Oh, thank goodness; he failed the polygraph. I feel soooo much better...
http://www.salon.com/health/fe ature/2000/03/02/polygraph/ind ex1.html
False positives -- people whom the examiner says are "deceptive" but who are in fact telling the truth -- are more common than false negatives -- people whom the examiner says test "not deceptive" but who are in fact lying. Of one study situation Lykken says, "An accused person who is innocent who takes a polygraph test has almost a 50-50 chance of failing it." Says Lykken, "Those odds are worse than Russian roulette!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/A56300-2002Apr15?language=printer
In fact, the polygraph determines whether a person is lying with accuracy only slightly greater than chance. Moreover, studies have repeatedly shown that the polygraph is more likely to find innocent people guilty than vice versa.
http://www.stopolygraph.com/po lygraph/home.htm
Even the U.S. Government argued before the Supreme Court against the use of the polygraph because it is so easy to manipulate (United States v. Scheffer.)
The Justices took note of the Governments position on the case and wrote, "...there is much inconsistency between the Governments extensive use of polygraphs to make vital security determinations and the argument it makes here, stressing the inaccuracy of these tests."
http://www.spiritone.com/~law/ polygraph.html
Contrary to popular belief, the polygraph is a not capable of detecting lies. In fact, it is a complete fraud. Just like palmistry, mind-reading, and crystal balls, it is pseudoscience or false science. The truth is that there is no scientific evidence to show that the polygraph can determine when a person is lying. It is for this reason that polygraph results are not admissible in court.
Nothing to see here, move along...
So, whaddaya think the odds are that (1) a phone conversation in Arabic would bleed over onto someone else's phone and (2) that guy would just happen to speak Arabic?
I saw on Fox News this morning (6-22) and they had a clip of the Mayor the Las Vegas. He now wants the man brought up on some/any type of charges because he informed the public of what might happen.
I agree, how is it that now when it is convenient for them to say the just because this man "failed" a lie detector the threat is non-credible.