retcopper wrote on May 1^st, 2006 at 5:11pm:


You omitted my statement about civil comittment...

And of course, pedophiles cannot be cured of their prediliction, hence my statement on civil comittment. However, increased supervision (GPS, random checks, TC) also works when done correctly...

As for my supposed "liberal" applications, I only go where the evidence is strongest. And you have no evidence for either my conservative or liberal persuasion, only your assumptions...but then polygraphy is only based on assumptions, not evidence, so it's not surprising you'd make that logical leap... 

And if polygraph is the only good thing about the containment method, then my original statement polygraph sabotaging its effectiveness stands...

Digithead:

Regarding your work into sex offenders.  The first sex offenders course i attended in 1966 I learned that pedophiles can not be cured.  It is a sad fact but true.  Nothing over the past 40 yrs has changed that perception.  I'm sorry your liberal applications of education etc., just do not work. The only thing that works is incarceration.  Polygraphy is the only useful tool in the containment method.

retcopper wrote on Apr 27^th, 2006 at 3:09pm:


Doing "research" allows the criminal justice system to separate the junk out from what actually works based on scientific reasoning. Otherwise you're just guessing. But then that's basically what a polygrapher is doing from his squiggly lines... 

Polygraphy is unscientific flapdoodle based on wishful thinking. It should be tossed out along with all the other junk that used to be used in the criminal justice system such as phrenology and somatypes... 

And exactly how am I a Monday morning QB? I've worked as researcher for over fifteen years doing program evaluations. My research has helped CJ administrators decide to keep programs that reduce recidivism (education, therapeutic communities) from ones that don't (boot camps), saving taxpayer dollars and increasing public safety...

Doing research, my friend, is a lot more productive than polygraphy. As for specific research into sex offending, I've just begun. The containment method looks promising but its reliance on the polygraph sabotages its effectiveness. Hopefully, I'll get the CJ sytem to toss the polygraph for increased supervision levels or civil commitment...

retcopper is just sticking up for his own.  it's no different than defending your friend even when you know he is wrong.  just let it slide.  you know he isn't being remotely objective.

nonombre,
i have a career.  i have never taken a polygraph.  i LOVE my job, too.  the only difference i see is this:  i do not lie to the people i work with, or abuse them in any way.  i am completely upfront about all the risks and potential issues that could arise.  how often do you explain potential risks of being false positive to your victims before your start your vodoo?   

it must be nice to lie to every person you test...free from any accountablity whatsoever.  there is no truth in darkness.

As a journalism major, I can say spelling errors can ruin the credibility of an otherwise good source or article.  That said, I don't think focusing on spelling errors is the best way to determine the legitimacy of what a person has to say.

Now, nonombre's arrogant response shows his true colors.  His "career" is based on lies, actually hurts national security by keeping good and valuable people out of the intelligence community, and traumatizes innocent people.

As for his insinuation that people who haven't passed a polygraph test are all losers with no prospects, he should think again.  I don't know his resume, but I daresay that if we were to compare, my resume would have a good chance at appearing more accomplished than his.

Anyway nonombre, thanks for supporting my view that polygraphers are generally arrogant, uncaring, overzealous, and narrow-minded.

Those were my comments on what Nonombre wrote.

Moreover, I find it hard to take seriously anything written by a purported polygrapher who cannot even properly spell the world "lying."

You would think a polygrapher would, after all, want to carry some credibility, ironically enough.

Why would I want to put my career or freedom in the hands of a jackass joker who cannot spell the very thing he is supposedly trained to detect?

Neither would I board an aircraft knowing the pilot could not spell the word "engine" or "aileron." Then again, putting polygraphy as a profession at the same level as aviation is an insult to pilots everywhere.

Allegedliar:

I was a finalist in a state spelling bee contest when I was in grade school.  I see lots of spelling mistakes in here but I don't feel compelled to point them out. I make plenty of spelling mistakes because I type too fast, never have to use spellcheck, and don't feel I have to proof read everything for spelling errors. Why didn't you comment on what he wrote instead of correcting his spelling mistake.

Digithead:   

And what have you done lately to protect your community from child molesters besides second guessing someone who is attemting to make this world a better place. I'm glad some people are willing to stick their  neck out to help make things better.  That is a lot more constructive than doing "research" and being a Monday morning  QB.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12501798/

The relevant part is in paragragh 5.

CIA warns ex-agents over talking to media

The Central Intelligence Agency has warned former employees not to have unapproved contacts with reporters, as part of a mounting campaign by the administration to crack down on officials who leak information on national security issues.

A former official said the CIA recently warned several retired employees who have consulting contracts with the agency that they could lose their pensions by talking to reporters without permission. He added that while the threats might be legally "hollow," they were having a chilling effect on former employees. 

The CIA called the allegations "rubbish". Jennifer Millerwise Dyke, spokeswoman for CIA director Porter Goss, said former employees with consulting deals could lose their contracts for violating the CIA secrecy agreement by having unauthorised conversations with reporters. But she stressed that under current law, "termination of a contract does not affect pensions".

The clampdown represents the latest move in what observers describe as the most aggressive government campaign against leaks in years. The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure to the media of secret overseas CIA prisons and a highly classified National Security Agency domestic spying programme authorised by President George W. Bush. Last week, the CIA fired Mary McCarthy, an intelligence officer, for allegedly leaking classified information and having undisclosed contacts with reporters.

Mr Goss has increased the number of "single issue" polygraphs – lie detector tests aimed at ferreting out leaking employees. A second former official said Mr Goss was trying to "scare everybody" by using polygraphs aggressively.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former CIA general counsel, said Mr Goss was "obviously taking a much more forward-leaning stance than any of us have seen for years". But another former intelligence official said the agency was simply returning to a "more conservative regimen" to remind employees that they work for a secret organisation.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

The House intelligence committee has asked John Negroponte, the director for national intelligence who oversees the 16 intelligence agencies, to study whether retirees could lose their pensions for disclosing classified information even when not prosecuted.

The attempt to silence former employees extends beyond those who still have consulting contracts. Larry Johnson, a former CIA official who blogs at www.TPMCafe.com, said he recently received a "threatening" letter reminding him about his confidentiality agreements.

Mr Johnson – who has criticised the White House for not aggressively investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert operative, said it was the first such letter he had received despite regularly commenting in the media on intelligence matters since his retirement in 1989. He said other former employees also received letters. 

He said the CIA was also "very forceful" in intimidating a retired official who maintains ties to the agency after he signed a letter criticising the administration over the Plame leak.

Mr Gimigliano said CIA staff officers and contractors must sign a secrecy agreement which compelled them to seek prepublication permission for anything they wrote involving the CIA, intelligence matters, and classified material. 

Mr Gimigliano added: "When a former officer or contractor fails to honour the legally binding agreement ... our Publications Review Board may send the individual a written reminder. That reminder includes the statement that 'permission to publish will not be denied solely because information may be embarrassing to or critical of the agency' ... Obviously, such letters contain no threats."

But Mr Johnson and other critics say the campaign is also intended to crack down on politically embarrassing comments from former officials.

"They are trying to intimidate the press and trying to intimidate employees," said Mr Johnson. "Anybody who has been critical of the Bush administration is getting letters."

Another former CIA employee who maintains links to the agency said it did not need to be blatant about threats because contractors and retirees who had relationships with agency officials understood that talking to reporters could have repercussions for future work.

"People at the agency are bright enough to see that is going on, they don't need to be reminded," the former official said.

Stanley Sporkin, former CIA general counsel during the Reagan administration and a retired judge, said it was "ridiculous" that the agency was trying to limit contacts with the media. 

He said the only restriction should be that they do not reveal classified information. Something has got to be done to address this. These days it is almost like a witch hunt," said Mr Sporkin

nonombre wrote on Apr 26^th, 2006 at 4:08am:


I sincerely hope that was not directed at everybody on this forum.  What a broad stroke, much the same as you do not appreciate being made of you.  Your arrogance should be cause for shame.  Yes, you are the reason I don't have that career.  Thank you for making the decision, although it was incorrect.  A criminal gets more representation than a job candidate, because you and many other dream-weavers are judge, jury and executioner.  Your postion is noted.   

nonombre wrote on Apr 26^th, 2006 at 4:08am:


I hope you realize that a lot of people facing a polygraph come to this site wanting to know what to expect.  I hope they read your statement over and over......

Anyways, smartass....my FBI polygraph failure didn't stop me from passing a polygraph with a different agency.

nonombre wrote on Apr 26^th, 2006 at 4:08am:


Nonombre...

You can't count me as one of the "bitter losers" since I've never taken a polygraph nor have been personally hurt by a polygraph. I'm a criminal justice researcher who looked into post-conviction use of the polygraph and came away appalled at what I found...

You also have never answered my questions about your false positive and negative rates. How many careers have you destroyed with a false positive? And if you've been part of an SOTP, how many pedophiles have you let continue offending with a false negative?

You probably don't want to think about it, do you?

nonombre wrote on Apr 26^th, 2006 at 4:08am:


Thats good that you love your job.  But don't be ignorant thinking that people here don't have a career.  It may not be in the FBI, CIA, or Law Enforcement like they want, but that doesnt mean they are slobs or losers like you are making them out to be.  I have a great career, and my failure to get into the FBI has actually benefited me immensely.  So its not all bad.

nolehce wrote on Apr 26^th, 2006 at 3:02am:


That of course was a cheap shot.  But we in the polygraph community have gotten used to being the target of the bitter losers who post on this site.

We have careers, and you don't.

And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.   

I just LOVE my job...

Nonombre, you wrote:

"Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)?"

Am I to believe that you are a polygrapher and that you cannot even properly spell the word "lying?!"

Have you no shame? How can you show your face on this board, let alone among your fellow polygraphers without even being able to spell a word that would seemingly be central to your profession?

How can you lecture us on the truth when, if you cannot even recognize an important word that is misspelled, you would have us believe that you can detect a lie in the squiggle of a polygraph chart?

Is illiteracy common within the ranks of polygraphers? I hope you are not so sloppy with the fates of those you polygraph as you are with your spelling.

antrella wrote on Apr 25^th, 2006 at 7:09pm:


antrella,

You are correct.  The plot thickens.  You know, this Mary McCarthy could have gone two ways in defending herself.  She could have claimed (as many on this site put forth) that she did what she did out on deep concern for the legality of the american government's  actions, and that she did what she thought was the right thing to do.

Instead, she is now denying providing classified information and to confessing to that fact during her polygraph examination.

But yet, she was fired....Hmmm.

I wonder....  You know, I have never been in the CIA, but I would bet that they would think long and hard before firing a senior official with many years with the agency.

They said she confessed during a polygraph examination.  She says that did not happen...

I wonder....Doesn't the CIA record their polygraph exams?  I would think that all sorts of CIA lawyers, security officials, and even Porter Goss himself would have listened to the tape before they made the decision to fire Ms. McCarthy.

So, according to Ms. McCarthy, they all lied (to include the director).  Hmmm.

Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)?  Maybe what she discussed on that tape is so classified, she knows CIA can never release it, can never defend itself (in public)?

And if it is true that Ms. McCarthy knowingly provided classified information to a reporter during a time of war, it is impossible for her to now reverse herself and claim she did it for the good of the country.  She has blown that chance and has shown the world what she is (a coward and a traiter)

That is of course, if her denials are a lie...

Yes, my friend, the plot truly does thicken.  I for one, will be sitting on the sidelines, with a large bucket of popcorn...

Regards,

Nonombre

Quote:


And just like that, the plot thickens...note however, that she also denies having flunked that part of the polygraph.

An MSNBC report, according to which Mary McCarthy denies having divulged any classified information to reporters, has been linked on The Brad Blog:

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002730.htm

Secrets of the CIA
    By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff
    Newsweek

    Monday 24 April 2006

    A former colleague says the fired Mary McCarthy 'categorically denies' being the source of the leak on agency renditions.

    A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK.

    The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, "categorically denies being the source of the leak," one of McCarthy's friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy. Beers said he could not elaborate on this denial and McCarthy herself did not respond to a request for comment left by NEWSWEEK on her home answering machine. A national security advisor to Democratic Party candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, Beers worked as the head of intelligence programs on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff and later served as a top deputy on counter-terrorism for President Bush in 2002 and 2003. McCarthy, a career CIA analyst, initially worked as a deputy to Beers on the NSC and later took over Beer's role as the Clinton NSC's top intelligence expert.

    CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano re-affirmed on Monday that an agency official had been fired after acknowledging "unauthorized contacts with the media and discussion of classified information" with journalists. Gimigliano and other administration spokespersons said they were prohibited by law from disclosing the identity of the person who was fired. But government officials familiar with the matter confirmed to NEWSWEEK that McCarthy, a 20-year veteran of the CIA's intelligence - or analytical - branch, was the individual in question.

    The officials, who asked for anonymity because they were discussing sensitive information, said that McCarthy had been fired after allegedly confessing during the course of a leak investigation based heavily on polygraph examinations that she had engaged in unauthorized contacts with more than one journalist regarding more than one news story. The only journalist so far identified by government sources as one of the unauthorized persons with whom McCarthy admitted contact is Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who last week won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing details of a secret airline and prison network that the CIA operates to detain and interrogate high-level Al Qaeda suspects.

    Priest's most contentious story, published by the Post last November, alleged that the CIA had been "hiding and interrogating some of its most important Al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe." Even though the Post said it decided, in response to administration appeals, not to identify the Eastern European countries involved in secret CIA detention operations, intelligence officials said at the time that the story caused potentially serious damage to agency activities. The officials said the CIA would filing a "crime report" with the Justice Department regarding possible leaks of classified information. (Eric C. Grant, public affairs director of the Washington Post, says none of the paper's reporters has been subpoenaed or talked to investigators in connection with this matter.)

    A counter-terrorism official acknowledged to NEWSWEEK today that in firing McCarthy, the CIA was not necessarily accusing her of being the principal, original, or sole leaker of any particular story. Intelligence officials privately acknowledge that key news stories about secret agency prison and "rendition" operations have been based, at least in part, upon information available from unclassified sources.

    British freelance journalist Stephen Grey, who published the first detailed revelations of the CIA's secret airline system for transporting terrorist detainees in the London Sunday Times in late 2004, affirmed to NEWSWEEK over the weekend that "almost all" of the information that he assembled regarding the CIA operations came from "unclassified sources." Several news organizations, including NEWSWEEK and The New York Times, reported stories about the CIA's secret transport and detention operations based on airplane flight plan information which originally was assembled by Grey. Other foreign journalists put together early reports about CIA "rendition" operations - in which terror suspects allegedly were transferred by undercover CIA teams to a foreign countries where they were wanted for questioning - by using public record data bases to trace the ownership and history of suspicious private airplanes that were observed at foreign airstrips around the times that local terror suspects allegedly disappeared. Administration critics have described these renditions as the outsourcing of torture.

    While acknowledging that information about the CIA operations was indeed available from unclassified sources, intelligence officials maintain that revelations like those made in the Post story about Eastern Europe could not have been put together without input from people who had access to classified information. These informants could confirm the stories and add detail to them. But the fact that McCarthy evidently is denying leaking the CIA prison story to the Post - and that other key information for stories revealing CIA detention and rendition operations originated with unclassified sources - does raise questions about how far the Bush administration will be able to press its crackdown on suspected leakers.

    Two official sources familiar with the inquiry which led to McCarthy's firing cautioned that news reports indicating that McCarthy was aggressively being pursued by the Justice Department for possible criminal violations were ahead of the facts.

    The sources told NEWSWEEK that because McCarthy's alleged acknowledgements that she leaked classified information were made as a result of an inquiry based on polygraph examinations, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for prosecutors to use any admissions she made in trying to put together any criminal prosecution. One of the sources, a law enforcement official close to the investigation, noted that polygraph evidence is normally inadmissible in criminal court cases because of judicial doubts about the reliability and credibility of lie-detector machines. Also, the official said, witnesses submitting to a polygraph examination usually give up their rights not to make self-incriminating statements. The use of any admissions McCarthy gave under these circumstances for a criminal investigation would therefore be problematic, the official indicated.

    The law enforcement official and a counter-terrorism official familiar with the case indicated that because the polygraph evidence was likely unusable, any effort by prosecutors to make a criminal case against McCarthy would therefore have to be based on an entirely fresh reconstruction of evidence from other sources. The sources indicated that it was possible, though by no means certain, that prosecutors could still put together some kind of case against McCarthy from evidence untainted by the CIA polygraph inquiry that led to her firing.

    The McCarthy case troubles some former US intelligence officials, who note that the CIA, while aggressively pursuing leaks to the news media, has failed to take disciplinary action against any of its officials for the widely acknowledged intelligence failures of recent years. "Nobody got fired for September 11 and nobody gets fired for [mistakes about,] but they fire someone for this?" said one former US senior intelligence official. In the case of the September 11 attacks, a report by the same Inspector General's office where McCarthy worked recommended the convening of CIA disciplinary boards for a number of current and former officials. But CIA director Porter Goss rejected the recommendation and has refused to allow even an unclassified version of the inspector general's report to be publicly released. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, sent the CIA two letters seeking a public disclosure of the inspector general's findings - one only a few weeks ago - but has yet to get a response.

    At the same time, some former officials said, the use of polygraphs on officials inside the inspector general's office is potentially controversial, given the fact that the inspector general is by statute supposed to be an independent officer. "This gives them [CIA management] entrée to the I,.G's office which they're not supposed to have," said another former agency official. But a former CIA Inspector General, Frederick Hitz, said he was polygraphed by the FBI over the leak of a report the internal watchdog's office produced on Soviet mole Aldrich Ames in the mid 1990s. Hitz says that security concerns would override concerns about the IG's independence.

    Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who got into a dispute with McCarthy in the late l980s when she was his supervisor and remains critical of her management style, nonetheless says that he "never saw her allow her political [views] to cloud her analytical judgment." Johnson maintains the Bush White House is "really damaging the intelligence community" by sending a message to career officials that "unless you are a partisan of the party in power, you cannot be trusted." This message, Johnson says, is destroying the intelligence community's "professional ethos."

    A serving CIA official said that the day that McCarthy was escorted out of the CIA's Langley, Va., headquarters, some former colleagues of McCarthy defended her, even while acknowledging they were not familiar with the details of the case. "She worked for me on the most sensitive national security material there is and I had no reason to think she ever did anything like what's been alleged to have been done here," said Beers. McCarthy was a "quality intelligence officer who handled the matters with skill and understanding," he added.

Here is the relevant discussion from:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek

Quote:


I believe Mark Mallah disputed several issues on his polygraph also.  I would assume the CIA at least taped this polygraph so there can be no dispute regarding what was said.

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-016.shtml

This will be interesting to follow.

McCarthy is now reported to dispute she is the leaker. She "only" admitted to having unreported contact with Dana and strongly denied passing classified information of any sort to Dana. The former is not a crime but is against CIA rules and is a fireable offense. Apparently she has long known Dana.  I withdraw comments about her leaking.

Nonombre

Dream on, Bud.

Some final thoughts on the Mary McCarthy Case:

You know whether she was caught in a truly routine screening, or whether she was specifically targeted as the result of an investigation, the bottom line truth is that the successful use of polygraph in the identification of this CIA "leaker" is going to more to bolster the use of polygraph in the government, then the Ames debacle did to damage the -polygraph community.

Why is this?

Because the federal bureaucracy is now going to be ESPECIALLY hesitant to dispose of a tool that even CNN is reporting caught a "traiter."

Add to that the reams and reams of information polygraph programs provide annually; information that would have never some to light had it not been for the use of polygraph, and...

I see a bright future for the continued expansion of polygraph testing in federal, state, and local government.

So to certain folks who post on this site:

"The reports of our pending demise are greatly exagerated."

Regards,

Nonombre

Although it mentions the polygraph only in passing, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern's article "Mary McCarthy's Choice" may be of interest:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/24/mary_mccarthys_choice.php

nonombre wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2006 at 9:02pm:

Nonombre,
How exactly did the polygraph “solve” this major case?  By frightening the examinee into making an admission?

If that is the criteria for success then how is it any different from a deck of Tarot cards that a person believes will discern lies from truth?  Or a crystal ball?  Or a person who claims to have psychic abilities?   

If the CIA polygraph examiner used Tarot cards and obtained a confession I do not believe many people would point to that as proof that Tarot cards are a valid method of detecting deception.

As has been stated many times on this site, any device, prop, or method which the examinee believes will detect deception can be useful in obtaining a damaging admission.  And all devices, props, and methods which do not succeed in obtaining damaging admissions are equally useless in actually detecting deception.

Is it possible for someone to use the polygraph, a crystal ball, or Tarot cards to detect deception and be correct some of the time?  Of course it is.  When you only have two possible results (NDI or DI) you have a fifty percent chance of being correct no matter what.

If the polygraph actually functioned as it is supposed to I would not have been labeled deceptive after three of my four polygraph exams.

Eastwood,

How about less rhetoric and more proof (ex. a link, screenshot, anything other than your continual lies).

Polygraph supporters do not get the benefit of the doubt.  You lie for a living while accusing other people of lying.  While this works on the ignorant, it fails to impress me.