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 school buses in the United States?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 03, 2003, 08:54 AM
With the prospect of a polygraph dragnet in search of a suspected White House leaker, it is worth noting what results such use of the polygraph has produced in the past. Professor David T. Lykken addressed this in the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (at pp. 216-18)

QuoteWhile we know that Richard Nixon valued the lie detector as a tool of intimidation, it was during Ronald Reagan's incumbency in the 1980s that the president decided to "cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war," that is, to sic the FBI's polygraphers on administration officials suspected of leaking information to the press. In 1982, George Wilson, a veteran reporter for the Washington Post, revealed that the Defense Resources Board, a group of 30 high-level Pentagon officials that managed the defense budget, had secretly concluded that the Pentagon would have to ask Congress for $2.25 trillion over the next five years to accomplish what Reagan had said would be done for "only" $1.5 trillion. The outraged president decreed that most of the board members, including Navy Secretary John Lehman and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. David C. Jones, would have to submit to polygraph "fluttering." It is interesting to imagine oneself in the place of the FBI polygrapher given this assignment.

Nearly every high official tested would be likely to make the polygraph pens do a dance when asked that question that could write finis to their careers. No examiner in his right mind would be likely to identify the alleged culprit until all had been tested. Then he could compare the charts, looking for the one that indicated the strongest reaction, and hoping that it would be a lower-level official than the Navy secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. All we know for sure is that the designated leaker turned out to be John Tillson, director of Manpower Management at the Pentagon. Tillson ended up flunking three separate polygraph tests, at which point he got hold of the first edition of this book and called me for advice. There was not much I could do, of course, but the journalist, Wilson, saved the day (and Tillson's job) by taking the unusual step of writing to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. "An honorable man stands falsely accused," he wrote. "...I give you my word, John was in no way connected with the story I gathered and wrote."

So strong is Washington's faith in the myth of the lie detector, however, that events like the Tillson debacle are brushed off as aberrations. After all, most people whose careers are smashed by the power of the polygraph do not have the good fortune to be able to prove that their test results were wrong. Toward the end of 1982, a Marine colonel, Robert McFarlane, failed a lie detector test seeking the source of a leak to the New York Times about a British spy scandal known to the American, British, and Soviet governments but which our National Security Council, for which McFarlane worked, wanted to conceal from the public. McFarlane managed to persuade the Times publisher, himself a former Marine, to assure Reagan by telephone that McFarlane was not the source. The highest-ranking official to be victimized (so far) was Michael Pillsbury, fired from his job as assistant undersecretary of defense in 1986 because he failed a polygraph test relating to the leak of a plan to sell Stinger missiles to the rebels in Afghanistan. In his case, too, a journalist revealed that it was two senators who had been the source of the leaked information. Pillsbury's reputation and his security clearances were ultimately restored, but not his job.2

2. Pillsbury described his unhappy experience with the FBI's polygraphic "leak detector" in an article in the Washington Post (November 10, 1991) as a warning to other officials about to be "fluttered" in the search for the leaker of Anita Hill's FBI report, on orders from then-President George Bush.

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 02, 2003, 03:52 AM
CNN seems to be keen on the question of polygraphs for White House staff. See "White House won't rule out polygraphs."
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 02, 2003, 03:01 AM
Here is an excerpt regarding polygraphs from the transcript of the Wed. 1 Oct. 2003 White House press briefing:

QuoteQ Scott, in the past, the Justice Department has used polygraph examinations in sensitive leak investigations. The President has said he expects full cooperation. If I work at the White House and down the road in this investigation the Justice Department came to me and said, we want you to submit to a polygraph investigation, the President would expect the answer to be?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the hypothetical, but that is a hypothetical and that is not where the process is. The process is that the Justice Department has asked the White House to preserve any and all material related to the specific information they put in their letter. And that's --

Q Well, let's set that specific hypothetical aside. If an FBI agent or the Justice -- somebody on the Justice Department team made a request of a White House official that is consistent with past practices in a similar investigation, would the President expect someone on his staff to comply with that request?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has directed the White House to cooperate fully, that message was sent as soon as he learned of the investigation. He made it clear to White House Counsel, and White House Counsel made it clear to senior staff the other day -- that was the President -- at the President's direction. We will cooperate fully with the investigation and make sure that we preserve the integrity of the investigation. So that's where things are right now.

The full transcript, including a video link, is available here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 02, 2003, 01:52 AM
George,

Given the incredible media attention to possibly polygraphing White House staff, now might be an especially good time to post the "Lie" in the Nerd hangout, SlashDot. They have an absolutely huge reach and I suspect a lot of other techno-nerds would find the polygraph CQT deception fascinating at this time. The media is also well hooked into slashdot.

http://slashdot.org/

-Marty
Posted by Twoblock
 - Oct 02, 2003, 12:22 AM
Sen. Richard Durbin said that he was asked by the FBI, at the behest of the Bush Adm., to submit to a polygraph. Question is: DID HE SUBMIT? I suspect not. I suspect he refused like all other politicians would. They will legislate it on others and exempt themselves.

Unfortunately our political house has become the outhouse and Washington D.C. has become the nations whorehouse.
Posted by Human Subject
 - Oct 01, 2003, 08:38 PM
This ought to be quite a trainwreck however it turns out.

The interesting question is how this will affect the general perception of the validity of polygraphy.  There are a set of scenarios that could play out that could diminish this perception (inconsistent results, an examinee balking and calling attention to the scientific status of polygraphy), but there are others that could increase it (say someone confesses, or if only one examinee is found to be "lying", or if one or more refuse to submit -- which will look to most observers like they are trying to hide something).
Posted by Perdita Durango
 - Oct 01, 2003, 07:33 PM
QUESTION OF THE DAY
  Should Bush administration employees take lie-detector tests as part of the CIA operative leak investigation?
 
 
(Wolf Blitzer CNN Poll:
So far 19% say NO
81% say YES.

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/wolf.blitzer.reports/
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 01, 2003, 04:42 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 01, 2003, 04:21 PMMy impression, based on numerous conversations with journalists, is that most, while skeptical of polygraphs in general, are unaware of the true nature of CQT polygraphy.
George,

Your experience with reporters is infinitely more than mine, In the few I have had conversations with we never touched on polygraphy or related material.

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 01, 2003, 04:21 PM
My impression, based on numerous conversations with journalists, is that most, while skeptical of polygraphs in general, are unaware of the true nature of CQT polygraphy.
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 01, 2003, 04:15 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 01, 2003, 04:04 PMIn today's (1 Oct. 2003) White House press conference, Mr. McClellan was rather evasive when asked whether White House officials would agree to submit to polygraph examinations if asked. I'll post the questions and answers after the transcript is posted on the White House website.
The question itself suggests widespread belief in the polygraph, even amongst the jaded press corps. I wonder whether reporters are more or less aware than the general public of the true nature of the PLCQ polygraph test?

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 01, 2003, 04:04 PM
In today's (1 Oct. 2003) White House press conference, Mr. McClellan was rather evasive when asked whether White House officials would agree to submit to polygraph examinations if asked. I'll post the questions and answers after the transcript is posted on the White House website.
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 01, 2003, 03:40 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 01, 2003, 03:28 PMWhite House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that White House staff would submit to polygraph examinations if asked to do so in the Justice Department's investigation into whether an administration official disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, wife of Bush administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, is a CIA employee:


See "White House Staff Investigating CIA Leak."
Can one expect less from the top? I think not.  However, I fully agree with Drew's point that they should use the more reliable CIT if at all possible.

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 01, 2003, 03:28 PM
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that White House staff would submit to polygraph examinations if asked to do so in the Justice Department's investigation into whether an administration official disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, wife of Bush administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, is a CIA employee:

QuoteMcClellan indicated the White House would consent, if asked, to polygraph tests for staff. "We will cooperate fully, at the direction of the president ... Full cooperation is full cooperation."

See "White House Staff Investigating CIA Leak."