- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by triple x
- Mar 25, 2003, 02:02 AMOkay guys, BT made an error in judgment with respect to a previous post... who among us has not made mistakes in our ranting.
I can't think of a single poster down through this message thread, to include myself, that has not misstated or misquoted supporting reference materiel, and/or in some way, offended another reader/member.
Chris, I too am sorry to hear about your friend. Let's not forget all of the other US soldiers that have fallen since the start of the war on Iraq, as well as those that have yet to fall.
Lets move on here, and debate polygraph testing, and the detection of polygraph countermeasures...
Respectfully,
triple x
I can't think of a single poster down through this message thread, to include myself, that has not misstated or misquoted supporting reference materiel, and/or in some way, offended another reader/member.
Chris, I too am sorry to hear about your friend. Let's not forget all of the other US soldiers that have fallen since the start of the war on Iraq, as well as those that have yet to fall.
Lets move on here, and debate polygraph testing, and the detection of polygraph countermeasures...
Respectfully,
triple x
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 24, 2003, 09:41 PMChris,
Strong emotions swirl around all apsects of this war. If I didn't make it clear I'm very sorry for your loss, and for the loss to Captain Seifert's family. I cannot imagine losing a loved one in a war, much less for so senseless a reason as being killed by an alleged brother in arms.
Breeze,
While I'm somewhat flattered you broke your omerta to respond, I am equally chagrined that you chose this moment to prevaricate and insult, rather than respond in a logical manner to the dozens of pointed questions (beginning way back when with Ed Curran) I have asked you -- it's a sad fact I've come to expect such behavior from you, however.
Strong emotions swirl around all apsects of this war. If I didn't make it clear I'm very sorry for your loss, and for the loss to Captain Seifert's family. I cannot imagine losing a loved one in a war, much less for so senseless a reason as being killed by an alleged brother in arms.
Breeze,
While I'm somewhat flattered you broke your omerta to respond, I am equally chagrined that you chose this moment to prevaricate and insult, rather than respond in a logical manner to the dozens of pointed questions (beginning way back when with Ed Curran) I have asked you -- it's a sad fact I've come to expect such behavior from you, however.
Posted by steincj
- Mar 24, 2003, 05:09 PMBT,
I'm sorry if I was overly scathing in my reply, but I think your post was posted while I was writing my reply to your previous. I did not see your new post, as my scathing reply references, with a quote, your earlier post. I do accept the recant of your conjecture.
Torpedo, Fair Chance, The_Breeze, and George,
Thany you for your kind words. It is a very unfortunate experience. I hope this is the last of such experiences for this war, but I doubt that this will be the issue.
And I would prefer that we leave this tragic death and the polygraph as the separate issues that they are.
Chris
I'm sorry if I was overly scathing in my reply, but I think your post was posted while I was writing my reply to your previous. I did not see your new post, as my scathing reply references, with a quote, your earlier post. I do accept the recant of your conjecture.
Torpedo, Fair Chance, The_Breeze, and George,
Thany you for your kind words. It is a very unfortunate experience. I hope this is the last of such experiences for this war, but I doubt that this will be the issue.
And I would prefer that we leave this tragic death and the polygraph as the separate issues that they are.
Chris
Posted by The_Breeze
- Mar 24, 2003, 04:34 PMBeech Trees
As loathe as I am to even respond to you, your latest fiasco is just too much. Whats clear now to Chris and others is what the rest of us have known for some time.
Your hatred of a mechanical tool and process have unhinged you. Making wild accusations and linking the impossible are your stock in trade.
I think, and can now prove by your own words that you are in fact an emotional dipshit. It is no wonder that you dwell here on this site, taking the tact that you do.
Chris, best wishes.
As loathe as I am to even respond to you, your latest fiasco is just too much. Whats clear now to Chris and others is what the rest of us have known for some time.
Your hatred of a mechanical tool and process have unhinged you. Making wild accusations and linking the impossible are your stock in trade.
I think, and can now prove by your own words that you are in fact an emotional dipshit. It is no wonder that you dwell here on this site, taking the tact that you do.
Chris, best wishes.
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 24, 2003, 02:19 PMTorpedo,
You might remember that the fighting men and women of this country of this and other ages engage in combat that we (both you and I) might enjoy freedom and have full access to the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with what is said here (antipolygraph.org) , you have the ability to post anything that comes to mind and anything your heart desires. The censored pro-polygraph sites are nothing more than you would expect to find in the former Soviet Union or the dictatorship we now oppose. Clearly no one is now fighting to protect such drivel and one-sided propaganda.
You might remember that the fighting men and women of this country of this and other ages engage in combat that we (both you and I) might enjoy freedom and have full access to the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with what is said here (antipolygraph.org) , you have the ability to post anything that comes to mind and anything your heart desires. The censored pro-polygraph sites are nothing more than you would expect to find in the former Soviet Union or the dictatorship we now oppose. Clearly no one is now fighting to protect such drivel and one-sided propaganda.
Posted by Torpedo
- Mar 24, 2003, 01:18 PMChris, after a 26 year career in trhe military, including 2 combat tours, I feel qualified in stating I know what you are feeling. I have lost and been witness to the loss of friends and fellow military members (I am not divulging my military affiliation to protect my annonimity) on a number of occasions. A quote from Vietnam comes to mind....for those who fight for it, freedom has a special flavor...the prtected will never know. First and foremost I am sorry for the loss of your friend and fellow soldier. I currently have a nephew "at the tip of the spear" and my heart aches for him and my sister every time I think what he must be going through. Others may not think this is the time, but I appreciate your acceptance, albeit limited, of polygraph to fulfill the mission at hand. You demonstrate that your level of understanding is quite a bit more than others who post on this board and that your postings are not driven my personal motives. We may disagree, but nonetheless, I salute you sir and know that Capt Siefert is now in a far better place, protecting the place where warriors go when their time on earth is ended.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 24, 2003, 12:31 PMRegarding CPT Chris Seifert, see "In just hours, a friend and new dad was dead" by Scott Calvert of the Baltimore Sun and "Local man victim of grenade attack" by Jimmy P. Miller of the Easton, PA Express Times
Posted by Fair Chance
- Mar 24, 2003, 11:56 AMTo Chris,
I have felt and continue to feel the lost of good people who surrounded me in the military. The emotional imprinting of many experiences that I lived through in the military still push me to be the best civilian I can be knowing how much so many people are willing to lose for the defense and welfare of this country.
Training crashes, engine compartment steam explosions, "friendly fire", and automobile accidents while called to active duty are deaths that do not garner great attention in peace time. All deaths attributed to service in the military are sacrifices which most Americans do not fully understand.
The best memorial you can give your fallen comrades is a respected place in your heart and mind.
I am sorry for your loss and America's loss.
Respectfully.
I have felt and continue to feel the lost of good people who surrounded me in the military. The emotional imprinting of many experiences that I lived through in the military still push me to be the best civilian I can be knowing how much so many people are willing to lose for the defense and welfare of this country.
Training crashes, engine compartment steam explosions, "friendly fire", and automobile accidents while called to active duty are deaths that do not garner great attention in peace time. All deaths attributed to service in the military are sacrifices which most Americans do not fully understand.
The best memorial you can give your fallen comrades is a respected place in your heart and mind.
I am sorry for your loss and America's loss.
Respectfully.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 24, 2003, 11:23 AMChris,
Just as you demand I do not use the high emotion surrounding the death of Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert (and in retrospect rightfully so) I would ask the same of you.
If you will look back to my first response to you, you will also please note I in fact retracted and apologized for this initial assertion of mine. Therefore, your following scathing comments
While certainly bitter and acrimonious are also incorrect if you are attributing them to me. Yes, *initially* I saw a connection between the danger of Kuwaiti nationals being inserted into a key, sensitive arena where poor vetting back home placed Americans in further harms way and the potential culpability polygraphers played in such a scenario. If
"My accusation as to the culpability of polygraphers with regard to this particularly heinous act was in error, and for that I apologize."
Isn't good enough for you, then so be it.
Dave
Just as you demand I do not use the high emotion surrounding the death of Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert (and in retrospect rightfully so) I would ask the same of you.
If you will look back to my first response to you, you will also please note I in fact retracted and apologized for this initial assertion of mine. Therefore, your following scathing comments
QuoteOh, wait, you were too busy trying to defend your ill-advised comments with links to atricles that don't relate to you argument to give a shit about my loss... Please don't try to gloss over your gross conjecture, either. It is very clear that you relate the polygraph to the death of our soldiers (specifically MY friend). Not only is your thinking bogus, but your conclusion that the grenades were thrown by Kuwaiti translators sympathetic to Iraq is incorrect...
While certainly bitter and acrimonious are also incorrect if you are attributing them to me. Yes, *initially* I saw a connection between the danger of Kuwaiti nationals being inserted into a key, sensitive arena where poor vetting back home placed Americans in further harms way and the potential culpability polygraphers played in such a scenario. If
"My accusation as to the culpability of polygraphers with regard to this particularly heinous act was in error, and for that I apologize."
Isn't good enough for you, then so be it.
Dave
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 24, 2003, 04:28 AMChris,
I am saddened by the murder of your friend and the wounding of others in the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. This is a tragic incident.
Beech Trees,
I agree with Chris that your initial post was wildly speculative. There was no clear connection between the points you enumerated, and you went too far by concluding, "Way to go guys."
Reliance on polygraphy has indeed contributed to the U.S. Government's shortage of qualified Arabic linguists, but it is not clear that this has been the case in the U.S. Army, where in the past (and I suspect still) those becoming interrogators (MOS 97E) or translator/interpreters (MOS 97L) were not required to submit to polygraph screening.
Even in cases where Army linguists may be required to submit to counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening, they are not likely to be eliminated because of it. As I noted in a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, almost everyone ultimately passes the DoD CI-scope polygraph, and based on DoD reports to Congress, the only way to fail seems to be to make a substantive admission.
I am saddened by the murder of your friend and the wounding of others in the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. This is a tragic incident.
Beech Trees,
I agree with Chris that your initial post was wildly speculative. There was no clear connection between the points you enumerated, and you went too far by concluding, "Way to go guys."
Reliance on polygraphy has indeed contributed to the U.S. Government's shortage of qualified Arabic linguists, but it is not clear that this has been the case in the U.S. Army, where in the past (and I suspect still) those becoming interrogators (MOS 97E) or translator/interpreters (MOS 97L) were not required to submit to polygraph screening.
Even in cases where Army linguists may be required to submit to counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening, they are not likely to be eliminated because of it. As I noted in a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, almost everyone ultimately passes the DoD CI-scope polygraph, and based on DoD reports to Congress, the only way to fail seems to be to make a substantive admission.
Posted by steincj
- Mar 24, 2003, 01:57 AMQuote from: beech trees on Mar 23, 2003, 10:41 PMchris,
It's no stretch of the imagination to clearly see the holes in our national security brought about by the stupid, stupid reliance on the polygraph to screen applicants to the intelligence community. There IS and has been for quite some time a shortage of US Citizen Arabic translators for the military. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31675 for plenty on that fact.
BT,
First, I'd like to thank you for your heartfelt condolances on the loss of my friend. Oh, wait, you were too busy trying to defend your ill-advised comments with links to atricles that don't relate to you argument to give a shit about my loss.
As far as your comments on translators go, you ought to ask someone who knows about these things rather than beileve all that you read in internet articles. I am someone who knows a little about these things, and I'll tell you how it works.
First off, the 103rd MI BN, the Intelligence unit for the 3 ID, has a full complement of American translators, all specializing in Arabic, and all with Top Secret clearances. The 3 ID has been Arabic since I worked with them in 2000. My old unit, the 3 ACR, who has its equipment is floating in the Gulf and its soldiers are sitting on their asses waiting to fly over, was ordered to switch from Russian linguists to Arabic linguists in 2001. We began receiving Arabic linguists in the Summer of 2001 and by now, I'm sure the conversion is complete. Again, all of these linguists are US with TS clearances. And all of the 3 ACR linguists are sitting on their asses at Ft Carson becasue their TRQ-32 and TLQ-17 are floating on a ship in the gulf . . .
Now I could go on about other units in the Army, some who haven't even been pegged for the Iraq war, who are arabic linguists with TS clearances. But the Pentagon is very apprehensive to piecemeal other units to support one effort (then we couldn't fight in more than one place). But I guarantee you that if the war effort in Iraq were going to fail because of a lack of linguists, then you better believe that those soldiers would be ont he first transport to the gulf.
Now there are contracted linguists (class I and class II) who augment the forces. They usually go to the units that have less of a need for translation (trigger-pullers). And maybe there is a lack of class I/class II translators because of security concerns, and maybe even from the polygraph. But answer me this, which is a greater threat to national security:
You have 5 days to hire 20 translators out of a group of 100. What criteria will you use? Applications and National Agency Checks, or Applications, NACs, and polygraphs?
If you are pressed for time, and need to hire, I would take polygraph results over a one day background check any day of the week.
This doesn't mean I like the polygraph, because I don't. But in the absence of all other possibilities to clear an individual for immediate hire in a sensitive position that is an immediate fill, I'd go with polygraph results.
Please don't try to gloss over your gross conjecture, either. It is very clear that you relate the polygraph to the death of our soldiers (specifically MY friend). Not only is your thinking bogus, but your conclusion that the grenades were thrown by Kuwaiti translators sympathetic to Iraq is incorrect.
BT, you are giving the anti-poly movement a bad name. If you step back and look at this argument, it is painfully obvious that you are relating 2 unrelated subjects for pure shock value. You might as well suggest that we start writing this theory of yours in bathroom stalls.
Please stop your madness.
Chris
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 24, 2003, 01:49 AMTuck tail, torpedo? You mean like you running away from your previous posts under another screen name? That kind of cutting and running?
It's apparent I made an error, based on numerous news reports that 2 Kuwaiti nationals were being held along with the American serviceman. As of this posting they have all retracted that portion of the story, with words to the effect: It was initially thought two Kuwaiti nationals were involved but it quickly became clear it was just one American soldier.
My accusation as to the culpability of polygraphers with regard to this particularly heinous act was in error, and for that I apologize. I do *not* retract, and I dare any polygrapher to refute, the fact that a critical shortage of Arabic translators is directly related to the high number of failed polygraphs both throught the arbitrary accusations of countermeasure use as well as just being flat out incorrect in labeling an applicant DI.
It's apparent I made an error, based on numerous news reports that 2 Kuwaiti nationals were being held along with the American serviceman. As of this posting they have all retracted that portion of the story, with words to the effect: It was initially thought two Kuwaiti nationals were involved but it quickly became clear it was just one American soldier.
My accusation as to the culpability of polygraphers with regard to this particularly heinous act was in error, and for that I apologize. I do *not* retract, and I dare any polygrapher to refute, the fact that a critical shortage of Arabic translators is directly related to the high number of failed polygraphs both throught the arbitrary accusations of countermeasure use as well as just being flat out incorrect in labeling an applicant DI.
Posted by Torpedo
- Mar 24, 2003, 01:39 AMThank you Chris for injecting some sense into the rantings of BT. As it turns out...he is WAY off base (imagine that!). It was a GI (not even a translator,but an engineer) who is now under arrest and suspcion of murder of Capt Siefert and aggravted assaulkt/attempted murder of the others. I cannot believe that BT would jumpt to this conclusion...but then again, he is BT and he has shown his wayward thinking before. Time to tuck your tail between your legs BT, apologize and admit that you were WRONG
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 23, 2003, 10:41 PMchris,
It's no stretch of the imagination to clearly see the holes in our national security brought about by the stupid, stupid reliance on the polygraph to screen applicants to the intelligence community. There IS and has been for quite some time a shortage of US Citizen Arabic translators for the military. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31675 for plenty on that fact.
It's no stretch of the imagination to clearly see the holes in our national security brought about by the stupid, stupid reliance on the polygraph to screen applicants to the intelligence community. There IS and has been for quite some time a shortage of US Citizen Arabic translators for the military. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31675 for plenty on that fact.
Posted by steincj
- Mar 23, 2003, 09:44 PMQuote from: beech trees on Mar 23, 2003, 03:47 AMStep One: Polygrapher accuses honest Arabic translating US applicant(s) of deception.
Step Two: US Arabic translators applications stopped dead.
Step Three: US Military is forced to use Kuwati born Arabic translators to fill the gaps created by arbitrary accusations of deception by polygraphers.
Step Four: Kuwati translators, sympathetic to Iraq, frag a bunch of our men in uniform.
Way to go guys
BT,
Let's not make wild assumptions as to how a polygraph is killing our soldiers overseas. There is no reason to stoop to the level of those who interperet polygraph readings by making SWAGs of your own.
And the details behind this attack are still emerging. If you really want to know how touchy this subject is, just ask me. The soldier who was killed, CPT Chris Siefert, from the 101 ABN, was my bunkmate for 8 weeks at Ft Bragg, NC, for ROTC Advanced Camp, summer 1996. If you are going to tell me that my friend died because of a polygraph, you better come with a shitload more proof that your conjecture, OK?
Let's get serious here.
Chris