Bill,

You should care. What the FBI did to you was deeply immoral and has permanent consequences (at a minimum, you'll never work for the FBI). And the FBI and other federal, state, and local agencies are committing this same wrong against others on a daily basis. This must end. But for that to happen, those of us who have been victims of our government's misplaced reliance on this pseudoscience need to make our voices heard.

This Monday, the 15th of May, will be the 11th anniversary of my FBI polygraph.

Bill, George & FBI Reject,

Happy Anniversary. I'm nearing the second anniversary of my first polygraph failure myself. Although it's been close to two years, I often think back to that fateful day and the ways in which it has changed my life for the better.  Once the shock of the situation wears off,  things can be seen much more clearly. In a weird way, I am thankful to my sleazy, lying, unethical, egotistical, abusive polygraph examiner for ousting me from the path that would have led me to a career with the FBI.  I've gotten so much more satisfaction out of my career and made an impact on the lives of others--experiences my job with the FBI couldn't possibly have competed with. I've had so many more opportunities since my failure that I never would have had if things hadn't turned out for the better. The experience has also made me a more open-minded person and made me understand what it feels like to be falsely accused. 

Now having said that, just because I am satisfied with the final outcome of not working for the agency, that doesn't take away from the fact that what the FBI is doing to applicants and employees is wrong. Using a test that doesn't work, to not only prevent applicants from getting jobs, but making sure they have a permanent black mark on their records that will follow them throughout their careeers. It doesn't end there. You and I--the taxpayers are paying for a so-called testing procedure designed to weed out the most truthful and honest of applicants. Those are exactly the types of people who should be trusted to guard the nation's top secrets. To top it all off, agencies that use the polygraph justify it as protecting national security--what a joke! 

I will never forget the way my examiner made me feel that day and despite my shock and dismay, I knew that what he did to me was wrong. I know the same thing continues to happen to others all the time. That bothers me and that's why I will never stop trying to clear my name. I will never give up. 

You sound like a typical  disgruntled ,misinformed liberal 
who distorts the facts and shoots from the hip in order to blame others who do not conform to their point of view.

retcopper wrote on May 19^th, 2006 at 5:14pm:


haha - which of those statements was distorted exactly?

Quote:


So the ends justify the means?  Where are your facts that  he was tipped off?  Using your argument below about not knowing official facts, you are hypothesizing what may have happened.  Does this mean you also justify kicking down doors in the US without a warrant if it yields the arrests of suspected terrorists?  Because those people couldn't continue to plot against us anymore if you did that.

Quote:


You're right on this one.  But its not a distortion of facts whatsoever.  They have been spying on people, and the legality is a grey area.  It also hasn't been proven that the NSA did not violate a law either.

Quote:


Regardless if she was an active undercover agent, they messed up big time.  If you had been undercover at some point, and your information was splashed everywhere, you probably would not be too pleased either.

8675:

The answer is yes.  I'm a big proponent of kicking in doors to make an arrest when warrantless search and seizures are allowed by law.

Regarding your statement about not having been proven that one did NOT violate a law. I am also a strong proponent  of  innocent until  proven guilty.

I won't respond to your other statements because I think we are straying too far from the subject of polygraphy.

Chill out and have a nice weekend.

retcopper wrote on May 19^th, 2006 at 5:14pm:

You realize, Sir, that with comments as intelligent as what you stated, you have completely lost the intellectual side of the argument.

What exactly is a liberal anyway?  What is a conservative?  Is a conservative somebody in favor of individual rights, liberties and responsibility?  Is a conservative somebody who favors limited government (as in the powers granted government only by what are explicitly granted in the Constitution or approved by the elected body (Congress))?   

Or is a conservative somebody who pledges unquestioned and indieing loyalty to a governemt that operates in secret, with no oversight and no accountability?

I can assure you Sir, I am beholden to no political party.  But I am certainly not a liberal.  What I earn I desire to keep in my OWN paycheck.   But I do respect the rights of others.  Please tell me your definition of conservative includes that as well.