| Started by Andy Balmer | Post by Wandersmann |
Reply Quote
|
|
Andy Balmer wrote on Aug 16 th, 2017 at 1:37pm: I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated. Are you speaking of transcripts similar to those in a court proceeding or verbatim recording of the interrogation?
|
| Started by Andy Balmer | Post by Andy Balmer |
ReplyQuote
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated.
Cheers! Andy Balmer
|
| Started by George W. Maschke | Post by John M. |
ReplyQuote
|
|
Doug Williams wrote on Aug 13 th, 2017 at 4:29pm: This report by the office of Inspector General is good as far as it goes In my case, I talked directly to the DOD IG Congressional Liaison, Mr. Steven M. Anthony. After hearing me out, he acknowledged that they didn't do a proper investigation. He declined to ask them to reopen it, because in his words, "there wasn't much the IG could do anyway, except maybe embarrass them". "Them" being the DIA Office of Security. Wasn't HR 6450 - "The Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016" supposed to give them more power?
|
| Started by George W. Maschke | Post by Wandersmann |
ReplyQuote
|
|
John M. wrote on Aug 13 th, 2017 at 9:38pm: It is however, good to see that the DHS has an OIG that is capable of doing a proper investigation. The DOD definitely doesn't. Typical REMF run operation.  Speaking of REMF's, where ya been Quickfix ? I'm still looking forward to buying you a Heineken.
|
| Started by George W. Maschke | Post by John M. |
ReplyQuote
|
|
|
There's your self-licking ice cream cone. A self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself.
As the covers are pulled back, we begin to see the Polygraph Industry for what it really is.
A total sham.
It is however, good to see that the DHS has an OIG that is capable of doing a proper investigation. The DOD definitely doesn't.
|
| Started by George W. Maschke | Post by Doug Williams |
ReplyQuote
|
|
George W. Maschke wrote on Aug 12 th, 2017 at 9:15am: A report by the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, finds that U.S. Customs and Border Protection wasted millions of dollars administering polygraph examinations to unsuitable applicants. The 17-page report may be downloaded here: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-99-MA-080417.pdfMuch of the alleged waste stems from polygraph examinations administered to applicants who made disqualifying admissions during the pre-test phase of their polygraph examinations. I have a question for polygraph examiners, especially those who work for or who have contracted with federal agencies: if an examinee makes a disqualifying pre-test admission, should the polygraph examiner be paid less for that polygraph examination? I don't think so. If this becomes the policy, then it will predictably create an incentive for polygraph examiners, especially non-salaried contractors, to discourage pre-test admissions. Am I wrong? This report by the office of Inspector General is good as far as it goes – but why don't they address the very important issue of how utterly absurd it is to continue to use the polygraph when it is been proven to be no more accurate than the toss of the coin?
|
| Started by George W. Maschke | Post by George W. Maschke |
ReplyQuote
|
|
A report by the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, finds that U.S. Customs and Border Protection wasted millions of dollars administering polygraph examinations to unsuitable applicants. The 17-page report may be downloaded here: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-99-MA-080417.pdfMuch of the alleged waste stems from polygraph examinations administered to applicants who made disqualifying admissions during the pre-test phase of their polygraph examinations. I have a question for polygraph examiners, especially those who work for or who have contracted with federal agencies: if an examinee makes a disqualifying pre-test admission, should the polygraph examiner be paid less for that polygraph examination? I don't think so. If this becomes the policy, then it will predictably create an incentive for polygraph examiners, especially non-salaried contractors, to discourage pre-test admissions. Am I wrong? |
| Started by People_Rep. | Post by ROSA R HERNANDEZ (Guest) |
ReplyQuote
|
|
|
|
| Started by John M. (Guest) | Post by Wandersmann |
ReplyQuote
|
|
John M. wrote on Aug 9 th, 2017 at 12:55pm: So far they have. I promise you - there will come a day very soon that this abuse will be exposed and those responsible will finally be held accountable.
Good to hear. Between you, Doug Williams, and George Maschke, I hope something happens soon. Many victims who have lost their livelihood are hanging on by a thread. A change in this horrible situation will not improve their financial status, but might enable them to find employment commensurate with their background.
|
| Started by John M. (Guest) | Post by John M. |
ReplyQuote
|
|
Wandersmann wrote on Aug 9 th, 2017 at 12:20am: They get around this requirement with ease. So far they have. I promise you - there will come a day very soon that this abuse will be exposed and those responsible will finally be held accountable.
|
