D) and Luger (R)) said yesterday that a war against Iraq fought without the support of our allies could be devastating financially for America. Military experts suggest it will cost $100 BILLION to finance a war. During the Gulf War (which cost nearly that much), over 70 percent was financed by allies of the US. I recognize the need for protecting national security. But, I also recognize that this is still a democracy run of, by and for the people. Hiding information about detainees in the war on terror, battle plans against Iraq, what to do once Sadaam is gone and on and on under the veil of national security is not only dangerous, it is un-democratic.
Heck, as good at lying as many members of Congress are, I don't think a polygraph would be able to tell who is or isn't telling the truth even if lie detector tests were accurate. And that goes for both sides of the aisle. But if we're going to resort to lie detectors, why don't we just call up one of those psychics and have he or she tell us where the leaks are.
