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:
What color are the stars on the U.S. flag?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by orolan
 - Aug 28, 2003, 11:28 PM
Suethem,
I agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the saying goes.
Posted by suethem
 - Aug 28, 2003, 11:06 PM
Seems to me like the FBI dropped the ball.

I would think that most people would find hacking your boss's computer, disclosure of sensitive information to the press, and assult on another employee as grounds for firing.

If the FBI can't accurately police their own, how can they be an effective police agency for the rest of us?

Regarding the polygraph...

 It's  interesting to note that the FBI accused a CIA man of being the spy and used his passing the polygraph as a clue to him being guilty  (super spy theory)....

 Yet in this article it is the FBI that doubts the accuracy of the polygraph when it comes to their (the white men at the top) necks!

I know there are thousands of dedicated people at the FBI who work hard to protect our nation, unfortunately those people don't seem to be in charge.

If polygraphy is not good enough for FBI top management, then it is not good enough for a green recruit.

Posted by orolan
 - Aug 28, 2003, 01:02 PM
A comment I ran across in an article on Accuracy in Media about Robert Hanssen.
QuoteThe Bureau's "most senior managers" refused to polygraph their own personnel "because of concerns regarding false positives." Given that the Bureau is always eager to use the polygraph on any outsider, that is supremely ironic.

Ironic, indeed ;)

http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2003/08/27.html