In a story titled, "Fal se Alarm?," ABC News reports that the FBI has dismissed an informant's detailed report of a planned radiological attack because the informant "failed" a polygraph "test":

Quote:


Reliance on pseudoscientific polygraph "test" results in such matters of national security is indicative of either gross incompetence or dereliction of duty, and in either case should be grounds for dismissal. This case helps to highlight how dangerous a delusion institutional faith in polygraphy is.

Chris,

With regard to your first point, I agree that specific issue CQT polygraph interrogations can have some value. But that value is limited to admissions and/or other information gleaned from the polygraph interrogation. Pre-employment polygraph screening interrogations can be of value in the same manner.

With regard to your second point, that reliance on polygraph "test" results for such matters (or indeed, for anything) is asinine, I think you're quite right. Indeed, it appears that with regard to the radiological bomb allegations, the informant who provided this information did not recant his statement after failing the "test," and that the FBI is relying on its reading of the charts.

As for the intelligence of those who desire to attack our nation, I think it is important that it not be underestimated. Many members of Al Qaeda are/were quite intelligent, well educated, well trained, highly motivated, and dedicated to their cause.

An Arabic language Al Qaeda document titled Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad) that dates at least to 1996 includes a section on lie detectors, an English translation of which is available here.
 

Quote:


"GO TEAM, GO!!!"

That's me cheering form the sidelines, because some idiot with a polygraph machine accused me of being a spy and eliminated me from joining that team.   

Blind faith in the polygraph is detrimental to national security in more ways than commononly thought.

I know some pro-polygraph voices will jump in here soon and say something to the effect that "I'm not worthy to be an LEO" or something stupid like that.

I will say this to them now - you can say all you want from the anonymity of your screen name and the safety of your PC, but I challenge anyone of you to sit with my credentails in an interview, and tell me, face to face, that I am not worthy.

Your screen name gives you the balls to do it on this site, but in person, well, I doubt it.

Chris (no screen name here)

Warning advisory to all cleared personnel:

Copy & paste from:
http://www.dss.mil/isec/dss_notice_032502.htm
 

Advisory to Personnel Cleared by DoD Under the National Industrial Security Program (NISP)

Individual employees may address specific qualification requirements associated with a position by informing prospective employers that they have been granted a Personnel Clearance (PCL) at the required level. 

However, it is a poor security practice for cleared personnel to refer to their clearances in any settings that are not secure. Persons who identify their clearance status in public or non-secure forums risk making themselves targets of foreign interests. 


Respectfully,
triple_x

sie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2003 at 11:54am:

sie
Actually, the bureau's record for action on polygraph results are so flippant that I doubt it really matters what they do now.  We as American citizens cannot rely on the FBI to do the required investigative work to chase down leads that come in to them.  They have opted to institute the polygraph as their charlatan.  We can expect nothing less than chance when this method is used.

The problem here is this:
The FBI, as a matter of record, has given polygraphs to informants who passed, and were later found to be dishonest.  They have given polygraphs to informants who failed, and were later found to be honest.  They have further given polygraphs to informants who were found to be inconclusive, failed to act on the information as a result, and ended up wearing egg on their faces.  It has become irrelevant how many times the polygraph obtained correct results.  The only thing that is pressing and of concern is how many American lives have we forfeited as a result of our continued support of such voodoo practices.

It is just this type of lunacy that endangers our national security.  I am more afraid of incompetence and archaic belief in trickery than I am of any terrorist.  Why?  Because I know that there are informants out there who have their hands on the gold.  They produce the golden egg over and over again to the trusted federal law enforcement agencies.  It is those agencies who have failed us with their support and belief of witchcraft.

I do not see 9/11 as being luck on the part of the terrorists, but rather a horrible show of how unreliable our intelligence agencies are.  It has been shown many times since 9/11 that information not only was there, but that it was ignored.  The arrogance of certain agencies became their embarassment.

If the polygraph was removed from their toolbox, there may very well be a greater result from their investigations.  Maybe they would actually get the truth and save lives.  It is, after all, their mission, isn't it?

Batman,

Your ability to take people's words out of context rivals the most liberal left-wing activists I have seen.  Did your mind go numb this weekend while you were out protesting the war?

You quote Seeker as saying:
Batman wrote on Feb 17^th, 2003 at 10:27pm:

In reality (as anyone can see for themselves by looking at what she ACTUALLY wrote), the sentence ending with "witchcraft" ends her paragraph.  The sentence about 9/11 starts a NEW paragraph, usually indicating a change in specific thought, but remaining within the theme of her post.  

Your blatant attempt to combine two of her SEPARATE thoughts for the purpose of brandishing her is reprehensible.  Please don't misquote her or anyone else again.
Quote:

Misquoting someone to make yourself a martyr for the pro-polygraph cause.  Clever, but foolhardy.
Quote:

I know of one, me.  Failing a polygraph was a life changing experience for me.  I wish the mental pain I have sufffered on no one else -- except polygrpahers, so they may see what it is like to falsely accuse someone.  

For a polygrapher, you make your assumption and you kick them out the door.  You forget the subject in minutes, and if you felt remorse (a very big if), you ratioanlize it away with your faith in the machine.   You truly have no idea what effect it has on the falsely accused.

I can't speak for Seeker, but I think she is trying to convey "forfeit" as ruined or destroyed, but not killed, as I believe Batman, you are taking her words to mean.   Your initail misquote of Seeker has made you think she believes the polygraph is responsible for people's lives.  It is responsbible, maybe not their living and breathing, but responsible for other things like hopes, dreams, and career aspirations.  To rip that from someone based on a questioanble test, and allow them no means of recourse, well, it can ruin someone.  I know.
Quote:

Well, Batman, I'm a former MI troop myself.  As you probably know, I am not completely against the polygraph, just against the pre-eployment polygraph and probable lie control question test.  I have explaained many times how I feel the polygraph system can be useful.  But when it comes to the security of over 250 million Americans, if anyone handed me a report that had anything to do with a polygraph, I'd throw it in my "FBIS file" -- that was my term for the trash.  No self respecting intel officer would ever base anything important on FBIS, nor should anyone base anything of importance on the polygraph.  
Quote:

For once we agree, Batman.
Quote:

As I believe I have shown you, the only "pure stupidity" in this entire discussion was you blatant attmept at misquoting Seeker for your pro-poly gains.  

Sorry I'm not trained like a polygrapher -- I check my sources before I make judgements.

Chris

Batman wrote on Feb 18^th, 2003 at 8:14am:

Ahh, Batman, here we go again.

You have to read more than just one posted message in order to understand the whole discussion.  If you go back to the post by SIE, she stated (in a separate paragraph): Quote:

To which Seeker responded (in a separate paragraph): Quote:

That is called a discussion, usually composed of a statement and a response.  Again, you are taking Seeker out of context.

And like I said, I can't speak for Seeker.  Maybe she did want to link the polygraph and the events of 9/11 as the theme of her post, I don't know - only she can tell us that.  My interpretation of her post is: because of their reliance on the polygraph, these federal agencies have lost some of their effectiveness, and in turn made us vulnerable, as on 9/11.  

Do I think fault for 9/11 can be solely blamed on the polygraph.  Hell no.  Airport security is a huge factor.   Decline in foreign HUMINT, reliance on SIGINT and IMINT, the list goes on.  It was a culmination of a lackadaisical attitude toward national scurity by all Americans.  And we paid the price dearly.  And I'm sure that reliance on the polygraph instead of actual investigation was also a mitigating factor.  How large, well, we may never know.  But I bet it had a role . . .
Quote:
Oh, shame on me for relating Seeker's words to MY personal case in one of MY posts.  The destructiveness of the polygraph is widespread, Batman.  Burying your face in the charts has made you blind to the outside world regarding the consequences of YOUR assumptions.  Falsely be failed on a polygraph, have your life stripped, and see if you can live in this world without being "jaded."  

Chris

Batman wrote on Feb 18^th, 2003 at 10:47pm:


Holy hallucinations, Batman!  Do you think I would EVER want anything to do with you?  Where do you get off thinking I would want to be YOUR sidekick?

I know your attempt at a Justice League (Batman, Torpedo aka Green Lantern) is seriously lacking the power of intellect, and that you may need someone like me on your team.  Just because we agree on an ethical issue about compilot34 DOES NOT mean that I agree with anything else you preach on this site.  Hell, I felt so dirty after having to agree with you, I was showering in the fetal position for hours.

Quote:


You and I disagreeing, Batman, say it ain't so!
Here's something for you, why don't we let Seeker interperet her postings for us, and if she lays ALL the blame for 9/11 on the polygraph, I'll apologize to you for ever claiming you misquoted her --- God I hope I'm right, because I don't know if I have enough hot water for the shower I'll need after that apology . . . . 

Quote:

Thank you, Tony Robbins, for that wonderfully inspiring speeech.  
I suppose now you will lay your hand upon my forehead, and the demons within me will rise up!!!!  They will leave this tortured soul, and he will be free!!!!  Free!!!!

I know most of you polygraphers think you are shrinks, but you know something, you ought to stick to what you know.  When I want advice on how to live my life, I'll ask somone with better credentials than the DoDPI, ok?  

You said yourself you don't know what it is like to fail a polygraph.  If you knew, you might fail a couple less people than you probably do right now.

Chris