- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by suethem
- Jun 12, 2003, 10:03 PMSecretagent,
check out my previous posting , "fail here, pass there". I think you will find it interesting.
Never stop trying. Anyone who tells you in a post that you are not cut out for LE is really speaking about themselves. LE has a variety of jobs to fill, from mall security to double top secret special agent.
Get in, do good, move up!!!
check out my previous posting , "fail here, pass there". I think you will find it interesting.
Never stop trying. Anyone who tells you in a post that you are not cut out for LE is really speaking about themselves. LE has a variety of jobs to fill, from mall security to double top secret special agent.
Get in, do good, move up!!!
Posted by guest
- Jun 12, 2003, 08:43 PMSecretagent,
Did the application form for the "sister" department have a section asking you to divuldge whether you have applied to any other police forces?
If it does, or if you are ever asked that question during an interview, you are screwed. They will get your written permission to contact that department to get your FAILED poly results. As a means of saving them time and money to polygraph you, they will use your old results and fail you too.
If you are as honest as you say, you will tell every new force you apply to about your first application. They will contact that force and bam! Fail. Sorry but thems the breaks! Happened to me.
Did the application form for the "sister" department have a section asking you to divuldge whether you have applied to any other police forces?
If it does, or if you are ever asked that question during an interview, you are screwed. They will get your written permission to contact that department to get your FAILED poly results. As a means of saving them time and money to polygraph you, they will use your old results and fail you too.
If you are as honest as you say, you will tell every new force you apply to about your first application. They will contact that force and bam! Fail. Sorry but thems the breaks! Happened to me.
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 18, 2003, 10:38 PMsecretagent,
I hope that you learned your lesson from your first polygraph! Don't withhold any information. If the LE agency has set a standard as far as past activities (criminal or not), then there is not much else to say is there? LE and other such agencies have good reason for establishing hiring standards. It is not enough for you to weep all over them to get in! If you don't fit the bill quit trying. Unfortunately there are no real jobs for professional victims; you might be good at that. Go get'em Batman.
I hope that you learned your lesson from your first polygraph! Don't withhold any information. If the LE agency has set a standard as far as past activities (criminal or not), then there is not much else to say is there? LE and other such agencies have good reason for establishing hiring standards. It is not enough for you to weep all over them to get in! If you don't fit the bill quit trying. Unfortunately there are no real jobs for professional victims; you might be good at that. Go get'em Batman.
Posted by secretagent
- Feb 10, 2003, 05:30 AMHello Board. I read all the posts and I appreciate the feedback on both fronts. I have "recovered" from the polygraph but will ALWAYS have a fear of that thing. I did want to let everyone know that I was disqualified from the selection process. I do have some questions. I have applied with the "sister" agency to the one I was just disqualified for. The selection processs is exactly the same, the polygraph questions and the EXAMINER are the same. Is it fair to say, I will not be selected for this agency too? This isnt the end of the road for me and I know I will have to sit in that chair again in the near future. I know I will probably have to take at least 3 more within the next 2 years. I dont believe in countermeasures cause I have nothing to hide, but I have to pass the next polygraph that comes up. I know I probably wont freak out like I did before. I am a little crushed that the polygraph kept me from joining one of best law enforcement agencies in my state. I still think they should find a better system. Take care all! Thanks
Secretagent
Secretagent
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 10, 2003, 03:25 AMQuote from: Batman on Feb 08, 2003, 11:44 AM
My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
My Dear Batman:
I have read Steincj's post several times, and frankly, I don't see the sexual bias in his as I see in yours. I do not intend nor try to slam anyone, and I have no problem with anyone who has a different view of my own. I have three small children for crying out loud - I am used to living in harmony with people who disagree with me on almost every topic you can imagine. I appreciate your "shove it" remark. Glad to see that being a lady evokes such pleasantries from a gentleman.
Quote
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
I prefer to think of myself as a pawn as opposed to a slug, but thanks for the kindness, Batman. If you go back and read my posts a bit slower, and thing about them, I did in fact suggest to secretagent that if his admission was one that disqualified him, then it was something with which he would have to accept and deal with. I didn't come out to fight his case for him, nor did I say that he was a false positive. My point was, and continues to be, that what he wrote was classical symptoms of how a rape victim describes his or her (yes, men are raped too) experience.
QuoteAgain, my Dear Bat...read my posts again. In my posts on the Westerfield polygraph, I do in fact state that the case is good ground for proof of utility issues with the polygraph. I have never suggested that the toy be taken out of an investigator's tool box for criminal matters. I have absolutely NO issue with it being used in that manner.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Now, let's talk about this rape thing that had you speaking out of turn.
During the time that I was the prime age for rape victims, the US DOJ statistics for women being raped was 1 in 4. Today, as crime has been declining, it stands at 1 in 6. I think you should be a bit more careful in suggesting to me, a woman, that I have no authority nor knowledge about rape that would allow me to use that phrase. And, thank you, but no, I did not coin the phrase. It was actually a most profound and accurate description of a polygraph exam by a federal agent pal of mine.
You think that skull f--king isn't tantamount to mental rape? My goodness, Batman. Work with me here for a minute. If an act is consensual, it is not rape. Right? If it is not consensual, it is rape. Right? If you don't agree on these basic principles, then the rest of my arguement will be useless.
If I sign a paper before going out with a guy that says that we will have consensual intimacy, but then in the process of the date I decide that it is not in my best interest to be intimate, or let's say that he decided that my idea of consensual gave him a free pass to hurt me, to abuse me, to degrade me, would you fight for his side and say that since I signed an agreement (even though in my mind I agreed to a romantic evening with compassionate and gentle intimacy), I deserved what I got? If that is the case, then would you think that no matter how I fought, screamed, and begged, that I was still under that signed release and that I just have to take what is dished out to me?
How can you tell me that skull f--king is NOT the equivalent to mental rape? When someone goes into a polygraph exam, especially in screening exams, they do not go into it with the full knowledge of what is about to happen to them. They think that they are merely going through another paper drill, and that it will be quick and painless. I am more than willing to admit that this can and very much is the case in a lot of pre-screening exams. However, I have heard (from federal agents with whom I would never attempt to question their veracity) some pretty horrid tales of polygraph exams. I have heard of them not being allowed by the examiner to go to the bathroom before the exam (and the guy REALLY had to go bad), face-to-face screaming matches that had to be broke up once they became physical, and arbitrary accusations of criminal acts. These agents left the polygraph exam room with the feeling that they had been manipulated, abused, harassed, and unnecessarily put through harsh and inhumane situations. It fell way short of their expectations and anticipations about a polygraph exam.
In the interest of time and space, I haven't gone into the depths of proving my point in hopes that you can see it if you sit back and think about it.
Again, it is the validity of the polygraph that I do not accept. The utility is another subject all together. If using any prop or toy brings about the conclusion (in a fair way) of a crime, then I would never argue to discontinue its use. I am willing to accept its use ONLY as it pertains to criminal investigations.
Regards,
Seeker
Posted by steincj
- Feb 10, 2003, 01:20 AMQuote from: x_X_x on Feb 09, 2003, 03:01 AM
Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS.
X,
Thanks, but I didn't ask the Army for my TS back. The Army is ordering me to resubmit.
I figure the Army wants all its ducks in a row in case of a full recall. I'd be a liability to the Army if called back and didn't have my TS.
Of course, I'm interested to see how this failed polygraph will come into play. And I want every pro-polygraph person on this site to try and stop me from regaining my TS. I want them to see first hand how little weight their pathetic accusations hold.
Of course, this will be a very long ordeal.
For those who have seen my posts regarding clearances, you'll know that this is an interesting issue for me. Recently I said that I didn't pursue a TS PR while on active duty for reasons of fiscal responsibility. IRR soldiers may have been required to maintain full readiness, but it was never enforced. I guess world situations dictate otherwise nowadays.
I'll be sure to keep everyone posted, including the FBI, who I will inform shortly about this little "issue."
Chris
Posted by triple x
- Feb 09, 2003, 03:01 AMsteincj,
Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS.
With regard to DoD DSS/OPM security clearance background investigations, the following may be of interest:
It's important to note that DSS does not make any security clearance determinations or recommendations. DSS simply gathers information. Once the information has been verified, and the investigations completed, DSS presents the information to the specific military service's adjudicator authority (each military service has their own), who determine whether or not to grant the security clearance, using standards set by that particular military service.
It's impossible to say if any particular thing will result in denial of a security clearance. The adjudicators use the Adjudicator Guidelines to determine whether or not the individual can be trusted with our nation's secrets. Primarily, adjudicators look for honesty, trustworthiness, character, loyalty, financial responsibility, and reliability. On cases that contain significant derogatory information warranting additional action, the adjudicator may draft a request for additional investigation/information, or request psychiatric or alcohol and drug evaluation. Even so, adjudicators are not the final authority. All denials of clearances must be personally reviewed by a branch chief, or higher.
Because of a recent change in the law, there are some factors which will positively result in the denial of a clearance. As a result of the Smith Amendment, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:
(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802))
(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD
(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.
The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases.
Respectfully,
triple_x
Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS.
With regard to DoD DSS/OPM security clearance background investigations, the following may be of interest:
It's important to note that DSS does not make any security clearance determinations or recommendations. DSS simply gathers information. Once the information has been verified, and the investigations completed, DSS presents the information to the specific military service's adjudicator authority (each military service has their own), who determine whether or not to grant the security clearance, using standards set by that particular military service.
It's impossible to say if any particular thing will result in denial of a security clearance. The adjudicators use the Adjudicator Guidelines to determine whether or not the individual can be trusted with our nation's secrets. Primarily, adjudicators look for honesty, trustworthiness, character, loyalty, financial responsibility, and reliability. On cases that contain significant derogatory information warranting additional action, the adjudicator may draft a request for additional investigation/information, or request psychiatric or alcohol and drug evaluation. Even so, adjudicators are not the final authority. All denials of clearances must be personally reviewed by a branch chief, or higher.
Because of a recent change in the law, there are some factors which will positively result in the denial of a clearance. As a result of the Smith Amendment, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:
(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802))
(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD
(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.
The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases.
Respectfully,
triple_x
Posted by steincj
- Feb 08, 2003, 10:02 PMBatman,
Thanks for replying to all of our posts. Without your comments, everything was just getting too intellectual.
And by the way, it's grammar.
Chris
Thanks for replying to all of our posts. Without your comments, everything was just getting too intellectual.
Quote from: Batman on Feb 07, 2003, 07:28 PMYour words, not mine . . .
I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth.
QuoteYou mean you actually put down your DoDPI polygrapher's handbook? Judging by your posts, I think you forgot to pull your head out of your ass long enough to see what was in the dictionary.
on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary
QuoteLet's leave Torpedo out of this, shall we?
I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass"....
QuoteYou know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!Have you ever put yourself in my shoes? Or anyone else who was a false positive? Before you say anything - there really is such a thing as a false positive. Can you understand how unbelievably painful it must be? Not only is the career you were seeking taken away from you, but also your dignity, trustworthiness, and everythihg you have ever worked for -- all voided by a simple test result. If you had this happen to you, maybe you might cry foul. But you are too tough for that, right Batman? A real man you just chalk it up as a loss and move on, right? Wrong. I'm fighting for my dignity. Mock me all you want, but I'm not letting that machine ruin me.
QuoteThe bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.You're right Batman, this claim might be BS. None of us have enough information on the situation to determine the truth. That being said, how can you instantly determine that he is lying? Could it be that his "crime," even though it might not have broken any law, was traumatic enough to effect him on his test? And if he was never asked any specific question regarding this incident, yet revealed it during the polygraph as an effort to clear his conscience, can he really be considered "deceptive"? If you never ask him about it, how can he be punished for not revealing it?
QuoteFirst off, your content is what makes you lose credibility. As I search for some sort of ratioanle while reading your posts, I am interrupted by the spelling alarm that goes off in my head. I get distracted from trying to find the point in your writing, and your credibility is further diminished.
DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.
And by the way, it's grammar.
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 08, 2003, 08:36 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 08, 2003, 11:44 AM
My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc,
"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?
Batman
Batman,
I hope you have some vacation time coming up. As tightly wound as you seem to be, I really think you need a break.
Your friend,
Skeptic
Posted by Batman
- Feb 08, 2003, 11:44 AMMy Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc,
"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?
Batman
I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc,
"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?
Batman
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 08, 2003, 12:32 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Feb 07, 2003, 11:27 PM
Oh, that's good. Any women in the reading audience want to take a subjective polygraph from an idiot who thinks like this?
Skeptic
I am one woman who wouldn't desire to submit to a polygraph by someone with such blatant bias.
Batman -
Shame on you. I am willing to chance it (like a polygraph
) that your intentions may not have been exactly as they came across in your post. I would hope not seeing as how you are, I believe, representing law enforcement in the USA. Tsk, tsk, tsk. And I had come to expect better out of you, Caped Crusader.
Best,
Seeker
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 07, 2003, 11:27 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 07, 2003, 07:28 PM
Where do I start,
How about Steincj: Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth. I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass".... You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Oh, that's good. Any women in the reading audience want to take a subjective polygraph from an idiot who thinks like this?
Skeptic
Posted by Batman
- Feb 07, 2003, 07:28 PMWhere do I start,
How about Steincj: Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth. I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass".... You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Marty: I think I asked, "...why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?" This was more of a general question put to you and the others, based more on the tone of previous postings. Even though you acknowledged, with some qualifications, that scretagent did not appear to be a vicitm of polygraph, I interpreted the general tone of your post to be that he was still vitimized to some extent. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I guess when you stated, "While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to"..." kind of threw me.
Two Block: This is in response to a different thread. I guess you asked me some questions that I have, to date, failed to answer. Sorry, but on ocassion I do not have access to the internet for extended periods of time so I must have missed your questions. If you don't mind, would you please post them again, and I will try my best to answer. Of course that is if I can pluck out a reponse with these chicken wings of mine.
DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.
Batman
How about Steincj: Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth. I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass".... You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Marty: I think I asked, "...why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?" This was more of a general question put to you and the others, based more on the tone of previous postings. Even though you acknowledged, with some qualifications, that scretagent did not appear to be a vicitm of polygraph, I interpreted the general tone of your post to be that he was still vitimized to some extent. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I guess when you stated, "While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to"..." kind of threw me.
Two Block: This is in response to a different thread. I guess you asked me some questions that I have, to date, failed to answer. Sorry, but on ocassion I do not have access to the internet for extended periods of time so I must have missed your questions. If you don't mind, would you please post them again, and I will try my best to answer. Of course that is if I can pluck out a reponse with these chicken wings of mine.
DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 06, 2003, 02:33 AMDear Seeker,
Before I start the following discussion I want to make very clear that I find the "validity" of polygraph usage in the FBI prescreening to be a waste of time and money unless a thorough investigation is done and a very specific incident can be identified. Even with this, the percentage outcome has not scientifically been proven and a margin of error cannot be defined. The utility of the polygraph is the main reason it still exist.
The Director of the FBI has requested an additional 13 positions specifically for polygraph for the fiscal year 2003 due to the anticipated increase in examinations (source can be verified on the FBI website under press releases, Congressional Statements). Someone at a high level is still defending this primative device and I can hear their sly justification, "There is nothing better or more cost effective." Emphasis on cost effective. Anyone who has read the complete NAS report knows that this is a very good spin on stretching the truth.
Many people on this site have attacked "The Breeze"'s posting but he has been very astute in this area. The FBI believes it saves money and footwork on "believing the polygraph". Since all successful employees and special agents successfully pass their exams, they have no reason to question or doubt the validity and endorse its usefulness and effectiveness. It allows the "good-ole-boys club" to selectively enhance the probability of finding a candidate with attributes that the current leadership wants to perpetuate without violating hiring laws. The refusal to videotape the examination, use tamper resistant time/date techniques (via computer recording), and not allowing the applicant to sign all copies of any current strips used would be ample ammunition for any expert attorney to question the chain of custody and validity of results due to possible tampering. Any long time examiner will admit that through unethical behavior they could skew the results of any polygraph experience. The videotape is key to objectively witnessing unethical behavior. The videotape can protect the polygraph examiners against false accusations and I can find no good ethical examiner who would have a problem with showing his/her exam to an objective person and defending their actions. The only outcome of this logic is that examiners who do not use videotape are not proud of their technique or procedure and fear review of such actions.
Seeker, you are trying to be logical with a system which is not founded on logic. No matter how you discuss it, it cannot make sense to a reasonable person. I would not trust my life on information provided to me by an informant (volunteer or otherwise) strictly based on polygraph. The polygraph is just another prop to intensify an interrogation. The polygraph just gives a warm and fuzzy feeling without spending any real money on footwork. A good interrogator does not need a polygraph except as a "fear inducing tool." The utility of confessions is in direct proportion to the fear that the examiner can instill in the examinee that the polygraph works.
My first few postings vented my anger that the polygraph is given so much weight in the vetting process of an FBI application without any other source of information. This is nothing short of allowing the examiner to be the "gate keeper" of the organization. By carefully controlling who is allowed to be an examiner, a supervisor can ensure his opinions will be perpetuated in spirit (similar to the sway the President can have on Supreme Court Justices by picking nominees who agree with his personal values).
Polygraphing an unjammed source serves no useful purpose if one knows all the answers anyway from other sources. If one does not have any other sources, I would be very remiss about just using a polygraph for verification if my life depended on it.
Regards.
Before I start the following discussion I want to make very clear that I find the "validity" of polygraph usage in the FBI prescreening to be a waste of time and money unless a thorough investigation is done and a very specific incident can be identified. Even with this, the percentage outcome has not scientifically been proven and a margin of error cannot be defined. The utility of the polygraph is the main reason it still exist.
The Director of the FBI has requested an additional 13 positions specifically for polygraph for the fiscal year 2003 due to the anticipated increase in examinations (source can be verified on the FBI website under press releases, Congressional Statements). Someone at a high level is still defending this primative device and I can hear their sly justification, "There is nothing better or more cost effective." Emphasis on cost effective. Anyone who has read the complete NAS report knows that this is a very good spin on stretching the truth.
Many people on this site have attacked "The Breeze"'s posting but he has been very astute in this area. The FBI believes it saves money and footwork on "believing the polygraph". Since all successful employees and special agents successfully pass their exams, they have no reason to question or doubt the validity and endorse its usefulness and effectiveness. It allows the "good-ole-boys club" to selectively enhance the probability of finding a candidate with attributes that the current leadership wants to perpetuate without violating hiring laws. The refusal to videotape the examination, use tamper resistant time/date techniques (via computer recording), and not allowing the applicant to sign all copies of any current strips used would be ample ammunition for any expert attorney to question the chain of custody and validity of results due to possible tampering. Any long time examiner will admit that through unethical behavior they could skew the results of any polygraph experience. The videotape is key to objectively witnessing unethical behavior. The videotape can protect the polygraph examiners against false accusations and I can find no good ethical examiner who would have a problem with showing his/her exam to an objective person and defending their actions. The only outcome of this logic is that examiners who do not use videotape are not proud of their technique or procedure and fear review of such actions.
Seeker, you are trying to be logical with a system which is not founded on logic. No matter how you discuss it, it cannot make sense to a reasonable person. I would not trust my life on information provided to me by an informant (volunteer or otherwise) strictly based on polygraph. The polygraph is just another prop to intensify an interrogation. The polygraph just gives a warm and fuzzy feeling without spending any real money on footwork. A good interrogator does not need a polygraph except as a "fear inducing tool." The utility of confessions is in direct proportion to the fear that the examiner can instill in the examinee that the polygraph works.
My first few postings vented my anger that the polygraph is given so much weight in the vetting process of an FBI application without any other source of information. This is nothing short of allowing the examiner to be the "gate keeper" of the organization. By carefully controlling who is allowed to be an examiner, a supervisor can ensure his opinions will be perpetuated in spirit (similar to the sway the President can have on Supreme Court Justices by picking nominees who agree with his personal values).
Polygraphing an unjammed source serves no useful purpose if one knows all the answers anyway from other sources. If one does not have any other sources, I would be very remiss about just using a polygraph for verification if my life depended on it.
Regards.
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 05, 2003, 09:36 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Feb 04, 2003, 09:57 AMFair Chance:
If you would give me specific examples of how and what the interrogation is about than I would hopefully be more specific in my answer.
A "one size fits all approach" is definitely not the way to get answers, information, or confessions. The interrogator must match his/her style to the mindset of the subject (this can be more civil and much more productive as any mother of two or more children learns very quickly!).
Regards.
Thanks for your response. To be specific, let us discuss the use of the polygraph with unjammed sources.
The practice is widely used within the FBI, and only in extreme circumstances within other agencies.
I suggest that the mere suggestion of submission to a polygraph to these types of individuals who volunteer their time and efforts, place themselves in harm's way, and operate without the advantage of a badge and gun should never be subject to a polygraph examination. I find it utterly insane. Information can be verified, and that is the very reason LE has their CI's prove their credibility prior to using them or increasing their status within the agency.
I am further outraged that the polygraph is used in these situations to delegate valuable time, engery, and resources often to the chagrin of the agency. (case in point was the release of the media frency about 5 wanted Arab men because someone was deceptive and still passed the poly) Or, on the other hand, they ignore valid information due to a DI, or Inconclusive reading, only to find that they wear the egg cart on their faces afterwards.
I am not, nor have I ever had a desire to be in law enforcement. I have had a lot of contact with them, and I have been available to them on numerous occassions. It seems to me that they are very capable of determining the validity of information or the veracity of a source without such asinine practices of hooking them up to the box.
This goes back to an interrogation. Should a RI or CI be subjected to an hard grilling interrogation? I assert that a good investigator can determine through genuine field work if the source is reliable, and if so, action should be taken on all information presented. If, on the other hand, it should be found out that a source should proves to be sending LE on a wild goose chase, there are laws out there that can be applied to this situation and charges can be filed.
In the end, I contend that sources are too valuable to discard over such lunacy as the polygraph.
This is just one such example that I question about.
Regards,
Seeker