Oops, guess this little "success" won't be touted by the polygraph community.

The recent manhunt for five supposed terrorists appears to be a hoax yet the Washington Post reported a few days ago that the "plot" was confirned by intensive polygraph interrogation. Here's an excerpt:

[from WAPO]
The source of the names and photos was Hamdani, who is facing charges of fraud and possession of instruments of forgery in Canada after his arrest in Canada. U.S. and Canadian investigators have questioned him extensively, using polygraph machines.

-Marty

Marty / Mark Mallah,

Mark Mallah wrote:
"the FBI should be a little less obvious about its cluelessness."

Mark, I personally couldn’t have said it better. However, you would think the same idea would apply towards the “coin toss accuracy” with respect to FBI polygraph testing. 

The FBI should be a little less obvious with the voodoo science surrounding polygraph testing.

Anyone who actually believes in polygraph testing accuracy, (with any agency) is very naïve and gullible. The very same people probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as well.

x

The Hamdani case appears to be a prime example of investigatory misdirection resulting from misplaced reliance on polygraphy. Already, it appears that FBI "spin control" has swung into full gear, and that the Canadians are the designated fall guys. (Surely, "polygraph" could not have been in error!) The following commentary is from the Polygraph News page:

The FBI's nationwide dragnet for suspected terrorist infiltrators was based on an apparently bogus tip from accused Canadian forger Michael Hamdani. In a 3 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "F ake-ID Arrest Led to FBI Hunt," staff writer John Mintz reported that U.S. and Canadian investigators had questioned Hamdani extensively using polygraph machines. U.S. President George W. Bush authorized a nationwide manhunt for the putative terrorist infiltrators based on Hamdani's polygraph-confirmed information. But in an 8 January 2003 Washington Post article titled " Wanted: 5 Men -- The Terror Alert That Wasn't," Ruth Marcus and Dan Eggen report that the tip was bogus. Already, revisionists within the FBI have begun rationalizing the apparent false negative outcome of Hamdani's polygraph interrogation, assigning blame to the Canadians for a "seriously flawed" polygraph examination.

In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.

The popular perception that the polygraph is foolproof is so strong that a radio show in LA, while ridiculing the government's handling of this, plaintively said: "Why didn't they polygraph this guy before launching this manhunt."

Sigh.

-Marty

I plan on finding out the answers to the following questions:

What was the Canadian law enforcement agency that administered the polygraph?

What was the format of the polygraph exam?

From what institutions did the polygraph examiner receive his training?

What if any 'quality control reviews' took place within the Canadian polygraph administering law enforcement agency?

When precisely in the time line did the FBI first raise doubts as to the polygraph interrogation and the results?

Any leads accepted.. either here or in private messages.

Isn't it curious that the FBI is characterizing the Canadian-administered polygraph examination of Michael Hamdani as "seriously flawed?"

In July 2001, after Congressman Gary Condit passed a private polygraph examination administered by retired FBI polygrapher Barry Colvert regarding the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the FBI issued a statement declaring, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." (See the message thread, FBI Doubletalk on Condit's Polygraph Results for details.)

Beech Trees,

The Peel Regional Police gag order to its media relations office is intriguing, considering that the Hamdani case now seems to be a common criminal case with no apparent national security ramifications.

If the polygraph interrogation of Hamdani was not done by the Peel police, then it might have been conducted by Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP website includes the following list of telephone numbers for Ontario:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/telephone/generalcont_on_e.htm