Good question. I don't know the answer, but in following the news, I've noticed the following:

• No one in the FBI has been willing to say on the record that polygraph screening of agents is to begin: the person(s) making this statement have not been willing to have their names published.
• Anonymous FBI counterintelligence officials have been whispering to reporters, saying that the FBI has been remiss in not adopting post-employment polygraph screening three years ago. Their arguments have largely been uncritically repeated by the press.
• A question about polygraph testing in the FBI was the first one asked in President Bush's first press conference, last week. The President said he would await the recommendations of Judge Williams Webster's blue-ribbon review panel.
• Judge Webster has told Time magazine that he expects that he will recommend adoption of a polygraph policy lying between what the Bureau has now and that of the CIA.
• Both the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and the ranking minority member, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), have publicly called for more polygraphs at FBI in press interviews.

The political pressure to adopt widespread polygraph screening at FBI is enormous. As long as the American people don't generally know the truth about polygraph "testing," calling for more polygraph screening is a winning proposition for both legislators and administration officials: it allows them to create the appearance that they are "getting tough" on security (when in fact, reliance on polygraphs undermines it).

I suspect that polygraph screening at the Bureau might be limited to counterintelligence matters, but who knows?

You can be damned sure that FBI Director Louis Freeh won't be accused of deception if, as CNN reports, he is the first one to be polygraphed under the anticipated new screening program. And FBI polygraphers will no doubt have to follow the course of other agencies in arbitrarily adjusting their polygraph chart scoring parameters to make sure that only a politically acceptable number of individuals ultimately "fail."

I would suggest that if the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is to press for polygraphs at FBI, they ought to set the example by requiring both routine and random polygraph screening of all senators and staffers assigned to the Committee. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last modification: George Maschke - 02/26/01 at 01:20:12

So what happens to current FBI agents that are to be poly’d?? .  Do they take a complete poly like all new applicants (have you ever driven drunk, have you ever thought about ???, and all that BS) or do they take just a test for counterintelligence & espionage??

How really impartial will FBI agents be in polygraphing their own? As an analogy -  How many cops give traffic tickets to other cops!!!!!!  What about the first lcass in 1994 where over 50% of new trainees failed?????

Why not have CIA polyograhers do the tests for current FBI employers and if one is inconclusive (let alone deceptive) then the are fired. Will the agency treat its current agents  ( who ‘obviously’ are above reproach) with the same disdain that they treat their applicants????

Hell, why just stop at current agents & employees.  Since Hanseen was a 25 yr veteran agent, he could have worked with agents and other employees that have long since retired.  Why not polygraph *** all former **** agents/employees.  If they get an inconclusive result then their retirement should at least be taken away!!!  Or worse, they could be subject to criminal investigation / prosecution.