- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by stefano
- Nov 14, 2012, 11:11 PMThanks for the reply. I was not aware that state polygraph licensing laws provided for such confidentiality. From what I know of you so far Pailryder, I don't think you would turn a blind eye to national security risks; just my gut feeling.
Posted by pailryder
- Nov 14, 2012, 06:18 AMstefano
I would not need to be instructed. I would follow the law of the state where I am licensed and maintain confidentiality.
I would not need to be instructed. I would follow the law of the state where I am licensed and maintain confidentiality.
Posted by stefano
- Nov 13, 2012, 12:37 AMQuote from: pailryder on Nov 11, 2012, 08:28 AMDoes anyone believe a polygraph examiner is allowed to veto a presidential appointment?Pailryder,
I'm curious to know what you would do if you were the polygrapher who was instructed to keep mum if a CIA director was bypassed or failed a polygraph. Would you keep omerta', or blow the whistle?
Posted by Twoblock
- Nov 11, 2012, 11:03 PMGeorge
When I saw the video of him stateing that he or no one in the CIA gave the order to "stand down", I sent out emails and posted on facebook that he wouldn't be in that job come Jan. 1. I didn't think it would come this soon though. Remember he was supposed to be in front of a house committee this week to be grilled on the Benghazi attack. I believe the thinking was that if he's no longer head of the CIA, he would not have to appear. However, Rep. King has other ideas about that. That's my take on it.
Washington, D.C. is a mess.
When I saw the video of him stateing that he or no one in the CIA gave the order to "stand down", I sent out emails and posted on facebook that he wouldn't be in that job come Jan. 1. I didn't think it would come this soon though. Remember he was supposed to be in front of a house committee this week to be grilled on the Benghazi attack. I believe the thinking was that if he's no longer head of the CIA, he would not have to appear. However, Rep. King has other ideas about that. That's my take on it.
Washington, D.C. is a mess.
Posted by pailryder
- Nov 11, 2012, 08:28 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 11, 2012, 03:11 AMIf the CIA has a policy of not polygraphing new employees who have recently taken a polygraph with DoD, that would be newsworthy. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, and an exception was made for David Petraeus, that too would be newsworthy.
George
I do not see how that is newsworthy. Does anyone believe a polygraph examiner is allowed to veto a presidential appointment?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 11, 2012, 03:11 AMA Bloomberg article by Phil Mattingly and John Walcott cites a single, anonymous official source who claims that Petraeus was not polygraphed by the CIA in connection with his appointment as the Agency's director, because he had already been polygraphed in connection with his military service:
Implicit in the above passage is the notion that the polygraph would have brought the affair to light. But that's not necessarily the case because 1) polygraphy has no scientific basis and is highly unreliable and 2) as discussed above, senior officials at Petraeus's level don't fail polygraphs.
Note also that there is no indication in the article when Petraeus's military polygraph took place or precisely when he began his extramarital affair with Broadwell.
In addition, DoD uses a "counterintelligence scope" screening format, where the relevant questions are restricted to matters of counterintelligence concern such as unauthorized disclosure of classified information and contacts with a foreign government. The CIA, by contrast, uses a so-called "full scope" or "lifestyle" screening format, where relevant questions also cover drug use and criminal behavior. Adultery is punishable under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If the CIA has a policy of not polygraphing new employees who have recently taken a polygraph with DoD, that would be newsworthy. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, and an exception was made for David Petraeus, that too would be newsworthy.
Quote...
The sensitivity of an extramarital affair at the CIA stems from the potential for exposure to blackmail, according to one U.S. official, as well as the issue of a leader setting a bad example for subordinates. In Petraeus's case, however, the affair did not jeopardize his high-level security clearances, because he already had passed the polygraph exam required for a Top Secret clearance as a senior military officer and didn't need to retake it at the CIA, the official said.
...
Implicit in the above passage is the notion that the polygraph would have brought the affair to light. But that's not necessarily the case because 1) polygraphy has no scientific basis and is highly unreliable and 2) as discussed above, senior officials at Petraeus's level don't fail polygraphs.
Note also that there is no indication in the article when Petraeus's military polygraph took place or precisely when he began his extramarital affair with Broadwell.
In addition, DoD uses a "counterintelligence scope" screening format, where the relevant questions are restricted to matters of counterintelligence concern such as unauthorized disclosure of classified information and contacts with a foreign government. The CIA, by contrast, uses a so-called "full scope" or "lifestyle" screening format, where relevant questions also cover drug use and criminal behavior. Adultery is punishable under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If the CIA has a policy of not polygraphing new employees who have recently taken a polygraph with DoD, that would be newsworthy. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, and an exception was made for David Petraeus, that too would be newsworthy.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 10, 2012, 01:33 PMQuote from: getrealalready on Nov 10, 2012, 01:27 PMI'm guessing we can count on the fingers of a man with no hands the number of times a nominated CIA Director has failed a pre-employment polygraph examination. Go figure
Precisely. As I've commented on Pat Lang's blog, the polygrapher who fluttered Petraeus (assuming he did indeed go through the ritual) would have been more concerned about losing his job than Petraeus.
Posted by getrealalready
- Nov 10, 2012, 01:27 PMI'm guessing we can count on the fingers of a man with no hands the number of times a nominated CIA Director has failed a pre-employment polygraph examination. Go figure 
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 10, 2012, 04:31 AM
David H. Petraeus
On Friday, 9 November 2012, CIA Director David H. Petraeus tendered his resignation, explaining:
QuoteYesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.
...
Other reporting indicates that the extramarital affair Petraeus cites as the reason for his resigning began while he was commander of US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, that is, before his assumption of duties as CIA director.
The affair reportedly came to light in the course of an ongoing FBI investigation into suspected unauthorized attempts to access Petraeus's Gmail account.
All CIA employees are required to undergo pre-employment polygraph screening, and it seems likely that Petraeus would have been polygraphed. If so, it would seem that the polygraph failed to bring to light misconduct so serious as to warrant the CIA director's resignation.