- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 28, 2012, 08:57 AMGeorge: here's one view: it stinks. NRO exceeded its authority by administering full-scope exams to its personnel. To my knowledge, only NSA and CIA have authority to conduct full-scope testing, at least within the DOD community, and those are primarily pre-employment exams. A cash bounty for admissions? Sounds similar to the NFL's recent scandal involving the New Orleans Saints cash bounty program for injuring opposing players. Hopefully, those individuals who authorized/directed this will be removed from their positions.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 28, 2012, 04:18 AMThe McClatchy news group has published a well-researched investigative series by reporter Marisa Taylor on improper practices within the National Reconnaissance Office's polygraph program. Among the key allegations is that NRO has been targeting personal ("lifestyle") information even though it is only authorized to conduct counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations. NRO polygraphers were (and perhaps still are) rated in part on their ability to elicit personal admissions from examinees.
The series also documents that when the head of the NRO went for polygraph screening, his odds of becoming a false positive victim were precisely zero. The polygrapher who examined him had been instructed to pass him. In addition, in at least one case where a serious and specific admission about child molestation was made, the NRO did nothing to advise law enforcement.
You'll find Taylor's initial 3-part series here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/polygraph/
Subsequent to publication of Taylor's reporting, AntiPolygraph.org received a copy of an internal Defense Department (DoD) e-mail regarding how to respond to the articles (4.4 MB PDF):
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dod-email-2012-07-11.pdf
For commentary on this documentation, see "DoD Reaction to McClatchy Reporting on NRO Polygraph Practices" on the blog.
Also, in a follow-up report published on 27 July, Taylor reports that Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is calling upon the DoD inspector general to investigate whether the NRO is in compliance with DoD polygraph rules:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/27/158078/sen-charles-grassley-seeks-probe.html
I would be especially interested to hear the views of those in the polygraph community regarding the issues addressed in the McClatchy series.
The series also documents that when the head of the NRO went for polygraph screening, his odds of becoming a false positive victim were precisely zero. The polygrapher who examined him had been instructed to pass him. In addition, in at least one case where a serious and specific admission about child molestation was made, the NRO did nothing to advise law enforcement.
You'll find Taylor's initial 3-part series here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/polygraph/
Subsequent to publication of Taylor's reporting, AntiPolygraph.org received a copy of an internal Defense Department (DoD) e-mail regarding how to respond to the articles (4.4 MB PDF):
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dod-email-2012-07-11.pdf
For commentary on this documentation, see "DoD Reaction to McClatchy Reporting on NRO Polygraph Practices" on the blog.
Also, in a follow-up report published on 27 July, Taylor reports that Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is calling upon the DoD inspector general to investigate whether the NRO is in compliance with DoD polygraph rules:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/27/158078/sen-charles-grassley-seeks-probe.html
I would be especially interested to hear the views of those in the polygraph community regarding the issues addressed in the McClatchy series.