{"id":2970,"date":"2001-04-17T15:00:09","date_gmt":"2001-04-17T20:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=2970"},"modified":"2021-02-18T08:02:15","modified_gmt":"2021-02-18T13:02:15","slug":"ex-sailor-sues-navy-officers-who-labelled-him-a-spy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2001\/04\/17\/ex-sailor-sues-navy-officers-who-labelled-him-a-spy\/","title":{"rendered":"“Ex-Sailor Sues Navy Officers Who Labelled Him a Spy”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

Los Angeles Times<\/em> staff writer Eric Lichtblau reports<\/a> on the case of recently retired Navy petty officer Daniel M. King. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

King’s supporters say the case raises core questions about the way the military uses polygraphs to detect spies and whether it maintains proper safeguards to protect a service member’s right to defense counsel, a speedy trial and due process.<\/p>

“You have a real problem here when an individual can spend well over a year incarcerated in a case in which there is really very little evidence,” said Kevin Barry, a retired military judge who helped write a brief on King’s behalf. “There are a lot of shortcomings in the military justice system, and a case like King’s has hit pretty hard on a few key ones.”<\/p>

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, one of King’s lawyers, said the Navy’s justice system should be put on trial for running roughshod over a 20-year veteran’s rights. The Navy was driven by a “blind pursuit” of a villain, he says.<\/p>

The King case, Turley maintains, fits “a long-standing pattern of abusive and unprofessional conduct” by the naval investigative service. He cited the Navy’s handling of the Tailhook sex scandal in the early 1990s and its probe into a fatal 1989 explosion aboard the battleship Iowa, which prompted the Navy to apologize to the family of a sailor who it initially suspected of blowing up the ship.<\/p>

The Navy Times, in an editorial last month, said the King case “didn’t rock just one sailor’s faith in military justice. It poses a challenge to anyone’s faith in the system.”<\/p>

The newspaper said King deserves an apology. But King said in an interview that he is happy just to be out of lockup.<\/p>

The matter began in September 1999, when King underwent a routine polygraph test as part of a reassignment from Guam to Ft. Meade in Maryland, where he had previously worked as a cryptographer for the National Security Agency.<\/p>

The Navy says King “did not pass” the test and effectively admitted to security violations. King’s lawyers deny the claim and say the results were simply inconclusive–a fairly common result.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Los Angeles Times staff writer Eric Lichtblau reports on the case of recently retired Navy petty officer Daniel M. King. Excerpt: King’s supporters say the case raises core questions about the way the military uses polygraphs to detect spies and whether it maintains proper safeguards to protect a service member’s right to defense counsel, a …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[310,309,87],"class_list":{"0":"post-2970","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-daniel-king","8":"tag-ncis","9":"tag-nsa","10":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2970"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2971,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions\/2971"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}