Anonymous
I think skeptic told me once to "be careful with that backpedeling" Just a thought.  You sounded pretty sure of yourself in your last post, now just sure that it will end someday, at sometime.  I think it will too, maybe with Drew's technical assistance.  Neither of us know, but having been in one government agency after another since 1980, I can tell you that inertia is strong.  I was looking forward to collecting my bet...pity.  And just who are those referred to as "Your leaders" and "Your community". I am a lowly Deputy not subject to any calling except as my agency and conscience directs, certainly not part of a vast network engaged in a polygraph cover up.  As far as the DOE is concerned, I know something about that agency, and of course they will now alter the screening rules for who receives a polygraph as part of the reliability program.  This decision to financially engage the NAS was in my opinion to support such a move that had already basically been decided was a problem area.  You will now see a much reduced pool subject to polygraph and perhaps the testing will become more specific and be done in phases.  This will actually help the DOE conduct business more efficiently, and maybe Zelicoff can stop whining as I am sure his job function will be excluded.
Skeptic
Your right, we have, and I dont.  But how will I know from a background alone? bad situation isnt it? Remember we polygraph after a background investigation has done what it can do to verify a subjects responses.  You were the only one to pick up my challenge about speaking to other inequities in the process, which makes you honest.  For the rest of you... why not speak out about all injustice, why just the narrow focus on the polygraph?  This is my main problem with numerous posters here.  Abolishing polygraphy will not significantly enhance fairness in a process that can be arbitrary, prone to nepotism, and gutted by human failing.  It has become a lighting rod for what should be a larger cause, thats all.  I would have much more respect for the directors here if they took up the issue of federal or local law enforcement hiring as a process rife with error, than attacking a single part.  And no one needs to tell me about how a single phase like polygraph has undue weight.  We have people fail written tests, which could be attacked as being written for a certain demographic. Flexibility and strength tests that are challenged as arbitrary, how strong, swift or flexible do you need to be to do this job, where is the research? Dont tell me Cooper standards, Ive read them.  Many fail here.  I have already spoken of the subjectivity in the Psychological screen, and how completely qualified applicants will not move forward if the Dr. thinks that background issues could impact the applicants ability to deal with a serious similiar situation occuring in front of them.  Do they know this for sure? how could that psychological interview accurately predict future performance in any kind of specific way?  Skeptic has already pointed out the misuse of a screening tool in this area.
In short, dont ask more of the polygraph phase that you have allready ceded in other areas.
And Fair Chance
I can barely form a complete sentence, let alone help others do so, but thanks for the thought.  Perhaps they are reacting with anger at what they see as hypocritical advice potentially harmful to LE and national security interests, like advocating "countermeasures" to help the innocent get through a polygraph.  Maybe they see, like anyone else with common sense, that such advice will clearly be given to criminals and not only used by the righteous. Anti-advocates will say the polygraph is too prone to error, and use of countermeasures should not matter. A polygrapher will say that such use can cloud and confuse an issue and has no place in responsible literature.  Have you read Williams text he sells on the internet? Pure junk, and badly dated.  I wonder how many have lost out on such advice.  George and Gino at least are up to date, even if ethically challenged!
To answer at least a couple of your other points, thanks for believing that we may indeed do a few things right around here.  I have reached a position where I can take some small credit for that, although most things I have mentioned are common sense. I am in a position to review any applicants file, and I know what the issues are before hiring.
I do not think anything I say would cause a large federal agency to change a thing.  Backgrounds at that level are expensive, and the hope is that the polygraph will "weed out" unsuitables prior to spending real money.  Obviously this is what you ran into.  I think its plain by now that I do not agree with this approach. When I sucessfully completed the hiring process for the Secret Service, it took a year, and investigators did many things we locals cannot afford. I dont know what it costs per applicant, but you can well imagine for someone like me (and you) who served here and/or overseas in the military. They actually went to the bases.
As far as a carcass piling up I hope to do that this weekend on my deer hunt, so I wont be posting here for awhile.

George
I have a minute here before I run off to engage in a barbaric and senseless blood sport.
No outrage is necessary on your part, I may not personally know Al but have been in more or less continual contact with our National labortories in various contexts since 1985. (SNL, LLNL, LANL, NTS, OR even Rocky Flats and SRS) Many times I have seen the researchers there resist what I felt were common sense security practices as being intrusive. I will not be specific, but just believe me that many engaged in such research find the atmosphere of security oppressive, and not campus like. I have often wondered if they knew where it was that they worked. (and the type of research they were involved in)
This is especially prevalent in the University of California contractors.  I also have many friends and associates that work directly for the labs, both federal and contract.  I am on firm ground here george.  Im sure you think Zelicoff is a sterling individual due to his anti polygraph platform, and he may well be, but overall many of his associates I do consider whiners in regards to the day to day realities of securing our national labs.  Most would be much more comfortable in academia, if someone would fund thier research.   
Maybe one mans whiner is anothers freedom fighter.
Im curious though, why have you ignored the substance of may last couple of posts and zero'd in on a sentence?
When I gave my opinion on where DOE will probably go, it is nothing more than an informed guess. Neither of us can say what the "appropriate response" will be, because there are many behind the scenes that will now weigh in in the aftermath of this report.
But, I would be very surprised if the DOE abandons its polygraph program.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 31^st, 2002 at 5:35pm:


First of all, Breeze, what may be true for some scientists at the labs is not necessarily true for the labs' foremost opponent of the polygraph.

Regardless, your assessment seems at odds with the stated opinions of several national lab researchers that the problem was not just the polygraph, but rather that the polygraph had been instituted in place of reasonable security precautions (e.g. guards at the doors and searches).

No scientist likes restrictions, but then, workers in many settings tend to blow off steam by bitching occasionally.  I don't think that necessarily translates into real, honest disdain of or lack of understanding the need for security precautions, much less opposition to the polygraph simply because it's "unpleasant".

Skeptic

George
You certainly seem passionate in protecting Mr. Zelicoff. I bet he can fend off my vicious attacks alone, and knows where to find me.  Such vehemence from calling a group of scientists (including Al) whiners? Many are assuredly whiners in regards to security and I have witnessed it many times. (I also think Carville and McAliffe are whiners, so lets talk about democrats for a nice change of pace.) Hardly a smear campaign as they go.  But suit yourself.
I hardly have a cavilier attitude towords the truth, but will generalize on occasion as you do.  Our previous discussion was on your admissions to the FBI after your failed polygraph.  You said I overstated it and you did not lie on your application. I wondered what you would have to explain in a post test if you had been completely forthcoming, and asked you to post it. You said it was private. Is that essentially correct?
In reference to Howard, my source said he was removed after failing a CIA polygraph.  I wondered how it could be believed that he was removed from duty, relocated to Santa Fe and had FBI babysitters if not under intense scruitiny? Does the CIA have counterintelligence officers watch everyone it lets go? Why did he run to Moscow as a non spying civilian? Would you do that??
Let us both assume we do not have all the information, and apply common sense and reason. My problem with your source is that this author could not possibly know when Howard was compromised, but is stating an appearance of fact.  I also believe the CIA may not blurt out every fact in reference to its spies, thier compromise, access or capture.
My line threatened the often repeated belief on this site that spies have not been caught by polygraph.  As far as the NAS comment in this area, they have what they were allowed to see.
The problem with some posters here is that anything published that fits their viewpoint is continually paraded as ultimate truth! Let me give you the basic answer, I dont find your Howard source authoritative!
When you spoke of Zelicoff being a part of the input prior to DOE's adoption of its current screeing program, let me ask you a question: why do you suppose that groups input to Sandia management (and then to DOE/HQ) had so little weight?   
And finally, I may be confused but I re-read the post you left on the 26th and the only suggestions I can see are; you wondering if we should not accuse everyone of deception and fish for admissions.  I thought I was asking a serious question, do you really think you gave me anything constructive?
I read on another thread someone commenting about your employment with the Iranian government, to which you answered that you were not employed by Iran.  Then the question became providing services via contract.  Have you spoken to that?  You are getting evasive again George, like when I asked you about your clearance adjudication process, or FBI admissions. Or granting a "free pass" to other aspects of federal and local hiring that are at least as troublesome as polygraph. You can do better.
At least you have not taken up the very irritating habit of calling your opponents "sporto" or other unique identifiers designed to convey some false sense of intellectual superiority.   
Also, on a side note- the quality of the input on this site has been drastically reduced lately.  Some threads are barely worth wading through. Comments?
(please dont re-hash the idea that we are all running for our lives)

Breeze,

I have a couple of statements and questions.

Statement: I believe the propolygraph poster/s ( I think it's just one) started the smear tactics and name calling on these boards.

Statement: I am not qualified to inter into this debate between you and George but you seem to have a personal vendetta going here.

Question: Do you believe that all elected politicians and appointed officials i.e., Judges and prosecutors should have to pass a polygraph in order to assume their jobs? These people have more to do with the welfare of this country than all of the secret investigators of the FBI, CIA, etc.

Question: If you believe they should, would you campaign toward this end?

You honest answer please.

Wow you certainly are bitter. I guess this board is a good thing for you. 
At least it gives you something to do. 
By the way the polygraph is good for one thing , screening applicants for previous drug use. Don't you agree.  GEORGE.

TRUTH HURTS DOSN'T IT gEORGE.

George and posse
Lets not spoil a beautiful day of Republican victory in petty bickering.  And since all of you no doubt had a hand in this triumph, lets celebrate together.
That said let me hit a few of your high points.  First off Anonymous, thanks for neatly proving my point.  Had I known earlier that I was a dope smoking half wit, I could of saved myself much aggravation.
George, you continue to use first year legal language in a ham fisted attempt to have me not talk about your background.  The fact that you had difficulty with the FBI during your failure there, the fact that you had unexplained clearance problems, and the fact that you are hiding behind your own privacy (if there is nothing, whats private?) say to me that there is more to this story.  Of course it must be substantiated by the one who needs to answer the integrity question George, thats you. This is not a court case and I am not prosecuting you.  If it was, you would be compelled to produce.  Attempting to make me look cavilier when you of course know that I could not produce anything on FBI letterhead, does not automatically make you forthcoming. It does not automatically make my beliefs correct either.  So George, clear the air.
I have talked to those that do have information, but it is still up to you.  You see, when you make statements like referring to Richardson as the FBI's leading polygraph expert (when he was never certified, and did few tests) those around here with any objectivity, and not willing to carve in stone anything that comes from your keyboard, start to wonder.  My belief remains that you and the truth have a fragile relationship.
And George, since its important to this site that no spy ever be caught by polygraph, I will allow that Howard was fired for being an alcoholic (what test question was that?) He had never been compromised, or ever considered espionage when he failed his screen, and was driven into the arms of the Russians by FBI bungling. Does the term "mole" apply to former employees?
Your right, I can provide no evidence as to when Howard actually turned, since he would have to provide it and he has choked on his own vomit.
As you pointed out elsewhere Richardson has been elected.  Will you now direct your resources in exposing the lack of veracity he has exhibited? Lately, there seems much interest here in exposing this man as an enemy of the cause.  I will be interested to see how this will be done as the post NAS report let down occurs. (and awfull reality sets in)
Finally to your very helpful suggestions disquised as questions about the process, your clarity in explaining that anyone who fails a polygraph will likely give an explanation is a revelation.  Those like me use such explanations to evaluate the information that has been provided.  It is clear to me that you prefer this term, as much more gentle than confession.  You had things that merely needed to be explained to the FBI, not confessed.  Since such explanations come to us after a background has been conducted, it was not previously available.  Its strange to me that such an invalid process continues to yield such valuable additional explanations.  When you say you want to end polygraph fraud,waste, and abuse: are you saying there is a place for polygraph when those characteristics are eliminated? Why not just say you want the procedure stopped, in all circumstances?
If the conduct of polygraph is as you say an avoidable harm, what harm would come to my agency and then to the citizens from hiring someone who has many explanations to make after a failed polygraph?
I know you have some victory celebrations to attend to, so I will stop here.