Comments on: Just Another Injustice

By: NJ_Patriot

NJ_Patriot — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:17:13 +0000

I sure as heck hope you're not siding in the slightest with that anemic freak whose actions have cost red-blooded American soldiers their safety if not their very lives. I don’t know if that albino menace actually raped someone’s daughter or if he was, in fact, set up by the Pentagon. And I don’t really care. We should drop a hellfire missile on his soulless carcass. It hurts the libertarian cause when we bed down with scum to make an otherwise legitimate argument.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:52:08 +0000

First, I’m sure that someone like Clinton could claim to be Chaing Kai Shek and the knobs would not move.

In my case, I was asked if there were ILLICIT FOREIGN CONTACTS that I was trying to hide and I said no. Meanwhile, while facing a blank wall, I was instructed to “think about” illicit foreign contacts and my mind stumbled to an attractive Romanian woman whom I played Pictionary with 10 years earlier (I had to show her the meaning of “garter belt” but that was as illicit as it got) and never saw again! That set off an “ambigiuous biological response” and got them accusing me of hiding foreign contacts. “Am I supposed to list every foreign person I ever met?” “yes” “Well, half the people at MIT were foreigners, I can leave and come back with a directory if you want” – believe me, it was Kafkaesque.

It went from the ridiculous to the ugly.

Meanwhile, all these clowns like Adrich Ames passed these tests in flying colors.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:44:23 +0000

The polygraph is inadmissible in court, unless they changed it since I retired. However, it’s long been known as the replacement for the water-board, thumbscrew, or rack. One keeps using the device with its psychological effect, if possible to break the will and elicit a confession. If it doesn’t work, keep trying until you get a confession anyway. In my interrogation class in college (BS in Criminology) the instructor was a FBI agent. His instruction came down to one comment. “Name-rank-and serial number” or in other words, do not answer any questions other than personal identification. Anything else is an admission of guilt. If you admit you were in the vicinity, you admitted you were at the crime and probably did it. The Fifth Amendment should allow more leeway than just “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it will tend to incriminate me.” however, that’s all this dictatorship allows.

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:15:01 +0000

That’s interesting about the polygraphy, Myron. If the polygraphers decide you are lying when you are telling the truth; and the reverse is also true…of what value is this instrument in determining “the truth”?

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:33:20 +0000

Ilana, I “pre-posted” on the Blajo-Farce:

http://barelyablog.com/?p=28675

As if there isn’t enough real crime, the government has to manufacture crimes, exaggerate them, “throw the book” at these pseudo-criminals. LYING TO THE GOVERNMENT is a crime! Every President taking the oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution lies to the people!

I took a polygraph (e.g. voodoo) test in 1995. When I told them the truth, they insisted I was lying. I endured 4 – 5 hours of interrogation, threats, and accusations. Ironically, the idiotic ordeal ended when I confessed to something that I did not do (and fingered my boss’ boss on the non-crime). After I gathered my thoughts, I became angry with myself and angrier at the whole process (these morons decided a lie was true and the truth was a lie).

[What was this over? Sounds Kafkaesque.]

It’s wonderful living in a country where prosecutors can spend millions on ‘targeting” people and FBI agents can harass you indefinitely probing for inconsistencies. In 20-20 hindsight, the sex lawsuit against Clinton was groundless, the Monica Lewinsky issue was irrelevant to the groundless lawsuit, and the government committed prosecutorial misconduct when Linda Tripp provided privileged information to Paula Jones’ lawyers to help sandbag Slick Willie.

By: Gringo Malo

Gringo Malo — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:05:24 +0000

Thanks for reminding me to find the section of the U.S. Code that forbids "lying to federal agents." By way of Blago's indictment, Count Nineteen, it's 18 USC 1001. As the late Samuel Francis might have said, it's good to know that the fedgov keeps such a tight lid on crime and terrorism that it has time and space to lock people up for something they said while not under oath. Remembering, however, that Slick Willie Clinton got a slap on the wrist for perjury, doesn't nailing Blago seem a bit inconsistent?