Why does it matter who I say?
Because your critics suggest that there exists no person who fits the criteria of a suitably impartial investigator. They further suggest that you know this, and your inability to name a candidate substantiates that suggestion. This is important because if no such investigator exists, then the call for an investigation is simply rhetorical tap-dancing, not a legitimate call for action.
If you disagree with my choice, I get to hear your opinion as to why my choice is less superior to yours?
If you were to name a candidate, then yes, a discussion would ensue about his qualifications and his acceptability to both parties. As I mentioned before, the investigation in this case would have to be truly impartial. Otherwise it's just the Truthers offering their own biased judgment in opposition to the majority view, and that hasn't gotten anyone anywhere so far.
If that's yer end game, I'll skip this round of go-nowhere-dialogue if you don't mind.
As long as you're comfortable with your own unwillingness or inability to name a candidate that satisfies your criteria, suggesting no investigation is possible that would satisfy you.
Which I suppose is why the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I. use 'em, eh?
Nothing forbids their general use both in an out of government, including law enforcement. The question of whether the polygraph results are admissible in court is settled, however. If you invoke the judicial rules of evidence to compel disclosure by subpoena, then you have to respect the judicial rules of evidence as concerns the admissibility of the evidence. Otherwise you're just throwing out only those parts of the law that are inconvenient to your beliefs.
The reliability of the polygraph to determine willful deception is right around 60 percent, or just slightly more reliable than guessing. The role of a polygraph in an interrogation is the salient factor, and the one most applicable to the agencies you have named. It simply amplifies the intimidation, increasing the likelihood that the subject will "come clean" under the ordinary interview that precedes and follows the use of the polygraph, and thereby provide evidence that can be followed up on by more reliable means. In a sense, the polygraph is styled as the "bad cop" and the examiner is the "good cop."
Have you ever undergone a polygraph examination, Jango? Please answer yes or no.
No, not really, just declassification of the cited evidence the government has used to make their case and that which can be queried from databases using the terminology found within the 9/11 Commission itself.
Documentary facts of that nature (e.g., internal communications of the intelligence community) require knowledgeable interpretation in order to be considered as evidence, often by their authors if known, in order to ascertain what the documents mean and how they were used or received. Who, in your investigation, gets to interpret that evidence for everyone for all time?
At any rate, so what if it was a "fishing expedition"? Shouldn't the government be forced to the same standard as everyone else?
The standard is that "fishing expeditions" are not allowed because the courts consider them an unreasonable search. For this reason subpoenas issued by investigators and prosecutors have to be vetted by a judge to ensure they are sufficiently narrow in scope and that the rights of the accused are adequately protected and that the legitimate privacy of witnesses is respected. Compelling a witness to give broad public testimony about previously private affairs, on the unknown off-chance that some as-yet uncharacterized good may come of it, is expressly forbidden.
So then your question is really whether the government operatives involved here should be afforded the same constitutional protection as everyone else? Or in your mad rush to "justice" are you just going to throw out the Constitution as well?
Yay non-transparency, right?
...says the guy who refuses to name an investigator for fear the discussion of it will go badly for him. It seems you're the one with the agenda, and it involves unknown parties using only the powers of government without its attendant protections, and refusing to discuss how you will proceed and by whose actions. Please don't preach "transparency" as a virtue without being willing to exhibit it yourself.
