Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
 - Dec 01, 2000, 01:25 PM
E. Pay,

Regarding scientists' reactions, see Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff of Sandia National Laboratories' letter to Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who pushed to add some 5,000 DOE employees to the number to be subjected to polygraph "tesing":

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-006.shtml



Posted by E. Pay
 - Nov 16, 2000, 12:34 AM
excellent site, your links to recent publications have proven invaluble to my research. I have some remaining questions about the CI polygraphs slated for use in the Department of Energy. With the recent expansion of the 2000 NDAA sec. 3154, thousands more top scientists will be sugjected to the indignity of the polygraph. What speculation exists on the reactions of these scientists? As of yet, I have been unable to locate any mention of a scientists' movement in reaction to the latest modification of DOE Polygraph policy. Are the scientists at the national labs so disheartened that they are no longer reacting?
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
 - Nov 12, 2000, 03:55 PM 

President Clinton, in signing H.R. 4205, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001, took issue with the 
act's expansion of the Department of Energy's polygraph 
screening program to encompass some 20,000 employees and 
contractors:

    ...I am deeply disappointed that the Congress has 
    taken upon itself to set greatly increased polygraph 
    requirements that are unrealistic in scope, 
    impractical in execution, and that would be strongly 
    counterproductive in their impact on our national 
    security. The bill also micromanages the Secretary 
    of Energy's authority to grant temporary waivers to 
    the polygraph requirement in a potentially damaging 
    way, by explicitly directing him not to consider the 
    scientific vitality of DOE laboratories.  This 
    directs the Secretary not to do his job, since 
    maintaining the scientific vitality of DOE national 
    laboratories is essential to our national security 
    and is one of the Secretary's most important 
    responsibilities.  I am therefore signing the bill 
    with the understanding that it cannot supersede the 
    Secretary's responsibility to fulfill his national 
    security obligations.
    
The President's complete statement may be read on-line at:

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/10/31/9.text.1

These remarks seem to be President Clinton's first public 
pronouncements on polygraph policy. Better late than never.

The President is correct in stating that Congress' 
greatly increased polygraph requirements "would be strongly 
counterproductive in their impact on our national 
security." He might also consider that if polygraphs are 
strongly counterproductive in the Department of Energy, 
they may be counterproductive elsewhere in government, too.

George Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org