Hi George
You may remember that I called this months ago and told you the number of polygraphs required in the DOE system will be reduced not eliminated.  This may irritate you but I will draw you to an important excerpt from McSlarrow's testimony:

"Federal agencies deploying the counterintelligence scope polygraph as a screening tool for initial hiring or initial access   have detected applicants for classified positions within those agencies who were directed by foreign governments or entities to seek employment with the agencies in order to gain successful penetrations within the various U.S. Government components. 
U.S. agencies have also benefited from the utilization of the polygraph screen as part of periodic security evaluations and re-investigations of federal employees and contractor personnel.   Such examinations have resulted in multiple admissions in several different areas:

 Knowingly providing classified information to members of foreign intelligence services. 
 Involvement in various stages of recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence services. 
 Prior unreported contacts with known foreign intelligence officers. 
 Efforts by employees to make clandestine contact with foreign diplomatic establishments or foreign intelligence officers. 
 Serious contemplation or plans to commit acts of espionage. 
 Knowingly providing classified information to foreign nationals and uncleared U.S. persons. 

As a result of admissions and subsequent investigations, federal agencies have disrupted on-going clandestine relationships between employees/contractors and foreign intelligence officers, and stopped others in their beginning phases, or even before the clandestine relationships began.

If this were the end of the inquiry, it would be a relatively straightforward matter.  The probability would be that use of the polygraph screen as one tool for counterintelligence would have a value that demanded its use in the context of access to information the protection of which is critical to our national security, even taking into account questions of employee morale and the resources necessary to sustain such a program.  The value of its use in specific-incident investigations would be presumably greater still".

The often repeated assertions made on this site have been directly challenged by this government official.  I am not surprised that you and Orolan (who was recently been taken to task for being superficial in his research) have ignored this, and are selectively reporting his remarks.  I could do it, but why dont you post his testimony in total?
Is it possible that the government has access to information not originating in the fertile minds of antipolygraph activists, or disgruntled job seekers?

George
Some quick thoughts before I start work.
Posting a link (which most will not access) is not the same as discussing fully the content of the message, of course since the content works against your goals and philosophy this is not surprising.

McSlarrow seems to making specific reference to  polygraph success in uncovering espionage directed against our country.  You and others frequently state that this has never happened, (based on comments made by government officials favorable to your view) Do you think spies are merely "stupid enough to make admissions" or were they presented with evidence backed up with polygraph results leading to confession. 

Is it possible that McSlarrow has access to classified information that you do not possess? Do you think he is so casual as to continue a polygraph policy without backup for his position that he cannot speak to specificially? Politically, it would of been far easier to scrap the program.  Its anecdotal to you because it must remain so.
Why do you continue to believe that your viewpoint is more credible than those that actually perform investigative work, see the tool in action, and value the result?
You have based your position on the fact that the CIA does not publish every investigative success.  Why would any agency with the complexity of mission that our intelligence gathering organizations deal with trumpet polygraph success? They probably would prefer that people adopted your view, and not take it seriously-possibly leading to an opening.

I guess the DOE has placed some value on those hapless spies making admissions.  Its amazing to me that you can make such sweeping judgements ( about someones intellect) without any proof what so ever.
I thought McSlarrow considered the NAS findings throughout his testimony, and your analysis of his viewpoint is simply a reflection of your bias.

Skeptic
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room.  My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O.  I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.

Since your so generous in giving advice, as if I needed some from you, I will return the favor.  Try and not feel stupid that you have spent so much time on a cause that is having little practical impact. The tone creeps into your messages.
McSlarrow has made a decision based on facts, you have argued a point based on emotion.  Admissions seperate from polygraph? where do you make that connection since he is linking the two himself? Guess those spies just broke down on seeing the equipment? why dont you let us in on what you have seen in your vast experience.
Your strident, illogical arguements are pathetic.   
"Burden of proof"? agencies make decisions based on thier needs and thier experiences.  I dont think the DOE needs to demonstrate anything specificially to your satisfaction, thier decision is sufficient.  No one has to work for the agency, or any other that polygraphs if it is so objectionable.
The next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.

Dr. Fienberg has also responded to Mr. McSlarrow's claimed utility for polygraph screening. In his amended written statement, he notes:

Quote:

Marty,

Quote:


I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?

Marty,

Thank you for the clarification!

No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means). And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.

Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.

Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?

Marty wrote on Sep 12^th, 2003 at 6:23pm:


Well, Marty, as long as you're going to rebut your own position


Quote:


Perhaps, perhaps not.  In fact, I would think some details would serve as a deterrent to adversaries...

Skeptic

Does anyone else find it curious that details of apparently all of polygraph screening's purported counterespionage successes to which Mr. McSlarrow referred remain classified (bearing in mind that the U.S. government has been doing this for 50+ years), and apparently none led to criminal prosecutions?