- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 27, 2005, 09:41 PMDear Sergeant1107,
Such a tangled web is weaved. Your observations from a political and common sense point of view are to the point.
Sustaining the lie in the short term is in the FBI's best interest. Long term..., we will see. From my observations, the current ways are unsustainable. The competition for top talent in the government is quickly becoming acute. Quality new blood is not being attracted by current personnel practices. The people causing the problems do not care because they will be long gone into retirement as they leave their legacy. The legacy affects my children and I am upset about leaving them with less than what I started with.
Regards.
Such a tangled web is weaved. Your observations from a political and common sense point of view are to the point.
Sustaining the lie in the short term is in the FBI's best interest. Long term..., we will see. From my observations, the current ways are unsustainable. The competition for top talent in the government is quickly becoming acute. Quality new blood is not being attracted by current personnel practices. The people causing the problems do not care because they will be long gone into retirement as they leave their legacy. The legacy affects my children and I am upset about leaving them with less than what I started with.
Regards.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 26, 2005, 04:09 PMI have to believe that, at the policy-making level of the FBI, at least some of the administrators are well aware of the problems with the polygraph with regards to false-positives, inability to defeat countermeasures, and overall lack of accuracy in diagnosing deception. Having said that, I would also have to believe that part of their reasoning for not wishing to admit the polygraph is useless as a screening tool or as anything other than an interrogation intimidator is the possible negative consequences were they to do so.
In today's litigious society, I can easily imagine the large number of lawsuits filed by people who had been denied employment because of a polygraph examination. Add to that total the number of employees who were disciplined or terminated because of a polygraph, or a refusal to take a polygraph. While I agree with the sentiment posted by many polygraph supporters that no one has a "right" to federal employment, I would think that every applicant should be able to expect that their application will not be frivolously cast aside for no other reason than a failed "test" that has no scientific basis and is as diagnostically accurate as a coin toss.
As cynical as it sounds, I can imagine that, from the FBI's standpoint, it is vastly preferable to continue unfairly turning away qualified applicants based on polygraph examinations that have no merit whatsoever than it would be to admit the polygraph is worthless and have to face the lawsuits and the public criticism.
In today's litigious society, I can easily imagine the large number of lawsuits filed by people who had been denied employment because of a polygraph examination. Add to that total the number of employees who were disciplined or terminated because of a polygraph, or a refusal to take a polygraph. While I agree with the sentiment posted by many polygraph supporters that no one has a "right" to federal employment, I would think that every applicant should be able to expect that their application will not be frivolously cast aside for no other reason than a failed "test" that has no scientific basis and is as diagnostically accurate as a coin toss.
As cynical as it sounds, I can imagine that, from the FBI's standpoint, it is vastly preferable to continue unfairly turning away qualified applicants based on polygraph examinations that have no merit whatsoever than it would be to admit the polygraph is worthless and have to face the lawsuits and the public criticism.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- Jun 17, 2005, 02:48 AMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jun 16, 2005, 06:25 PMDear Readers,
The FBI is no longer advertising for "Support" postions. They are now called "professional" positions. You can call a tiger a different name but you can not change its stripes. The FBI mentality of a "two" class system of agent employees and non-agent employees is very much alive and well. Maybe if we call them "professional" we will get more applicants.
Bottom line, show me a post graduate employee worth their salt in forensic science who believes in the validity of polygraph pre-screening procedures after reading the NAS report and I will show you an easily led witness on the stand.
Drew, as I said, they are dancing around the issue but they will not address that the Emporer still has no clothes, is suffering from frostbite, and his temperature is slowly approaching what is necessary for cardiac arrest.
Regards.
P.S. Go further in the "employee advancement" pages and you will continue to see that they are still regarded as "support personnel."
Maybe after the human resource department reads this post they will correct it as well. I think alot more attention is paid to this site by the FBI than any FBI employee, manager, or polygraph operator is willing to admit. For a disgruntled malcontent, George sure has forced alot of uncomfortable conversations around the water cooler.
I myself have a professional university education in a technical skill, but will not offer these skills and talents to Law Enforcement at this present time for a number of reasons. I will however, offer them to the US military to deter any sort of foreign agression against the United States.
Posted by mustbaliar
- Jun 17, 2005, 02:17 AMFair Chance,
The position I'm speaking of is intel analyst, specifically in C-T. This person works at the Hoove with a TS only. No polygraph. Many of this person's counterparts have not taken a polygraph. So am I correct in assuming that only SAs and other "special" support positions require the polygraph?
From what I have heard, your comments about certain groups of employees being treated like second-class citizens is spot on. Undervalued, underappreciated, understaffed, and overworked.
I "failed" two FBI polygraphs, leaving me somewhat bitter but still eager to pursue a career in defending and serving this country in a LE capacity. So when/if there is a third time for me, I hope it's a charm, but it will not be with the FBI. Are/were you FBI, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds like you speak from experience.
Take care
The position I'm speaking of is intel analyst, specifically in C-T. This person works at the Hoove with a TS only. No polygraph. Many of this person's counterparts have not taken a polygraph. So am I correct in assuming that only SAs and other "special" support positions require the polygraph?
From what I have heard, your comments about certain groups of employees being treated like second-class citizens is spot on. Undervalued, underappreciated, understaffed, and overworked.
I "failed" two FBI polygraphs, leaving me somewhat bitter but still eager to pursue a career in defending and serving this country in a LE capacity. So when/if there is a third time for me, I hope it's a charm, but it will not be with the FBI. Are/were you FBI, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds like you speak from experience.
Take care
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 17, 2005, 12:46 AMDear Mustbalier,
I know of no positions exempt from the polygraph pre-screening ritual. If you find anyone who was exempt please post it because it would be of great interest to me.
The polygraph was forced upon the FBI in a frantic attempt to display to Congress that something was being done to fight breaches in security. The majority of very trustworthy FBI employess have never had to take a polygraph.
The FBI, like many agencies in Washington, D.C., is fighting for a very small pool of analyst of proper education and experience. I have watched their hopes of serving this country slide into frustration as they are treated as second class citizens in the FBI community. They are constantly second guessed and ultimately, in many cases, ignored. Their talents are under utilized. The ambitious head for the door after a few years realizing that promotions and career ladders promised to them do not exist. Some hang on out of sheer determination to try and serve this country and protect their families and neighbors.
While they are not on the front line in Iraq, they are willing to sacrifice their potential careers and lucrative money in the private sector in order to serve the greater good.
Despite screwing people left and right, the FBI lucks out and still finds people willing to fight the odds of their mismanagement and willing to care for this country.
Thank God for you and me.
Regards.
I know of no positions exempt from the polygraph pre-screening ritual. If you find anyone who was exempt please post it because it would be of great interest to me.
The polygraph was forced upon the FBI in a frantic attempt to display to Congress that something was being done to fight breaches in security. The majority of very trustworthy FBI employess have never had to take a polygraph.
The FBI, like many agencies in Washington, D.C., is fighting for a very small pool of analyst of proper education and experience. I have watched their hopes of serving this country slide into frustration as they are treated as second class citizens in the FBI community. They are constantly second guessed and ultimately, in many cases, ignored. Their talents are under utilized. The ambitious head for the door after a few years realizing that promotions and career ladders promised to them do not exist. Some hang on out of sheer determination to try and serve this country and protect their families and neighbors.
While they are not on the front line in Iraq, they are willing to sacrifice their potential careers and lucrative money in the private sector in order to serve the greater good.
Despite screwing people left and right, the FBI lucks out and still finds people willing to fight the odds of their mismanagement and willing to care for this country.
Thank God for you and me.
Regards.
Posted by mustbaliar
- Jun 16, 2005, 10:21 PMIt is obvious that the FBI is beginning to realize the dire situation in which it has placed itself. Its reliance on the polygraph as a hiring "tool" has likely caused more trouble than it's worth. As you pointed out, they revamped their job site to appeal to more applicants, and it seems they have started a more aggressive advertising campaign than in recent years. As I understand it, not all "support" positions require a polygraph examination. But I hear that they still don't have enough analysts or applicants. Do you have any insight on that?
In the DC area recently there was a Law Enforcement only job fair (the first annual, expect another next year) featuring many local and federal organizations; and the FBI appeared to be the most popular booth. So many eager, unwitting applicants in line to talk to a recruiter about a possible future as an agent or "professional." Part of me wished I had a handful of Antipolygraph.org pamphlets to distribute.
In the DC area recently there was a Law Enforcement only job fair (the first annual, expect another next year) featuring many local and federal organizations; and the FBI appeared to be the most popular booth. So many eager, unwitting applicants in line to talk to a recruiter about a possible future as an agent or "professional." Part of me wished I had a handful of Antipolygraph.org pamphlets to distribute.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 16, 2005, 06:25 PMDear Readers,
The FBI is no longer advertising for "Support" postions. They are now called "professional" positions. You can call a tiger a different name but you can not change its stripes. The FBI mentality of a "two" class system of agent employees and non-agent employees is very much alive and well. Maybe if we call them "professional" we will get more applicants.
Bottom line, show me a post graduate employee worth their salt in forensic science who believes in the validity of polygraph pre-screening procedures after reading the NAS report and I will show you an easily led witness on the stand.
Drew, as I said, they are dancing around the issue but they will not address that the Emporer still has no clothes, is suffering from frostbite, and his temperature is slowly approaching what is necessary for cardiac arrest.
Regards.
P.S. Go further in the "employee advancement" pages and you will continue to see that they are still regarded as "support personnel."
Maybe after the human resource department reads this post they will correct it as well. I think alot more attention is paid to this site by the FBI than any FBI employee, manager, or polygraph operator is willing to admit. For a disgruntled malcontent, George sure has forced alot of uncomfortable conversations around the water cooler.
The FBI is no longer advertising for "Support" postions. They are now called "professional" positions. You can call a tiger a different name but you can not change its stripes. The FBI mentality of a "two" class system of agent employees and non-agent employees is very much alive and well. Maybe if we call them "professional" we will get more applicants.
Bottom line, show me a post graduate employee worth their salt in forensic science who believes in the validity of polygraph pre-screening procedures after reading the NAS report and I will show you an easily led witness on the stand.
Drew, as I said, they are dancing around the issue but they will not address that the Emporer still has no clothes, is suffering from frostbite, and his temperature is slowly approaching what is necessary for cardiac arrest.
Regards.
P.S. Go further in the "employee advancement" pages and you will continue to see that they are still regarded as "support personnel."
Maybe after the human resource department reads this post they will correct it as well. I think alot more attention is paid to this site by the FBI than any FBI employee, manager, or polygraph operator is willing to admit. For a disgruntled malcontent, George sure has forced alot of uncomfortable conversations around the water cooler.