Retcopper,

I see that you are still clueless.

I shudder in horror for the le agency that you work for or used to work for.

And the PTB in certain circles wonder why so many folks view le with a jaundiced eye.

Watch the liberals here excoriate you for that one

retcopper wrote on Sep 30^th, 2005 at 6:12pm:


Where I work there is a clear ethical standard:

Do what is best for the country, unless it conflicts with your own best interests, the financial interests of whatever company you work for, or will lessen your division's political power.  Then talk about the importance of the mission, and how dedicated you personally are to it even though everyone else is messing up and just looking out for their own interests.  

retcopper wrote:
Quote:


Oh, copper please enlighten those of us "criminals" who post on this site.  Your narrow mindedness is quite stale.  I would be willing to put my record against yours any day with the expectation that I am exceptionally "cleaner" than you.  Your condescending attitude speaks volumes as you know nothing about the posters with the exception of your regular ASSumptions.

Surely, as a human you have heard the old adage "If it smells like shit, it probably is."  I think you get MY drift.

Sergeant:

If you are a real cop then you surely must have heard of the adage; "You lie wth dogs and you get fleas."  Get my drift?  You and I  know that the majority of people that come to this site for one reason. I hope you can sleep well at night.

Twoblock wrote on Sep 30^th, 2005 at 7:17pm:

Sometimes if you don’t feed the trolls they go away on their own.  Or starve to death.

Thus far “retcopper” has contributed nothing to this site except to read a post here and there and respond with the equivalent of “Oh, yeah?”

I have already mentioned this to him once in another thread, but apparently he is either unwilling or unable to come up with anything intelligent to say.

retcopper

You asked to be enlightened however, you don't have the ability to be enlightened. Instead of trying to disprove what Kane and I wrote, you make a poor attempt at twisting things around. You need to go back to the Democrat's school of twisting. They are masters at it.

I see no need, as I'm sure is the case of the rest who visit this site, to respond your posts any more because you have proven that you can't debate the issues. So go ahead and have the last twist.

I had a meeting today with a ajudicator (sp)

This was actually very pleasant.  I may have to go in for a 3rd poly.  *ARGGGGH!! I feel like I am just repeating myself over and over again. apparently in their dictionary, "no" means ask the same question 8 more times. 

Nonnombre:  Since I am on location at CIA, I need to get their clearance.  That's why i have to go through their clearance procedures.

Twoblock and Kane:

You guys are really grasping at straws to prove your "rampant corruption"  allegation. If you had your way you probably would put drunk "Chappaquidick " Ted Kenedy in charge of the CIA and Janet "Wacko'' Reno in charge of the FBI.  Two fine liberals, who by the way are also against the polygraph. Thank god that  the CIA and the FBI work for us.

Retcopper,

Ever heard of Richard Hansen, Aldrich Ames, Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Oklahoma City?

How about the myraid of abuses that are reported in all sorts of news sources daily, from ATFE "raids", to IRS bullying, Janet Reno, and so on?

I am not saying that all federal employees are crooked.  I know many federal employees and they are fine people.   

However, the system as it currently stands is corrupt. It's about numbers and money.  The more of a certain minority they hire, the better they look.  The more they can say that "x" thing is wrong, the more tax money they can get.

Surely you can't be that totally devoted to the feds, can you?

retcopper

I know you asked Kane but, I'm gonna add my 2 cents anyway.

Don't you read newapapers and watch TV? Or, when an article appears about a bad cop, do you play ostrich?

J. Edgar Hoover was a homo pervert who kept dossiers on all powerful politicians including presidents. This is how he got every damn thing he asked for from congress. He held the bad deeds they had done over their heads. I read this in a number of publications. This info was not published until after his death. The news media was afraid of him too. He and Lynden Johnson were buddies. Each had dirt on the other. Also, after his death, articles began to appear about the corruption of that organization. The CIA has had their share of bad press also. If these two agencies had shared their intellingence information there, in all likelyhood, would not have been the 9-11 horrow. All of the above stuff, and a lot more has been plastered all over the news media. It is not just my "anti police" attitude (as you put it). Where have you been man?

We have never gotten our money's worth from D. C. because of the corruption there. Look at the conspiratorial corruption between D. C. and the oil industry for which you, I and the rest of this country are paying dearly.

Kane:

You wrote that all of us have seen the corruption throughout the feds. Please enlighten me.

Polygraphs are utterly worthless.  I tried to get on with the FBI last summer as an investigative specialist.   

I had three polys with them, all three were called inconclusive.  I got the same rude, crude and socially unaccpetable treatment as you and others noted here.

I am very glad, (it's a God thing in my opinion), that I did not get the job.  Over the past few years, I think that all of us have seen the incompetence and corruption that is all throughout the feds.

I know why I had an inconclusive test.  I was the wrong age, wrong gender, wrong color.  I did not fit the little profile they wanted that particular day.

It's their loss, not mine.

IC_employee wrote on Sep 26^th, 2005 at 5:17pm:


Maybe you can talk your current agency into doing the test on you if all they ask is "counter intel" questions.  That would seem fair since you really belong to them anyway.  Wouldn't that take care of the problem?

Nonombre

P.S.  I am not a intelligence agency polygraph examiner, so forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are "counter-intel" questions?  Is that like, "Are you trying to infiltrate my agency?"

 


???

they do not do life style polys, they only do counter intel

IC_employee wrote on Sep 25^th, 2005 at 3:10am:


Does the agency you are with now conduct polygraph tests?

Nonombre

Eastwood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2005 at 5:24am:

you're a classy guy.
I have no children, and I already have clearance with another agency. Nice try though sh!t head

Eastwood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2005 at 5:24am:


Wow, Eastwood.  You're SO cool, coming across as a total macho-macho-man here...

A "tough guy" on the verge of tears because you can't clear a drug issue on a polygraph?  Better stick to your Mr Mom job bud

IC employee,

If the CIA considered your admission about taking a prescription medication with alcohol to be disqualifying in and of itself, then you probably would not have been brought back for a follow-up polygraph session.

You may be interested in retired CIA agent Melissa Mahle's observations on the Agency's polygraph policy:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...

Former director James Woolsey has also called on the CIA to "radically curtail" its reliance on polygraphy:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...

IC_employee wrote on Sep 12^th, 2005 at 9:06pm:


Oh believe me, I completely understand - and I only had one three hour session.  I never thought that I'd be accused of something as drug usage.  As a matter of fact, I was hoping to be out of there in 1 hour, because I've never done anything to the effects of the things in the application in my life.  The national security is definitely not an issue for me, drug usage - I grew up Mormon, so not even alchohol was I allowed to consume.  So you can imagine how I now view those feebees and everyone else who adminsiters and accepts as scientific hard-core evidence, the polygrah.

Johnn wrote on Sep 12^th, 2005 at 9:02pm:

I asked him If I failed, and he said he does not make that determination.

I would just like to reiterate that I realize what I did in regard to not being 100% truthful on something that would have otherwise been trivial.  The point of my post was these 2 session really made me question our government and their morality. It really shook me up

well, in this case the status quo is that it does not effect my currect clearance.  In fact, the last 4 people in my office who were designated to obtain the same clearance as me were rejected, and simply assigned to a different location. so I'm 99 % sure that's what will happen to me.

by the way, did he tell you directly if you failed or not? Is there anyone you can call to confirm?

I am sorry that you had to go through this experience.  I think that if someone mentions something to the polygrapher  on the onset "to come clean", they are pretty much doomed from the start.  Personally, before I took the polygraph, the polygrapher asked me if I wanted to come clean about something, and I told him that I want to add a job on my application  - one which I failed to mention - but not deliberately.  I "came clean" about the job because initially, I thought that because I've only worked in it for about 1 month - pre college, that I didn't have to put it down.  But then I remembered that they finger printed me, and so I informed the polygrapher - but not because I had anything to hide - I left that job because I hated it and because I could - I was a young kid living with my parents -nothing else.  But of course, the polygrapher made it seem as if there was a  huge story behind it, although we didn't dwell much on it - only 5 minutes.   
or so I thought..
Well, lo and behold, at the end of the exam, the polygrapher said that I was having a problem with the drug usage question, and I told him that I don't know what he's referring to.  He then told me that the same way I ommitted the job could possibly be the same way that I am ommitting the drug usage.  I told him that I grew up religious (although I didn't mention the denomination), and he just looked at me like, "yeah, eveyone tells me the same thing".   

I'll give him this much - at least he didn't accuse me of lying directly and our post interrogation didn't last for more than 10 minutes, but he did say that there was definitely a problem with the drug usage question.   In any case, at the end, he said, "well, I'll attach a statement to your charts, but it don't look too good".