The State Department, quite wisely, does not rely on polygraphs. There is no pre-employment polygraph screening for INR or any other arm of the State Department.

I think I overstated the facts when I wrote above, in a categorical way, that the State Department does not rely on polygraphs. While it is true that the State Department does not require U.S. citizen employees to submit to polygraphic interrogation, the same is evidently not true with respect to locally hired persons at U.S. embassies overseas. See, "U.S. Embassy in Yemen Reportedly Forces Local Employees to Submit to Polygraph 'Testing'" posted to our blog today.

I have also heard from an Afghan citizen who sought employment with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul that his application was rejected after he failed to pass a polygraph interrogation.

Unhappy in Kabul,

No doubt cultural differences have an impact, which is not to say that polygraphy has any validity to begin with (it doesn't). Matters are further confused where interpreters are used. The number of federal polygraph examiners fluent in Persian or Pashtu must be close to zero. And something will inevitably be lost in translation.

The State Department's policy of firing local national employees for such arbitrary and capricious reasons as polygraph chart readings is bound to undermine security by creating unfounded confidence in those who pass and ill-will against the United States among those who are wrongly terminated.

I can't understand why everybody wants to work for State, although they won't work at CIA or NSA.

Don't they know that they will end up working alongside CIA scum?

George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:51am:

However, I suspect that other aspects of the background check are just as rigid as at other agencies.