- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 24, 2003, 04:35 AMQuote from: Batman on Feb 20, 2003, 05:04 PMBatman:
Seeker,
Help me out here girl! I went to Googel and searched on FBI, polygraph, informants as you said, and I tried to sift through several of the hits but could not come up with the folks or situations you referenced. I even tried to search on the specific names you mention, by my God, there were thousands of hits.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm always looking to learn, so if you could narrow it down just a bit for me, I'll give it a read.
Batman
Sorry for the delay in my resonse.
A search with the specific incidents, FBI, polygraph, informants gives a clearer and more managable list to read from. When I search, I get a lot of hyperlinks to click on, and those direct me off to some other site. I haven't figured out how to put those into a post as of yet. I am trying to figure it out.
When you write something, sometimes what you mean to say and what you actually say are not always the same thing. I never intended to say that overreliance on the polygraph alone resulted in these horrible events. Rather, that if the polygraph was removed from the equation -- especially since it is deemed to be so very unreliable -- then there would be one less flaw in the investigation process. My apologies if I came across as stating that I believed the whole burden of shame belonged on the believed or ignored results of a polygraph examination.
I always appreciate anyone willing to learn and read, Mr. Batman. We all can gain by learning more.
Regards,
Posted by Batman
- Feb 20, 2003, 05:04 PMSeeker,
Help me out here girl! I went to Googel and searched on FBI, polygraph, informants as you said, and I tried to sift through several of the hits but could not come up with the folks or situations you referenced. I even tried to search on the specific names you mention, by my God, there were thousands of hits.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm always looking to learn, so if you could narrow it down just a bit for me, I'll give it a read.
Batman
Help me out here girl! I went to Googel and searched on FBI, polygraph, informants as you said, and I tried to sift through several of the hits but could not come up with the folks or situations you referenced. I even tried to search on the specific names you mention, by my God, there were thousands of hits.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm always looking to learn, so if you could narrow it down just a bit for me, I'll give it a read.
Batman
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 19, 2003, 10:57 PMBatman:
I think it would be wise to research the public record of the FBI's reliance on the polygraph in cases where informants are examined.
A search on Google.com with the search words "FBI, polygraph, informants" will open you up to some public records that will go strongly against your suggestion that the FBI doesn't merely rely upon polygraph results.
In actuality, up until recent media attention was given to the horrendous mistakes made by the FBI's choice to follow the results of poly exams of informants (Carol Howe, OK City bombing, Emad Salam, WTC I bombing, and Abdulssuttar Sheikh, WTC II and Pentagon bombings of 9/11, just to name a few of the most serious), the FBI routinely dismissed an informant immediately upon a failure of the poly exam. No further investigation was made into the information. Also, any prior information provided by that particular source, valid or not, became discreditied along with the source.
You are further wrong in your claim that an informant who walks in to provide information is NOT put into the box first. Again, a Google.com search will prove you to be wrong on that matter as well. The FBI had a walk-in informant who gave them detailed information about the proposed events of 9/11, he or she was placed in the box, failed, and the FBI chalked it up to just being another lunatic.
Perhaps the agency that you work for does things differently. Perhaps they value sources more than the bureau, and they try to ensure continued cooperation by not putting themselves in the position to insult a source with such nonsense as the polygraph. There are, in fact, several agencies out there who do not routinely suggest that their sources submit to polygraph examinations.
Have you read the Statement of Agreement between the FBI and sources? Have you read them for other agencies? I assure you, there is quite a difference between them.
Now the bureau is facing a difficult situation publically. They have learned that discounting information from sources based totally on the polygraph has gotten them into horrible trouble. (Reading of Congressional Inquirys shows a lot of this, by the way.) I just wonder when they are going to go one step further and realize what such futile faith in prescreening has done for them.
Regardless of wether the poly is used to screen potential employees or of sources, to make a conclusion based soley on the outcome of such an inaccurate exam is totally unacceptable.
Regards,
I think it would be wise to research the public record of the FBI's reliance on the polygraph in cases where informants are examined.
A search on Google.com with the search words "FBI, polygraph, informants" will open you up to some public records that will go strongly against your suggestion that the FBI doesn't merely rely upon polygraph results.
In actuality, up until recent media attention was given to the horrendous mistakes made by the FBI's choice to follow the results of poly exams of informants (Carol Howe, OK City bombing, Emad Salam, WTC I bombing, and Abdulssuttar Sheikh, WTC II and Pentagon bombings of 9/11, just to name a few of the most serious), the FBI routinely dismissed an informant immediately upon a failure of the poly exam. No further investigation was made into the information. Also, any prior information provided by that particular source, valid or not, became discreditied along with the source.
You are further wrong in your claim that an informant who walks in to provide information is NOT put into the box first. Again, a Google.com search will prove you to be wrong on that matter as well. The FBI had a walk-in informant who gave them detailed information about the proposed events of 9/11, he or she was placed in the box, failed, and the FBI chalked it up to just being another lunatic.
Perhaps the agency that you work for does things differently. Perhaps they value sources more than the bureau, and they try to ensure continued cooperation by not putting themselves in the position to insult a source with such nonsense as the polygraph. There are, in fact, several agencies out there who do not routinely suggest that their sources submit to polygraph examinations.
Have you read the Statement of Agreement between the FBI and sources? Have you read them for other agencies? I assure you, there is quite a difference between them.
Now the bureau is facing a difficult situation publically. They have learned that discounting information from sources based totally on the polygraph has gotten them into horrible trouble. (Reading of Congressional Inquirys shows a lot of this, by the way.) I just wonder when they are going to go one step further and realize what such futile faith in prescreening has done for them.
Regardless of wether the poly is used to screen potential employees or of sources, to make a conclusion based soley on the outcome of such an inaccurate exam is totally unacceptable.
Regards,
Posted by Batman
- Feb 19, 2003, 06:57 PMFat Chance,
Come on now, that sounds like one of those 'ad hominominominom' attacks you guys are always fond of talking about. What do you think Septic, does this qualify or is it only polygraph examiners who make such attacks?
Hey Chance, any real thoughts about what I said as it pertains to your logic or lack there of relating to the utilization of polygraph on sources as compared to job applicants? No? How about any thoughts at all? No? Well, that explains a lot!
Batman (the mobile is gassed and running)
Come on now, that sounds like one of those 'ad hominominominom' attacks you guys are always fond of talking about. What do you think Septic, does this qualify or is it only polygraph examiners who make such attacks?
Hey Chance, any real thoughts about what I said as it pertains to your logic or lack there of relating to the utilization of polygraph on sources as compared to job applicants? No? How about any thoughts at all? No? Well, that explains a lot!
Batman (the mobile is gassed and running)
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 19, 2003, 05:34 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 19, 2003, 05:04 PMI am glad we are not in the weather forecasting business.
Your logic is not only fuzzy, it's cloudy and it's wrong
One of us would be starving.
Posted by Batman
- Feb 19, 2003, 05:04 PMFair Chance,
Your logic is not only fuzzy, it's cloudy and it's wrong. The utilization of polygraph as it pertains to sources of information is totally different than how it is used in the employment application procedure. When a source of information is administered a polygraph to verify information it is because there is no other way to verify the information. It is simply a tool applied to an overall situation. The results are weighed with, and against other factors such as what past information the source provided, and how accurate was it when verified through means other than polygraph.
You make it sound like a source comes in, provides information, and the first thing he submits to is a polygraph, end of story. That may be how it's done on Law & Order and NYPD Blue, but not in the real world.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. They may both be fruit, but they are no where near the same.
I have to go, the Bat Mobile is low on gas (Been doing a lot of running around from thread to thread. It's hell being popular.)
Batman
Your logic is not only fuzzy, it's cloudy and it's wrong. The utilization of polygraph as it pertains to sources of information is totally different than how it is used in the employment application procedure. When a source of information is administered a polygraph to verify information it is because there is no other way to verify the information. It is simply a tool applied to an overall situation. The results are weighed with, and against other factors such as what past information the source provided, and how accurate was it when verified through means other than polygraph.
You make it sound like a source comes in, provides information, and the first thing he submits to is a polygraph, end of story. That may be how it's done on Law & Order and NYPD Blue, but not in the real world.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. They may both be fruit, but they are no where near the same.
I have to go, the Bat Mobile is low on gas (Been doing a lot of running around from thread to thread. It's hell being popular.)
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 19, 2003, 10:45 AMQuote from: Batman on Feb 18, 2003, 05:39 PMI will accept anyone's opinion that my logic could be fuzzy. I will accept fuzzy logic over no logic at all.
Do you really think that sources of information are treated in the same manner as applicants when it comes to verifying information provided? You may be using logic, but it's a bit fuzzy.
I did not intend to use it as a lame excuse to complain about pre-screening polygraph usage or divert attention away from the current thread.
The mindset in the FBI gives polygraph results a very heavy weight in decision making in general. This mindset starts in the application process. There is no reason not to believe that it is not given undue weight in other FBI uses. The confidence in the results of such exams could reduce any reasonable skepticism and research into verifying information gained from informants. This logic is not so fuzzy.
Posted by Batman
- Feb 18, 2003, 05:39 PMMr. Chance,
You stated:
"The FBI has a policy of not "vetting" polygraph results in their hiring practices. A reasonable person could infer that they would use this same mindset in "vetting" informants. The logic would follow that the informants are vetted similar to the applicants. Belief in their "truthfulness" is only based on polygraph interpretation with no other factors considered."
Do you really think that sources of information are treated in the same manner as applicants when it comes to verifying information provided? You may be using logic, but it's a bit fuzzy.
Batman
You stated:
"The FBI has a policy of not "vetting" polygraph results in their hiring practices. A reasonable person could infer that they would use this same mindset in "vetting" informants. The logic would follow that the informants are vetted similar to the applicants. Belief in their "truthfulness" is only based on polygraph interpretation with no other factors considered."
Do you really think that sources of information are treated in the same manner as applicants when it comes to verifying information provided? You may be using logic, but it's a bit fuzzy.
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 18, 2003, 03:02 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 18, 2003, 02:34 PMThere was no attempt to switch the main topic. The subject of vetting polygraph examinees (informants in this case) with other sources other than the polygraph exam itself was presented in the context of this thread's discussion.
Once again, a lame attempt to switch the topic back to how bad polygraph is in the pre-employment screening world
The FBI has a policy of not "vetting" polygraph results in their hiring practices. A reasonable person could infer that they would use this same mindset in "vetting" informants. The logic would follow that the informants are vetted similar to the applicants. Belief in their "truthfulness" is only based on polygraph interpretation with no other factors considered.
Otherwise, the FBI policy would be in disagreement with itself.
Posted by Batman
- Feb 18, 2003, 02:34 PMOnce again, a lame attempt to switch the topic back to how bad polygraph is in the pre-employment screening world. I would still like to hear from Seeker, or anyone else, exactly how the over reliance on polygraph led to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, or the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Seeker stated, "However, when we find that not only the first WTC bombing, but the OK City bombing, as well as 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement actually used real investigative methods as opposed to some futile belief in the polygraph results, the public at large will rise up and demand that no more lives be sacrificed for belief in this lunacy.
It becomes a totally different issue to the public when brutally violent murders through acts of terrorism are allowed to occur because of misplaced belief in the polygraph."
Please provide information to support such a statement!
Batman
Seeker stated, "However, when we find that not only the first WTC bombing, but the OK City bombing, as well as 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement actually used real investigative methods as opposed to some futile belief in the polygraph results, the public at large will rise up and demand that no more lives be sacrificed for belief in this lunacy.
It becomes a totally different issue to the public when brutally violent murders through acts of terrorism are allowed to occur because of misplaced belief in the polygraph."
Please provide information to support such a statement!
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 17, 2003, 07:24 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 17, 2003, 05:53 PMHow unfortunate that the FBI or any other law enforcement agency should double check any informat, regardless of polygraph results but not give the same consideration to a law abiding applicant (an FBI application stops and there is no further "vetting" if the applicant "fails" their polygraph).
George's post simply details one informant, who was unreliable at best. There is no doubt in my mind he was veted in more ways than just the polygraph.
Posted by Batman
- Feb 17, 2003, 05:53 PMSeeker,
You state, "However, when we find that not only the first WTC bombing, but the OK City bombing, as well as 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement actually used real investigative methods as opposed to some futile belief in the polygraph results, the public at large will rise up and demand that no more lives be sacrificed for belief in this lunacy.
It becomes a totally different issue to the public when brutally violent murders through acts of terrorism are allowed to occur because of misplaced belief in the polygraph."
I most certainly have missed something! Exactly who was polygraphed in relation to the terrorist attacks of 11 Sep 01 that if "real investigative methods" were employed instead, would have prevented these attacks? You are laying some pretty heavy shit at the feet of individuals like myself! I would appreciate it if you would be a bit more specific as to exactly what use of polygraph, in relation to terrorist attacks, you are referencing. What polygraph examinations were administered, prior to the attacks that could have prevented these attacks? You seem so positive in your accusations that I'm sure you can provide this information. Please include any information regarding how the over reliance on polygraph led up to the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
George's post simply details one informant, who was unreliable at best. There is no doubt in my mind he was veted in more ways than just the polygraph. To pop up now, with 20/20 hindsight, and allude to this single informant being the key to the first WTC bombing is, once again, a very lame attempt to place blame where it does not belong. I would expect a little better from you George. I find it hard to believe that someone with your background, and alleged intelligence would try to make the connection you are by quoting this article. You may want to say that you were simply quoting an article by another author, however you know full well what you are implying. Does your hatred of everthing polygraph run that deep?
Batman
You state, "However, when we find that not only the first WTC bombing, but the OK City bombing, as well as 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement actually used real investigative methods as opposed to some futile belief in the polygraph results, the public at large will rise up and demand that no more lives be sacrificed for belief in this lunacy.
It becomes a totally different issue to the public when brutally violent murders through acts of terrorism are allowed to occur because of misplaced belief in the polygraph."
I most certainly have missed something! Exactly who was polygraphed in relation to the terrorist attacks of 11 Sep 01 that if "real investigative methods" were employed instead, would have prevented these attacks? You are laying some pretty heavy shit at the feet of individuals like myself! I would appreciate it if you would be a bit more specific as to exactly what use of polygraph, in relation to terrorist attacks, you are referencing. What polygraph examinations were administered, prior to the attacks that could have prevented these attacks? You seem so positive in your accusations that I'm sure you can provide this information. Please include any information regarding how the over reliance on polygraph led up to the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
George's post simply details one informant, who was unreliable at best. There is no doubt in my mind he was veted in more ways than just the polygraph. To pop up now, with 20/20 hindsight, and allude to this single informant being the key to the first WTC bombing is, once again, a very lame attempt to place blame where it does not belong. I would expect a little better from you George. I find it hard to believe that someone with your background, and alleged intelligence would try to make the connection you are by quoting this article. You may want to say that you were simply quoting an article by another author, however you know full well what you are implying. Does your hatred of everthing polygraph run that deep?
Batman
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 17, 2003, 11:58 AMQuote from: Fed-up Fed on Feb 16, 2003, 05:49 PMTime for me to chime in here, I suppose. If I read George's post correctly, the point was not that the bureau was loosing qualified applicants, rather qualified and valuable informants.
Say what you will about the polygraph, it has done one thing that makes it worthwhile. It has kept George and his little group of cry babies out of our government law enforcement and intelligence services.
The question here is quite real and important. Should law enforcement use the polygraph as a screening tool on informants? Without a question, it has proven to be poorly used in such instances. Further, it has caused a lot of innocent people to die as a result of faith in it.
To say that the loss of innocent lives is an acceptable loss is utter nonsense. What an outrage!
Fed-up Fed, I believe your anger at what this site accomplishes will become more incited when it leads more of the public population, who doesn't have a career or job on the line. finding the reslove to put this witch hunt to an deserved end.
As it stands now, there are perhaps 100 applicants to every federal law enforcement job opening. Enough people are not being rejected and harmed to demand the removal of polygraph pre-screening at this time. However, when we find that not only the first WTC bombing, but the OK City bombing, as well as 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement actually used real investigative methods as opposed to some futile belief in the polygraph results, the public at large will rise up and demand that no more lives be sacrificed for belief in this lunacy.
It becomes a totally different issue to the public when brutally violent murders through acts of terrorism are allowed to occur because of misplaced belief in the polygraph.
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 17, 2003, 02:09 AMQuote from: Fed-up Fed on Feb 16, 2003, 05:49 PM
Say what you will about the polygraph, it has done one thing that makes it worthwhile. It has kept George and his little group of cry babies out of our government law enforcement and intelligence services.
Fed-Up,
Are you honestly saying you'd rather keep some "crybabies" out of law enforcement/intelligence services than potentially save thousands of American lives?
I hope you'll understand if I (and our gentle readers) conclude your priorities are a tad screwed up, sir. Should we believe it's better to have the likes of you defending us?
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 16, 2003, 06:56 PMQuote from: Fed-up Fed on Feb 16, 2003, 05:49 PMDear Fed-up,
Say what you will about the polygraph, it has done one thing that makes it worthwhile. It has kept George and his little group of cry babies out of our government law enforcement and intelligence services.
You are incorrect. I have been in Federal law enforcement for over ten years. My agency supervisors laughed about the FBI's finding about my "deceptive" polygraph. My Senior Executive Service supervisor's direct quote was, "They are very arrogant and their lost is our gain." I am still in law enforcement. Low and behold, on further review of my appeal, the FBI found me "not deceptive" after my third polygraph. I am the same person I was before the first polygraph. What a waste of time and money! No common sense to their approach at all.
I do not call those who have opinions different from myself cry-babies. I call them true Americans. The moment I attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with me, I lead my country directly into the path that the enemies of America want. I take away the most important freedom of all, freedom of speech.
Regards.