Torpedo,

For once you write with content.  I applaud you for that.


Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:

You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.

Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks.  Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.  

You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph.  I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League).   I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you.


Quote:

And for the record: Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed.  We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board.  When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.

First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments.  You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR).  I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.

Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.  

And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system.  I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph.  Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible.  They can't be wrong, so you must be.


Quote:

Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said

Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening.  The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)


Quote:

Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here.  Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.

I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion.  The human element of investigation is the most important.


Quote:

Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it.  I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures.  I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it.  I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.

This is a circular argument.  Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test.  That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total.  The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.  

I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test.  How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test?  Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing?


Quote:

I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind.  That's okay, I can deal with that.

Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe.  Interesting.  I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?


Quote:

When your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.

Don't worry, I hang my head in shame too, sometimes (but I still won't join your treehouse club).


Quote:

I can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing.  I work hard to protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.

Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade.  After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself.  There was no protection in that exam room that day.

Chris