- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by gelb disliker
- Nov 26, 2005, 06:35 PM...and now after all is said and done,, Dr. Lee's life is still in shambles.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:56 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 10, 2004, 04:37 PMdr_lark,
Could you elaborate on your observation that Asian-Americans were targeted for special investigations and polygraph interrogations?
I really doubt Asian-Americans in general were targeted but it is likely that people with relatives or friends in a suspected country would be targeted and so the scientists of Chinese background would most likely be looked at closer than others in cases of suspected Chinese spying. This would be true for any country I would think.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:37 PMdr_lark,
Could you elaborate on your observation that Asian-Americans were targeted for special investigations and polygraph interrogations?
Could you elaborate on your observation that Asian-Americans were targeted for special investigations and polygraph interrogations?
Posted by Marty
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:30 PMQuote from: dr_lark on Feb 10, 2004, 04:23 PMQuite probably the case. A positive polygraph backs up their own "gut" feel and it is widely accepted by superiors and the public as definitive. Earlier passes would just be chalked up as operator error.
Dr. Lee fit that bill. The way I see it is that they were just using the failed polygraph as a way bolster their quetionable tactics/case. Think about it this way, if he had "passed" the second test, there would have probably been a third, then maybe a fourth...
-d
I do not think he was selected as a sacrificial lamb, in most all cases peoples' motives are not so impure. That he was abused by well meaning people troubles me more.
Sad but human nature at work.
-Marty
Posted by dr_lark
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:23 PMQuote from: Marty on Feb 10, 2004, 04:12 PM
As for Lee, the application of the polygraph was not screening, it was forensic with Lee as a the central suspect and I don't believe it's application to him was an attempt at pacification. The unrealistically high belief in polygraph accuracy was the problem.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Lee was really the only suspect. If they had a belief in polygraphy, then the first test should have been enough. Instead they did it again and got the results they wanted. I think the belief (or lack thereof) in polygraphy was the problem. It is now apparent they needed a sacrificial lamb. Dr. Lee fit that bill. The way I see it is that they were just using the failed polygraph as a way bolster their quetionable tactics/case. Think about it this way, if he had "passed" the second test, there would have probably been a third, then maybe a fourth...
-d
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:21 PMdr_lark,
I am also disgusted by the way the U.S. Government treated Dr. Lee. I followed his case closely from the beginning, and at first had been inclined to suppose he was probably guilty.
I also would agree with you in recommending Dr. Lee's book, My Country Versus Me (New York: Hyperion, 2001), to anyone interested in this case. (I have an autographed copy.)
Another book that will be of interest is A Convenient Spy: Wen Ho Lee and the Politics of Nuclear Espionage by Dan Stober and Ian Hoffman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001).
I am also disgusted by the way the U.S. Government treated Dr. Lee. I followed his case closely from the beginning, and at first had been inclined to suppose he was probably guilty.
I also would agree with you in recommending Dr. Lee's book, My Country Versus Me (New York: Hyperion, 2001), to anyone interested in this case. (I have an autographed copy.)
Another book that will be of interest is A Convenient Spy: Wen Ho Lee and the Politics of Nuclear Espionage by Dan Stober and Ian Hoffman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001).
Posted by dr_lark
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:15 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 10, 2004, 03:36 PMMarty,
It seems to me that the DOE's decision to adopt polygraph screening was a knee-jerk political decision taken to stem criticisms of lax security at the national laboratories arising as a result of the Cox Report.
I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Notwithstanding whether there was (or was not) a belief in polygraphy, it was quite obvious that the DOE needed to something - anything. Congress was breathing down their necks and something had to be done. Dr. Lee was just a convenient target, e.g. Chinese ancestry, travel to Mainland China, etc.
One other thing that's important about this case is the fact that a Federal judge chastised every single group involved in the prosecution (which happens so infrequently, I have heard of no other case). Why the judge did not single out the blantant misuse (asumming of course that it can be used properly) or even mention it is beyond me.
In a slightly off-topic tone, I see the use of polygraphy and other questionable security methodologies as a panacea. I have worked in IT security for a while now and I have come to the conclusion that security is a "contact sport". In other words, it is an ongoing process. In Dr. Lee's case, it was just an attempt at a quick fix.
That whole era was just rife with attempts to "fix" a completely broken system. For example, countless memos came down from Richardson's office about DOE's stance against racial profiling, however the vast majority of those targetted for special investigations were - you guessed it - of Asian descent. The number of individuals polygraphed in Albuquerque during this period must number close to a hundred, also. Guess what ancestary they had??
-d
Posted by Marty
- Feb 10, 2004, 04:12 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 10, 2004, 03:36 PMMarty,George,
It seems to me that the DOE's decision to adopt polygraph screening was a knee-jerk political decision taken to stem criticisms of lax security at the national laboratories arising as a result of the Cox Report. The series of public hearings that DOE held on its polygraph policy before implementing it were merely window dressing for a decision that had already been made. Certainly, belief in the polygraph was a factor -- then DOE counterintelligence chief Ed Curran is a true believer. But political expediency was the paramount concern.
I tend to agree. I think the adoption of the polygraph by the DOE was an example of the pacifier effect. Again, another consequence of the broad public belief in the near infallibility of the polygraph. Elected officials tend to reflect public opinion.
As for Lee, the application of the polygraph was not screening, it was forensic with Lee as the central suspect and I don't believe it's application to him was an attempt at pacification. The unrealistically high belief in polygraph accuracy was the problem.
The rise and fall of "Facilitated Communication" is an example where the proponents themselves were as deluded as much of the public. It boggles the mind how widespread FC became before controlled scientific studies proved it bogus. This is why I believe it important to do high quality studies on the polygraph and why it would not surprise me in the least if the efficacy should prove far below the expectations of nearly all practitioners.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 10, 2004, 03:36 PMMarty,
It seems to me that the DOE's decision to adopt polygraph screening was a knee-jerk political decision taken to stem criticisms of lax security at the national laboratories arising as a result of the Cox Report. The series of public hearings that DOE held on its polygraph policy before implementing it were merely window dressing for a decision that had already been made. Certainly, belief in the polygraph was a factor -- then DOE counterintelligence chief Ed Curran is a true believer. But political expediency was the paramount concern.
It seems to me that the DOE's decision to adopt polygraph screening was a knee-jerk political decision taken to stem criticisms of lax security at the national laboratories arising as a result of the Cox Report. The series of public hearings that DOE held on its polygraph policy before implementing it were merely window dressing for a decision that had already been made. Certainly, belief in the polygraph was a factor -- then DOE counterintelligence chief Ed Curran is a true believer. But political expediency was the paramount concern.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 10, 2004, 03:04 PMQuote from: dr_lark on Feb 09, 2004, 11:03 PM.... With that being said, it occurs to me that DOE (and all other agencies that use polygraphy) are using this a pacifier. In other words, if they cannot get real security, let's feel good about we do have.
I doubt the intentional use of this as a "pacifier." What you describe is more likely an unintended consequence of broad belief in the near infallibilty of polygraphs. Overstating the polygraph's reliability may well enhance it's utility (as the NAS says) but it comes at a cost. Perhaps what happened to Lee is a portion of that price. Let's hope another part of that cost is not an overall decrease in national security.
-Marty
Posted by dr_lark
- Feb 10, 2004, 12:04 PMI agree that Curran was probably surprised that Dr. Lee passed the polygraph. However I think that the surprise hit higher ups much harder, i.e. this wasn't supposed to happen. It was quite clear from reading Dr. Lee's account (which I happen to agree with), that the DOE needed to "fit the case". The firing of Dr. Lee was merely the pretext of this whole sham. DOE, et al. needed to offer up a scapegoat, as the Clinton administration was in need of doing damage control.
I did not mean to suggest that Mr. Vinskey's tests were in doubt. Rather the polygraph outcomes did not fit into the plan. Subsequently the Hobgood polygraph test was administered. (For details of this sham, I would recommend Dr. Lee's book, pp. 72-83.) It seems to me that this was a set up specifically for Dr. Lee to fail, hence my use of "shopping".
As far as the usefullness of the polygraph in terms of evidence, I agree with your assessment of the use of Dr. Lee's failed test as a precursor for the subsequent search warrants that were issued. Further it was no real surprise that these warrants did not turn up much of anything. At that point, the only "real evidence" for any sort of treasonous activity was the the polygraph.
What disgusts me most about the Dr. Lee's case is the way that the govenment built the case. Rigged polygraphs, leaks to the press, racial profiling, draconian inprisonment. I sincerely hope that Dr. Lee succeeds in his the lawsuits that he has filed, but I don't think wew will ever really get the whole truth.
I would interested to hear what other people think about Dr. Lee's cae.
-d
P.S. Just my $.02, but the section on Dr. Lee in your book was good, but as I said before Dr. Lee's account of this whole matter is chilling.
I did not mean to suggest that Mr. Vinskey's tests were in doubt. Rather the polygraph outcomes did not fit into the plan. Subsequently the Hobgood polygraph test was administered. (For details of this sham, I would recommend Dr. Lee's book, pp. 72-83.) It seems to me that this was a set up specifically for Dr. Lee to fail, hence my use of "shopping".
As far as the usefullness of the polygraph in terms of evidence, I agree with your assessment of the use of Dr. Lee's failed test as a precursor for the subsequent search warrants that were issued. Further it was no real surprise that these warrants did not turn up much of anything. At that point, the only "real evidence" for any sort of treasonous activity was the the polygraph.
What disgusts me most about the Dr. Lee's case is the way that the govenment built the case. Rigged polygraphs, leaks to the press, racial profiling, draconian inprisonment. I sincerely hope that Dr. Lee succeeds in his the lawsuits that he has filed, but I don't think wew will ever really get the whole truth.
I would interested to hear what other people think about Dr. Lee's cae.
-d
P.S. Just my $.02, but the section on Dr. Lee in your book was good, but as I said before Dr. Lee's account of this whole matter is chilling.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 10, 2004, 03:57 AMI'm not sure what you mean by the DOE having gone "shopping" for a polygrapher to interrogate Wen Ho Lee. DOE counterintelligence chief Ed Curran clearly intended to use the results of Dr. Lee's DOE polygraph examination as a pretext for firing him. (This is documented in the DOJ Inspector General's report of the Lee case.) But to Curran's surprise, Lee passed the polygraph examination, which was administered by Wolfgang Vinskey. Based on the evidence, I don't think it's fair to suggest that Mr. Vinskey had been "shopped for" or had somehow succumbed to undue influence.
That the FBI, DOE, and DoDPI later changed Dr. Lee's strongly passing polygraph scores to "not finished" or "inconclusive, if not deceptive" is highly irregular, however, and suggests deliberate malfeasance.
In addition, characteristics of the second polygraph examination administered by FBI Special Agent Rich Hobgood (conducted in an overheated hotel room with a thumb cuff painfully tightened), suggest that it was rigged.
Although polygraph results are almost universally excluded as evidence in criminal matters, they may be used by law enforcement agencies to bolster applications for search warrants. Such was the case with Dr. Lee.
See the discussion of the Lee case at pp. 51-57 (of the 3rd edition) of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for further detail on the foregoing points.
That the FBI, DOE, and DoDPI later changed Dr. Lee's strongly passing polygraph scores to "not finished" or "inconclusive, if not deceptive" is highly irregular, however, and suggests deliberate malfeasance.
In addition, characteristics of the second polygraph examination administered by FBI Special Agent Rich Hobgood (conducted in an overheated hotel room with a thumb cuff painfully tightened), suggest that it was rigged.
Although polygraph results are almost universally excluded as evidence in criminal matters, they may be used by law enforcement agencies to bolster applications for search warrants. Such was the case with Dr. Lee.
See the discussion of the Lee case at pp. 51-57 (of the 3rd edition) of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for further detail on the foregoing points.
Posted by dr_lark
- Feb 09, 2004, 11:03 PMI have just finished rereading Wen Ho Lee's book My Country Versus Me (a must read, btw), and I have few comments.
-d
- By all accounts the DOE went "shopping" for a polygrapher who would reinforce their desire to railroad Dr. Lee. From what I can tell this is not an exception. Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere, but I would like to know of other cases.
- It would appear that the original strategy was to use Dr. Lee's "failed" polygraph test, as touchstone for basically the entire case against him. Now, IANAL, I do know that polygraphs are most time inadmissible in terms of evidence. So how would the government's have been able to stand up in court if that was used to start the ball rolling in the first place. (BTW, a couple of defense attornies that I know have both said most if not all eveidence seized via probable cause using this would probably have been thrown out.) Any comments on this would be appreciated.
-d