Public Servant,

I'm not saying that Mr. Menges' argument that making countermeasure information available to the public is unethical, and his suggestion that it should be outlawed, is, in and of itself, proof that countermeasures cannot be detected. Rather, what I'm saying is that it is circumstantial evidence that, combined with other evidence (such as that discussed above),  strongly supports a conclusion that DoDPI has no reliable method of countermeasure detection. Additional circumstantial evidence supporting this conclusion is the fact that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures.

I agree with you that a polygrapher's (or, more generally speaking, an investigator's) job should be to get to the truth regarding the relevant matter. But CQT polygraphy is not a valid diagnostic test for such purposes. It doesn't detect lies. It doesn't detect deception. It doesn't "verify truth" (as some polygraphers are fond of saying). CQT polygraphy is sheer pseudoscience, and the investigator who wants to get to the truth needs to understand this.

Paul Menges doesn't. His ethical arguments flow from the false premise that "[p]olygraph is scientifically valid."

Moreover, Menges' suggestion that making countermeasure information available to the public should be criminalized only makes sense if 1) he believes that such countermeasures have some reasonable prospect of working and 2) he lacks confidence in the ability of polygraphers to detect them.