Quote: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 !!!!
![Wink Wink](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.
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.