Where do I start,

How about Steincj:  Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying".  I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth.  I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect".  Now when I looked up "jackass"....  You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI.  Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!   

Marty: I think I asked, "...why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?"  This was more of a general question put to you and the others, based more on the tone of previous postings.  Even though you acknowledged, with some qualifications, that scretagent did not appear to be a vicitm of polygraph, I interpreted the general tone of your post to be that he was still vitimized to some extent.   Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I guess when you stated, "While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to"..." kind of threw me.

Two Block: This is in response to a different thread.  I guess you asked me some questions that I have, to date, failed to answer.  Sorry, but on ocassion I do not have access to the internet for extended periods of time so I must have missed your questions.  If you don't mind, would you please post them again, and I will try my best to answer.  Of course that is if I can pluck out a reponse with these chicken wings of mine.

DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.

Batman   

Skeptic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:27am:


I am one woman who wouldn't desire to submit to a polygraph by someone with such blatant bias.   

Batman -
Shame on you.  I am willing to chance it (like a polygraph ) that your intentions may not have been exactly as they came across in your post.  I would hope not seeing as how you are, I believe, representing law enforcement in the USA.   

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  And I had come to expect better out of you, Caped Crusader.   

Best,
Seeker

Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:44pm:


Batman,
I hope you have some vacation time coming up.  As tightly wound as you seem to be, I really think you need a break.

Your friend,
Skeptic  

steincj,

Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS. 

With regard to DoD DSS/OPM security clearance background investigations, the following may be of interest:

It's important to note that DSS does not make any security clearance determinations or recommendations. DSS simply gathers information. Once the information has been verified, and the investigations completed, DSS presents the information to the specific military service's adjudicator authority (each military service has their own), who determine whether or not to grant the security clearance, using standards set by that particular military service.

It's impossible to say if any particular thing will result in denial of a security clearance. The adjudicators use the Adjudicator Guidelines to determine whether or not the individual can be trusted with our nation's secrets. Primarily, adjudicators look for honesty, trustworthiness, character, loyalty, financial responsibility, and reliability. On cases that contain significant derogatory information warranting additional action, the adjudicator may draft a request for additional investigation/information, or request psychiatric or alcohol and drug evaluation. Even so, adjudicators are not the final authority. All denials of clearances must be personally reviewed by a branch chief, or higher. 

Because of a recent change in the law, there are some factors which will positively result in the denial of a clearance. As a result of the Smith Amendment, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:

(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 

(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802)) 

(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD

(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions. 

The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases. 


Respectfully,
triple_x

Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:44pm:


My Dear Batman:
I have read Steincj's post several times, and frankly, I don't see the sexual bias in his as I see in yours.  I do not intend nor try to slam anyone, and I have no problem with anyone who has a different view of my own.  I have three small children for crying out loud - I am used to living in harmony with people who disagree with me on almost every topic you can imagine.  I appreciate your "shove it" remark.  Glad to see that being a lady evokes such pleasantries from a gentleman.
Quote:


I prefer to think of myself as a pawn as opposed to a slug, but thanks for the kindness, Batman.  If you go back and read my posts a bit slower, and thing about them, I did in fact suggest to secretagent that if his admission was one that disqualified him, then it was something with which he would have to accept and deal with.  I didn't come out to fight his case for him, nor did I say that he was a false positive.  My point was, and continues to be, that what he wrote was classical symptoms of how a rape victim describes his or her (yes, men are raped too) experience.
Quote:

Again, my Dear Bat...read my posts again.  In my posts on the Westerfield polygraph, I do in fact state that the case is good ground for proof of utility issues with the polygraph.  I have never suggested that the toy be taken out of an investigator's tool box for criminal matters.  I have absolutely NO issue with it being used in that manner.

Now, let's talk about this rape thing that had you speaking out of turn.  
During the time that I was the prime age for rape victims, the US DOJ statistics for women being raped was 1 in 4.  Today, as crime has been declining, it stands at 1 in 6.  I think you should be a bit more careful in suggesting to me, a woman, that I have no authority nor knowledge about rape that would allow me to use that phrase.  And, thank you, but no, I did not coin the phrase.  It was actually a most profound and accurate description of a polygraph exam by a federal agent pal of mine.
You think that skull f--king isn't tantamount to mental rape?  My goodness, Batman.  Work with me here for a minute.  If an act is consensual, it is not rape.  Right?  If it is not consensual, it is rape.  Right?  If you don't agree on these basic principles, then the rest of my arguement will be useless.
If I sign a paper before going out with a guy that says that we will have consensual intimacy, but then in the process of the date I decide that it is not in my best interest to be intimate, or let's say that he decided that my idea of consensual gave him a free pass to hurt me, to abuse me, to degrade me, would you fight for his side and say that since I signed an agreement (even though in my mind I agreed to a romantic evening with compassionate and gentle intimacy), I deserved what I got?  If that is the case, then would you think that no matter how I fought, screamed, and begged, that I was still under that signed release and that I just have to take what is dished out to me?
How can you tell me that skull f--king is NOT the equivalent to mental rape?  When someone goes into a polygraph exam, especially in screening exams, they do not go into it with the full knowledge of what is about to happen to them.  They think that they are merely going through another paper drill, and that it will be quick and painless.  I am more than willing to admit that this can and very much is the case in a lot of pre-screening exams.  However, I have heard (from federal agents with whom I would never attempt to question their veracity) some pretty horrid tales of polygraph exams.  I have heard of them not being allowed by the examiner to go to the bathroom before the exam (and the guy REALLY had to go bad), face-to-face screaming matches that had to be broke up once they became physical, and arbitrary accusations of criminal acts.  These agents left the polygraph exam room with the feeling that they had been manipulated, abused, harassed, and unnecessarily put through harsh and inhumane situations.  It fell way short of their expectations and anticipations about a polygraph exam.

In the interest of time and space, I haven't gone into the depths of proving my point in hopes that you can see it if you sit back and think about it.  

Again, it is the validity of the polygraph that I do not accept.  The utility is another subject all together.  If using any prop or toy brings about the conclusion (in a fair way) of a crime, then I would never argue to discontinue its use.  I am willing to accept its use ONLY as it pertains to criminal investigations.

Regards,
Seeker

secretagent,

I hope that you learned your lesson from your first polygraph!  Don't withhold any information.  If the LE agency has set a standard as far as past activities (criminal or not), then there is not much else to say is there?  LE and other such agencies have good reason for establishing hiring standards.  It is not enough for you to weep all over them to get in!  If you don't fit the bill quit trying.  Unfortunately there are no real jobs for professional victims; you might be good at that.  Go get'em Batman.

Secretagent,

check out my previous posting , "fail here, pass there".  I think you will find it interesting. 

Never stop trying.  Anyone who tells you in a post that you are not cut out for LE is really speaking about themselves.  LE has a variety of jobs to fill, from mall security to double top secret special agent.

Get in, do good, move up!!!