EosJupiter wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2006 at 7:03am:


Eos,

We are just going to have to disagree on this one.  I still believe that if she was truly driven by conscience, there were other ways she could have come out with this information.

As an example, I find myself having to pay Dr. Richardson a compliment here.  He felt so strongly about the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening, he came out publicly against it.  He put himself on the line and risked quite a bit.  Dr. Richardson did not "leak" anything.  He did not have to be "flushed out."

I will always disagree with Dr. Richardson's position on the issue of pre-employment screening, but I respect the fact he stood up to the plate with his beliefs.

In contrast, this woman is at best a "big mouth," and at worst a coward.  I repeat my assertion she is nothing to emulate.

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

You write in part:
Quote:


I appreciate the compliment and your appreciation of the risks of publicly expressing one's convictions from a minority/non-bureaucratic position.  That having been said, I can see reasons beyond a personal self-defensive posture for releasing information and expressing opinions in a more covert manner than the testifying-before-Congress route that I pursued.  Chief amongst these reasons would be involvement in an on-going matter in which information becomes available over a period of time.  If one wants access to continued information, one cannot do as I did.  I felt that I had all the information I needed to offer the commentary that was offered, I had seen and had been approached by large numbers of people credibly representing themselves as victims of the process, and I felt I had little choice in the matter.  I do not know enough about either Ms. McCarthy's actions or motivations to comment authoritatively, but I do see a possibility of her covert (leaking) dissemination of information being both useful and more considered than mere personal protection.   The “Deep Throat” scenario you previously mentioned is an excellent example of this sort of situation.  Various issues that were not known all at once or in advance where “leaked” over a period of time as they became available through continued investigation.

Perhaps of interest and not even known by former colleagues in the FBI is that as a result of that testimony and other similar written and oral expressions, a former Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit (the entity which operationally controls polygraph practice in the FBI) has since told me he now (not formerly) believes me to right about the issue, Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI) before the end of his tenure had instructed his National Press Office to have me give interviews with the media expressing my viewpoints about polygraphy, and at least one FBI polygrapher (through both his own recognition/concerns and familiarity with my actions) has since left the FBI's polygraph program.  As you may point out, these, in and of themselves, are small victories in the face of an increased program since my retirement, but I have hope--FBI agent polygraphers are neither stupid nor cowards.  I do believe the days of polygraph screening are numbered within the Bureau.

I must say it is very amusing and gratifying to sit back and see all of you anti poly folks "spinning" like crazy. I wish you coud see  how foolish you come across in trying to defend this traitor. You are all making excuses for a criminal.  I hope she is punished to the full extent of the law. God knows what else she revealed. We will probably never know but what if she was caught using counter measures.  How interesting. Kudos to the CIA polygraphers. Job well done on behalf of all patriotic Americans.

Retcopper,

Of course, the government always tells us the truth about the circumstances of its investigations! Especially the polygraphers who lie for a living!

As in, we all know that Wen Ho Lee "flunked" his polygraph: http://www.slate.com/id/1006064

Mmmm hmmm.

And of course, those trusty CIA polygraphers readily unmasked Aldrich Ames with their little magic machine:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html

It's funny -- they tell us she flunked the poly, but then go on to say, "Oh, we can't give any other details because of the privacy act."

Sounds like the CIA is covering its ass, using some supposed polygraph failure to say, see, if the machine says it, it must be true.

I'm now wondering if, as it has been reported, this latest round of CIA polygraphs was "massive," then how many innocent employees had false positives and now have their careers thrashed? Do you trust the CIA to reveal those figures? And how about the senior-level CIA employees who were polygraphed -- when do we get to see the results of their tests?

I'm sure the CIA will be very forthcoming.

I think it should rub you the wrong way -- or at least spark your curiousity -- that hers are the only results they are discussing.

But then again, you never sounded like a very intellectually curious man, other than your curious position in support of the polygraph.

Fessed, smchessed........

Yes, she confessed after being given a specific issue polygraph in conjunction with a thourough investigation.  She isn't the first person to to be discovered this way.

Hardly a victory for the use of pre-employment screening polygraphs.

nonombre wrote on Apr 25^th, 2006 at 1:47am:


Nonombre - your passive/aggressive approach is tiresome and an all-too-convenient out whenever an opportunity for real debate exists.

Many people here, as I have said before, can agree that a polygraph, like a truncheon, can be a very effective interrogative tool. That's when 1) an issue exists (no fishing expedition) and 2) the polygraph is guided towards that issue. 

As a pre-employment screening tool, however, it is almost completely worthless. The only conceivable utility in pre-employment screening is to create a sense of camaraderie among those who've "endured" the polygraph. Even this, minimal utility is heavily outweighed by the negative consequences of its use in this respect.

Antrella and Mr Mystery"

What don't you get?  An investigation is conducted and a polygraph exam is given.  The suspect flunks and eventually confesses.  What more validity do you want.   I agree with you, "she is not the first to be discovered this way ".  You can takse solace in the fact that as the polygrah gains more acceptance there will be many, many more "discovered this way".  Especially those who use counter measures to try to  hide the truth.