Former national counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke has publicly come out against pre-employment polygraph screening. In an open letter to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte published in the Sunday New York Times magazine under the title, "Building a Better Spy," among other recommendations, Clarke writes:

Quote:


Examples of some such polygraph stories may be found here:

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

Apart from deterring good people from even applying to the CIA and other federal agencies, reliance on the polygraph is also resulting in many good people who do apply being wrongly branded as liars by their government. A recent report suggests that as many as 75% of CIA applicants are being eliminated by the polygraph. Can they all be liars?

Knowing that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis to begin with, it is understandable that many of the best qualified persons would seek employment elsewhere. It is to be hoped that Mr. Negroponte will take action upon Mr. Clarke's common sense recommendation and put an end to polygraph screening not only at the CIA, but also the other agencies under his purview.

NSA reject is on the mark.

The FBI is currently trying to expand polygraph usage within the agency.

Right next to forcing someone to move to an assignment "due to the needs of the agency (all agents are required to sign a mobility statement that allows the agency to move them at any time)", the polygraph is the next threat to keep "malcontents" in line.  

Hell of a way to run an agency sworn to enforce the Constitution.

I do not tell anyone to not apply for a position based on the polygraph but I do try to educate the applicant on the ramifications of failing the polygraph.  I also stress that the appeal procedure is spotty at best.  Only in exceptional cases will a polygraph "failure" be overturned subsequent to an appeal.

I can not even imagine what the spooks in the CIA and NSA would like to use it for interrogation purposes.

1.  Have you ever beat your dog when you came home?
2.  Would you like to beat me now?
3.  If given the chance, would you like to beat your dog?
4.  Do you own a dog?
5.  Were you approved by the local SPCA to purchase a dog?
6.  Did your dog die a natural death?
7.  Are you a cat person?

Don't laugh, readers, I am closer to the truth than you realize.

Regards.

I really don't mind sitting for CI polys; if that will 
convince them that I am not a spy, then so be it.  As
George has pointed out, the failure rate is extremely
low (probably higher now, since they ask about hacking
into computer systems).   I refuse to let them into my
personal life anymore, to the extent of the full-scope
poly; it is simply no longer their business.  If they want
to see, if I am a drug abuser, then I will give them a
urine sample (already did that for my last job); if I have
committed any major crimes, then check police and
FBI files; if I abuse alcohol, then a blood test to check
liver function; and if I look at porn on the Internet, then
check eyesight and for hairy palms 

Quote:


I am not sure what Richard Clarke's background is that would allow him to come to such conclusions, but he is exactly correct. As has been said by others, the use of these examinations for the protection of the national security is NOT better than nothing, not even a (neutral) wash, but harmful and a danger to national security and the reputation of innocent examinees alike (a separate issue with an equally horrible track record).  These examinations should be immediately stopped and serious vetting should never again be shortchanged by such nonsense.

Quote:


According to reporter Jeff Stein ("Does the CIA stereotype Jews as security risks?") CIA lawyer Adam Ciralsky had been recruited to work for Richard Clarke at the National Security Council when the CIA allegedly rigged a polygraph examination as a pretext for firing him.