{"id":871,"date":"2013-04-10T02:13:26","date_gmt":"2013-04-10T07:13:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=871"},"modified":"2021-03-23T08:13:27","modified_gmt":"2021-03-23T13:13:27","slug":"operation-lie-busters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2013\/04\/10\/operation-lie-busters\/","title":{"rendered":"Operation Lie Busters"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The federal criminal investigation into polygraph countermeasure training reported<\/a> by AntiPolygraph.org last week is named “Operation Lie Busters.” The name, which was redacted from a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) document<\/a> (5.4 mb PDF) released to the Center for Investigative Reporting<\/a> under the Freedom of Information Act, suggests that polygraph countermeasures are central, and not peripheral to the investigation, in which 10 applicants for employment with CBP “were identified as receiving sophisticated polygraph Countermeasure training in an effort to defeat the polygraph requirement.”<\/p>\n

While polygraph countermeasures<\/a> may be used by deceptive persons to pass a polygraph, truthful persons may also choose to employ them to protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive<\/a> outcome. CBP, for example, has a pre-employment polygraph failure rate of about 60%<\/a>, and given polygraphy’s complete lack of scientific underpinnings<\/a>, it is inevitable that many truthful applicants, like Eric Trevino<\/a>, are being falsely branded as liars by CBP and other federal agencies and suffering irreparable career harm.<\/p>\n

Polygraph countermeasures, such as those explained in AntiPolygraph.org’s free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector<\/em><\/a> (1 mb PDF), are simple, easily learned, and effective, and the polygraph community has no coherent methodology for detecting them. Being unable to detect countermeasures, it appears that the U.S. government is attempting to criminalize them.<\/p>\n

The CBP polygraph unit (formally titled the “Credibility Assessment Division” clearly prides itself on Operation Lie Busters, having showcased it as the first item in a 28-page “Significant Admissions Summary,” even though no “significant admission” is alleged in connection with the investigation.<\/p>\n

CBP Public Affairs declined to answer any questions about this investigation, including whether any of the 10 CBP applicants have been criminally charged, what the underlying crime in the alleged conspiracy is, whether CBP considers it a crime to receive or provide instruction in polygraph countermeasures, how the applicants in question were identified as having received polygraph countermeasure training, who provided the training, and why the name of the operation was redacted and whether it could now be disclosed.<\/p>\n

Despite CBP’s refusal to comment, AntiPolygraph.org has learned that the head of CBP’s Credibility Assessment Division, John R. Schwartz, and CBP Special Agent Fred C. Ball, Jr. have been scheduled since at least January 2013 to give a presentation on the operation on Monday, 3 June 2013, as the keynote and opening presentation at the American Association of Police Polygraphists<\/a>‘ annual seminar, which is scheduled for 2-7 June 2013 at the Omni Charlotte Hotel in Charlotte, North Carolina. The seminar schedule, a copy of which has been provided to AntiPolygraph.org, reveals the name of the investigation to be “Operation Lie Busters”:<\/p>\n

\"AAPP<\/a><\/p>\n

If the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s polygraph unit can showboat Operation Lie Busters at a convention organized by a private group such as the American Association of Police Polygraphists, then the public should be entitled to know about this allegedly “precedent setting” investigation, too.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Documents<\/a> provided to AntiPolygraph.org reveal that the two primary sources of information about polygraph countermeasures that concern the polygraph community are AntiPolygraph.org and former police polygraphist Doug Williams<\/a> of Norman, Oklahoma, who sells a manual titled “How to Sting the Polygraph” and offers personal training<\/a> in polygraph countermeasures. AntiPolygraph.org notes that both John Schwartz and Fred Ball are assigned to CBP offices in Houston, Texas, whose jurisdiction<\/a> extends to Oklahoma City, of which Norman is a suburb.<\/p>\n

For discussion of Operation Lie Busters, see “Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?”<\/a> on the AntiPolygraph.org message board.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The federal criminal investigation into polygraph countermeasure training reported by AntiPolygraph.org last week is named “Operation Lie Busters.” The name, which was redacted from a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) document (5.4 mb PDF) released to the Center for Investigative Reporting under the Freedom of Information Act, suggests that polygraph countermeasures are central, and …<\/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":[64,88,168,167,169,170,70],"class_list":{"0":"post-871","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-countermeasures","8":"tag-customs-and-border-protection","9":"tag-fred-c-ball","10":"tag-john-r-schwartz","11":"tag-jr","12":"tag-operation-lie-busters","13":"tag-polygraph-screening","14":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/871","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=871"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/871\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4274,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/871\/revisions\/4274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}