- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 27, 2014, 01:17 PMQuote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Sep 27, 2014, 12:53 PMDoug, along these lines.(and in your personal opinion)..can individuals employed by the federal government,who as a condition of that employment, swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States...be prosecuted for violating their oath?
I don't think that failure to uphold and defend the constitution is a crime under the United States Code. Nor should it be. It's overly vague.
QuoteExample, if Snowdenswears an oath to not divulge confidential information and does so - he's violated his oath and is considered a traitor by the United States...and can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Snowden didn't swear an oath not to divulge confidential information. His oath was to support and defend the constitution, not government secrets. He did, as others with security clearances do, sign an agreement not to disclose classified information without authorization.
QuoteWhat happens when federal employees violate their oath???
Typically, nothing.
QuoteSpecifically, what happens when federal letter agency polygraphers, their bosses, and their bosses, bosses,who take this oath and then violate it (daily) by exempting themselves from it during the course of a polygraph interview and/or violate/ignore the constitutional rights of the candidates they are "interviewing"during the interview...
..
Using the lame excuse that candidates "volunteered"
via a signed a waiver ...does not grant a waiver to any federal employee of his oath... Nor does it grant them latitude to piss all over their candidates rights....
What is the opinion of you and this board regarding this?
The courts have not held polygraph screening to be unconstitutional. While I think that those who choose to conduct polygraph screening have made a poor ethical choice, I think they are generally well-meaning, and I wouldn't accuse them of violating their oaths to support and defend the constitution.
That said, I think that polygraph screening is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with humanist values.
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Sep 27, 2014, 12:53 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on May 13, 2014, 10:01 AMQuote from: pailryder on May 13, 2014, 08:59 AMQuote from: Doug_Williams on May 12, 2014, 06:25 PMIs there going to be any prosecution for the criminal acts committed by these federal polygraph operators?
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but last I heard EPPA violations are civil not criminal violations.
Public officials can be fined, and even jailed for violating federal regulations. These federal polygraph operators are public officials and they should be held to account for willfully, and deliberately violating a federal statute!
Doug, along these lines.(and in your personal opinion)..can individuals employed by the federal government, who as a condition of that employment, swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States...be prosecuted for violating their oath?
Example, if Snowden swears an oath to not divulge confidential information and does so - he's violated his oath and is considered a traitor by the United States...and can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
What happens when federal employees violate their oath???
Specifically, what happens when federal letter agency polygraphers, their bosses, and their bosses, bosses, who take this oath and then violate it (daily) by exempting themselves from it during the course of a polygraph interview and/or violate/ignore the constitutional rights of the candidates they are "interviewing" during the interview...
..
Using the lame excuse that candidates "volunteered"
via a signed a waiver ...does not grant a waiver to any federal employee of his oath... Nor does it grant them latitude to piss all over their candidates rights....
What is the opinion of you and this board regarding this?
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 13, 2014, 10:01 AMQuote from: pailryder on May 13, 2014, 08:59 AMQuote from: Doug_Williams on May 12, 2014, 06:25 PMIs there going to be any prosecution for the criminal acts committed by these federal polygraph operators?
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but last I heard EPPA violations are civil not criminal violations.
Public officials can be fined, and even jailed for violating federal regulations. These federal polygraph operators are public officials and they should be held to account for willfully, and deliberately violating a federal statute!
Posted by pailryder
- May 13, 2014, 08:59 AMQuote from: Doug_Williams on May 12, 2014, 06:25 PMIs there going to be any prosecution for the criminal acts committed by these federal polygraph operators?
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but last I heard EPPA violations are civil not criminal violations.
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 12, 2014, 06:25 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on May 07, 2014, 02:58 PMThis is what I have been advocating for almost forty years! I have always said that one of the best ways to stop the use of the polygraph is to sue the hell out of the polygraph thugs who abuse people with it.
Here is one attorney, Mr. Gene Iredale, who just chalked up a BIG W for the victims who have been abused by the practitioners of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture incorrectly referred to as a "lie detector".
Polygraph operators, read it and weep!Polygraph victims, read it and rejoice!
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/07/4103242/dea-settles-suit-alleging-government.html#.U2p4lIUo9is.twitter
The lawsuit against the DEA for illegally administering polygraph examinations in direct violation of a federal law, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, points out two things that I think merit much more scrutiny. The first and most important is that this lawsuit pulls back the curtain and exposes the terribly intrusive and abusive tactics employed by polygraph operators – something I have been railing against since my testimony in congress in support of the EPPA in 1985. The unconscionable actions of these polygraph operators are the very reason I have said that the use of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture, aka the "lie detector" should be banned completely!
Secondly, let's consider the case where federal employees were clearly violating a federal law – administering polygraph examinations in a deliberate and flagrant violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act! There is no indication that anyone in Criminal Division Public Integrity Section of the DOJ – or anyone from the DOJ - did anything to investigate the criminal activity committed by federal employees. These federal polygraph operators were engaged in criminal activity and obviously violated the federal law, but there is no indication that any investigation was conducted, no search warrants were issued, and no equipment or records were seized - nor were there any charges filed. I wonder how many other federal polygraph operators have (and are still) engaged in this very same criminal activity, both on duty and off! Where is the Criminal Division Public Integrity Section of the DOJ, and what, if anything, are they doing to investigate this ongoing criminal activity by these public officials? What did the Inspector General of the DEA do? Did anyone in authority do any investigation? Is there going to be any prosecution for the criminal acts committed by these federal polygraph operators?
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 08, 2014, 11:11 AMQuote from: Drew_Richardson on May 08, 2014, 10:58 AMIn addition to numerous informal conversations with my various bosses at the FBI occurring some 10 to 15 years before, the FBI was very clearly made aware of the shortcomings of polygraph screening with my testimony before the U.S. Senate in September of 1997.
https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml
It will be most interesting to see how the Bureau proceeds with polygraph screening following the news of this thread...
Your testimony was dynamic, and the powers that be were clearly warned. I also testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA and pointed out the abuse in my testimony
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281
They have known for decades that this abuse was occurring, but they callously continued it. Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- May 08, 2014, 10:58 AMIn addition to numerous informal conversations with my various bosses at the FBI occurring some 10 to 15 years before, the FBI was very clearly and officially made aware of the shortcomings of polygraph screening with my testimony before the U.S. Senate in September of 1997.
(https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml)
It will be most interesting to see how the Bureau proceeds with polygraph screening following the news of this thread...
(https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml)
It will be most interesting to see how the Bureau proceeds with polygraph screening following the news of this thread...
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 08, 2014, 10:57 AMQuote from: Drew_Richardson on May 08, 2014, 10:17 AMThis truly is potentially colossal! The implications for the greater issue (well beyond polygraph examinations administered to federal contractors) of all polygraph screening are inescapable. Every victim (and potential future examinee) of polygraph screening should be seeking legal advice. Those who have caused damage and harm through polygraph screening have been put on notice a very long time ago. Damages will likely be extensive...
Drew: I fervently hope you are right! I have been saying the actions of the polygraph operators were grounds for a lawsuit for 35 years! I hope EVERY victim will finally be made whole and this insidious industry will be destroyed!
Posted by Drew Richardson
- May 08, 2014, 10:17 AMThis truly is potentially colossal! The implications for the greater issue (well beyond polygraph examinations administered to federal contractors) of all polygraph screening are inescapable. Every victim (and potential future examinee) of polygraph screening should be seeking legal advice. Those who have caused damage and harm through polygraph screening have been put on notice a very long time ago. Damages will likely be extensive...
Posted by Ex Member
- May 07, 2014, 03:27 PMThanks for pointing this out Doug, IMHO it's monumental. The DEA contractors had a legal case because their jobs were not covered by the EPPA's exceptions. One important point that comes to mind, that while the EPPA does allow certain agencies to use polygraphy in their screening process, there is nothing which gives the polygraph operators free reign--making decisions based upon their whim and prejudices, not making the charts publicly available for unbiased scrutiny etc. I think their abuses could be effectively challenged in court despite the EPPA exceptions.
I hope George may reach out to Mr. Gene Iredale Esq. and invite him to peruse this website and read the postings of the polygraph operators here and in the compromised polygraph forum as well. I have no doubt, it would give impetus to possible future litigation to hold the charlatans accountable. $500,000 is not lunch money--the judgement is arguably a chink in the armor.
I hope George may reach out to Mr. Gene Iredale Esq. and invite him to peruse this website and read the postings of the polygraph operators here and in the compromised polygraph forum as well. I have no doubt, it would give impetus to possible future litigation to hold the charlatans accountable. $500,000 is not lunch money--the judgement is arguably a chink in the armor.
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 07, 2014, 02:58 PMThis is what I have been advocating for almost forty years! I have always said that one of the best ways to stop the use of the polygraph is to sue the hell out of the polygraph thugs who abuse people with it.
Here is one attorney, Mr. Gene Iredale, who just chalked up a BIG W for the victims who have been abused by the practitioners of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture incorrectly referred to as a "lie detector".
Polygraph operators, read it and weep! Polygraph victims, read it and rejoice! 
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/07/4103242/dea-settles-suit-alleging-government.html#.U2p4lIUo9is.twitter
Here is one attorney, Mr. Gene Iredale, who just chalked up a BIG W for the victims who have been abused by the practitioners of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture incorrectly referred to as a "lie detector".
Polygraph operators, read it and weep!
Polygraph victims, read it and rejoice! http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/07/4103242/dea-settles-suit-alleging-government.html#.U2p4lIUo9is.twitter
Posted by Doug Williams
- Apr 30, 2014, 02:27 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 30, 2014, 12:09 PMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2014, 08:08 AMI have been at this more than thirty years and I have yet to meet an examiner who was indifferent to false positives.
This is very touching, a kinder softer side to polygraph operators. Perhaps some examinees can share their experiences where the polygraph operator exhibited concern and empathy while falsely accusing them of lying.
I have been in the polygraph business (both pro and con) for over forty years, and I have NEVER seen any polygraph thug show ANY remorse for falsely branding people as liars! Quite the opposite - I have heard them brag about it! There are many police departments - and other agencies - who hire private polygraphers to administer their "tests". I have heard them brag about running fifty tests to fill five job openings. They have a financial incentive to fail as many people as they can! "False positives" = big pay checks! So please Pailface - no bullshit stories about polygraph thugs crying crocodile tears for their victims...
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 30, 2014, 12:09 PMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2014, 08:08 AMI have been at this more than thirty years and I have yet to meet an examiner who was indifferent to false positives.
This is very touching, a kinder softer side to polygraph operators. Perhaps some examinees can share their experiences where the polygraph operator exhibited concern and empathy while falsely accusing them of lying.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Apr 29, 2014, 04:24 PMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2014, 08:08 AMArkhangelsk
I have recommended this site to clients for several years, as it is far and away, the most complete resource for polygraph information.
I have been at this more than thirty years and I have yet to meet an examiner who was indifferent to false positives. A constant refrain from your side, but I honestly have not found that to be the case.
So you tell the people that you are going to "polygraph" to read THE LIE BEHIND THE LIE DETECTOR before you test them?
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 29, 2014, 08:08 AMArkhangelsk
I have recommended this site to clients for several years, as it is far and away, the most complete resource for polygraph information.
I have been at this more than thirty years and I have yet to meet an examiner who was indifferent to false positives. A constant refrain from your side, but I honestly have not found that to be the case.
I have recommended this site to clients for several years, as it is far and away, the most complete resource for polygraph information.
I have been at this more than thirty years and I have yet to meet an examiner who was indifferent to false positives. A constant refrain from your side, but I honestly have not found that to be the case.