The_Breeze wrote on Dec 11
th, 2002 at 11:40pm:
But lets talk about your question. "Why have an application process?" . Are you suggesting that everyone applying for sensitive positions of great trust and access should be taken at face value? what utopian perspective is this. Im sure I just do not understand you (happens often) and you are not advocating making hiring decisions based on a resume' alone (or even background check).
Breeze,
What I meant was, "why have an application process when the polygraph determines eveything in one small step?"
Polygraphers are the judge, jury, and executioner for applicants. Does it matter if the applciant has gone through almost a year of screening prior, or if they just walked in off the street? They will still be subject to a very fuzzy "test." It is assumed that they are lying, whether they were a prior LE officer, distinguished military veteran, or begging for change on the street corner. This type of screening is assinine.
Since the polygraph really doesn't take in to account the applicant's background (although that isn't what the applicant is told), why not do it first? The FBI could save tons of money on paperwork and trips to interviews if they just eliminate the "scum" out of the applicant pool right off the bat.
And, polygraphers need more work to do -- you said it yourself:
Quote: I am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!
Maybe if you had more to do, you could find a way to make the machine truly work.
I know, I know, it works fine. You and all your polygraph buddies tell yourselves that at your polygraph meetings you go to. More like perpetuating a lie for self-preservation, I think.
But that's my opinion. Oh, and the NAS, too. But we don't count.
Chris