I note that ABC News's reporting that Humam al-Balawi "was a regular CIA informant who had visited the same base multiple times in the past" is contradicted by L.A. Times correspondent Greg Miller, who on 6 January reported:


Quote:

The bomber who killed seven CIA employees at an agency forward base in Afghanistan had never been to the compound or met with agency operatives before the attack, U.S. officials said Tuesday. ...

If Miller's sources are correct, then if al-Balawi was never polygraphed, it may simply be because the CIA never had the opportunity to polygraph him, and not because the CIA has at long last embraced the reality that polygraphy is not to be relied upon.

With regard to the suggestion that the CIA "should use every legal tool at their disposal to prevent this from happening again," it should be noted that ouija boards, tarot cards, tea leaves, and Magic 8-Balls are all legal "tools" at the CIA's disposal. But like polygraphy, they are not reliable.

Again, as previously documented here on AntiPolygraph.org, Al-Qaeda and Iraqi jihadists have published literature explaining that the lie detector is a sham. The Khost bomber, a medical doctor who presumably knew how to use "the Google," would not likely have been fooled.