Quote:
 

So put up or shut up.  Make a call to the FBI, let them investigate.  Then I am sure GM will let us in on the final outcome.

Is there any reason to believe that FBI agents have any more faith in the polygraph then us False-positive have?  They are probably more aware than any of us of the unreliability of the test, and wouldn't take the results of some "Port-a-poly (potty?)" on a suspected terrorist anyway!

What George essentially did was warn the troops using this equipment that it is not accurate and that they should not rely upon it.  It is too easily defeated by countermeasures, and even without countermeasures it is not accurate or reliable.

If the military had been issued mine detectors that didn’t work, or that worked sixty percent of the time, would George be acting in a treasonous manner by warning service members not to rely on their new mine detectors?

It sounds like the pro-polygraph people are trying to claim it would be better if the U.S. military could have operated under the assumption that none of their enemies were capable of successfully defeating the handheld polygraph.

Now that the service members know how easy it is for the enemy to defeat the handheld polygraph, are those service members in a better or worse position?  Now that they know a terrorist could plant a bomb and then easily pass the “lie detector” test, are they likely to be safer or in more dire jeopardy?  

The information George posted is not classified, and is freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it.  It is ridiculous to assume that were it not for this web site no one on the planet would have any idea that polygraph countermeasures exist, must less be able to read anything about how to use them.

If a soldier on the ground in Iraq, puzzled because he or she was getting results from their “lie detector” that flew in the face of reason and logic, had done a little research and then posted the exact same information on the Internet, does anyone believe that soldier would be accused of treason?  Would a soldier warning others how easy it is for anyone to defeat the “lie detector” so that no one puts their lives or anyone else’s lives in danger through reliance on a test that can be so easily defeated or confounded be considered as working against U.S. interests?  I think not.

Suppose the Department of Defense issued instructions to question a terrorist and then watch their eyes when they answered, because if they look to the right you will know they are constructing a lie.  If someone like George posted that anyone aware of that technique can easily control his or her reaction and render the test worthless, therefore the test should not be relied upon, would he be acting irresponsibly then?  Would he be committing treason by warning service members not to rely on the results of such an easily defeated test?  Again, I think not.

Hmmmmm. Anyone notice how many hits an "attempt to trash George" thread brings? Anyone think at least 90% of those hits are polygraphers? Anyone think, when these threads appear, the poster sends out a net APB directed to his brethern and sistern saying "Check out anti-poly site. I just trashed George" ?Hmmmmmmm !! ??

Twoblock,

While a good many polygraphers do regularly visit AntiPolygraph.org, the unusually large number of views associated some message threads is typically the result of their having been linked to on other websites. For example, the thread about PCASS's vulnerability to countermeasures is presently linked to at Cryptome.org.

I'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused. 
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.

Quote:


As I mentioned in another thread about the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System,  I am deeply concerned that a red light on the Port-A-Poly could become a green light for "enhanced interrogation techniques," the U.S. Government's euphemism for torture.

I don't know whether the PCASS is actually being used in the field, but I have yet to see any indication that it has been shelved. As mentioned on the blog, the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA) sent an instructor to Afghanistan in late April of this year to train soldiers in the use of the PCASS. That instructor (James Waller) seems himself to be deeply deluded about the PCASS's capabilities, telling a reporter, "Red means the subject was dishonest and lying to the security questions; green means they passed the test; yellow means the device did not get enough information to make a call so we need to rerun the test."

No reliance of any kind should be made on the color-coded blinkings of DACA's "traffic light of truth."

     Hi,

  The answer to your question is simple in that under the law   ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not.  Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA.  Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line.  He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors.  Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!     It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.

Quote:


Okay, so your argument is that George is attempting to give aid and comfort to the enemy.  That is, the main purpose of his two acts (saying the PCASS is not accurate and that it can be beaten by such-and-such a method) is to help the enemy.  I don't think that claim withstands any scrutiny.

Examining all of George's actions, I don't think you could come to any conclusion other than that George is motivated by a desire to end the widespread use of the polygraph as it is now used.  As he advocates doing this through purely legal, non-violent means, his pursuit of this goal is perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment.  I think it'd even be reasonable to say that George thinks that, far from hurting U.S. security and interests, eliminating the dependence on the polygraph as it is now used would enhance U.S. security.   

Now, you can absolutely argue those two points and say that the way the polygraph is now used is great and must be continued and that changing it at all would damage U.S. security.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that George wants to do anything that he believes would hurt America and/or help terrorists.  So, you can say that the effect of his actions would be to hurt the U.S., but you can't say (unless you have an argument that hasn't occurred to me, in which case please share it) that that is his intent.

Basically, you can argue that an act is immoral either because of (1) the effect of that act or (2) the motives behind the act.  So far as the PCASS is concerned, you can't argue that George's actions will be harmful unless you admit that he is right about how inaccurate it is and/or how easy it is to beat.  And I don't see how you can argue that his motive is to hurt the United States and/or help terrorists.  But if you want to try, please do so.

Also, you say that he has "translat[ed] CM's into the language of the enemy."  Perhaps you are referring to the Al Qaeda manual that George translated from "the language of the enemy" into English?  If so, you need to be careful not to base your arguments on inaccurate information.  If not, I'd appreciate knowing what you are referring to.