- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Feb 07, 2003, 08:24 PMQuote from: beech trees on Feb 07, 2003, 06:20 PM
....he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce....
Little did he know that Britain would, in a few decades, go on to abolish slavery in the Kingdom and Provinces that it controlled. Of course the USA wasn't amongst them then so we had that execrable "custom", rationalized in some of the most extraordinary ways, another half century.
Speaking of rationalizing inhuman things in most extraordinary ways......
-Marty
Posted by beech trees
- Feb 07, 2003, 06:20 PMQuote from: Public Servant on Feb 03, 2003, 02:14 AM
Beech,
You are quite right, I was not alive (in this life anyway) at that time. And true my mindset is not in the 18th Century. While I very much believe in the ideals for which our founding fathers fought, and I work everyday to defend what they created; my "state of mind" would have extended the belief that "all men are created equal," to encompass men and women of all races and ethnicities. My "state of mind" would never have allowed slavery in a nation founded on such primciples. So in that vein, you are correct about the absence of my 21st century state of mind under your 18th century banner. However, if you are questioning my patriotism or devotion to the ideals on which this nation was founded, then your ignorant statement proves that while all men are created equal; how effectiviely they use what they are given, sets them apart!
Have a nice day!
A lovely little attempt to play the race card. Yes indeed. Accusing your counterpart of racism is always so productive, don't you think? You must, as I count that tactic used by you polygraph sorts on this board at least 5 times.
As to your... disgusting inferences that the '18th century mindset' automatically means one is pro-slavery (and thus *I* am somehow pro-slavery), please consider the following quotations:
Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, or morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.-- Thomas Jefferson
I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.-- Patrick Henry
There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.-- George Washington
You may also wish to read Thomas Jefferson's draft of The Declaration of Independence, in which his utter vitriol against the institution of slavery is expressed thus:
he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
That section was deleted because of the protests by South Carolina and Georgia. You might also read the Federal
ist # 54.
Finally, after digesting the above cited writings, you might wish to reflect on who among the two of us is the more ignorant.
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 02:14 AMQuoteI doubt seriously that you were actually there when the original battle flag was hoisted. Your mindset wasn't there, that's certain.
Beech,
You are quite right, I was not alive (in this life anyway) at that time. And true my mindset is not in the 18th Century. While I very much believe in the ideals for which our founding fathers fought, and I work everyday to defend what they created; my "state of mind" would have extended the belief that "all men are created equal," to encompass men and women of all races and ethnicities. My "state of mind" would never have allowed slavery in a nation founded on such primciples. So in that vein, you are correct about the absence of my 21st century state of mind under your 18th century banner. However, if you are questioning my patriotism or devotion to the ideals on which this nation was founded, then your ignorant statement proves that while all men are created equal; how effectiviely they use what they are given, sets them apart!
Have a nice day!
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Jan 28, 2003, 03:26 PMBeech Trees,
Okay, okay, I confess...
I find myself having to admit that I look forward to your posts on this site... 
No kidding! You are a sharp, articulate debater and your quick wit often leaves me in stiches. Beech, although you and I will always be clearly on opposite sides of this debate, I hope you post here for a long time to come. Best wishes...
PDD-Fed
Okay, okay, I confess...
I find myself having to admit that I look forward to your posts on this site... No kidding! You are a sharp, articulate debater and your quick wit often leaves me in stiches. Beech, although you and I will always be clearly on opposite sides of this debate, I hope you post here for a long time to come. Best wishes...PDD-Fed
Posted by beech trees
- Jan 28, 2003, 01:48 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Jan 28, 2003, 12:42 AMBeech Trees,
Your insistence on turning this into a debate over such standards of conduct (ie. drug use), instead of whether the polygraph is a useful tool in determining compliance, speaks volumes about your motives.
I don't recall seeking to turn any debate over the scientific validity of the polygraph into a debate over standards of conduct. My point was tangential to the debate, and merely pointed to the wry irony of-- on the one hand-- the State insisting that the consumption of certain drugs (in this case, Dextroamphetamine) is such heinous behavior as to warrant immediate dismissal from candidacy for employment with the aforementioned State... and on the other hand the State freely feeding its Air Force pilots the exact same drug-- even blessing such actions as 'good'.
QuoteNice choice of colors on your continued attempt to revive the tired "challenge" issue. Brighter yellow even than Beech Trees' flag (which, incidentally, is much brighter yellow than the famous battle flag).
Whatever. Even though it's becoming rapidly apparent that you and your kind are quite knowledgable concerning all the different shades of yellow, I doubt seriously that you were actually there when the original battle flag was hoisted. Your mindset wasn't there, that's certain.
QuoteRegards to all. Just thought I'd drop in and add my two cents (if it's even worth that much).
Hey, you forgot to throw in your opinion about Ed Gelb, Professional hair Dresser! Get back here!
Posted by Public Servant
- Jan 28, 2003, 12:42 AMFair Chance,
Well said. Good to see someone here differentiates between questioning the validity and accuracy of polygraph and the integrity/behavior standards of those placed (or wanting to be placed) in positions of public trust.
Beech Trees,
Your insistence on turning this into a debate over such standards of conduct (ie. drug use), instead of whether the polygraph is a useful tool in determining compliance, speaks volumes about your motives.
George,
Nice choice of colors on your continued attempt to revive the tired "challenge" issue. Brighter yellow even than Beech Trees' flag (which, incidentally, is much brighter yellow than the famous battle flag).
Regards to all. Just thought I'd drop in and add my two cents (if it's even worth that much).
Well said. Good to see someone here differentiates between questioning the validity and accuracy of polygraph and the integrity/behavior standards of those placed (or wanting to be placed) in positions of public trust.
Beech Trees,
Your insistence on turning this into a debate over such standards of conduct (ie. drug use), instead of whether the polygraph is a useful tool in determining compliance, speaks volumes about your motives.
George,
Nice choice of colors on your continued attempt to revive the tired "challenge" issue. Brighter yellow even than Beech Trees' flag (which, incidentally, is much brighter yellow than the famous battle flag).
Regards to all. Just thought I'd drop in and add my two cents (if it's even worth that much).
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 21, 2003, 02:31 PMQuote from: Guest on Jan 21, 2003, 01:13 PMDear Guest,
Please, stop scaring the heck out of people.
My intent was not to "scare" anyone. After many years in the military and federal government, I have witnessed how just the "appearance" of wrongful conduct adversely affects careers. Is this right? Of course not but it happens more often then I would have expected it to.
Lower food chain federal employees like myself are more likely to get caught up in this "appearance" backlash than elected officials.
Despite what some people have posted here, I have seen federal law officers lose their employment after a DUI conviction. A DUI is a felony in many states and felons are not allowed to use firearms in most states. The ability to use a firearm is a job requirement and the officer is terminated due to a lack of "fitness for duty."
Where I work, if you have alcohol on your breath while reporting to work or doing work, you are subject to test and refusal of such test can lead to dismissal. Any registered reading of .02% blood alcohol or higher is an infraction that can lead to immediate dismissal.
Please remember for the ten or twenty cases that are posted in papers concerning law enforcement that "beat the system", there are thousands who get caught and are disciplined.
I am sorry if my posting came over as a threat or scare tactic, for any regular readers of my post, they know my attitude to not be like that.
This site is set up to expose the "truth" of the polygraph as being inaccurate and not trustworthy.
I am not saying that this person is not a good person or a smart person. I am saying that they should do their utmost to meet all application requirements in a truthful manner. I have read too many inquiries of fine officers who justified omissions which eventually cost them their jobs.
I try to enforce all laws equally. I put my job up on the chopping block if I decide which ones I want to enforce because in my case I believe it is an "exception" not worth enforcing because no one else will know about it. Am I an idealist? Yes, I have to be one or else the ignorance and evil I witness everyday would jade me and I would become useless in my job. This thought pattern of "there are no witnesses" or it is "your word against mine" is weak justification to avoid being truthful in ones job or on an application. This way of thinking can lead into many problems in future decisions. It becomes a behavior pattern which becomes more acceptable with time and harder to stop. I am not a psychologist or doctor but I have been exposed to the flaws of human nature first hand for many years in my job.
An applicant who does not truthfully answer all questions places the foundation of their career on quicksand. This statement is not a scare tactic. It comes from my heart and I would say so even if the polygraph disappeared tomorrow.
Regards.
Posted by Guest
- Jan 21, 2003, 01:13 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jan 20, 2003, 07:20 PM
Skeptic,
I am not usually so hard-nosed in my opinion but my logic is as follows:
Any position requiring a top secret clearance is a "position of authority" according to almost any government employment agency.
Any drug use while in a "position of authority" is a violation of policy in almost every case (I am sure there are a few exceptions but I would like to have someone give me the examples of a person who successfully applied and was hired after admitting such use while being in a position of authority).
Most of the agencies I know of who are asking these questions have no time limitations for use (even once) during positions of authority.
I have stated that drug use within guidelines should not be discriminated against. ANY illegal drug use during a position of authority is extremely bad judgement. Hiding this bad judgement knowingly is an extremely dangerous game of chance. Who wants to put in seventeen years of government service only to have your pension and position yanked because of an old "friend" now becomes an old "enemy"?
Regards.
Fair Chance,
If there is no criminal record of the incident, it is still your word against theirs. Period.
An "old friend" can say what ever they want, but the fact of the matter is if there is no physical evidence or proof of their allegations, then that's all they are: ALLEGATIONS AND HEARSAY. There are enough jealous friends and jilted lovers out there to beat the band. Please, stop scaring the heck out of people.
Posted by beech trees
- Jan 21, 2003, 01:13 PMFood for thought:
When consumed at will by a citizen, dexedrine is an illegal Schedule II controlled substance. When distributed by The State to fighter pilots controlling some of the most deadly weapons known to man, amphetamines are wonderful.
US Air Force Says 'Speed' Good for Tired Pilots
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the drug issue as it relates to pre-employment screening.
When consumed at will by a citizen, dexedrine is an illegal Schedule II controlled substance. When distributed by The State to fighter pilots controlling some of the most deadly weapons known to man, amphetamines are wonderful.
US Air Force Says 'Speed' Good for Tired Pilots
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the drug issue as it relates to pre-employment screening.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 20, 2003, 07:20 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Jan 20, 2003, 03:54 AM
I'm not sure I would be as absolute in my opinion on the matter.
Skeptic,
I am not usually so hard-nosed in my opinion but my logic is as follows:
Any position requiring a top secret clearance is a "position of authority" according to almost any government employment agency.
Any drug use while in a "position of authority" is a violation of policy in almost every case (I am sure there are a few exceptions but I would like to have someone give me the examples of a person who successfully applied and was hired after admitting such use while being in a position of authority).
Most of the agencies I know of who are asking these questions have no time limitations for use (even once) during positions of authority.
I have stated that drug use within guidelines should not be discriminated against. ANY illegal drug use during a position of authority is extremely bad judgement. Hiding this bad judgement knowingly is an extremely dangerous game of chance. Who wants to put in seventeen years of government service only to have your pension and position yanked because of an old "friend" now becomes an old "enemy"?
Regards.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 20, 2003, 05:27 AMJennifer,
Your friend may wish to review the U.S. Government's Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information. Guideline H covers drug involvement. For examples of how the aforementioned guidelines have been interpreted recently, see the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' industrial decisions for 2002 and look especially for those cases where drug involvement is concerned. Although NSA's adjudicators might implement the guidelines somewhat differently, I would not expect them to be more liberal in interpreting the guidelines than are DOHA's administrative judges. Especially because of her marijuana use within the past year (while holding a top secret clearance at that), I believe your friend has a lot to worry about.
Your friend may wish to review the U.S. Government's Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information. Guideline H covers drug involvement. For examples of how the aforementioned guidelines have been interpreted recently, see the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' industrial decisions for 2002 and look especially for those cases where drug involvement is concerned. Although NSA's adjudicators might implement the guidelines somewhat differently, I would not expect them to be more liberal in interpreting the guidelines than are DOHA's administrative judges. Especially because of her marijuana use within the past year (while holding a top secret clearance at that), I believe your friend has a lot to worry about.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 20, 2003, 03:54 AMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jan 19, 2003, 07:47 PM
Dear Jennifer,
Chris is very politely trying to tell you that your "friend" should completely abandon their desire for future TS employment. Many on this website have talked about how alcohol is a drug. There is one big difference. Alcohol is legal, Ectasy is not. I am not pro-polygraph, I am a taxpayer and I expect someone who has a topsecret clearance to have enough common sense to stay away from drugs. Drugs are the perfect blackmail material since they are obviously illegal and will set anyone up for compromise. Alcohol is dangerous but I doubt it is as easy to say "someone got drunk once" and use this to threaten their job or living.
I'm not sure I would be as absolute in my opinion on the matter. While I have no tolerance for drug use and I certainly feel the applicant needs to put some time between those bad decisions and any new application for a security clearance, I also feel that people can change and develop a better sense of responsibility. I don't feel two instances of drug experimentation, even while holding a clearance and even if involving something as hard as extasy, should bar someone for life.
I do agree that needing to keep something like that under wraps could be used as blackmail, were it to become known.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 19, 2003, 07:47 PMQuote from: jennifer on Jan 19, 2003, 03:21 AMDear Jennifer,
She has a TS/better clearance and happened to do some Ecstasy (twice) while she had the clearance and was in the military. Does experimental us of Ecstasy automatically dismiss you from TS access?
Chris is very politely trying to tell you that your "friend" should completely abandon their desire for future TS employment. Many on this website have talked about how alcohol is a drug. There is one big difference. Alcohol is legal, Ectasy is not. I am not pro-polygraph, I am a taxpayer and I expect someone who has a topsecret clearance to have enough common sense to stay away from drugs. Drugs are the perfect blackmail material since they are obviously illegal and will set anyone up for compromise. Alcohol is dangerous but I doubt it is as easy to say "someone got drunk once" and use this to threaten their job or living.
Regards.
Posted by steincj
- Jan 19, 2003, 04:32 AMQuote from: jennifer on Jan 19, 2003, 03:21 AM
I have a friend that is thinking about taking a job at NSA. She has a TS/better clearance and happened to do some Ecstasy (twice) while she had the clearance and was in the military. . . . She wants to tell the truth and get the monkey off her back so she can take a poly and not have to worry about it....does she have a lot to worry about?
I always love "hypothetical" stories that start with "I have a friend" . . . .
Back to the issue - If your "friend" is still in the military, she needs to stay far away from the NSA and the polygraph, especially with the whole Ecstacy experimentation. If she comes clean prior to or breaks and tells the truth during the NSA poly, not only will she lose the NSA spot, but it will be reported to the military, and it could lead to a dishonorable discharge (see the personal statement of "Frustrated")
. Not good.
If your friend is out of the military and looking at the NSA, it is a different story. Your friend has to be willing to live with a failed polygraph on her record if she attempts the NSA route. Her honesty sound like a good idea, but I don't know the leniency of the NSA's drug policy. The FBI only allows pot, not within the last 3 years or while holding a position of authority, and not more than 15 times total. I have a hard time believing the NSA will overlook taking E while in the military and having a TS clearance, but that's just my opinion.
Please ask if you have, oh, I mean, if your "friend" has any questions.
Chris
Posted by jennifer
- Jan 19, 2003, 03:21 AMI have a friend that is thinking about taking a job at NSA. She has a TS/better clearance and happened to do some Ecstasy (twice) while she had the clearance and was in the military. Does experimental us of Ecstasy automatically dismiss you from TS access? If there are a few other pot uses within the last year would that be "the straw"? She wants to tell the truth and get the monkey off her back so she can take a poly and not have to worry about it....does she have a lot to worry about?