Gotcha. Sorry about that

Shadow,

Quote:


If the (FY 2000) report is taken at face value, it would indeed mean that 7,688 showed no significant response to the relevant questions and provided no substantive information. However, because of the high false positive rates to be expected with CQT polygraphy, DoD's claim of a 0% false positive rate is highly suspect. Many of the 7,688 may have indeed shown no signifigant response and as a consequence have been spared a post-test interrogation and hence made no "substantive admissions." But it is hardly conceivable that such would be the case for all of them. Note that in the Department of Energy polygraph program, which, like DoD, uses the TES format, some 20% of examinees showed "significant responses" to the relevant questions, but were somehow "cleared" after additional polygraphic interrogation. (See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of this.)

The plain language of the report does not mean that the other 202 individuals all had greater responses to the relevant questions. Again, the other 202 showed "significant responses" and/or provided substantive information. I don't see any reason to suppose that "and/or" means anything other than what it means in common English usage. This chosen wording of the report would include such cases as where an examinee makes a "substantive admission" during the pre-test phase and the subsequent chart collections yield a "no significant response" outcome. The "and/or" formulation would also account for cases such as that of Daniel M. King, the U.S. Navy cryptologist who, following an "inconclusive" polygraph examination, was subjected to a coercive interrogation that included threats against his family and sleep deprivation, and ultimately made "substantive admissions." (This shameful episode was never mentioned in any of DoD's polygraph reports to Congress. You'll find it documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.)  Note also that this "and/or" formulation appears in successive DoD polygraph program reports to Congress, and not just in the FY 2000 report.

I stand by my initial assessment that it appears that it is the presence or absence of "substantive admissions" that ultimately decides whether subjects pass or fail the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph.