Thanks for the reply. I was not aware that state polygraph licensing laws provided for such confidentiality. From what I know of you so far Pailryder, I don't think you would turn a blind eye to national security risks; just my gut feeling.

stefano

I would not need to be instructed.  I would follow the law of the state where I am licensed and maintain confidentiality.

pailryder wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Pailryder,
I'm curious to know what you would do if you were the polygrapher who was instructed to keep mum if a CIA director was bypassed or failed a polygraph. Would you keep omerta', or blow the whistle?

George

When I saw the video of him stateing that he or no one in the CIA gave the order to "stand down", I sent out emails and posted on facebook that he wouldn't be in that job come Jan. 1. I didn't think it would come this soon though. Remember he was supposed to be in front of a house committee this week to be grilled on the Benghazi attack. I believe the thinking was that if he's no longer head of the CIA, he would not have to appear. However, Rep. King has other ideas about that. That's my take on it.

Washington, D.C. is a mess.

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 8:11am:



George

I do not see how that is newsworthy.  Does anyone believe a polygraph examiner is allowed to veto a presidential appointment?

A Bloomberg article by Phil Mattingly and John Walcott cites a single, anonymous official source who claims that Petraeus was not polygraphed by the CIA in connection with his appointment as the Agency's director, because he had already been polygraphed in connection with his military service:

Quote:


Implicit in the above passage is the notion that the polygraph would have brought the affair to light. But that's not necessarily the case because 1) polygraphy has no scientific basis and is highly unreliable and 2) as discussed above, senior officials at Petraeus's level don't fail polygraphs.

Note also that there is no indication in the article when Petraeus's military polygraph took place or precisely when he began his extramarital affair with Broadwell.

In addition, DoD uses a "counterintelligence scope" screening format, where the relevant questions are restricted to matters of counterintelligence concern such as unauthorized disclosure of classified information and contacts with a foreign government. The CIA, by contrast, uses a so-called "full scope" or "lifestyle" screening format, where relevant questions also cover drug use and criminal behavior. Adultery is punishable under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If the CIA has a policy of not polygraphing new employees who have recently taken a polygraph with DoD, that would be newsworthy. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, and an exception was made for David Petraeus, that too would be newsworthy.

getrealalready wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:


Precisely. As I've commented on Pat Lang's blog, the polygrapher who fluttered Petraeus (assuming he did indeed go through the ritual) would have been more concerned about losing his job than Petraeus.

I'm guessing we can count on the fingers of a man with no hands the number of times a nominated CIA Director has failed a pre-employment polygraph examination.  Go figure 

On Friday, 9 November 2012, CIA Director David H. Petraeus tendered his resignation, explaining:

Quote:


Other reporting indicates that the extramarital affair Petraeus cites as the reason for his resigning began while he was commander of US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, that is, before his assumption of duties as CIA director.

The affair reportedly came to light in the course of an ongoing FBI investigation into suspected unauthorized attempts to access Petraeus's Gmail account.

All CIA employees are required to undergo pre-employment polygraph screening, and it seems likely that Petraeus would have been polygraphed. If so, it would seem that the polygraph failed to bring to light misconduct so serious as to warrant the CIA director's resignation.