I trealize that I am going out on a limb by posting this, but I found it interesting and thought that if you had not seen it, it would be interesting to both sides of the debate.  Now, without question, you know where I stand, but I do not think it is too much of a leap to perhaps consider why there was so much bruhaha from the scientists at Los Alamos over taking examinations and perhaps those on both sides were blinded by what each thought was the obvious.  Anyway, I am providing what information I can, and as soon as possible, I will seek the "rest of the story" from Fox News.

Last night (12/9) on the Fox News Bill O'Reily Show (I think it is called "The O'Reily Factor"), he was interviewing two long term police officials (both of whom had a good reputation in their previous police roles) who were employed through the University of California as security managers for the Los Alamos Labs in Albuquerque (yes, the same place that Wen Ho Lee was employed).  The guests were Steven Doran and Glenn Wald.  The gist of the story was that they had been fired by UC when they "blew the whistle" on how they were hamstrung at conducting investigations concerning the theft of sizeable sums of money and apparently illegal purchases and use of government credit cards which were allegedly being used for such things as getting cash advances at area gambling casinos and there was a comment about "buying a mustang" (not sure if they meant horse or car).  Accordingto the story, the losses were in the tens of thousands of dollars and both Wald and Doran were told, when they wanted to bring the FBI into the investigation, that they "should not do that because there were high level people involved". Mention was even made of the "Wen Ho Lee mess".  Wald and Doran were subsequently fired when they attempted to pursue the matter, and it wasn't very clear what happened after that, but both Wald and Doran stated that this stealing had been going on for a long time.

I found it interesting because of the loud objection of the scientists there to taking polygraph tests. Notwithstanding the argument from the anti-polygraph folks, one has to wonder if the true reason was that some/all of the scientists were concerned that their illegal activities would be uncovered rather than any espionage activities.  I would find it ironic of they made use of the antipolygraph folks to mask their involvement.  Surely no one on either side of the polgraph debate would support contrators taking advantage of their government positions to steal from the taxpayers...e are all taxpayers.  Anybody have anything further on this?

Touche, Anonymouse,

I'm not sure that whether any suspects are scientists or maintenance workers has much bearing on Touche's questions/requests for commentary.  If there exist details regarding thefts (identity of items, identifying numbers, location and access information to where the items were properly maintained and stored, information regarding diverted purchases, etc etc) not generally known, this would make for an excellent opportunity to use concealed information testing.  Obviously no one connected with this site would recommend any sort of lie testing (CQT or RI) for the plethora of reasons that have been previously discussed concerning validity, scientific control, etc, in other threads.  And yes, I assume I am safe in saying that all who are regular contributors to this site share your concern over any theft of government property.

Touche,

You certainly did go far out on a short limb with your hypothesized linkage of alleged fraud and corruption at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and scientists' opposition to polygraph screening.

Note that the Department of Energy polygraph program that has been opposed by scientists and engineers is a counter-intelligence scope screening program. Relevant questions asked pertain to espionage and sabotage, not common crimes.

Moreover, DOE scientists and engineers' opposition to polygraph screening is very well-reasoned (see the transcripts of the DOE's 1999 public hearings on its then-proposed polygraph rule), and such opposition is not limited to LANL.