Steincj,

Not exactly sure where you want to go with this.  It appears we agree the polygraph instrumentation works for what it is designed to do, record/measure physiological activity of the individual attached to it.  It appears we also agree the inherent weakness is with the Examiner.  If an Examiner allows a bias to play a role in his administration of a polygraph, that certainly could have an impact on the outcome.  There is also a large degree of uncertainty created by each individual Examinee and the personal "baggage" they bring into the room.  Experience and expertise of the Examiner also plays a major role, however for those programs that have a stringent quality control process, this particular aspect can be somewhat controlled.

I guess the real point of contention lies in two areas.  First, the techniques utilized (PLCT v GQT for example), and the application of polygraph (screening v specific issue testing).

I am not a supporter of utilizing polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, unless it is to resolve credible derogatory information that surfaces during a background investigation.  I have slightly less reservation with it's use in support of SAPs, however I believe additional research needs to be conducted to develop a better technique than TES.  I have no reservations what so ever with the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, whether it is on Subjects, Victims, or Witnesses.

As for PLCT v GQT, my experience and training is with PLCT's, however I believe the GQT may be less susceptible to the use of countermeasures.

As for countermeasures, I believe trained; experienced Examiners can detect them.

Lastly, I believe the promotion of the use of countermeasures is wrong.  I can't say it is unethical, unless someone within the polygraph profession is advocating/teaching their use.  Someone like George M. is under no obligation to be ethical.  In a different thread he stated he thought it prudent for "anyone" taking a polygraph to utilize countermeasure.  I asked him to clarify his use of the term "anyone" (he has yet to do so).  By normal standards the word "anyone" would include everyone from a potential employee to a child abuser, from someone who is innocent to someone who is very guilty of a specific crime.  He would like folks to believe he is striving for some greater good, and that in order to reach that level if a few bad guys get away with a crime, well so be it.  I personally find this argument weak, and this attitude detrimental to society as a whole.  There a many ways to go about changing or improving the societal system then to advocate the use of something that could be very harmful to that same society.

Batman