AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Policy › Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship (Read 33103 times)

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #15 - Nov 20^th, 2007 at 6:07am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:05am: This is just one data point. When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph. Why then the reverse? We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some. We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer. Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss. For one thing, the polygraph industry, (see PolygraphPlace) seems to be trying to convince people the polygraph is highly accurate. I could copy and paste dozens of comments to back up my statement, but anyone can simply check out this assertion. But, there is a much larger issue, that being the number or percentage of errors where the polygraph procedure brands someone a liar, when they are telling the truth. What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?" This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are. Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

1904 Ex Member	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #16 - Nov 20^th, 2007 at 12:58pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:05am: Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides. The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph? It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get. When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem. This is just one data point. When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph. Why then the reverse? We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some. We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer. Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss. I think that you and your ilk would catch more spies if you used the 'pin the tail on the donkey' method.


	IP Logged

Barry_C Very Senior User Offline Posts: 114 Joined: Oct 17^th, 2007	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #17 - Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:27pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?" This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are. Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen. Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here. To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification. You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are. Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test. However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.


	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #18 - Nov 20^th, 2007 at 3:24pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:27pm: Quote: What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?" This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are. Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen. Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here. To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification. You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are. Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test. However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph. Mr. C. When a person is told by a police or national security agency that he is lying, and summarily removed from further consideration for a job, and then is branded a liar and the results of that error ridden polygraph is then used to ban him from further jobs, and then when there is no way for a person to prove he was in fact telling the truth, I would equate that with being wrongfully convicted of a crime. The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but only the opinion of someone who spent 8 weeks or so in a trade school to brand a person for life. Of course, not all claimed false positives are in fact false positives, but when the polygraph field itself admits to somewhere between an 80 to 95 percent or so false positive rante, (read "the poly was wrong"), and when we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of applicants, then it is a very serious problem. I'll stand by my assertions and opinion, and while they are not backed by science, at least they are logical.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

WJ User Offline Posts: 30 Location: Washington D.C. Joined: Jul 14^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #19 - Jan 6^th, 2008 at 4:34pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:05am: Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides. The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph? It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get. When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem. This is just one data point. When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph. Why then the reverse? We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some. We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer. Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss. At least you're being honest. The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie". What a bunch of BS. Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least. This is why the machine should no longer be used.

	Counter-measures were easy.
	IP Logged

SanchoPanza Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 343 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2007	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #20 - Jan 6^th, 2008 at 5:28pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	WJ wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 4:34pm: Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:05am: Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides. The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph? It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get. When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem. This is just one data point. When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph. Why then the reverse? We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some. We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer. Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss. At least you're being honest. The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie". What a bunch of BS. Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least. This is why the machine should no longer be used. Seriously???? "The machine does not lie" Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep? Sancho Panza

	Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
	IP Logged

WJ User Offline Posts: 30 Location: Washington D.C. Joined: Jul 14^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #21 - Jan 6^th, 2008 at 7:16pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 5:28pm: WJ wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 4:34pm: Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 2:05am: Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides. The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph? It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get. When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem. This is just one data point. When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph. Why then the reverse? We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some. We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer. Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss. At least you're being honest. The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie". What a bunch of BS. Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least. This is why the machine should no longer be used. Seriously???? "The machine does not lie" Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep? Sancho Panza You know what I mean. It is obvious that the devious polygraphers were implying that the machine is never wrong. Wow...it is very interesting that you are so intimidated.

	Counter-measures were easy.
	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #22 - Mar 29^th, 2010 at 1:47pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	On Sunday, 28 March 2010, CBS 60 Minutes aired a story about Nada Prouty that included an in-depth interview with her. 60 Minutes also spoke with the CIA officer who conducted a security review after she became the target of an FBI investigation. Prouty denies having improperly accessed FBI computer systems, and as I've mentioned before, there's no evidence that she committed espionage: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6341542n&tag=contentMain;contentBody Sadly, polygraphy, which failed in the FBI hiring process, was again relied upon by the CIA in its attempt to determine whether Prouty had compromised sensitive information. Bob Grenier, the former head of the CIA's counterterrorism section, emphasized that the investigation involved "multiple polygraphs." And 60 Minutes showed the text of a letter that the CIA sent to prosecutors. The following is a transcription that I've prepared (emphasis added): Quote: Mr. Kenneth Chadwell Resident U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of Michigan 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211 Re: Nada Prouty Dear Mr. Chadwell: This letter is to inform you that the CIA conducted a debriefing of Nada Prouty which began on 28 January 2008, and included a polygraph interview. Mrs. Prouty was fully cooperative during both processes. The Agency did not identify any information that Mrs. Prouty or engaged in unauthorized contact with a foreign intelligence service or terrorist organization. Sincerely, [signed] Charles S. Phalen, Jr. Director of Security In any event, allegations that Nada Prouty was a Hizballah spy seem to be completely unsupported by evidence, and it doesn't seem to me that the cause of justice was served by her prosecution. Extra video, not included in the broadcast segment, is available on CBSNews.com: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/60minutes/main6335794.shtml?tag=curren...

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship Reply #23 - Mar 30^th, 2010 at 4:30pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Reporter Jeff Stein, now with the Washington Post, discusses the Prouty case in his SpyTalk column. See, "The haunting of Nada Prouty, a counterterrorism heroine": http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/haunting_of_nada_prouty.html See also David Ashenfelter's article, "Lawyer goes to bat for Nada Prouty, suits threatened over terrorist spy remarks," in the Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/article/20100330/NEWS06/3300355/1322/Lawyer-goes-to-bat-for...

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.